It is illogical to arrest WA now. The case against her will be infinitely stronger after her Mum has been convicted.
FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #23
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
New Posts
-
IL IL - William Pasquale Riley, 22, Evanston, 17 June 1984
- Latest: victoriarobinson642
-
-
Silver Alert Mae Willis (84) missing LA county 10/16/24
- Latest: WhyWouldIWearUnderwear
- Status
It is illogical to arrest WA now. The case against her will be infinitely stronger after her Mum has been convicted.
Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 4,156
No, I know that. I was just thinking that if Wendi said to Shelly “You know, with all thats going on with this case, I can’t get a job. And the Bar Mitzvahs are costing me 30K each (even if D and H were paying).I need 60K for it..(even when the Markels weren’t invited)
People have to remortgage their homes to pay for these events. they are as expensive as weddings sometimes.
So I am saying that Wendi was able to draw from the policy for this. Also to pay for her mortgage on the boys behalf. ) and any vacations she took with them during the summers.
Shelly is an attorney so I am sure she has control, but it woudl be interesting to hear from an attorney on just how much she would be able to get.
I also know the Social security stops when the boys hit 18.
So thats a big loss for her.
She stated ont he stand that she is doing mostly fundraising and some asylum work. Definitely not working to her potential!
Last edited:
Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 4,156
About “wendi in town”, I’d think since it was June, the boys were on summer break, and I’d think Wendi was traveling a lot with them.
I had read somewhere that Wendi and the boys would take Michael Mintz’s jet (yes he’s very wealthy and lives in a 8500 sq ft. Home in Corpus Cristi on the water-pretty much a mansion) back and forth from Miami to Texas.
So no doubt last summer she was probably looking into moving there, or traveling elsewhere with her boys. She was probably away a lot. She didn’t have a full time job and was doing fundraising and asylum work (as per her testimony)
Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 4,156
What do you think the “unwelcoming” reference means about Jorge, W’s boyfriend?
All those meetings and no talk at all about the case? (Sarcasm)
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,139
- Reaction score
- 31,584
Not sure but at a guess I would say that Wendi has told Donna that Jorge feels unwelcome because it's in quotation marks. ( Donna's not going to quote herself in her own notes imo) Donna sounds puzzled and has written it twice on that note.
Maybe Donna doesn't give off good vibes to Jorge because she doesn't approve of him? Maybe he's not rich enough! ?
OTOH when considering anything an Adelson says maybe not wise to take it at face value?
For example, if Wendi didn't want to spend time as a couple with her parents, she could blame it on Jorge instead of owning her own feelings? He's a handy ' shield' or excuse?
If one was a female friend/sycophant of Wendi's at that point in 2023-23, one could easily understand why Donna doesn't want to be with her mother. 'Poor Wendi, that dreadful overbearing Mom'
OTOH...
During the period of these diary entries, DA is obsessed - understandably - by the case & her son's plight. When she's not calling Rashbaum or his wife to talk about it, she's making notes of things she needs to prep for the case.
If you were Donna and your daughter is a super smart IYO and an attorney, wouldn't you want to ask your atty daughter's advice? Use her as a sounding board? Maybe she can help with trial prep? Nothing needs to get written down, texted or leave a digital evidence trail.
who manipulates whom? chicken or the egg? Not sure
Your version could be correct instead. That WA & DA have indeed been discussing the case throughout or Wendi just listens and gets the intell from Donna? ( It won't be on the Sunday family meals though? The kids would be there)
Last edited:
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 11,986
I believe the Bar Mitzvah didn’t cost much. The temple has hardship rates, and you don’t have to have a huge party, especially if you don’t have many family and friends to impress. It seems to me she’s had a tough time finding actual work, she seems to me to change jobs a lot. What firm would hire her, especially with so little actual firm experience? The impression that any of these people is wealthy beyond measure is false, in my opinion. Donna and Harvey and Charlie were wealthy before all this happened, I think, but not so much anymore. They do seem to me to have enough to pay lawyers, and that adds up. Again, for some reason Wendi appears to me to be living like she is struggling for money. The kids are in public school, as I understand, and they share a bedroom in a modest garden apartment complex that’s not on the water. Everything Donna said they could have in those emails on the relocation, the large home, their own room, private school, does not appear, to me, to have come to pass. Another tragedy about this whole thing.
Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 4,156
The apartment Wendi owns is worth 1 million. She could have gotten a very nice home for that price elsewhere.
