FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #22

[Knitpicker]

I thought it was:
1.she couldn't turn on to Trescott because it was blocked off, so she carried straight on Centerville
2. She turned onto Trescott but did a K-turn
3. She drove down Trescott and then turned at the tape, police car which was the crime scene.

No you are missing the interview with Isom.
With Isom- she was actually on Trescott (actually drove down and was near the house),and saw the tape.
1st trial she never “really” turned onto Trescott and did a turn upon seeing the tape (impossible from Centerville)
2nd trial (retrial of KM) she was on Trescott and saw the tape.(like the account with Isom)
Charlies trial she saw the tape from Centerville (impossible as previously stated) and never really drove on Trescott

My edit seemed to delete a whole paragraph. Ok so the confusion comes when she claimed she started to turn onto Trescott but couldn’t because of the tape.
The issue is that the tape could not be seen from Centerville and twice she suggested that she saw the tape from Centerville.

 

[amicuscurie]

<modsnip - personalizing> And in order to demonstrate WA's lack of complicity they will pull apart one specific potentially implicatory factor such as her circuitous route down Trescott. "That was her normal shortcut therefore she is innocent". "She has distanced herself from her co-conspirators therefore she is innocent". etc etc ad nauseum. But as I said in a previous posts, the evidence against WA is circumstantial, so easy to pick apart one piece of evidence. You can have 2 or 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence and still be innocent. But you can't have 30+. And that is what WA has 30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence.

Lets say for example a guy walks out an apartment block where a murder happened. So what hundreds of people live there. But he knew the murder victim. So what lots of people knew the murder victim. A witness saw man with a white t-shirt leaving the victims apartment. So what, white t-shirts are common. He was white. So what, the area is predominated by white people. He had a motive, he didn't like the victim. So what, lots of people didn't, the victim was an unscrupulous character with lots of enemies.

<modsnip> Of course simply because someone was wearing the same colour t-shirt as the suspect is not going to count for much in court. But you need to add ALL the circumstantial evidence together and suddenly that person is going to look very guilty. Now I'm sure you could have a good crack at explaining away 10/15 pieces of circumstantial evidence, but not 40. And the most important thing is on top of all that incriminating, circumstantial evidence, WA made the biggest boo boo, she lied. Not just once but dozens of times. And lied about important stuff. And lied in court. And lied to the police..... innocent people don't lie, especially when they're a suspect in a murder trial. Even someone without a law degree knows how incriminating it is to lie when you're a suspect. What a fantastic way to make the police even more suspicious.

Very well-written.

Another way to look at it:

Sure, if Dan hadn’t been killed, we might not question her texting him to ask if he would be home that day. Lots of people do that.

BUT (big but), DAN WAS KILLED. So, in my opinion, that changes the calculus.

I don’t think you can look at any piece of evidence without taking into consideration the salient fact that this crime occurred.

 

[Going Rogue]

There is no direct evidence linking her to the murder. That's my point! For example, she texted CA on the day of the murder "this is so sweet" and she deleted that text. So what?! She could be referring to a box of chocolates CA bought her and perhaps she's a bit quirky and likes to delete text messages. That text message on it's own means nothing and is of zero evidentiary value. A piece of circumstantial evidence is valueless on it's own and can easily dismissed. It needs other pieces of circumstantial evidence to give it value. And don't forget human behaviour is considered evidence. So we start looking at WA's behaviour the week preceding the murder, the week after the murder and the day of the murder and we are no longer looking at 30 pieces of human behaviour, we're looking at 50+. e.g her crying about a broken $200 TV is circumstantial evidence.

Where I disagree with you is the numbers you are providing ‘30-40 pieces of small circumstantial evidence’. Not as big a number as some guy in TX that loves cats, but I see that number as a gross exaggeration. I have already acknowledged there is reason to suspect her but you can also look at all the behavior that you consider ‘evidence’ and it would be consistent with someone in her very predicament. ‘Assuming’ Wendi wasn’t involved - ex-husband murdered, on day of murder she either knows or had a strong feeling her family was involved and realizes all eyes were on her. If she wasn’t involved, she likely found out the truth shortly after and shut down all communication. You can look at all Wendi’s actions and consider them ‘evidence’. Many of the ‘actions’ or ‘statements’ that others tied to the murder made can be looked multiple ways. Lasasse said during his police interview that he’d like to kill Dan himself. He also was told (the week of the murder) about Charlie’s prior plans to place a hit on Dan AND fled town a day early! He met up with both Charlie and Katie for dinner months prior to the murder. Do those things make him a suspect? Any reasonable person that took anytime to learn the details of case would never suspect Jeff – but those things can be looked at as suspicious or indicators of guilt. Other than some wacko guy from NZ with a YouTube channel, no one in their right mind suspects Jeff. My point, if you are resigned to the belief that Wendi was involved, to quote the late great Elvis Presley’s smash hit, everything she did will be viewed with “suspicious minds” and will be interpreted as the actions of a guilty person. Many 'details' can be argued multiple ways, its matter of perspective - and 30-40 is a major stretch.

