FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #23

[Knitpicker]

Also, Hamm was dating after he and Jennifer W broke up. It was years later that he recently got married to this other woman. Again, Judith light was not in that movie and she was not dating him. I really hope she plays Donna and that there is something on TV about this unreal case.

Yes, I’m now clear about that. I must have missed a comment where you mention another woman. I corrected myself..Time to go to sleep. It’s been thundering and I didn’t sleep last night bc my dog freaks with thunder. So I’m not quite as sharp today.

 

[amicuscurie]

Interesting. I had not heard that. But I would assume that LE spoke with them right after to obtain information. I don't know if they got a copy of the email invite with the stock the bar or not. I go back-and-forth on the significance of the bullet bourbon, and whether it is true that they asked for it. What makes no sense is, unless they specifically wrote on there for only her to bring that particular bourbon, who would have every person attending your party bring that bourbon. I mean, they would have to be way into that bourbon as a couple and everyone they are friends with that they would have over would only be drinking that.

I’ve seen a copy of the invitation, (supposedly,) and the one I saw has a little tag attached with the specific name of that bourbon to get. (Wendi said in her police interview, if I recall correctly, that a friend either wrote that name down or told her to get that kind.)

My assumption is that there was a standard printed invitation and then there was a little tag appended to it for each individual guest, with the name of a particular liquor. It was a “stock the bar” party, so you’d want to be sure you got all the different types of liquor you wanted, right, either for your wedding reception or your house. Otherwise, if you didn’t specify, your bar might not be sufficiently “stocked,” you’d get like fifteen bottles of vodka or whatever.

I highly doubt that hypothetically someone involved in a murder would decide to be cute and buy something called Bulleit on purpose. Sometimes a bottle of bourbon is just a bottle of bourbon.

 

[Knitpicker]

I’ve seen a copy of the invitation, (supposedly,) and the one I saw has a little tag attached with the specific name of that bourbon to get. (Wendi said in her police interview, if I recall correctly, that a friend either wrote that name down or told her to get that kind.)

My assumption is that there was a standard printed invitation and then there was a little tag appended to it for each individual guest, with the name of a particular liquor. It was a “stock the bar” party, so you’d want to be sure you got all the different types of liquor you wanted, right, either for your wedding reception or your house. Otherwise, if you didn’t specify, your bar might not be sufficiently “stocked,” you’d get like fifteen bottles of vodka or whatever.

I highly doubt that hypothetically someone involved in a murder would decide to be cute and buy something called Bulleit on purpose. Sometimes a bottle of bourbon is just a bottle of bourbon.

I saw the flyer. Yes, the tag was in red that said BULLEIT BOURBON, but then underneath, it said “Or your favorite wine or spirit”. Theres a channel that showed it. Darklivity months ago when they did a few parts on the case. It seems to be the same as someone else showed (maybe Mentour). It looks like a printed flyer.
The channel host went to school with Sarah Dugan (I think undergrad) and is a lawyer but never sat for the bar.
She had a successful makeup channel of over half a mil, and then went into true crime.
Kimberly or similar.
She also knew Wendis eyes were really blue, when everyone was saying they were brown (proved blue by the video of Wendi at a wedding as a child) she had Bright blue eyes there.
The channel host says she wears the same enhancers (tho she has brown eyes)

 

[Missyrocks5]

I saw his lawyer being interviewed about a filing about Wendi’s failure to disclose certain assets on a financial affidavit, I think he was going to demand discovery from her on that, I think he said he was going to file it either the day of the murder or the day before. If I recall correctly, there was another filing, I think the one about supervised visitation for Donna, which was supposed to have been heard in May and was postponed, so it’s certainly possible they would have wanted the crime done before that hearing. In my experience, it’s pretty difficult to get someone permanently disbarred based on something like failure to disclose a particular asset on a financial affidavit, unless you can prove malicious intent or a pattern of bad faith, and you would have to go through a whole process of discovery and depositions to determine that (that’s what Dan was going to be seeking, if I recall correctly). So, I think that the immediate threat to her career has been exaggerated (just my opinion), though she may possibly have eventually faced some kind of sanctions or contempt. It was a nasty divorce from both sides in my understanding, with each of them accusing the other of various things. I do not believe her attorney would have allowed her to file a knowingly false financial affidavit, but I believe her attorney had to recuse herself because Dan had alleges she was a “witness” to the false affidavit, if I recall correctly. She testified at one of the trials, she seemed believable to me. That said, I think this filing would have made them angry, as did all his filings, based on the emails we’ve seen from Donna and the texts between Donna and Charlie.

