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

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I cannot recall exactly, but there seems to be at least three points / timing considerations as to WA and the case, and any possible involvement:

1) Wasn’t there the text / email message sent to the now slain ex husband inquiring about his plans / timing for a certain day?
2) Who was it that discovered the slain husband and what was the timing for that discovery?
3) WA’s odd mention (IMO) in a post murder interview with investigators, about a gift that her brother CA had (or had not gotten for her); wasn’t it something along lines of a tv instead of a hit man?

On the first two points, it would seem that some alert or advance notice or warning or ‘waving off’ would be needed; to ensure that only the ex husband DM would be present at the time of the event. And to ensure that certain other individuals would not be present. MOO

 

[Going Rogue]

"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

Let’s not forget, Luis Rivera is the same key witness that testified that he saw “the blog” and her two boys at Dan’s house the day before the murder. You don’t recall Katie addressing the issue because the simple question “who first told you the hit was complete’ was not asked during her proffer OR during her last testimony – that simple question may have cleared the mystery up for all us ‘internet sleuths’. Why wasn’t it asked? Because, the state already knows Katie didn’t get word from Wendi that the job was done. All you need to do is look at the time the call to Katie from Sigfredo was made - 12:31pm and the time Wendi left her house that day was 12:29pm to realize the timeline doesn’t lineup. Digital forensics are a very useful tool, but it can’t be ignored when the data doesn’t support the narrative.

At this stage, if Katie had ANY information connecting Wendi to this crime, please give me a logical theory why she would be withholding that information since she has already testified in Charlie's trial that she herself was directly involved. That information would be her ONLY bargaining chip – either she is the stupidest criminal on the face of the earth OR she told the truth when she testified during Charlie's trial that she NEVER communicated with Wendi other than the dinner date and the beach trip. Certain things are not too complicated to figure out, if you have a logical explanation, I’d love to hear it.

 

[Wishbone]

Let’s not forget, Luis Rivera is the same key witness that testified that he saw “the blog” and her two boys at Dan’s house the day before the murder. You don’t recall Katie addressing the issue because the simple question “who first told you the hit was complete’ was not asked during her proffer OR during her last testimony – that simple question may have cleared the mystery up for all us ‘internet sleuths’. Why wasn’t it asked? Because, the state already knows Katie didn’t get word from Wendi that the job was done. All you need to do is look at the time the call to Katie from Sigfredo was made - 12:31pm and the time Wendi left her house that day was 12:29pm to realize the timeline doesn’t lineup. Digital forensics are a very useful tool, but it can’t be ignored when the data doesn’t support the narrative.

At this stage, if Katie had ANY information connecting Wendi to this crime, please give me a logical theory why she would be withholding that information since she has already testified in Charlie's trial that she herself was directly involved. That information would be her ONLY bargaining chip – either she is the stupidest criminal on the face of the earth OR she told the truth when she testified during Charlie's trial that she NEVER communicated with Wendi other than the dinner date and the beach trip. Certain things are not too complicated to figure out, if you have a logical explanation, I’d love to hear it.

I guess my musings seem illogical. So be it. Like I said earlier it's all about perception. I love a discussion, but there comes a point when it's just a moot kind thing.

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

Agreed. The only evidence we have that she socialized with Katie is the one dinner which was with Charlie, and the one picture of them at the beach, though. I personally don’t think they were friends, and I don’t think that her having met Katie means that Charlie would have told her Katie was helping with the murder. Katie is just who her brother was dating at that time, and so to me it makes sense that she met her a couple of times. (The beach thing is weird to me, though, just because they seem to me to have had little in common. But how much in common do you need to sip a piña colada in the sun?)

The rest I agree with.

 

[Going Rogue]

I guess my musings seem illogical. So be it. Like I said earlier it's all about perception. I love a discussion, but there comes a point when it's just a moot kind thing.

I love a discussion too, I’m giving the counterargument based the data made public and as I see it. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. You are correct it’s about perception, based on the data, I perceive it the way I laid it out. If you have a logical theory as to why Katie would be protecting Wendi after a full confession and directly implicating Charlie, I’m all ears. She would have to know information that could nail Wendi is her lottery ticket.