But Jeff Lacasse said WA had stated to him CA was considering hiring a hitman. You think JL was lying?

I believe 100% she told Jeff (the week of the murder) that Charlie looked into hiring a hitman the previous summer. Now I ask you, if Wendi was part of the plan why would she say that? I know the popular answer – she was using reverse psychology. The fact that she told Jeff this, adds a lot to the allure of the case and in my opinion reasonable minds wouldn’t just dismiss this rather BIG detail and just chalk it off to a calculated and strategic move. Is it possible she was that calculating? Yes, but its not unreasonable to question whether she had such foresight.

<modsnip - quoted post and response removed>

How can you accuse me of not being objective if you haven’t heard my opinion other than a few posts where we haven’t scratched the surface? I’m very familiar with standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. I agree that as it relates to Charlie and Donna, the burden can be easily met. As far as Wendi, I don’t need to go line for line with you, all I need to do is ask the question – “what is the state’s confidence level they can meet the burden of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard if they charge her?”. I say its not very high and I hope you would agree the state knows more than you and I.

 

[Going Rogue]

Donna said something different on that hotmic - if you listen to it.

If that's still not enough for you, consider the contents of the 2016 call recordings where it's clear that Wendi and Donna have not been estranged over the last 9 years and have been in and out of each other's homes regularly.

PS Regarding my previous post - post 541 -from the hotmics which you've already listened to you, isn't it also suggestive to you, that Jorge is being also used as a go-between? IMO it seems as if lawyer Wendi thinks this keeps her 'records' cleaner, just in case.
I agree with Demko's opinion of Wendi's prodigious pre-planning tendencies

To quote Donna she said ‘Wendi hasn’t visited them in 9 years’ - I agree with you it seems clear in the 2016 calls that Wendi didn’t completely shut the family out of her life – but that was 7 years ago. We can speculate that Donna was exaggerating a bit, but it does seem that Wendi has distanced herself from the family and became progressively more ‘distant’ over time as things ‘heated’ up. I’m not concluding that because Wendi is / was distancing herself from the family, it suggests she innocent, because I believe in both scenarios (involved or not), she would do the same.

 

[Going Rogue]

Very well-written.

Another way to look at it:

Sure, if Dan hadn’t been killed, we might not question her texting him to ask if he would be home that day. Lots of people do that.

BUT (big but), DAN WAS KILLED. So, in my opinion, that changes the calculus.

I don’t think you can look at any piece of evidence without taking into consideration the salient fact that this crime occurred.

I do agree with you, this is a detail that cannot be ignored simply based on the ‘big but’ you reference. Sorry to keep repeating the same point, but would you view it differently if Wendi texted Dan leading into the other weeks where he had custody asking the same question? He traveled often and they shared custody with the Wednesday crossover travel stipulation. If her standard modus operandi was to proactively inquire via text it changes the calculus too. If that was the only week she inquired, I agree and as I stated it’s very suspicious.

 

[Wishbone]

To quote Donna she said ‘Wendi hasn’t visited them in 9 years’ - I agree with you it seems clear in the 2016 calls that Wendi didn’t completely shut the family out of her life – but that was 7 years ago. We can speculate that Donna was exaggerating a bit, but it does seem that Wendi has distanced herself from the family and became progressively more ‘distant’ over time as things ‘heated’ up. I’m not concluding that because Wendi is / was distancing herself from the family, it suggests she innocent, because I believe in both scenarios (involved or not), she would do the same.

"We can speculate that Donna was exaggerating a bit, but it does seem that Wendi has distanced herself from the family and became progressively more ‘distant’ over time as things ‘heated’ up."


We can also speculate that DA is a consummate liar, and as such I would question anything that comes out of her mouth. Besides that, there is no way of knowing that WA distanced herself in the least. One case in point is mommy being so involved with the infamous “tv repair visit” that just happened to fall on the same day as the murder. Nope, no distance there. JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

"We can speculate that Donna was exaggerating a bit, but it does seem that Wendi has distanced herself from the family and became progressively more ‘distant’ over time as things ‘heated’ up."