Agree on the likelihood of getting disbarred being practically low. Stealing a client's money is the way to get disbarred or criminal behavior like, murder. However, I do think it would have been very problematic for her in the divorce. Once the judge saw she was lying, Dan could really start wiping the floor with her on all of his motions. I did not think that WA's attorney was believable. I think there was a lot that they could've done to her on the cross exam.

What I would love for an attorney who specializes in family law in Florida to explain is how the holocaust diamond was never used as leverage in their negotiations. I believe it is that because he gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, it was a gift. Therefore, as a gift, he could not get it back. However, since it was of such sentimental and actual value, I cannot understand at all how that was not utilized by his attorneys/him in negotiating their marital settlement agreement. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

They entered into a marital settlement agreement and, I believe that the ring was not included in the terms of that agreement. How is that possible? How did he not negotiate that? I know they were asking her to give it back, but who would expect that woman to do the right thing? If they really did hard-core negotiations with her, even if it meant giving up actual cash in exchange for the sentimental value of that ring, I don't understand why it was never done.

 

[Zedzded]

It’s my belief that the cops suspected her pretty early on as well, and it’s interesting for me to watch her police interview knowing that Isom already knows she drove by the scene, because they had been on the lookout for her car. In my opinion, that’s why they brought her in the way they did. I’ve seen people argue that Isom was too nice to her, but I think he was using standard interrogation tactics to keep her there talking and possibly contradicting herself.

I thought he did a great job. He kept a lawyer talking for 5+ hours.

 

[Knitpicker]

Agree on the likelihood of getting disbarred being practically low. Stealing a client's money is the way to get disbarred or criminal behavior like, murder. However, I do think it would have been very problematic for her in the divorce. Once the judge saw she was lying, Dan could really start wiping the floor with her on all of his motions. I did not think that WA's attorney was believable. I think there was a lot that they could've done to her on the cross exam.

What I would love for an attorney who specializes in family law in Florida to explain is how the holocaust diamond was never used as leverage in their negotiations. I believe it is that because he gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, it was a gift. Therefore, as a gift, he could not get it back. However, since it was of such sentimental and actual value, I cannot understand at all how that was not utilized by his attorneys/him in negotiating their marital settlement agreement. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

They entered into a marital settlement agreement and, I believe that the ring was not included in the terms of that agreement. How is that possible? How did he not negotiate that? I know they were asking her to give it back, but who would expect that woman to do the right thing? If they really did hard-core negotiations with her, even if it meant giving up actual cash in exchange for the sentimental value of that ring, I don't understand why it was never done.

Do we know when his uncle wrote the letter to Wendi asking for that ring back?

 

[Zedzded]

I saw the flyer. Yes, the tag was in red that said BULLEIT BOURBON, but then underneath, it said “Or your favorite wine or spirit”.

Which makes no sense. The stock the bar party was for the bride and groom to be to build up their alcohol supply for the wedding, which their 100+ wedding guests are going to consume. Some people might bring other types of alcohol, but most are going to bring Bulleit Bourbon as it was requested first. So they'll end up 50+ bottles of bourbon and still have to go out and buy craploads of beer, wine and other spirits. The alcohol is for the guests not for them, so it's irrelevant whether their favourite alcohol and brand is Bulleit Bourbon.

 

[Knitpicker]

I thought he did a great job. He kept a lawyer talking for 5+ hours.

And we got Jane as a bonus.

 

[Knitpicker]

Which makes no sense. The stock the bar party was for the bride and groom to be to build up their alcohol supply for the wedding, which their 100+ wedding guests are going to consume. Some people might bring other types of alcohol, but most are going to bring Bulleit Bourbon as it was requested first. So they'll end up 50+ bottles of bourbon and still have to go out and buy craploads of beer, wine and other spirits. The alcohol is for the guests not for them, so it's irrelevant whether their favourite alcohol and brand is Bulleit Bourbon.

Why wasn’t the flyer allowed into evidence? I forgot what happened with it at trial.

 

[amicuscurie]

Agree on the likelihood of getting disbarred being practically low. Stealing a client's money is the way to get disbarred or criminal behavior like, murder. However, I do think it would have been very problematic for her in the divorce. Once the judge saw she was lying, Dan could really start wiping the floor with her on all of his motions. I did not think that WA's attorney was believable. I think there was a lot that they could've done to her on the cross exam.