 

[amicuscurie]

I cannot recall exactly, but there seems to be at least three points / timing considerations as to WA and the case, and any possible involvement:

1) Wasn’t there the text / email message sent to the now slain ex husband inquiring about his plans / timing for a certain day?
2) Who was it that discovered the slain husband and what was the timing for that discovery?
3) WA’s odd mention (IMO) in a post murder interview with investigators, about a gift that her brother CA had (or had not gotten for her); wasn’t it something along lines of a tv instead of a hit man?

On the first two points, it would seem that some alert or advance notice or warning or ‘waving off’ would be needed; to ensure that only the ex husband DM would be present at the time of the event. And to ensure that certain other individuals would not be present. MOO

1. Yes, there was evidence presented at Charlie’s trial that Wendi sent a text to Dan in the weeks before the murder asking whether he was going to be home the week of the murder, and the evidence suggests she sent it while visiting her parents in South Florida
2. The murder was discovered by a neighbor who heard the gunshot and saw a car speeding away from the scene. I don’t think anything about that implicates Wendi. About an hour and a half after the murder, a police officer at the scene spotted a car meeting the description of Wendi’s car approach the crime scene tape blocking the road and then turn around. In her police interview on the day of the murder, Wendi told the investigator she had driven down the street where the murder took place on her way to run some errands, saw that the street was blocked, and thought it was for a downed tree. In the three trials in this matter her testimony as to whether she saw the crime scene tape, and whether she even turned down the street at all, has been inconsistent.
3. Wendi mentioned in her police interview that her brother had bought her a TV as a divorce present and that had joked that the TV was cheaper than hiring a hitman. She also said that a repairman had come on the morning of the murder to repair this particular TV, and that she had told her brother’s joke to the repairman.

 

[Zedzded]

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?

– “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.

I agree with you there. I believe she said that to JL and it seems utterly bizarre she would say that to her soon to be ex-boyfriend. It wasn't reverse psychology or anything like that. I firmly believe she was involved in DM's murder, but I have no idea why she would risk everything by telling JL.

The only thing I can think of is that we are looking it from our perspectives, relatively healthy, stable and rational minds. I think WA is as far from stable, rational and healthy as we're going to get. I think she's a complete sociopath. She was willing to kill her ex-husband to gain custody and willing to let JL take the blame for the murder. That's crazy.... I think leading up to the murder she was just a complete mess which culminated in her doing and saying stuff like telling JL about the planned hit.

Re State's confidence level - well she should have been arrested long ago. The case against her is strong, but it is a failing of the US legal system not the lack of evidence that is the reason why she still has her freedom. So I don't know if she'll be charged. I don't think there is much more incriminating evidence implicating WA that the State has that we don't know about. I think after the murder she has kept her mouth shut and told her family she will not discuss anything to do with what happened with that "problem up North"....

But GC is on mission and that mission is to ensure WA is behind bars, so if she can't get her on murder she'll get her on perjury. 15 years per perjured statement for a felony 2 crime in Florida, sentences to run consecutively....

 

[Zedzded]

I love a discussion too, I’m giving the counterargument based the data made public and as I see it. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. You are correct it’s about perception, based on the data, I perceive it the way I laid it out. If you have a logical theory as to why Katie would be protecting Wendi after a full confession and directly implicating Charlie, I’m all ears. She would have to know information that could nail Wendi is her lottery ticket.

100%. KM has nothing else to say. There is no information she has that would implicate WA. At this point, KM would throw her own mother under the bus to get out of jail, she owes nothing to a woman she has met twice.

 

[amicuscurie]

I agree with you there. I believe she said that to JL and it seems utterly bizarre she would say that to her soon to be ex-boyfriend. It wasn't reverse psychology or anything like that. I firmly believe she was involved in DM's murder, but I have no idea why she would risk everything by telling JL.

The only thing I can think of is that we are looking it from our perspectives, relatively healthy, stable and rational minds. I think WA is as far from stable, rational and healthy as we're going to get. I think she's a complete sociopath. She was willing to kill her ex-husband to gain custody and willing to let JL take the blame for the murder. That's crazy.... I think leading up to the murder she was just a complete mess which culminated in her doing and saying stuff like telling JL about the planned hit.