Donna and Harvey were worth 8-9 million, with multiple rental properties.
One of the properties is a building with 14 units and the other smaller building was 8 units. I believe they have about 25-30 rentals that they collect upwards of 30K plus every month (and that was before they began upping the rental charges.) Plus their social security.
I hardly think Wendi is struggling, and such. I am not one to count anyones money but with the case going, it’s fair game.
Wendi also had (according to Tamaras accounts) 500K from her parents in an investment account.
I guess wealth is all relative..
Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 4,156
Hmmm..yes good thoughts on that. Yes, you never know…reminds me of the song “Oh the games people play now, every night and every day now. Never saying what they mean, never meaning what they say “…or something like that!
I am sure Wendi controls the narrative as she always has done.
Best line ever! Per description of DaNang Donna, "Help me. I know I am being recorded but I just can't shut up." Thank you for posting a fresh look. In my mind I would always describe it (Donna's over the top emoting on phone calls) as verbal incontinence: Urgent and frequent.
To me, she has an incredibly soothing voice...low in pitch, reassuring and at the same time full of BS. Her son is sitting in a jail, convicted of a horrible & callous crime and she says, "June looked beautiful" and "Dan did a terrific job." Why? Has any one on this forum considered these deflection tactics are to cover up the possibility Donna leaked info/told WA the time & day of the hit and that is why WA knew when to drive by? And Donna does not want to admit she screwed up? Something about the way she changes the subject every time he mentions the drive down Trescott, DA gets quiet or changes the subject. Does anyone else hear/feel/see the deflection?
Last edited:
Knitpicker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 4,156
I figured she was just doing some searches on the internet. You know, multitasking and such. It’s hard to just listen to Charlie go on and on…
Interesting thoughts on what Wendi knew or didn’t know.
Yes, Donna has a very motherly caring tone to her voice. I thought it may be the meds.because her reactions seem inappropriate at times.
apeXperience
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 1,067
Here are my two cents, to improve information sharing and to elevate the level of sleuthing here. Efficient sleuthing would be desirable if pursuing More Justice For Dan Markel is still the aim.
On the stand, Wendi Adelson is a JD educated practicing lawyer who has selective inability to answer basic questions. When the prosecutor asked to the effect of “does your brother own a Farrari?” Wendi responds with something like “Charlie drives a fancy car but I don't know its name. I drive a mini van.” Why not say “yes”? And what for is the unsolicited extra information “I drive a mini van”?
When asked “How are you employed?”, witness Wendi Adelson responds with the effect of “I work part time or semi-employed etc.”, implying hardship. What for? For pity? Some schadenfreude driven gentility sleuths take Wendi’s misdirection as currency. And then, they go on verbal diarrhea of unsubstantiated “it seems to me ...” to speculate the effect of being allegedly cash-strapped on Wendi’s propensity for stealthiness, probability for absconding, motivation for liquidating assets etc.
I comprehend the psychological traits of those “inequality averse” unfortunates, such as inequality in feminine attractiveness or inequality in wealth, especially the traits of those handicapped by their woke and social justice warrior culture. Please, kindly tune down your habit of “dei demands” to elevate the sleuthing discussion here. Decency disallows broadcasting others’ personal information, especially since “anyone is innocent until proven guilty” in the US. Without being explicit however, cursory sleuthing of publicly available pieces of information in Florida indicate that 1) Wendi Adelson is a member of the C suite of a Miami based firm, probably earning Miami compensations in the top echelon rates, and 2) Wendi owns a P.A. of the type employing lawyers and paralegals. Yes, to be rich depends on your definition of "rich", as Wendi said in court. The come sense of Florida and Texas costs of living says Wendi is far from being poor, if you have not realized that!
Court proceedings indicated that the Adelsons owned about $8m in cash equivalent in bank accounts. If it were true that they allegedly have propensity to deal with cash transactions to hide the true amount of their taxable income, how much more hidden cash might they possibly have in safes and deposit boxes, $8m or $80m? Cursory sleuthing of publicly available pieces of information indicate Harvey Adelson’s dealings with real assets. Given their criminal exposure, I would not be surprised if the Adelsons have proceeds from discharging non-liquid assets toward trusts. If I were Wendi, I would ride the current housing bubble, selling $1m a condo I purchased for $600k few years back, just for profit if not for liquidity needs. How many real asset transactions through stealth trusts on behalf of Wendi and “the children” the Adelsons might have allegedly completed since the arrest of Magbanua? The sellers’ market is really hot currently; and, without criminal exposure you may still want to liquidate for pay-offs! In March, an older 10 unit condo complex in Abbot Ave zip code FL 33141 was listed for $11m plus, and it was qualified as “good buy” (cheap)!
