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

[Going Rogue]

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.

I agree 100% it was an unnecessary alibi. In fact (you’re going love this ), the fact that the TV repair appointment was set up by Donna and ‘coincidently’ on the same morning of the murder, it seems more likely (to me) that Wendi was not involved. Why? Donna was attempting to keep Wendi at the house that AM knowing the murder was being carried out the morning and it was set up to assure Wendi stayed home. If Wendi was involved, all she had to do was stay home or make an appointment on the other side of town and the last thing she would have done (in my opinion) was drive anywhere near Dan’s house. Especially, if she was in on the plan and in on the alibi – it defies logic.

 

[Zedzded]

I agree 100% it was an unnecessary alibi. In fact (you’re going love this ), the fact that the TV repair appointment was set up by Donna and ‘coincidently’ on the same morning of the murder, it seems more likely (to me) that Wendi was not involved. Why? Donna was attempting to keep Wendi at the house that AM knowing the murder was being carried out the morning and it was set up to assure Wendi stayed home. If Wendi was involved, all she had to do was stay home or make an appointment on the other side of town and the last thing she would have done (in my opinion) was drive anywhere near Dan’s house. Especially, if she was in on the plan and in on the alibi – it defies logic.

Well that's an interesting theory! I might not agree with it, but I like it

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

“Pick up” generally to me implies buying. It’s a stretch, to me, to think that what he actually meant was that she would buy it and he would go pick it up. Nothing about what he said, or the way he said it, suggests to me anything other than that he offered to buy one for her. Notice that he didn’t say that she ordered one. He just said he offered to get one for her.

If you think what he is saying is that she had ordered one but refused his offer to pick it up, are you saying she just never picked it up herself? That she purchased a TV and never picked it up? That’s pretty strange in itself.

 

[Going Rogue]

“Pick up” generally to me implies buying. It’s a stretch, to me, to think that what he actually meant was that she would buy it and he would go pick it up. Nothing about what he said, or the way he said it, suggests to me anything other than that he offered to buy one for her. Notice that he didn’t say that she ordered one. He just said he offered to get one for her.

If you think what he is saying is that she had ordered one but refused his offer to pick it up, are you saying she just never picked it up herself? That she purchased a TV and never picked it up? That’s pretty strange in itself.

His statement wasn’t very detailed, and maybe purposely so…. all he said is he offered to ‘go get it for her’. There was no mention of ordering it or who was paying for it but Jeff speaks in very clear terms and had he offered to buy it for her, IMO, he would have made that clear. They purchased separate plane tickets for the trip to see his parents. Do you really think he offered to pay for her new TV?

 

[amicuscurie]

His statement wasn’t very detailed, and maybe purposely so…. all he said is he offered to ‘go get it for her’. There was no mention of ordering it or who was paying for it but Jeff speaks in very clear terms and had he offered to buy it for her, IMO, he would have made that clear. They purchased separate plane tickets for the trip to see his parents. Do you really think he offered to pay for her new TV?

Yes. I do. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely. My explanation doesn’t require me to believe that Wendi ordered and paid for a TV but Jeff didn’t mention that, because he maybe purposely wasn’t very detailed, but also that Jeff would have mentioned it because Jeff always makes things clear.

Jeff said he offered to go by Best Buy and pick up a TV for her, and to me that means exactly what it sounds like: he offered to go get her a TV from Best Buy. If I recall correctly, he also said it was a cheap TV, the kind you would see in a dorm room, and so getting a new one would not have been a big deal. No hypothetical additional facts are needed in order to believe that this is what Jeff meant, but to take a page out of your book, it’s certainly possible that she offered to reimburse him, and he just didn’t mention it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yes. I do. The simplest explanation is usually the most likely. My explanation doesn’t require me to believe that Wendi ordered and paid for a TV but Jeff didn’t mention that, because he maybe purposely wasn’t very detailed, but also that Jeff would have mentioned it because Jeff always makes things clear.

Jeff said he offered to go by Best Buy and pick up a TV for her, and to me that means exactly what it sounds like: he offered to go get her a TV from Best Buy. If I recall correctly, he also said it was a cheap TV, the kind you would see in a dorm room, and so getting a new one would not have been a big deal. No hypothetical additional facts are needed in order to believe that this is what Jeff meant, but to take a page out of your book, it’s certainly possible that she offered to reimburse him, and he just didn’t mention it.

The comment I initially responded to was stating he offered to ‘buy’ the TV but he never said that – it was an assumption, just like you are making.