Re State's confidence level - well she should have been arrested long ago. The case against her is strong, but it is a failing of the US legal system not the lack of evidence that is the reason why she still has her freedom. So I don't know if she'll be charged. I don't think there is much more incriminating evidence implicating WA that the State has that we don't know about. I think after the murder she has kept her mouth shut and told her family she will not discuss anything to do with what happened with that "problem up North"....

But GC is on mission and that mission is to ensure WA is behind bars, so if she can't get her on murder she'll get her on perjury. 15 years per perjured statement for a felony 2 crime in Florida, sentences to run consecutively....

It is my understanding that Florida rarely prosecutes people for perjury. The Florida legal standard is high, as you have to show not only that the person made a false statement under oath, but also that the statement was material to the case. I’m not saying that it can’t be done, but it’s a higher burden than in some places where you only have to prove the statement was false. Truth or falsehood, in general, is easier to establish than whether something is “material,” which is not as clear-cut. Wendi, as a Florida lawyer, would likely know this. GC likely knows this as well, so I think if she decided to go that route, it would only be because she believed there wasn’t enough evidence to try her on anything else. I am not certain she’s convinced of that yet.

 

[amicuscurie]

100%. KM has nothing else to say. There is no information she has that would implicate WA. At this point, KM would throw her own mother under the bus to get out of jail, she owes nothing to a woman she has met twice.

This is probably true. But does anyone else find it strange that apparently Luis, per his testimony, said Sig told him the job was for “a lady, Wendi”? Could he have meant Donna, perhaps? Why did he know that name?

 

[Zedzded]

This is probably true. But does anyone else find it strange that apparently Luis, per his testimony, said Sig told him the job was for “a lady, Wendi”? Could he have meant Donna, perhaps? Why did he know that name?

Sorry I don't understand?

 

[Going Rogue]

I agree with you there. I believe she said that to JL and it seems utterly bizarre she would say that to her soon to be ex-boyfriend. It wasn't reverse psychology or anything like that. I firmly believe she was involved in DM's murder, but I have no idea why she would risk everything by telling JL.

The only thing I can think of is that we are looking it from our perspectives, relatively healthy, stable and rational minds. I think WA is as far from stable, rational and healthy as we're going to get. I think she's a complete sociopath. She was willing to kill her ex-husband to gain custody and willing to let JL take the blame for the murder. That's crazy.... I think leading up to the murder she was just a complete mess which culminated in her doing and saying stuff like telling JL about the planned hit.

Re State's confidence level - well she should have been arrested long ago. The case against her is strong, but it is a failing of the US legal system not the lack of evidence that is the reason why she still has her freedom. So I don't know if she'll be charged. I don't think there is much more incriminating evidence implicating WA that the State has that we don't know about. I think after the murder she has kept her mouth shut and told her family she will not discuss anything to do with what happened with that "problem up North"....

But GC is on mission and that mission is to ensure WA is behind bars, so if she can't get her on murder she'll get her on perjury. 15 years per perjured statement for a felony 2 crime in Florida, sentences to run consecutively....

I like that you used the adjective ‘relatively’ before healthy minds – my wife questions my sanity on a daily basis

There are many things about this case that just don’t add up. If Wendi was involved in the plot, her disclosing the hitman story to Jeff, and telling the joke the morning of the murder is unfathomable to me. I personally don’t believe in the Lacasse set up conspiracy. Not to be confused with naming him as a potential suspect during her police interview – there is a major distinction between naming him as a suspect and grooming him during their several month relationships as the fall guy. Jeff being groomed as the fall guy is way too farfetched for my appetite.

I respectfully disagree on the case against her being strong. If she was involved, she covered her tracks very well. One of the things that we can’t lose perspective on, is we only know what’s been made public, and, for the most part, we have only heard one side of the ‘Wendi’ argument. She has been on the stand three times as a state’s witness 'essentially' without representation. You mentioned in a previous post people, like me, pick apart one piece of evidence, I can assure you that short of some new bombshell evidence, with the evidence that’s been made public, her high-paid attorney’s will pick apart the prosecution if she stands trial. Again, I’m basing that on what’s been made public. If charged, she very likely walks assuming she gets a fair trial and the jury bases their decision on the evidence presented during the trial. Those two things aren’t a given.

 

[amicuscurie]

Sorry I don't understand?

