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

[ch_13]

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.

With all due respect, I think you're tying yourself in knots trying to explain away JL's testimony. IMO, the plain meaning of what he said was that he offered to buy her a television multiple times and she refused. I'm sure in Wendi's trial this will come up and be explained more thoroughly.

But even if you disagree, what difference does it make? The important point is that she didn't replace the tv immediately after it was damaged despite the fact that her kids were whining and crying about it. What could a new tv cost anyways? This was a smaller set, so even in 2014, we're talking maybe $300 - $400. Hardly an issue for someone of her means. And you agree that at the very least JL offered to pick up the tv, so it wasn't a time-management issue either.

You asked about the relevance of the broken television. If the television had been replaced immediately, then she would not have been able to have the repairman come on the morning of Dan's murder, thus providing her with an alibi. That's the salient point, not who offered to pay for it.

Just my opinion - it's okay to disagree.

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

If you believe he was simply offering to pick it up for her and not pay for it, then would you not also have the believe that Wendi bought one for him to pick up? Where is it?

Or do you believe that he offered to pick one up for her IF she bought one? He did not say that.

You think that if he intended on paying for it he would have stopped asking. But you think that, instead, he just forgot to say the words “if she bought one” after he said he offered to pick one up?

I don’t agree that he would have stopped asking. He said he asked multiple times.

Why is it more believable in your eyes that if he meant, as you say, that SHE should pay for it and he would pick it up, then he would ask more than once, BUT if he meant that HE would pay for it, he would only ask once?

 

[Going Rogue]

With all due respect, I think you're tying yourself in knots trying to explain away JL's testimony. IMO, the plain meaning of what he said was that he offered to buy her a television multiple times and she refused. I'm sure in Wendi's trial this will come up and be explained more thoroughly.

But even if you disagree, what difference does it make? The important point is that she didn't replace the tv immediately after it was damaged despite the fact that her kids were whining and crying about it. What could a new tv cost anyways? This was a smaller set, so even in 2014, we're talking maybe $300 - $400. Hardly an issue for someone of her means. And you agree that at the very least JL offered to pick up the tv, so it wasn't a time-management issue either.

You asked about the relevance of the broken television. If the television had been replaced immediately, then she would not have been able to have the repairman come on the morning of Dan's murder, thus providing her with an alibi. That's the salient point, not who offered to pay for it.

Just my opinion - it's okay to disagree.

I’m not trying to explain away JL’s testimony. Assumptions are being made about what Jeff implied when he said he offered multiple times to run to the store and pick up a new TV.

I’m assuming he did not imply he was paying for a new TV… others are assuming he implied he was paying for it… its really that simple.

Maybe I’m wrong… maybe we should have a poll

 

[Going Rogue]

If you believe he was simply offering to pick it up for her and not pay for it, then would you not also have the believe that Wendi bought one for him to pick up? Where is it?

Or do you believe that he offered to pick one up for her IF she bought one? He did not say that.

You think that if he intended on paying for it he would have stopped asking. But you think that, instead, he just forgot to say the words “if she bought one” after he said he offered to pick one up?

I don’t agree that he would have stopped asking. He said he asked multiple times.

Why is it more believable in your eyes that if he meant, as you say, that SHE should pay for it and he would pick it up, then he would ask more than once, BUT if he meant that HE would pay for it, he would only ask once?

I think we are getting caught up in a silly debate. It’s clear you think he offered to pay for the TV. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise, it’s just not how I interpreted it.

 

[Wishbone]

I’m not trying to explain away JL’s testimony. Assumptions are being made about what Jeff implied when he said he offered multiple times to run to the store and pick up a new TV.

I’m assuming he did not imply he was paying for a new TV… others are assuming he implied he was paying for it… its really that simple.