What I would love for an attorney who specializes in family law in Florida to explain is how the holocaust diamond was never used as leverage in their negotiations. I believe it is that because he gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, it was a gift. Therefore, as a gift, he could not get it back. However, since it was of such sentimental and actual value, I cannot understand at all how that was not utilized by his attorneys/him in negotiating their marital settlement agreement. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

They entered into a marital settlement agreement and, I believe that the ring was not included in the terms of that agreement. How is that possible? How did he not negotiate that? I know they were asking her to give it back, but who would expect that woman to do the right thing? If they really did hard-core negotiations with her, even if it meant giving up actual cash in exchange for the sentimental value of that ring, I don't understand why it was never done.

I wish there was a better way to refer to this ring other than as a “Holocaust ring” like it was some kind of souvenir. I believe Dan had a great Aunt who was able to hang onto this ring somehow, despite losing everything and nearly everyone in the Holocaust, so it had great sentimental value for the family as a symbol of their survival.

Yes, I believe it was a gift, I believe Dan gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, but I think I read in Ruth Markel’s book or heard Ruth say that Wendi never wanted to wear it and got another one she liked better. I remember hearing that she was asked to return it after the divorce, and in her deposition under oath said she would agree to return it if the great Uncle would personally ask her for it. I believe I heard or read somewhere that the old man DID ask her personally for it back, but she did not give it to him.

I believe this is the same old Uncle that, per Ruth Markel’s book, was told of the murder and immediately pounded the table and shouted “ In-Laws!” in Yiddish. That needs to go in the movie, in my opinion.

 

[amicuscurie]

Which makes no sense. The stock the bar party was for the bride and groom to be to build up their alcohol supply for the wedding, which their 100+ wedding guests are going to consume. Some people might bring other types of alcohol, but most are going to bring Bulleit Bourbon as it was requested first. So they'll end up 50+ bottles of bourbon and still have to go out and buy craploads of beer, wine and other spirits. The alcohol is for the guests not for them, so it's irrelevant whether their favourite alcohol and brand is Bulleit Bourbon.

My understanding is that each invitation came with an individual tag with a different specific brand on it. Each person was told to get something different so as to make a complete bar.

 

[amicuscurie]

I saw the flyer. Yes, the tag was in red that said BULLEIT BOURBON, but then underneath, it said “Or your favorite wine or spirit”. Theres a channel that showed it. Darklivity months ago when they did a few parts on the case. It seems to be the same as someone else showed (maybe Mentour). It looks like a printed flyer.
The channel host went to school with Sarah Dugan (I think undergrad) and is a lawyer but never sat for the bar.
She had a successful makeup channel of over half a mil, and then went into true crime.
Kimberly or similar.
She also knew Wendis eyes were really blue, when everyone was saying they were brown (proved blue by the video of Wendi at a wedding as a child) she had Bright blue eyes there.
The channel host says she wears the same enhancers (tho she has brown eyes)

Wonder which is more lucrative, a law license or a makeup channel?

 

[Knitpicker]

I wish there was a better way to refer to this ring other than as a “Holocaust ring” like it was some kind of souvenir. I believe Dan had a great Aunt who was able to hang onto this ring somehow, despite losing everything and nearly everyone in the Holocaust, so it had great sentimental value for the family as a symbol of their survival.

Yes, I believe it was a gift, I believe Dan gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, but I think I read in Ruth Markel’s book or heard Ruth say that Wendi never wanted to wear it and got another one she liked better. I remember hearing that she was asked to return it after the divorce, and in her deposition under oath said she would agree to return it if the great Uncle would personally ask her for it. I believe I heard or read somewhere that the old man DID ask her personally for it back, but she did not give it to him.

I believe this is the same old Uncle that, per Ruth Markel’s book, was told of the murder and immediately pounded the table and shouted “ In-Laws!” in Yiddish. That needs to go in the movie, in my opinion.

Lol Im listening tot he book…apparently, Wendi wore her grandmothers ring and not the holocost one. I believe thats the one she wore to her wedding,

 

[Knitpicker]

Wonder which is more lucrative, a law license or a makeup channel?

500K subs and 100K’s views, Id say a channel. One hour a few times a week. Vs 10 hours a day.