We can also speculate that DA is a consummate liar, and as such I would question anything that comes out of her mouth. Besides that, there is no way of knowing that WA distanced herself in the least. One case in point is mommy being so involved with the infamous “tv repair visit” that just happened to fall on the same day as the murder. Nope, no distance there. JMO

I think we should question anything that comes out of the mouth of any ‘Adelson’ not named Rob. You are correct, we don’t know if, when or to what degree Wendi distanced herself from the family. We can only speculate based on things we’ve heard in the wiretaps (pre & post bump and the jailhouse calls) and we can take a lot of what’s said in those calls with a grain of salt.

It seems very clear by all accounts, that Donna was VERY intimately involved in Wendi’s life prior to the murder – a severe case of enmeshment as per Laccase. As far as the TV repair, the discussion of Wendi ‘distancing’ herself is post murder, not sure how the TV repair is relevant to Wendi’s post murder distancing. I do view the TV repair appointment as a clear alibi, but I think based on the evidence that Donna appears to be the one that set up the appointment, Wendi maintains her plausible deniability as it relates to that event.

 

[Marysmith]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
The more I think about it the more I do think it could be a possibility that Wendi did not know the full extent of the plot… this is based on the evidence that we have. Maybe she knew something was happening but not what and that’s why she was panicking and went to Trescott.
I don’t think, based on what we know right now, that she will ever be arrested.
I know that people really want her to be arrested though…

 

[IQuestion]

Yes

Yes and yes.

She reminds me so much of a covert narc compulsive liar I lived with one upon a time.

The lies: amazing how they rolled off the tongue, but were only ever used to divert, dupe, and win the moment.

The motivation: always super secret and unknowable, until you recognize the ridiculous behavioural patterns.

The interaction: feels like you are playing a never ending game of Whack-a-mole. So exhausting.

BBM watergirl62 SO TRUE!!!((I'm saving this forever)) You nailed it. Do you remember the exasperation GC had tried to get direct answers out of CA & WA?? They friggin' talk in circles with the stupidest excuses ever...when all was asked of them was a yes or no question.

 

[Wishbone]

I think we should question anything that comes out of the mouth of any ‘Adelson’ not named Rob. You are correct, we don’t know if, when or to what degree Wendi distanced herself from the family. We can only speculate based on things we’ve heard in the wiretaps (pre & post bump and the jailhouse calls) and we can take a lot of what’s said in those calls with a grain of salt.

It seems very clear by all accounts, that Donna was VERY intimately involved in Wendi’s life prior to the murder – a severe case of enmeshment as per Laccase. As far as the TV repair, the discussion of Wendi ‘distancing’ herself is post murder, not sure how the TV repair is relevant to Wendi’s post murder distancing. I do view the TV repair appointment as a clear alibi, but I think based on the evidence that Donna appears to be the one that set up the appointment, Wendi maintains her plausible deniability as it relates to that event.

Actually, it's my belief that WA needed her mommy's help on the tv repair date and that need continued through the ensuing years because she is the master manipulator in this sordid homicide, which is a label most put on CA and DA. I could write a tome on why I believe that but I don't want that burden and most people are going to believe what they perceive to be the truth. Suffice to say, that WA needed her mommy to help in raising the boys(as she proved to ME that they weren't her first priority as she is all about herself, period) and IMO she wouldn't distance herself from having that burden lifted or lose control of her scapegoat mommy if and when the need arose to transfer blame. Yes, I really do believe WA is that diabolical. My thoughts are my own as you can most likely tell.

 

[Going Rogue]

The more I think about it the more I do think it could be a possibility that Wendi did not know the full extent of the plot… this is based on the evidence that we have. Maybe she knew something was happening but not what and that’s why she was panicking and went to Trescott.
I don’t think, based on what we know right now, that she will ever be arrested.
I know that people really want her to be arrested though…