Maybe I’m wrong… maybe we should have a poll

you would lose

 

[Going Rogue]

you would lose

I agree 100%. I would bet a million dollars that the majority would interpret it exactly how ‘amicuscurie’ did. The reason is simple – the majority of those that follow this case will view ‘anything’ that can be interpreted multiple ways in the way that is most unfavorable to the case the supports Wendi not being an active participant in the plot.

Is there a way to run a poll here?

 

[Wishbone]

I agree 100%. I would bet a million dollars that the majority would interpret it exactly how ‘amicuscurie’ did. The reason is simple – the majority of those that follow this case will view ‘anything’ that can be interpreted multiple ways in the way that is most unfavorable to the case the supports Wendi not being an active participant in the plot.

Is there a way to run a poll here?

I don't recall seeing a poll on here, but you could ask a moderator to be sure. Seems like a waste of time as we both know how it would play out.

 

[amicuscurie]

I agree 100%. I would bet a million dollars that the majority would interpret it exactly how ‘amicuscurie’ did. The reason is simple – the majority of those that follow this case will view ‘anything’ that can be interpreted multiple ways in the way that is most unfavorable to the case the supports Wendi not being an active participant in the plot.

Is there a way to run a poll here?

That’s not the reason most people would interpret it that way.

I think if you polled most people who heard Jeff’s testimony, whether here or elsewhere, they would say they understood Jeff’s use of the phrase “pick up a TV” from Best Buy to mean he offered to go to Best Buy and get a TV, and I don’t think they would think about it any further. I don’t think anyone who heard Jeff’s testimony would even ask themselves whether he intended to buy the TV, or acquire it in some other manner when he got there. I don’t agree at all with your contention that how you interpret the words “pick up” depends on whether you think Wendi was involved, and that those of us who adopt the plain meaning of the term given the context do so only because we think she was involved.

Indeed, as others have pointed out, there are many other reasons some people believe Wendi was involved, which do not rest on whether Jeff was going to buy a TV or just go “pick one up” that he didn’t buy. The mere fact that she did not replace the TV, regardless of what Jeff may have said, seems strange and suspicious to a lot of people.

I do think that interpreting the phrase “picked up a TV” to mean anything other than its plain meaning, or even fixating on its meaning at all, or whether Jeff really intended to buy a TV or just get one another way, or how many times he may have asked, could be indicative of someone who might be looking for a way to somehow minimize the significance of Jeff’s testimony regarding the established fact that Wendi did not replace the TV in the weeks before the murder, despite it being unwatchable.

 

[Zedzded]

I’m not trying to explain away JL’s testimony. Assumptions are being made about what Jeff implied when he said he offered multiple times to run to the store and pick up a new TV.

I’m assuming he did not imply he was paying for a new TV… others are assuming he implied he was paying for it… its really that simple.

Maybe I’m wrong… maybe we should have a poll

You are wrong. JL stated to the investigating officer that he offered "to pick up a new TV". His words, verbatim. JL is a very intelligent, articulate man and performed great on the stand and in the interview, going in to great detail regarding the period around the murder. He would be cognisant of the fact that telling Detective Isom that he was offering to pick up a new TV would imply he was offering to purchase a TV. That is what most reasonable people would assume. And he would be cognisant of the fact that if he was actually picking up a TV that WA had bought and he didn't include that critical piece of information he would lead Detective Isom to think JL was intending to buy it, when in fact WA had bought it. It's fine for you to have your opinion, just be aware that 99.9% of people would have a contradictory opinion.

 

[Zedzded]

@Going Rogue - also you were going to get back to me with the estimated distances and times of WA's route to the liquor store. I think you had stated it wasn't much of a detour, I disagreed and posted detailed information regarding her journey. I guess you forgot?

 

[Going Rogue]

That’s not the reason most people would interpret it that way.

I think if you polled most people who heard Jeff’s testimony, whether here or elsewhere, they would say they understood Jeff’s use of the phrase “pick up a TV” from Best Buy to mean he offered to go to Best Buy and get a TV, and I don’t think they would think about it any further. I don’t think anyone who heard Jeff’s testimony would even ask themselves whether he intended to buy the TV, or acquire it in some other manner when he got there. I don’t agree at all with your contention that how you interpret the words “pick up” depends on whether you think Wendi was involved, and that those of us who adopt the plain meaning of the term given the context do so only because we think she was involved.