Let’s think about it. Why didn’t he just buy it and bring it to her if he intended to purchase it for her? Did he need her approval to purchase a replacement TV if he intended to pay for it? He said he asked her ‘multiple’ times and she ‘refused’. If he was intending on paying for it, he would have just purchased it and brought it to her home. Right? Why ask ‘multiple’ times as per his testimony.

In my opinion, based on his testimony, he just offered to ‘get’ it for her not ‘buy’ it for her. Of course, it’s my opinion and I may be incorrect, you obviously have a different interpretation.

 

[IQuestion]

What "safety conscience/conscious" parent keeps a TV with a broken screen in her living area anyway? What if the cracked screen got worse and shards of glass fell on the floor? What if an electrical component was exposed and could spark a fire or injure a toddler? I am imagining Herculean Cherubs (ages 2 & 3) throwing bowling balls across the living room and only hitting the TV, and nothing else damaged. Huh? The story is so BS. How many homes have you/I/any of us ever walked into and viewed a broken TV prominently displayed in the living room for others to see?
"All that matters in choosing your code word is that it can easily be slipped into a sentence that will feel natural." Hmmm...I think they teach that in 5th grade. So, using the code solving skills of a 10 year old...I am going to guess TV was code for murdering DM. And WA knew the code, too.

 

[JerseyPride]

The comment I initially responded to was stating he offered to ‘buy’ the TV but he never said that – it was an assumption, just like you are making.

Let’s think about it. Why didn’t he just buy it and bring it to her if he intended to purchase it for her? Did he need her approval to purchase a replacement TV if he intended to pay for it? He said he asked her ‘multiple’ times and she ‘refused’. If he was intending on paying for it, he would have just purchased it and brought it to her home. Right? Why ask ‘multiple’ times as per his testimony.

In my opinion, based on his testimony, he just offered to ‘get’ it for her not ‘buy’ it for her. Of course, it’s my opinion and I may be incorrect, you obviously have a different interpretation.

If you listen to his testimony (including from the most recent trial) he says words to the effect of "her house, her rules" when explaining why he did not force the issue of watching a movie on the TV that was not broken. To me, this indicates that he wants to be deferential to WA with respect to this type of issue, which would include whether to acquire a new TV (regardless of who was paying for it).

 

[JerseyPride]

If Wendi was involved, all she had to do was stay home or make an appointment on the other side of town and the last thing she would have done (in my opinion) was drive anywhere near Dan’s house. Especially, if she was in on the plan and in on the alibi – it defies logic.

There were many, many inexplicably stupid decisions made by the perpetrators in this case. So "logic defying" actions are par for the course here. JL's testimony about WA insisting that the children watch the broken TV is highly suggestive to me that WA knew that the TV repair was a prefabricated alibi.

ETA: I also think there's a reasonable explanation why WA would drive by the scene if she had been in on the plot. Namely, if DM was going to be taking the children swimming that afternoon, that would potentially put them in harms way. Someone involved in the plot would have wanted to know that risk had been eliminated. A drive by the house would have confirmed that.

 

[Going Rogue]

If you listen to his testimony (including from the most recent trial) he says words to the effect of "her house, her rules" when explaining why he did not force the issue of watching a movie on the TV that was not broken. To me, this indicates that he wants to be deferential to WA with respect to this type of issue, which would include whether to acquire a new TV (regardless of who was paying for it).

Not sure I agree that simply because he said “her house, her rules”, we can infer he wouldn’t have purchased a TV as a gift to replace the broken TV and have brought it to her.

There were many, many inexplicably stupid decisions made by the perpetrators in this case. So "logic defying" actions are par for the course here. JL's testimony about WA insisting that the children watch the broken TV is highly suggestive to me that WA knew that the TV repair was a prefabricated alibi.

ETA: I also think there's a reasonable explanation why WA would drive by the scene if she had been in on the plot. Namely, if DM was going to be taking the children swimming that afternoon, that would potentially put them in harms way. Someone involved in the plot would have wanted to know that risk had been eliminated. A drive by the house would have confirmed that.

I agree there were many inexplicably stupid decisions made across the board – very well stated! Maybe I’m missing something because I don’t understand the relevance of Jeff’s testimony that Wendi insisted that the children watch the movie on broken TV? Further, I don’t understand how one can infer that it means Wendi knew that the TV repair was a prefabricated alibi?