To remain polite, I would gently say, tune down the hate and the unsubstantiated “I beleive …”, please. And start really sleuthing the publicly available pieces of information if you actually care about pursuing More Justice For Dan Markel. Just one little goody in parting, the Texas move is a really sweet bonbon from Wendi’s perspective!
On the stand, Wendi Adelson is a JD educated practicing lawyer who has selective inability to answer basic questions. When the prosecutor asked to the effect of “does your brother own a Farrari?” Wendi responds with something like “Charlie drives a fancy car but I don't know its name. I drive a mini van.” Why not say “yes”? And what for is the unsolicited extra information “I drive a mini van”?
When asked “How are you employed?”, witness Wendi Adelson responds with the effect of “I work part time or semi-employed etc.”, implying hardship. What for? For pity? Some schadenfreude driven gentility sleuths take Wendi’s misdirection as currency. And then, they go on verbal diarrhea of unsubstantiated “it seems to me ...” to speculate the effect of being allegedly cash-strapped on Wendi’s propensity for stealthiness, probability for absconding, motivation for liquidating assets etc.
I comprehend the psychological traits of those “inequality averse” unfortunates, such as inequality in feminine attractiveness or inequality in wealth, especially the traits of those handicapped by their woke and social justice warrior culture. Please, kindly tune down your habit of “dei demands” to elevate the sleuthing discussion here. Decency disallows broadcasting others’ personal information, especially since “anyone is innocent until proven guilty” in the US. Without being explicit however, cursory sleuthing of publicly available pieces of information in Florida indicate that 1) Wendi Adelson is a member of the C suite of a Miami based firm, probably earning Miami compensations in the top echelon rates, and 2) Wendi owns a P.A. of the type employing lawyers and paralegals. Yes, to be rich depends on your definition of "rich", as Wendi said in court. The come sense of Florida and Texas costs of living says Wendi is far from being poor, if you have not realized that!
Court proceedings indicated that the Adelsons owned about $8m in cash equivalent in bank accounts. If it were true that they allegedly have propensity to deal with cash transactions to hide the true amount of their taxable income, how much more hidden cash might they possibly have in safes and deposit boxes, $8m or $80m? Cursory sleuthing of publicly available pieces of information indicate Harvey Adelson’s dealings with real assets. Given their criminal exposure, I would not be surprised if the Adelsons have proceeds from discharging non-liquid assets toward trusts. If I were Wendi, I would ride the current housing bubble, selling $1m a condo I purchased for $600k few years back, just for profit if not for liquidity needs. How many real asset transactions through stealth trusts on behalf of Wendi and “the children” the Adelsons might have allegedly completed since the arrest of Magbanua? The sellers’ market is really hot currently; and, without criminal exposure you may still want to liquidate for pay-offs! In March, an older 10 unit condo complex in Abbot Ave zip code FL 33141 was listed for $11m plus, and it was qualified as “good buy” (cheap)!
To remain polite, I would gently say, tune down the hate and the unsubstantiated “I beleive …”, please. And start really sleuthing the publicly available pieces of information if you actually care about pursuing More Justice For Dan Markel. Just one little goody in parting, the Texas move is a really sweet bonbon from Wendi’s perspective!
Last edited:
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,139
- Reaction score
- 31,584
Wow! That had never crossed my mind.
So very possible. Donna blabbed due to her excitement.
Charlie keeps returning to it in the call because he scents that something is off.
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 11,986
Yes. I see it. It’s possible Donna told Wendi about the plot, but didn’t tell Charlie that Wendi knew. That, to me, would be consistent with how manipulative people work, they make sure nobody knows the whole picture. Donna and Charlie, we know, have been heard on the bump tapes talking about Wendi behind her back, and how much help she needs. So when Charlie is saying on the jail tapes that “it can’t be a coincidence,” etc., he may really not understand and think that it’s just bad luck in her having chosen that particular route on that particular day. And Donna, of course, if that were the case, would not want him to figure it out.