Well, if Katie doesn’t know anything about Wendi being possibly involved in the murder, why did Sig apparently tell Luis that they were doing it for Wendi? I suppose Katie could have, if that is what Charlie told her. I just was under the impression that Katie didn’t tell Sig who he was doing it for, that she just passed him an envelope from Charlie with Dan’s info on it. To me, it seems not that smart for Katie to have given him too many details on who this family was. How would she have explained how she knew Wendi?

 

[Going Rogue]

This is probably true. But does anyone else find it strange that apparently Luis, per his testimony, said Sig told him the job was for “a lady, Wendi”? Could he have meant Donna, perhaps? Why did he know that name?

Luis Rivera’s recorded proffer was in October of 2016. Over 2 years after the murder. There are a number of ways he could have heard the name Wendi – including the media and jailhouse stories. It’s even possible Katie told Sigfredo the hit was for her friend ‘Wendi’. There were also ‘conversations’ with Luis and the investigators prior to the ‘recorded’ proffer. Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, Luis, although a hero in the eyes of many case followers, isn’t the most credible witness in my opinion.

 

[amicuscurie]

I like that you used the adjective ‘relatively’ before healthy minds – my wife questions my sanity on a daily basis

There are many things about this case that just don’t add up. If Wendi was involved in the plot, her disclosing the hitman story to Jeff, and telling the joke the morning of the murder is unfathomable to me. I personally don’t believe in the Lacasse set up conspiracy. Not to be confused with naming him as a potential suspect during her police interview – there is a major distinction between naming him as a suspect and grooming him during their several month relationships as the fall guy. Jeff being groomed as the fall guy is way too farfetched for my appetite.

I respectfully disagree on the case against her being strong. If she was involved, she covered her tracks very well. One of the things that we can’t lose perspective on, is we only know what’s been made public, and, for the most part, we have only heard one side of the ‘Wendi’ argument. She has been on the stand three times as a state’s witness 'essentially' without representation. You mentioned in a previous post people, like me, pick apart one piece of evidence, I can assure you that short of some new bombshell evidence, with the evidence that’s been made public, her high-paid attorney’s will pick apart the prosecution if she stands trial. Again, I’m basing that on what’s been made public. If charged, she very likely walks assuming she gets a fair trial and the jury bases their decision on the evidence presented during the trial. Those two things aren’t a given.

In my opinion she might have possibly mentioned the hitman joke to the cops because she knew she had already mentioned it to Jeff, OR, she might have mentioned it to the cops/Jeff to throw suspicion on her brother and away from herself OR through some kind of reverse-psychology ploy to make the cops thinks she couldn’t have been involved, because otherwise why would she say that? Again, I don’t believe we may be dealing with someone who thinks like we do. Her relationship with Charlie might not be as rosy as some may think. Her interest in protecting herself might have been greater than her interest in protecting him. Certainly possible.

Frankly, it’s hard for me to believe that even someone NOT involved would tell the cops that her brother made such a joke. Why tell them that at all? It’s pretty incriminating for him. So why do it, even if you’re not Involved?

 

[Zedzded]

I can assure you that short of some new bombshell evidence, with the evidence that’s been made public, her high-paid attorney’s will pick apart the prosecution if she stands trial. Again, I’m basing that on what’s been made public. If charged, she very likely walks assuming she gets a fair trial and the jury bases their decision on the evidence presented during the trial. Those two things aren’t a given.

Yup, a lot of the evidence could be picked apart by a semi-competent lawyer. But that's the nature of circumstantial evidence, singularly, it has no value and can be easily explained. Her lawyer will get up and explain how much she loved that TV hence the repair, she went down Trescott St because she has a poor sense of direction, she actually wanted to stay in Tallahassee etc There is no one piece of evidence that strongly implicates WA. So 30 pieces of circumstantial evidence has 30 answers, but as GC said "it seems you have an answer for everything...". The problem WA will have is not trying to find answers for each piece of evidence, but actually dealing with the voluminous amounts of circumstantial evidence. The jury will (hopefully) be seeing this virtual whiteboard with all these pieces of the puzzle and figuring out how they link to one another. They won't (hopefully) care that WA has an explanation for each and every one. All they care about is how they are all interconnected.