Your reasonable explanation on her drive to Trescott makes perfect sense to me. First I’m hearing of that theory and I agree it’s a likely possibility if she was in on the plot. It was her pick up day, but in her mind perhaps the thought of him getting there before her caused enough anxiety to ‘investigate’. I like that theory, because otherwise, she’d have to be stupid (if involved) to be in the area – nerves and anxiety can easily have make her deviate from the ‘plan’

 

[Zedzded]

I agree there were many inexplicably stupid decisions made across the board – very well stated! Maybe I’m missing something because I don’t understand the relevance of Jeff’s testimony that Wendi insisted that the children watch the movie on broken TV?

Putting aside the TV repair as an alibi, JL's testimony exemplifies how mal-adjusted unhinged and unstable WA was. Watching a broken TV with a perfectly functional TV in the other room is not consistent with what a well adjusted, stable adult would do. Perhaps it bears no relevance to the murder in that the TV repair in fact wasn't some contrived alibi, but the incident still has relevance as it demonstrates WA's state of mind at the time.

She's been on the stand multiple times, trying to portray this image of a happy, positive, healthy and successful person, someone that is very focused on her kids, ensuring they are brought up in loving, stable environment. That image is about as far from the truth as it could possibly be. She's had mental health issues her whole life, been treated for depression, takes a variety of prescription medication such as Xanax, wracked with insecurities and self-esteem issues and couldn't give a flying F about her kids. She allowed them to be in the presence of her sociopathic family and ultimately she killed their father, destroying their lives. So her behaviour around the time of the murder is quite relevant, even if it has no direct connection to the murder. The jury needs to know what kind of person she is. Happy, stable, well adjusted people don't tend to kill people because they don't get their own way.

 

[Zedzded]

she’d have to be stupid (if involved) to be in the area – nerves and anxiety can easily have make her deviate from the ‘plan’

Again we're not talking about a stable person. It would be stupid for someone that was well adjusted and stable and capable of rational thought to drive by the crime scene, WA was as far from stable as you're going to get.

 

[JerseyPride]

I don’t understand the relevance of Jeff’s testimony that Wendi insisted that the children watch the movie on broken TV? Further, I don’t understand how one can infer that it means Wendi knew that the TV repair was a prefabricated alibi?

To me, it suggests someone trying to bolster an anticipated alibi by ensuring that there is a witness to the TV actually being broken (purportedly by a small child) in advance of the repair appointment.

By analogy, if someone made an allergist appointment for the sole purpose of establishing an alibi at the time of a crime, they might make sure to have a sneezing fit in front of potential witnesses prior to the day of the appointment ("I keep sneezing, I must be allergic to something. I should get myself checked out.")

In the perpetrator's mind, creating witnesses in this manner makes it seem more likely that the appointment was truly organic as opposed to being set up as a sham. ("Yes, she was sneezing really badly and seemed to be allergic to something, it makes sense that she was at the allergist that day." "Yes, the TV was totally unwatchable, that makes sense that she would have a repair appointment on that day.")

Here, I think the perpetrators way overthought the TV alibi to the point that it just lacks credibility and comes off as orchestrated because, among other reasons: (1) The repair appointment required the involvement of a family member/alleged co-conspirator that lived 7 hours away; (2) Per JL, the damage did not look like it could have been inflicted by a small child as WA claimed; (3) Regardless of the source of the damage, it should have been obvious to any reasonable person that repairing damage like that is not practicable; (4) As explained above, it appears that WA tried to "shore up" the broken TV story by forcing her boyfriend and children to watch an entire film on said broken TV; (5) On the day of the murder, WA had an 18 minute phone conversation with one of the convicted murderers (who also lives seven hours away) and that conversation supposedly revolved, in part, around the issue of whether the TV could be repaired. This is all so absurd.

 

[Zedzded]

I think they just got it in their head that the more complex and more convoluted the alibi, the more it would be believed. And also having a witness that could could corroborate the alibi. In reality, all WA had to do, was go to a shopping centre that had CCTV cameras and stay there until the job was done.

 

[Zedzded]

I think they just got it in their head that the more complex and more convoluted the alibi, the more it would be believed. And also having a witness that could could corroborate the alibi. In reality, all WA had to do, was go to a shopping centre that had CCTV cameras and stay there until the job was done.

 

[IQuestion]

If you listen to his testimony (including from the most recent trial) he says words to the effect of "her house, her rules" when explaining why he did not force the issue of watching a movie on the TV that was not broken. To me, this indicates that he wants to be deferential to WA with respect to this type of issue, which would include whether to acquire a new TV (regardless of who was paying for it).