Indeed, as others have pointed out, there are many other reasons some people believe Wendi was involved, which do not rest on whether Jeff was going to buy a TV or just go “pick one up” that he didn’t buy. The mere fact that she did not replace the TV, regardless of what Jeff may have said, seems strange and suspicious to a lot of people.

I do think that interpreting the phrase “picked up a TV” to mean anything other than its plain meaning, or even fixating on its meaning at all, or whether Jeff really intended to buy a TV or just get one another way, or how many times he may have asked, could be indicative of someone who might be looking for a way to somehow minimize the significance of Jeff’s testimony regarding the established fact that Wendi did not replace the TV in the weeks before the murder, despite it being unwatchable.

Somewhere there was a communication breakdown. Yes, everyone would all agree he offered to “go to BestBuy and get a TV”. I thought the ‘debate’ was whether or not Jeff offered to ‘buy’ the TV for Wendi. The point I was making to ‘Zedzded’ in response to his post was (in my opinion), Jeff never offered to ‘buy’ the TV for her. You responded to that post and seemed to disagree with my interpretation.

 

[Going Rogue]

You are wrong. JL stated to the investigating officer that he offered "to pick up a new TV". His words, verbatim. JL is a very intelligent, articulate man and performed great on the stand and in the interview, going in to great detail regarding the period around the murder. He would be cognisant of the fact that telling Detective Isom that he was offering to pick up a new TV would imply he was offering to purchase a TV. That is what most reasonable people would assume. And he would be cognisant of the fact that if he was actually picking up a TV that WA had bought and he didn't include that critical piece of information he would lead Detective Isom to think JL was intending to buy it, when in fact WA had bought it. It's fine for you to have your opinion, just be aware that 99.9% of people would have a contradictory opinion.

Honestly, I only recall Jeff testifying re the offer to pick up the TV during Charlie’ trial.. I don’t recall him discussing that w/ Isom? Based on what he said during Charlie’s trial, I still don’t agree he offered to ‘buy’ it for her. Do you recall when he mentioned it to Isom – there were three interviews – I assume the 3rd?

@Going Rogue - also you were going to get back to me with the estimated distances and times of WA's route to the liquor store. I think you had stated it wasn't much of a detour, I disagreed and posted detailed information regarding her journey. I guess you forgot?

Nope, I didn’t forget. I posted the data as promised the next morning with a detailed explanation, but the moderators took it down. I think it had something to do with the screenshots and the reference / use of Google maps? I have the data on my PC, I will follow up in a separate message to you later...

 

[Going Rogue]

@Going Rogue - also you were going to get back to me with the estimated distances and times of WA's route to the liquor store. I think you had stated it wasn't much of a detour, I disagreed and posted detailed information regarding her journey. I guess you forgot?

As I said, the original post was removed by the mods, so I’m not attaching in the maps. Here are all the addresses:

• Wendi’s Address - 3303 Aqua Ridge Way Tallahassee
• ABC Liquors - 1930 Thomasville Rd Tallahassee
• Market Square Liquors - 1415 Timberlane Rd Tallahassee
• Mozaik Restaurant - 1410 Market St Tallahassee

When I mapped it out again, I was getting different results. I tried both Google Maps and MSFT Bing. Not sure why I initially got the route to Market Square as 6 miles and 18 minutes? So the difference is slightly greater than I initially reported, but the difference between the below two routes is only 4 miles. The TOTAL route she took was approximately 4 miles or 8 minutes longer than had she gone to Market Square Liquors.