<modsnip>

I agree, Donna & Charlie are just the type to take matters into their own hands. Many can’t seem to comprehend how they could do such an act without Wendi’s ‘approval’ – I can easily see them doing what they thought was best for Wendi. I wouldn’t doubt if the grand plan was they would never tell Wendi – but the way it played out they left a trail of too many bread crumbs. Frankly, I can see multiple possibilities, from Wendi being directly involved with a minimal role, to being simply ‘aware’ with no active role, to being unaware but suspicious. As dumb as Donna & Charlie were, they were probably smart enough to realize that Wendi would be a main suspect and I wouldn’t put it past them to attempt to orchestrate this without Wendi’s knowledge for very obvious reasons. Wendi is no dummy, she may have pieced things together after the 18-mimnute phone call with Charlie that AM and her drive to Trescott may have been sheer curiosity or anxiety. If Wendi was directly involved, why on earth would she drive near Dan’s house? Many things are counterintuitive to what an educated attorney like Wendi would have done if involved - the mentioned drive to Trescott, her telling Jeff the hitman story, telling the hitman joke to the BestBuy technician (especially w/ the TV being her alibi), and let’s not forget painting a giant target on Charlie’s back during her police interview.

 

[iluvmua]

I agree, Donna & Charlie are just the type to take matters into their own hands. Many can’t seem to comprehend how they could do such an act without Wendi’s ‘approval’ – I can easily see them doing what they thought was best for Wendi. I wouldn’t doubt if the grand plan was they would never tell Wendi – but the way it played out they left a trail of too many bread crumbs. Frankly, I can see multiple possibilities, from Wendi being directly involved with a minimal role, to being simply ‘aware’ with no active role, to being unaware but suspicious. As dumb as Donna & Charlie were, they were probably smart enough to realize that Wendi would be a main suspect and I wouldn’t put it past them to attempt to orchestrate this without Wendi’s knowledge for very obvious reasons. Wendi is no dummy, she may have pieced things together after the 18-mimnute phone call with Charlie that AM and her drive to Trescott may have been sheer curiosity or anxiety. If Wendi was directly involved, why on earth would she drive near Dan’s house? Many things are counterintuitive to what an educated attorney like Wendi would have done if involved - the mentioned drive to Trescott, her telling Jeff the hitman story, telling the hitman joke to the BestBuy technician (especially w/ the TV being her alibi), and let’s not forget painting a giant target on Charlie’s back during her police interview.

I just find that really hard to believe.

But maybe sh wasn't involved jmo

 

[amicuscurie]

To quote Donna she said ‘Wendi hasn’t visited them in 9 years’ - I agree with you it seems clear in the 2016 calls that Wendi didn’t completely shut the family out of her life – but that was 7 years ago. We can speculate that Donna was exaggerating a bit, but it does seem that Wendi has distanced herself from the family and became progressively more ‘distant’ over time as things ‘heated’ up. I’m not concluding that because Wendi is / was distancing herself from the family, it suggests she innocent, because I believe in both scenarios (involved or not), she would do the same.

She said, if I recall correctly, that Wendi, in the 9 years they lived there, has never just come over because she said she needed to talk, like she did that time when she threatened to Baker Act Donna.

That, in my opinion, is different from Donna saying that she has never visited them, ever. It does not, for example, preclude them having asked her to come over, or had her over on holidays, or her coming over to pick up the boys, etc.

 

[amicuscurie]

I do agree with you, this is a detail that cannot be ignored simply based on the ‘big but’ you reference. Sorry to keep repeating the same point, but would you view it differently if Wendi texted Dan leading into the other weeks where he had custody asking the same question? He traveled often and they shared custody with the Wednesday crossover travel stipulation. If her standard modus operandi was to proactively inquire via text it changes the calculus too. If that was the only week she inquired, I agree and as I stated it’s very suspicious.

We don’t know any of that. I’m basing my feelings on what we know. Would it change if I knew this was not unusual? Maybe. But- the state brought out that text at Charlie’s trial. The state presumably knows what other texts there may be. This leads me to believe that the state viewed this one as significant.

 

[amicuscurie]

<quoted post was snipped>

I agree, Donna & Charlie are just the type to take matters into their own hands. Many can’t seem to comprehend how they could do such an act without Wendi’s ‘approval’ – I can easily see them doing what they thought was best for Wendi. I wouldn’t doubt if the grand plan was they would never tell Wendi – but the way it played out they left a trail of too many bread crumbs. Frankly, I can see multiple possibilities, from Wendi being directly involved with a minimal role, to being simply ‘aware’ with no active role, to being unaware but suspicious. As dumb as Donna & Charlie were, they were probably smart enough to realize that Wendi would be a main suspect and I wouldn’t put it past them to attempt to orchestrate this without Wendi’s knowledge for very obvious reasons. Wendi is no dummy, she may have pieced things together after the 18-mimnute phone call with Charlie that AM and her drive to Trescott may have been sheer curiosity or anxiety. If Wendi was directly involved, why on earth would she drive near Dan’s house? Many things are counterintuitive to what an educated attorney like Wendi would have done if involved - the mentioned drive to Trescott, her telling Jeff the hitman story, telling the hitman joke to the BestBuy technician (especially w/ the TV being her alibi), and let’s not forget painting a giant target on Charlie’s back during her police interview.