BBM Brilliant memory JerseyPride!! I had forgotten. But YES indeed JL said those words in regards to respecting the boundaries of another person's home. (Doesn't seem- A's respected her boundaries at times.) I got some weird/uncomfortable stalker vibes when it was suggested a man should buy the TV of his choice and force it on a woman he is dating. A man on his own volition, buying me appliances, electronics, computers, etc, would be really creepy. (seriously...not even a toaster, waffle iron or blender!) I draw the line at buying me lunch or dinner. And "Hell no!" if they attempted to buy me an expensive designer purse.
JL had no idea how crucial the "TV code word" was in the master plan to kill poor DM. The "broken TV" had to stay where it was, so everyone could verify it was broken, and have an excuse for being home at the arranged time of 8am to 12. But, the repairman arrived early and WA had to figure out what to do to fill the time between Geek departure. Hmm, arrange last minute luncheon?, document movements with purchase receipts? and make sure clerk remembered me? (Ya know the gal with incredibly blue contacts.)
Too many hokey coincidences, IMO.

 

[Going Rogue]

I got some weird/uncomfortable stalker vibes when it was suggested a man should buy the TV of his choice and force it on a woman he is dating.

Lol. How would you feel if you had a broken TV and your boyfriend offered to ‘buy’ you a new one and you declined his offer, but rather than taking ‘no’ for an answer, he kept asking you ‘multiple’ times. Would that give you ‘wired uncomfortable stalker vibes?’ What happened to ‘no means no’? Lol.

You misinterpreted my point and I find it comical it gave you those ‘vibes’. I didn’t suggest he should have just bought the TV of his choice and ‘forced’ it on her. His testimony was she refused his offer ‘multiple’ times. My point was if his intention was to make the purchase for her, he wouldn’t have asked ‘multiple’ times, he would have just made the purchase OR would have stoped asking ‘multiple‘ times. I said in another post, certain parts of Lacasse’s testimony don’t add up to me. Offering to get the TV ‘multiple’ times is one of them. Just my gut it’s an exaggeration.

 

[amicuscurie]

Lol. How would you feel if you had a broken TV and your boyfriend offered to ‘buy’ you a new one and you declined his offer, but rather than taking ‘no’ for an answer, he kept asking you ‘multiple’ times. Would that give you ‘wired uncomfortable stalker vibes?’ What happened to ‘no means no’? Lol.

You misinterpreted my point and I find it comical it gave you those ‘vibes’. I didn’t suggest he should have just bought the TV of his choice and ‘forced’ it on her. His testimony was she refused his offer ‘multiple’ times. My point was if his intention was to make the purchase for her, he wouldn’t have asked ‘multiple’ times, he would have just made the purchase OR would have stoped asking ‘multiple‘ times. I said in another post, certain parts of Lacasse’s testimony don’t add up to me. Offering to get the TV ‘multiple’ times is one of them. Just my gut it’s an exaggeration.

Sorry, but I’m just not sure what you’re getting at, it seems to me like grasping at every possible straw and parsing every word said in order to show that when Jeff said he offered to get a TV for Wendi, Jeff did NOT mean that he offered to get a TV for Wendi.

First, you say in response to another poster that you did NOT suggest Jeff should have just bought the TV himself and presented it to her (someone else used the phrased “forced,” but I’m being charitable.). Ok.

Then you say that Jeff, had he intended to buy a TV for her (which, if I have it correctly, you believe he didn’t), he should not or would not have asked her more than once. Why not? It was broken, and according to Jeff she kept insisting they watch it. Do you think it unreasonable that Jeff might have asked more than once in such a scenario?

Moving on. Then, you say that Jeff, had he intended to buy the TV, WOULDN’T have asked multiple times, but he would have “just made the purchase.” But - didn’t you say earlier, in response to another poster, that you DIDN’T suggest he just make the purchase and force it on her?

So…just what are you saying, exactly?

Are you saying you do not believe Jeff intended to buy a TV for Wendi, because if he HAD, he would’ve either bought it without asking more than once, even if she said no (but not given it to her, because he wouldn’t have just forced it on her), or asked only once and never brought it up again?

 

[amicuscurie]

To me, it suggests someone trying to bolster an anticipated alibi by ensuring that there is a witness to the TV actually being broken (purportedly by a small child) in advance of the repair appointment.

By analogy, if someone made an allergist appointment for the sole purpose of establishing an alibi at the time of a crime, they might make sure to have a sneezing fit in front of potential witnesses prior to the day of the appointment ("I keep sneezing, I must be allergic to something. I should get myself checked out.")

In the perpetrator's mind, creating witnesses in this manner makes it seem more likely that the appointment was truly organic as opposed to being set up as a sham. ("Yes, she was sneezing really badly and seemed to be allergic to something, it makes sense that she was at the allergist that day." "Yes, the TV was totally unwatchable, that makes sense that she would have a repair appointment on that day.")