TV breaks
WA, JL and boys watch movie on a broken TV
There is another perfectly working TV in the other room which WA refuses to use
JL offers to buy WA a TV, she refuses
CA, WA and DA are all involved in arranging the TV repair visit, with 10+ calls
WA calls DA on the day of the murder to discuss repair
DA calls WA to say repair guy is on his way
CA calls WA about repair guy
WA is told within 5 mins of the TV repair guy being there that he can't repair it
TV repair guy is kept there for 45 mins
TV repair guy reports WA being upset over a $200 TV
TV repair guy reports WA talking to her brother for 18mins about whether to repair the TV or not despite telling her it couldn't be repaired
DA calls WA again about TV repair
WA joked to TV repair guy about her brother hiring a hitman, 2 hours before the hitmen her brother hired killed her ex husband

WA might have answers for all of that, DA bought the TV, it was her favourite TV that's why she was upset, she misunderstood the repair guy and thought it still could be repaired, she didn't want to take money off JL etc etc etc It will not matter to the jury. They will look at that complete and utter farce surrounding an old broken TV and know that something is not adding up. Again human behaviour is evidence. WA crying over a $200 TV is evidence.

 

[Wishbone]

In my opinion she might have possibly mentioned the hitman joke to the cops because she knew she had already mentioned it to Jeff, OR, she might have mentioned it to the cops/Jeff to throw suspicion on her brother and away from herself OR through some kind of reverse-psychology ploy to make the cops thinks she couldn’t have been involved, because otherwise why would she say that? Again, I don’t believe we may be dealing with someone who thinks like we do. Her relationship with Charlie might not be as rosy as some may think. Her interest in protecting herself might have been greater than her interest in protecting him. Certainly possible.

Frankly, it’s hard for me to believe that even someone NOT involved would tell the cops that her brother made such a joke. Why tell them that at all? It’s pretty incriminating for him. So why do it, even if you’re not Involved?

Because she was involved. Period. IMO she wanted to cast doubt on her family members(or anyone else) thus keeping herself looking naive and innocent. And just so honest and helpful. Purely self serving to cast the blame anywhere but at herself. Since I believe her to be the master manipulator, she always planned to scapegoat her family if needed.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yup, a lot of the evidence could be picked apart by a semi-competent lawyer. But that's the nature of circumstantial evidence, singularly, it has no value and can be easily explained. Her lawyer will get up and explain how much she loved that TV hence the repair, she went down Trescott St because she has a poor sense of direction, she actually wanted to stay in Tallahassee etc There is no one piece of evidence that strongly implicates WA. So 30 pieces of circumstantial evidence has 30 answers, but as GC said "it seems you have an answer for everything...". The problem WA will have is not trying to find answers for each piece of evidence, but actually dealing with the voluminous amounts of circumstantial evidence. The jury will (hopefully) be seeing this virtual whiteboard with all these pieces of the puzzle and figuring out how they link to one another. They won't (hopefully) care that WA has an explanation for each and every one. All they care about is how they are all interconnected.

TV breaks
WA, JL and boys watch movie on a broken TV
There is another perfectly working TV in the other room which WA refuses to use
JL offers to buy WA a TV, she refuses
CA, WA and DA are all involved in arranging the TV repair visit, with 10+ calls
WA calls DA on the day of the murder to discuss repair
DA calls WA to say repair guy is on his way
CA calls WA about repair guy
WA is told within 5 mins of the TV repair guy being there that he can't repair it
TV repair guy is kept there for 45 mins
TV repair guy reports WA being upset over a $200 TV
TV repair guy reports WA talking to her brother for 18mins about whether to repair the TV or not despite telling her it couldn't be repaired
DA calls WA again about TV repair
WA joked to TV repair guy about her brother hiring a hitman, 2 hours before the hitmen her brother hired killed her ex husband

WA might have answers for all of that, DA bought the TV, it was her favourite TV that's why she was upset, she misunderstood the repair guy and thought it still could be repaired, she didn't want to take money off JL etc etc etc It will not matter to the jury. They will look at that complete and utter farce surrounding an old broken TV and know that something is not adding up. Again human behaviour is evidence. WA crying over a $200 TV is evidence.