Even if she was not involved in the plot, if she suspected her family’s involvement after the fact and did not distance herself from them, and/or if she was deliberately obstructive or deceptive with law enforcement during her police interview because she suspected them, that, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

I have said it before, I, too, used to think there was certainly a way to look at this with her not being involved. That text at Charlie’s trial made me change my opinion. The other thing that I found similarly persuasive was LaCasse’s testimony about the TV and how it appeared to have been deliberately broken, and how she made the children watch it even though there was another one, and how he offered to buy her a new one and she refused. Something about that whole thing seemed very strange to me.

Both of these pieces of evidence had not been disclosed in the two prior trials, so maybe that’s why they stuck out to me. There may be more that the state has.

It has always been my opinion that even if Wendi was not involved in the plot, she was at the very least aware that her family did this, either before it happened or very soon after. Her failure to distance herself from her family at that point is inexcusable, to me.

I listened to the Wondery podcast Over My Dead Body, and Rob is interviewed. If I recall correctly, he either said or strongly intimated that he believes his family was involved in this crime, and that he has distanced himself from them as a result of that belief. I have also heard that he has cooperated with law enforcement.

 

[Marysmith]

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

I agree, Donna & Charlie are just the type to take matters into their own hands. Many can’t seem to comprehend how they could do such an act without Wendi’s ‘approval’ – I can easily see them doing what they thought was best for Wendi. I wouldn’t doubt if the grand plan was they would never tell Wendi – but the way it played out they left a trail of too many bread crumbs. Frankly, I can see multiple possibilities, from Wendi being directly involved with a minimal role, to being simply ‘aware’ with no active role, to being unaware but suspicious. As dumb as Donna & Charlie were, they were probably smart enough to realize that Wendi would be a main suspect and I wouldn’t put it past them to attempt to orchestrate this without Wendi’s knowledge for very obvious reasons. Wendi is no dummy, she may have pieced things together after the 18-mimnute phone call with Charlie that AM and her drive to Trescott may have been sheer curiosity or anxiety. If Wendi was directly involved, why on earth would she drive near Dan’s house? Many things are counterintuitive to what an educated attorney like Wendi would have done if involved - the mentioned drive to Trescott, her telling Jeff the hitman story, telling the hitman joke to the BestBuy technician (especially w/ the TV being her alibi), and let’s not forget painting a giant target on Charlie’s back during her police interview.

<modsnip - response to snipped portion of quoted post> Being a selfish, entitled person unfortunately is not enough to bring a felony charge!

 

[Marysmith]

Even if she was not involved in the plot, if she suspected her family’s involvement after the fact and did not distance herself from them, and if she was deliberately obstructive with law enforcement, that, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

Agree completely!

 

[Going Rogue]

<modsnip - not an approved source>

We don’t know any of that. I’m basing my feelings on what we know. Would it change if I knew this was not unusual? Maybe. But- the state brought out that text at Charlie’s trial. The state presumably knows what other texts there may be. This leads me to believe that the state viewed this one as significant.

I will play devil’s advocate. First, the state definitely knows what other texts existed between Dan & Wendi. I believe if she did inquire on his travel plans on other weeks they still would have used the text where she inquired the week of the murder as evidence in the same manner they did. I can give examples were the prosecution purposely painted a certain ‘picture’ with a strategic use of ‘information’. Just to name one, Laccase’s testimony about being ‘framed’ is a good example – they played his testimony like a fiddle down to the ridiculous claim about the hitmen purposely renting a similar car to Lacasse. Many people believe that to be true when the evidence suggests otherwise and in my opinion, this ‘theory’ is 1 in a 1000. Why do most believe it? IMO, because of the way the prosecution used Jeff’s statements and allowed him to testify and express that ‘narrative’ – by ‘allow’, I mean they directed the line of questioning during direct testimony based on statements he made in his police interview.