Maybe it happened like this: (what follows below is hypothetical, just my opinion):
Donna seems to me to have been getting more and more agitated about the divorce and was complaining to Charlie, we’ve seen texts at trial between them about this. Charlie may have told her he was working on a solution. (We have seen texts where he says he’s working on a “surprise for Harvey” for example, and we know Charlie asked Katie if she knew someone who could fix it, Katie has testified to this.). Donna may have at some point brought the plan up to Wendi, at which point Wendi may have told Donna something like “ok, let Charlie go through with it, but keep me out of it.” So Donna may have told Charlie something like “Wendi doesn’t know, she would go nuts, we need to protect her” or something. And Donna might have told Wendi “Charlie thinks you don’t know, and he will take the fall if we get caught.” Then, Wendi may have gone rogue, telling the cops about Charlie’s hit man “joke,” (to throw suspicion on him and make sure he would take the fall), and driving by the scene. It’s possible neither Donna nor Charlie knew she did any of those things until the first trial. It’s also possible Donna told her to drive by, but we have seen no phone records which would reflect that.
We do see an 18 minute call between Wendi and Charlie on the morning of the murder. We also know that Dan had gotten in an argument with her about wanting to pick up the boys that day for swimming, she shows Isom these texts in her police interview. Wendi may have been worried about the timing of the hit because Dan might have the boys with him, and she may have needed to communicate to Charlie that the murder needed to get done before Dan was going to pick them up. But, hypothetically, she couldn’t let Charlie know she knew about the plot. So, maybe, the TV repair had already been arranged by Donna and Wendi just so that Wendi would have an excuse to call Charlie that morning in case something like this arose. Maybe Donna told Charlie that his sister might be calling about the TV that morning, and that she had set up the TV repair as an alibi to protect Wendi. (But maybe she really set it up just to have a reason for Wendi to call Charlie if she needed to). And so maybe, when Wendi needed to communicate that Dan was going to pick up the boys, she called Charlie to ask about the Tv but found a way to work in complaining about Dan wanting to take the boys swimming, so that he would know Dan’s schedule without her having to admit she knew about the murder plot. She does tell Isom in her police interview that she spoke to Charlie about Dan’s plans to take the boys swimming, and he told her to let him take them. All that may have happened. He may have indeed told her that, thinking she didn’t know about the murder. Then, he may have gotten off the phone and called Katie to make sure the killers knew they had to get it done.
I don’t recall whether she said she texted Dan to ask to pick the kids up early and then he told her he was going to take them swimming, or whether he texted her first. I know that she reads these texts to Isom during the interview. If she texted him first, that is certainly interesting and may give the appearance that she was trying to find out his schedule and trying to make absolutely certain the boys would not be with him that afternoon, because she was going to pick them up early.
This is all hypothetical, of course. But it makes sense. The repairman left too early for it to work as a complete alibi, but if the purpose was to justify a call to Charlie, it works perfectly. Then as the morning went on and Wendi had heard nothing, and after she called Dan and he didn’t pick up, she may have arranged a last minute lunch and used that as an excuse to leave the house. (She does say to Isom that she used to have a regular lunch with these people, but that they hadn’t done it in a long time. She also seems to freak out a little when he suggests the lunch was last minute.). We know that the house was not on the way to the lunch place, so she may have needed a reason to drive by it. So, maybe she used the bourbon as an excuse to drive past the house, because she knew there was this one liquor store which would take her past the house. This is consistent with her statements at various points that she chose that liquor store because it was near her old house. That may, indeed, be why she chose it.
Again, this is all hypothetical but it is consistent with what we know from evidence presented at trial and her statement to the police. Whether she can be charged is a different question. Knowing a crime is going to occur is not a crime. Conspiracy requires doing an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Is talking to your brother about your kids going swimming enough? Is sending Dan a text asking whether he will be home enough (we saw that one at trial).
Last edited:
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 11,986
She’s not selling the condo, though she has listed it for rent, per public records.
BearWatcher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 94
- Reaction score
- 486
So, as we think through whether and when who knew what in the conspiracy- what do we know about the call that Dan was on at the time he was murdered. I wonder if the call was set up at a time he would be out of the gym and not with the boys (swimming). Wonder what the prosecution knows about who arranged that call, when it was scheduled- last minute, etc or any thing that might help with the timeline that morning and the planning/ conspiracy.
BINGO!!