I promise I’m not trying to be confrontational, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions and filling in gaps there aren’t there. I still think your claim of 30-40 pieces of circumstantial evidence is a stretch, but now I know how you arrived at the a number after seeing the list you provided.

The TV clearly seems like an alibi – but the appointment was set up by Donna and the calls were regarding the appointment. Perhaps Donna was trying to keep Wendi busy? Wendi ‘forced’ them to watch the movie on the broken TV per Lacasse – why is that relevant and what does that even mean? I know its Jeff’s direct testimony, but I’m struggling to understand why it is relevant? Can you explain? Jeff offered to ‘pickup’ another TV – not ‘buy’ one – so she said ‘no thanks’ - how is that relevant. I did hear the repair guy say she was ‘upset’ (per Cappleman) - what does that mean? Is there testimony Wendi attempted to ‘keep the repair guy there for 45-mins”? I haven’t heard that? I never heard she was literally ‘crying’ over the TV – not sure if you are being literal? Yes, she had an 18-minute call with Charlie – maybe it was his planned attempt to keep her occupied or run interference?

I’m not even a semi-competent attorney and that list is a layup. I literally addressed it in 3 minutes.

 

[Going Rogue]

In my opinion she might have possibly mentioned the hitman joke to the cops because she knew she had already mentioned it to Jeff, OR, she might have mentioned it to the cops/Jeff to throw suspicion on her brother and away from herself OR through some kind of reverse-psychology ploy to make the cops thinks she couldn’t have been involved, because otherwise why would she say that? Again, I don’t believe we may be dealing with someone who thinks like we do. Her relationship with Charlie might not be as rosy as some may think. Her interest in protecting herself might have been greater than her interest in protecting him. Certainly possible.

Frankly, it’s hard for me to believe that even someone NOT involved would tell the cops that her brother made such a joke. Why tell them that at all? It’s pretty incriminating for him. So why do it, even if you’re not Involved?

I agree on your thesis of why she told Isom… but why did she tell Jeff? That doesn’t add up… the logical explanation is that she got wind that Charlie was serious and was about to carry out the plan and confided in Jeff because she didn’t know how to deal with the problem or burden – but that theory is NEVER mentioned. We will probably never know the answer.

 

[Zedzded]

I promise I’m not trying to be confrontational, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions and filling in gaps there aren’t there. I still think your claim of 30-40 pieces of circumstantial evidence is a stretch, but now I know how you arrived at the a number after seeing the list you provided.

The TV clearly seems like an alibi – but the appointment was set up by Donna and the calls were regarding the appointment. Perhaps Donna was trying to keep Wendi busy? Wendi ‘forced’ them to watch the movie on the broken TV per Lacasse – why is that relevant and what does that even mean? I know its Jeff’s direct testimony, but I’m struggling to understand why it is relevant? Can you explain? Jeff offered to ‘pickup’ another TV – not ‘buy’ one – so she said ‘no thanks’ - how is that relevant. I did hear the repair guy say she was ‘upset’ (per Cappleman) - what does that mean? Is there testimony Wendi attempted to ‘keep the repair guy there for 45-mins”? I haven’t heard that? I never heard she was literally ‘crying’ over the TV – not sure if you are being literal? Yes, she had an 18-minute call with Charlie – maybe it was his planned attempt to keep her occupied or run interference?

I’m not even a semi-competent attorney and that list is a layup. I literally addressed it in 3 minutes.

All good.

It might seem that 30-40 pieces of circumstantial evidence is a number I have exaggerated, but I haven't, it's understated if anything. Even deleting specific text messages and calendar entries would be classed as evidence. Re the TV, none of it makes any sense. If someone was plotting a murder, arranging this TV repair as some form of alibi would be utterly bizarre and ultimately unnecessary. I don't understand it. But coming back to WA's state of mind as well as CA and DAs. They are all sociopaths, they don't think like you and I so I guess it's best not to dwell too much on how or why they acted in the way they did, suffice to say WA's mind at the point in town was as far from stable as it was ever going to be. She was probably drinking too much, taking too many prescription drugs, not sleeping, not eating and trying to deal with the small matter of executing her ex-husband. So I guess you could look at the TV repair as a metaphor for her state of mind at the time. This was not something a normal, rational human being would do. Doesn't mean she was complicit in the murder of DM, but contextually it is significant.