Here is what you’ll get when you map it out:

Route 1 -- Route Wendi took: Her House to ABC Liquors to Mozaik Restaurant - 9.2 miles – 23 minutes

Route 2 -- Route most say she should have taken: Her House to Market Square Liquors to Mozaik Restaurant - 5.2 Miles - 15 minutes

 

[IQuestion]

I just had a "light bulb moment" (insert blinking smile emoji)... Who was the first person to bring up "hitman" and "broken TV's" in one sentence in the first 4 minutes of the police interview?

WA: Who would do this?
DET. Isom : I dont know. That's why you here and why we are talking. Would you ever ask someone to do this?
WA: Not in million years.
Det. Isom: Okay. Do you think someone would do this for your benefit without asking you?
WA: No.
Det Isom: What good it does it serve?
WA: I mean my brother uhm, the one whose name is Charlie the one I'm really close to. He makes a lot of jokes in bad taste and it was a joke he made he bought the TV for me this morning that got broken. And I was talking to him about if it makes sense to fix it or whether I should get a new one. And it was always his joke, that like he knew Danny treated me badly, and it was always his joke he said I, I "ya' know I looked into hiring a hitman and it was cheaper to get you this TV. So instead I got you this TV."
Det. Isom: ok
WA: Uhm, I mean he would never. He's my big brother and he's been taking care of me since I was little. But he would never, and I said..I told that to the repair guy this morning.
Det. Isom: right...it's ok.
WA: He asked me how much did it cost and I said I do know because it was a gift. Because my brother said its was cheaper than hiring a hitman. It was my divorce present. Such a horrible thing to say.
Det. Isom: That's ok
WA: But even my family who felt I had been mistreated would never do something like this. Never.
Answer to my question above:
*** TV (twice inferred "it") 4 times
*** 11+ references to Charlie, my brother, he
*** 4 Hitman "joke" references
*** Sorry if I messed up this post, but trying to keep count and will edit as needed, but hope you get my point. 2 minutes into police interview at this link

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

And also, some mentioned the TV was also not working in the other room where JL wanted to connect the DVD player. Hence Donna saying “the TV in your living room”. Don’t remember where I read/heard that.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

how is it known the TV is 200.00?
How did you know within 5 min’s she found out it couldn't be fixed? And that she kept him here an extra 40 minutes?
First I’m hearing this.
Also we all thought initially the tV was 5K bc of the “Tv is 5”.
It was surprising to find out from last trial that it was a “dorm” kind.
That changed all perspective on that TV for sure!
Such a big gift from Charlie!
That TV was never a gift!
This alone implicates Wendi , IMO.

And she lied saying that she asked her brother if she should fix it or get a new one after she wound out it could not be fixed.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

You have to play mental gymnastics to come up with “He said he would pick one up for her” to “He meant she can buy one and he will just pick it up”
I mean, a 200.00 TV isn't very heavy and could fit easily in her car.
Ex: “Hey, I can go pick up a pizza for you”…to “You can pay for it and I’ll go pick it up”
He said nothing to suggest she was paying for it so why make that assumption?
Easier to assume he was buying it for her.
OK it’s at the 13:45 mark on Deep Dive True Crime.
The whole conversation about the TV.
JL said he offered to get one (thats how I see it anyway) and she refused.

“No, she turned me down several times on that offer”. JL

 

[Knitpicker]

<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 she was directly involved, and no one had notified the family that the hit was successful (first call was from Sigfredo to Katie was 90 minutes after the murders), of course she would have to drive by to see if it happened!

 

[nodamselindistress]

Good grief, all these posts about the TV are ridiculous!!!

When someone says "I'll pick up the tab" that means they are going to pay for it, not pick it up off the table. Geez, what a long winding road for no reason, I just don't get it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Good grief, all these posts about the TV are ridiculous!!!

When someone says "I'll pick up the tab" that means they are going to pay for it, not pick it up off the table. Geez, what a long winding road for no reason, I just don't get it.

LOL – I agree 100% and I’m in the middle of it!

If they would just arrest Wendi, we’d have something else to talk about!