 

[DustysMom]

I have never read Epsteins book. When he was promoting it, he was said to be a Wendi supporter so I never felt it important to read it. But he does seem to have a lot of facts about the case. Well I guess it’s too late to read it now. Maybe if I find it used for 5.00
My local library has 2 to rent. Im going to head over there now. Lol.
Audiobook is better but I won’t go for that. Maybe I have some amazon credit for it.
Ok got it on audio.

I listened to Epstein’s book last week and thought it was very informative. I wouldn’t call it pro-Wendi - in fact there were some subtle digs. I’ll be curious to hear what you think.

 

[Zedzded]

Re Epstein's book, I haven't read it either, but it must not be almost rendered obsolete. In fact over the last 6 months I have not seen one person (on any platform) advocate for her innocence. I think everyone is of the opinion she was cognisant of the crime and was involved, to what degree we don't know. So I suppose the issue to be discussed is not her innocence or guilt, but whether or not a conviction can be secured. With the recent submissions of new evidence and depositions, the circumstantial evidence against her is overwhelming. I just can't believe she has not tried to make a deal with the State. God knows what her lawyer is thinking with all this new evidence.

 

[minusfour]

When was it that HA was meant to have lost all his money in a ponzi scheme?

The dental community has been rocked by massive losses in another ponzi scheme. A group called Freedom Founders promoted themselves as an educational community for dentists, to learn from trusted and well vetted professionals about investments. It apparently cost 120 K to join. One of the trusted, (his wife is a pastor and his daughter a dentist!), but apparently not well vetted has disappeared with over $25 million of investors money. The dentist who promotes the scheme, (not sure if he started it, but he's very involved), is having a very bad day on social media today.

 

[Zedzded]

When was it that HA was meant to have lost all his money in a ponzi scheme?

The dental community has been rocked by massive losses in another ponzi scheme. A group called Freedom Founders promoted themselves as an educational community for dentists, to learn from trusted and well vetted professionals about investments. It apparently cost 120 K to join. One of the trusted, (his wife is a pastor and his daughter a dentist!), but apparently not well vetted has disappeared with over $25 million of investors money. The dentist who promotes the scheme, (not sure if he started it, but he's very involved), is having a very bad day on social media today.

around 1993.

 

[cottonweaver]

When was it that HA was meant to have lost all his money in a ponzi scheme?

The dental community has been rocked by massive losses in another ponzi scheme. A group called Freedom Founders promoted themselves as an educational community for dentists, to learn from trusted and well vetted professionals about investments. It apparently cost 120 K to join. One of the trusted, (his wife is a pastor and his daughter a dentist!), but apparently not well vetted has disappeared with over $25 million of investors money. The dentist who promotes the scheme, (not sure if he started it, but he's very involved), is having a very bad day on social media today.

Yes, claimed to have lost....

I think it's Premium Sales Corp and I've never believed he lost all his life savings on it. ( In any case, with South Florida being infamous for Ponzies, does anybody truly believe that Donna would allow her husband to invest his entire savings in one single scheme? )

36 indicted in $300-million grocery scam

So keen to claim it.
GC "Are your parents millionaires?"
WA "No, my father lost all his money on a Ponzi"

over & over, across trials, Charlie, Rash and Wendi on direct

GC "Were your parents wealthy at the time that Danny died?"
Wendy couldn't even answer that with a simple yes.

IMO it's for the reasons discussed before. Rich defendants prefer to minimise wealth, always goes down badly with juries. Par for the course.

Now we're at the stage in 2024 where the Defense is seeking to exclude all evidence of family wealth. It's in the new motions.
Rashbaum/Morris are claiming that this is tantamount to ' class bias ' ( see below)

Adding a ' read -through' link for a change. ( Actual motions are on the LeonC site)
From 2mins 39 ( Pretty Lies & Alibi's link)

 

[cottonweaver]

She had a successful makeup channel of over half a mil, and then went into true crime.
Kimberly or similar.
She also knew Wendis eyes were really blue, when everyone was saying they were brown (proved blue by the video of Wendi at a wedding as a child) she had Bright blue eyes there.
The channel host says she wears the same enhancers (tho she has brown eyes)

snipped

I have never seen that channel/show but I have seen that wedding video elsewhere.
Nonetheless, how could the host know for sure without knowing WA very well ?

OFC it's certainly possible* WA naturally has teal-coloured eyes but do you remember ABC's 20/20 ? They showed old family photos, here's one of them




* re ' possible'
6% according to this link on genetics: Eye Color Genetics - All About Vision.