The TV was some form of alibi reinforced by DA using TV as code in a later phone call, "this TV is 5." But it's nonsensical and completely superfluous, they didn't need to do it which is confusing. But then narcissists and sociopaths don't think like you and I.The Adelsons are grandiose narcissists and I think they thought the more elaborate and ingenius the murder plot was the better it would be. It would serve as an exemplification of how smart they were. No-one else would be capable of planning a murder in such a way.
So what purpose the the TV repair serve. IMO the hit was supposed to happen earlier and the TV repair was supposed to take longer. DM dropped the kids off around 9am and I think WA believed he would then go home. He wasn't due at work that morning. So if he gets home at 9.15am and is murdered then that would be at a similar time the TV was being repaired. However he went to the gym and the TV could not be repaired. And I think this is why WA phoned CA for 18 minutes and according to the repair guy was visibly upset. The plan had gone awry. The TV could not be repaired and repair guy was going and CA had said that KM phoned him to say that SG/lR said DM was now at the gym, not on his way home.
The moronic thing about this elaborate plan is all WA had to do is go to the shops where there would be a multitude of CCTC cameras.
The other suggestion is that CA and DA wanted to keep WA at home whilst the murder was taking place. Knowing she was highly impulsive and irrational she might rush to the murder scene to check if he had been murdered and be spotted by the police, which she did..... as GC said and as CA reiterated on the jailhouse call, "she just couldn't help herself."
amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 11,986
So does anybody have a theory about how the TV got broken? LaCasse testified that it looked as if someone rammed a heavy object into it, as I recall, and that it did not look like a child could have done it. So, assuming LaCasse is telling the truth, any ideas on who might have done that? Harvey? Wendi? He said it looked like it took a lot of force, as I recall. It would be difficult for me to imagine an adult coming over to the house and slamming an object into the TV without Wendi knowing it. What would this person’s explanation have been as to why they did that (assuming Wendi didn’t know about the murder plot)? Could she have broken it herself?
As I recall, LaCasse testified that she did not want him to get another one, nor did she want to try to hook the DVD player up to a different one she had. He testified that she said it wouldn’t work on the other TV. Could this have been a way to have a witness (LaCasse) to the fact that it was broken and needed to be repaired? Is that why she may have been so insistent that no other TV would work? Seems like if it was the intent to make LaCasse a witness, it backfired, because he testified that he found the whole thing odd and that it didn’t look like the boys could have done it.
If I recall correctly LaCasse wasn’t asked, and didn’t say, what Wendi told him about how the TV got broken. Did he? Wouldn’t she have told him something?
When did LaCasse say this whole thing happened?
As I recall, LaCasse testified that she did not want him to get another one, nor did she want to try to hook the DVD player up to a different one she had. He testified that she said it wouldn’t work on the other TV. Could this have been a way to have a witness (LaCasse) to the fact that it was broken and needed to be repaired? Is that why she may have been so insistent that no other TV would work? Seems like if it was the intent to make LaCasse a witness, it backfired, because he testified that he found the whole thing odd and that it didn’t look like the boys could have done it.
If I recall correctly LaCasse wasn’t asked, and didn’t say, what Wendi told him about how the TV got broken. Did he? Wouldn’t she have told him something?
When did LaCasse say this whole thing happened?
Last edited:
When was WA having dinner with her parents? Now her arrest is looking likely, she needs to not be estranged from her Dad. She has already forked out close to (rumoured) $500k in legal fees and has not even been arrested yet... so hidden agenda on her part.
Re DR. He sold CA down the river. He knew CA was screwed, but he's a used car salesman. He told CA they had a strong case, he told CA he performed great on the stand and even encouraged him to dump $1 million on a jury specialist, inferring that would help him, it did not nothing. DR's job as a lawyer is to act in his clients best interests. He did not do this. He made CA believe he was going home hence the reason CA sat there in the trial with a smug look on his face. It was only when his tied was removed pre-verdict that the proverbial penny dropped...
What DR needed to do with his client and now with his new client, DA, is give them the cold hard facts. Analyse the inculpatory evidence and discuss how strong the evidence is with his client and how incriminating it is. He should be discussing the likelihood of a guilty verdict and what potential sentences his clients were facing, giving them the opportunity to change their story or try and make a plea deal. Once this is all said and done and 6/7 of the co-conspirators are serving LWOP, it would be interesting to reflect on why 6/7 did not tke any deals or try and make any deals.
I actually think JL was wrong, everything else he said was right. A kid throwing a game controller at a screen would break it. I think from memory it was broken back in March.
- Status