Here, I think the perpetrators way overthought the TV alibi to the point that it just lacks credibility and comes off as orchestrated because, among other reasons: (1) The repair appointment required the involvement of a family member/alleged co-conspirator that lived 7 hours away; (2) Per JL, the damage did not look like it could have been inflicted by a small child as WA claimed; (3) Regardless of the source of the damage, it should have been obvious to any reasonable person that repairing damage like that is not practicable; (4) As explained above, it appears that WA tried to "shore up" the broken TV story by forcing her boyfriend and children to watch an entire film on said broken TV; (5) On the day of the murder, WA had an 18 minute phone conversation with one of the convicted murderers (who also lives seven hours away) and that conversation supposedly revolved, in part, around the issue of whether the TV could be repaired. This is all so absurd.

This makes sense, but like you say I think they way overthought it. It makes sense to me that someone might possibly have wanted a witness to the TV being broken (though wouldn’t the repair person be enough), and that Wendi might have called Jeff over and showed him the damage for that purpose.

It also makes sense, to me, that Wendi might possibly not have accepted an offer to get a new TV before the day of the murder, because perhaps someone might have thought it was important to keep the repair appointment for that day if, as many believe, it was an alibi.

The thing that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and this may be where the alleged plotters may have overthought it, is not letting the kids just watch the working TV in the other room, and telling LaCasse that it wouldn’t work (if I recall his testimony correctly). Is it possible that they thought that this would highlight the urgency of repairing the broken one, if somehow Wendi told LaCasse there wasn’t another one in the house they could watch?

In my opinion, this wasn’t necessary. Hypothetically a broken TV needs repaired whether there might be another one you can watch or not, right? I mean, even if assuming she might have had another one she could use, she most likely wouldn’t just let that one sit there broken, would she? Did she think someone might think that would be unusual, to repair one TV when there was another one she could use? To me, it look like overthinking.

 

[Going Rogue]

Sorry, but I’m just not sure what you’re getting at, it seems to me like grasping at every possible straw and parsing every word said in order to show that when Jeff said he offered to get a TV for Wendi, Jeff did NOT mean that he offered to get a TV for Wendi.

First, you say in response to another poster that you did NOT suggest Jeff should have just bought the TV himself and presented it to her (someone else used the phrased “forced,” but I’m being charitable.). Ok.

Then you say that Jeff, had he intended to buy a TV for her (which, if I have it correctly, you believe he didn’t), he should not or would not have asked her more than once. Why not? It was broken, and according to Jeff she kept insisting they watch it. Do you think it unreasonable that Jeff might have asked more than once in such a scenario?

Moving on. Then, you say that Jeff, had he intended to buy the TV, WOULDN’T have asked multiple times, but he would have “just made the purchase.” But - didn’t you say earlier, in response to another poster, that you DIDN’T suggest he just make the purchase and force it on her?

So…just what are you saying, exactly?

Are you saying you do not believe Jeff intended to buy a TV for Wendi, because if he HAD, he would’ve either bought it without asking more than once, even if she said no (but not given it to her, because he wouldn’t have just forced it on her), or asked only once and never brought it up again?

Okay – I’ll clear it up any confusion about what I’m saying. This may seem silly, but I think it’s important, because I believe had he offered to ‘pay’ for the TV ‘multiple’ times and she refused the offer, then I agree she was likely aware and in on the alibi.

It was suggested in a post yesterday that Jeff offered to ‘buy’ her a new TV. Based on his testimony, it's my opinion that he was simply offering to pick it up for her and NOT ‘pay’ for it. That’s what I’m saying. I know you and others interpreted what he said during his testimony as him offering to ‘buy’ it for her. I don’t think I’m parsing words - in my opinion, if he offered to ‘pay’ for the TV he would have made that clear.

As far as my comment suggesting Jeff just buying the TV himself and presenting it to her, I will explain that as well. If he intended on ‘paying’ for it, after she ‘refused’ his generous offer, is it more likely he would of:

• Continued to ask ‘multiple’ times (as per Jeff’s testimony)?
• Stop asking?
• Just go out buy it and present it as a gift?

Personally, I’d go with 2 or 3 which is why I don’t believe Lacasse offered to ‘pay’ for it and if he did offer to pay for it, after she refused once (or twice?), I don’t think he would have asked again. Yes, that is me speculating based on the data at hand.

Just my opinion – it’s okay to disagree.