Even if she was not involved in the plot, if she suspected her family’s involvement after the fact and did not distance herself from them, and/or if she was deliberately obstructive or deceptive with law enforcement during her police interview because she suspected them, that, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

I have said it before, I, too, used to think there was certainly a way to look at this with her not being involved. That text at Charlie’s trial made me change my opinion. The other thing that I found similarly persuasive was LaCasse’s testimony about the TV and how it appeared to have been deliberately broken, and how she made the children watch it even though there was another one, and how he offered to buy her a new one and she refused. Something about that whole thing seemed very strange to me.

Both of these pieces of evidence had not been disclosed in the two prior trials, so maybe that’s why they stuck out to me. There may be more that the state has.

It has always been my opinion that even if Wendi was not involved in the plot, she was at the very least aware that her family did this, either before it happened or very soon after. Her failure to distance herself from her family at that point is inexcusable, to me.

I listened to the Wondery podcast Over My Dead Body, and Rob is interviewed. If I recall correctly, he either said or strongly intimated that he believes his family was involved in this crime, and that he has distanced himself from them as a result of that belief. I have also heard that he has cooperated with law enforcement.

The argument of whether she was involved AND / OR her actions being inexcusable ‘if’ she wasn’t involved and was ‘deliberately obstructive or deceptive with law enforcement’ are two separate arguments. I am only making a case for the former, I agree the latter is inexcusable.

I think Jeff is a credible witness, but I also think his perspective is skewed based on multiple factors. I wouldn’t be so quick to declare Wendi’s’ involvement based of some of the things Jeff said. IMO, Wendi making them watch the movie on the broken TV has zero relevance to the case – the only reason it was part of Jeff’s testimony was to establish he knew the approx. date the TV was broken. What purpose would it serve for Wendi to force them to watch the movie on a broken TV? I recall Jeff saying ‘I will pick up another TV for you” – he never mentioned ‘buying’ one for her (that I heard). They paid for separate tickets on the trip to see his parents (the trip that was cx’ed) and he was offering to ‘buy’ her a new TV? Jeff’s opinion was the kids were not ‘strong’ enough to throw something break the TX – the oldest was 4 at the time – seriously? Sorry, but although I find Jeff credible, I also question his ‘opinion’ on certain things. I have other examples, but I think I’m pushing the envelope for one day .

 

[Wishbone]

<modsnip>

I agree, Donna & Charlie are just the type to take matters into their own hands. Many can’t seem to comprehend how they could do such an act without Wendi’s ‘approval’ – I can easily see them doing what they thought was best for Wendi. I wouldn’t doubt if the grand plan was they would never tell Wendi – but the way it played out they left a trail of too many bread crumbs. Frankly, I can see multiple possibilities, from Wendi being directly involved with a minimal role, to being simply ‘aware’ with no active role, to being unaware but suspicious. As dumb as Donna & Charlie were, they were probably smart enough to realize that Wendi would be a main suspect and I wouldn’t put it past them to attempt to orchestrate this without Wendi’s knowledge for very obvious reasons. Wendi is no dummy, she may have pieced things together after the 18-mimnute phone call with Charlie that AM and her drive to Trescott may have been sheer curiosity or anxiety. If Wendi was directly involved, why on earth would she drive near Dan’s house? Many things are counterintuitive to what an educated attorney like Wendi would have done if involved - the mentioned drive to Trescott, her telling Jeff the hitman story, telling the hitman joke to the BestBuy technician (especially w/ the TV being her alibi), and let’s not forget painting a giant target on Charlie’s back during her police interview.

"If Wendi was directly involved, why on earth would she drive near Dan’s house?"

Simple answer. To verify the job was done before notifying the conspirators. Case in point. Katie M
KNEW that the job was a done deal before Sigfredo called to tell her he shot DM and was ready to get paid.

This info comes from Luis Rivera's interview with the police and FBI on October 4,2016. All this has been covered in previous threads until we beat it to death. Plus there are youtube videos showing the transcripts of that interview. I might add that I don't recall KM addressing this issue but Luis's testimony makes me think that WA and KM had more contact than what we have been made aware of. It's something to think about and I think about it a lot since I don't believe we got the entire story from KM. JMO

 

[Sustained]

It has always been my opinion that even if Wendi was not involved in the plot, she was at the very least aware that her family did this, either before it happened or very soon after. Her failure to distance herself from her family at that point is inexcusable, to me.

Respectfully snipped -

If you believe that Wendi knew and socialized with KM prior to the murder and you also believe that CA has a big mouth and likely leaked a few things to Wendi, it's not a stretch to believe Wendi was either in on the plot or knew well in advance DM was going to be murdered. The TV alibi, JL interactions, and drive to Trescott are just icing on the cake.