Thanks, so. do you know where the original poster's quote fits in with that conversation ?The day of the bump- 4/19/2016
Donna “It’s clear what they wanted”
Charlie “Can I just ask you what did they ask for “?
Donna “Umm, you know, I don’t know..this TV is probably about five..”
Charlie “They asked you for five thousand dollars?
Donna “Umm hmm”
Charlie “Thats F—in crazy”..”Let me take a look at it and I’ll go from there”…
Then someone named Sondra walked it. Donna “Hello Sondra-how are you?? (In a chipper voice)(I assume its hired help)
Too bad… we may have had more on the subject. It diverts from there.
Oh no, I didn’t notice that. I will look for it. That doesnt sound familiarThanks, so. do you know where the original poster's quote fits in with that conversation ?
From the original post I was replying to:
"they are repairing bridges" which caused CA to reprimand her "stop with the nonsense!"
Mentour Lawyer said, ages ago, that when he'd finished that series of long Live videos he wasn't planning to do more because he had legal cases coming up & could only afford the time now. (He said that was why he scheduled his time to produce a series every day. During a break in his casework)Looks like STS blurred out the notes unless you join Patreon. Theres something I find odd about profiting off of public information. Mentour seemed to have given up on posting the notes (which were clear) perhaps knowing STS got them and is a bigger production channel than his. Thats too bad-he was the first one to put them out. I’ve been checking every day and he seems to have departed from the subject.
Has anyone seen the comments by a former babysitting of W and D, on another social media platform and her recent defense of W not knowing about the plot?
Starts with the letter “T”.
I wonder if she really was ever a babysitter. Supposedly worked in one of the kids preschools but wasn't around at the time of the murder,
I understand the Patreon reasons. I just did a google search for “Donna Adelson Planner” and saw a photo of a few pages all blurred out with something about becoming a Patreon to see it. I have no issues with Patreon. Just thought it was a sort of tease tactic. Just my impression.Mentour Lawyer said, ages ago, that when he'd finished that series of long Live videos he wasn't planning to do more because he had legal cases coming up & could only afford the time now. (He said that was why he scheduled his time to produce a series every day. During a break in his casework)
Re STS or any other channel which got the planner and the 85tagged list - they will all need to have paid for it themselves. Both hosts already explained it cost them $300 each.
Re the bit in bold. There's plenty of channels which are monetised. I can only think of a couple of YT-ers - who cover Markel - & who don't use Patreon to further monetise their content.
I've never tried Patreon myself. I guess I can understand why people use it - if they have no employment or are struggling to make ends meet.I understand the Patreon reasons. I just did a google search for “Donna Adelson Planner” and saw a photo of a few pages all blurred out with something about becoming a Patreon to see it. I have no issues with Patreon. Just thought it was a sort of tease tactic. Just my impression.
She first started posting about how she knew D and W when the oldest was young. People seemed intrigued. Now she seems to be a W defender. The usual “She found out after the fact” kind of thing,..not directly involved.Mentour Lawyer said, ages ago, that when he'd finished that series of long Live videos he wasn't planning to do more because he had legal cases coming up & could only afford the time now. (He said that was why he scheduled his time to produce a series every day. During a break in his casework)
Re STS or any other channel which got the planner and the 85tagged list - they will all need to have paid for it themselves. Both hosts already explained it cost them $300 each.
Re the bit in bold. There's plenty of channels which are monetised. I can only think of a couple of YT-ers - who cover Markel - & who don't use Patreon to further monetise their content.
-----
No, haven't seen T's claims but it already sounds implausible. Wendi is hardly gonna tell non-family that she did know. Anyway, thanks, will keep an eye out
Sondra the piano teacher (apparently, that’s what it seems to me from the recording). Forever immortalized in the annals of true crime.The day of the bump- 4/19/2016
Donna “It’s clear what they wanted”
Charlie “Can I just ask you what did they ask for “?
Donna “Umm, you know, I don’t know..this TV is probably about five..”
Charlie “They asked you for five thousand dollars?
Donna “Umm hmm”
Charlie “Thats F—in crazy”..”Let me take a look at it and I’ll go from there”…
Then someone named Sondra walked it. Donna “Hello Sondra-how are you?? (In a chipper voice)(I assume its hired help)
Too bad… we may have had more on the subject. It diverts from there.
I’ve seen those, I don’t remember where. If I recall correctly, this person said she believes W was involved or had knowledge, no?Has anyone seen the comments by a former babysitting of W and D, on another social media platform and her recent defense of W not knowing about the plot?
Starts with the letter “T”.
I wonder if she really was ever a babysitter. Supposedly worked in one of the kids preschools but wasn't around at the time of the murder,
I do have some concerns about the impact of all this on the lawyers. They do not generally practice with the expectation that all of the discovery will be viewed and commented on by the public. This, and the general interest in true crime by average joes and not established news organizations, is new. The older established news organizations had legal departments to advise them on what was appropriate to disclose and what would be the consequences of disclosure. These new people (basically any Joe with a microphone or a free Reddit account), do not. Some are lawyers, most are not. They may have a strong interest in seeing justice served, but they may not be aware of ways in which their own conduct could inadvertently jeopardize that. This certainly adds a layer of complexity to the legal strategy, and it’s annoying and distracting, I would imagine, for the lawyers who would like to pay attention to preparing their case outside the glare of the public eye. Such is life now, I guess. But the justice system is not entertainment and treating it as such may not serve the public interest and may lead to unfair situations for the lawyers and the system. Of particular concern to me, for example, is that there are some ex-parte motions which have been publicized on various channels and forums. Ex-parte motions are made by one party to the judge, without copying the other party. While generally each side must copy the other on what it presents to the judge, not doing so is permitted in certain situations with certain justifications which must be made by motion. Publishing them to the world negates the ex-parte nature of these pleadings. In one, I believe, the defense states a reason why he is making the motion ex-parte. Whatever reason he may have, once somebody puts it on the internet, that goes out the window. I realize that Florida sunshine laws permit the public to see all of this. But, Florida Sunshine Laws were enacted to ensure that officials conducted their affairs in the open, and to provide a check on their behavior, from the media, for example, or from those aggrieved by a particular policy or government action. For most of the life of these laws, requesting a document would have involved traveling to a local courthouse or government office and filling out forms and making copies. Only a news organization, or a directly interested party, would have the time and the resources to do this. Things have changed drastically in the past ten years, at a speed and in a manner the state must have found difficult to counteract or address. It was never anticipated at the time these laws were made that so many members of the public would have any actual interest in requesting documents filed in individual legal cases, nor that it would be so easy for them to do so from the comfort of their couch. Why would they, but for the internet?I've never tried Patreon myself. I guess I can understand why people use it - if they have no employment or are struggling to make ends meet.
There are other cases which I've previously followed where YT-ers make a fortune from them and superchats. Way beyond anything I've seen in the Markel 'community'
I cannot imagine paying somebody to ensure that they will read my comment on-air but it does happen. Lots.
In her police interview, she shows him texts between her and Dan about him taking the boys swimming. If I recall correctly, these took place around 9:15 am, which, if I recall correctly, was when he would have been entering the gym. If I recall correctly, she calls Charlie around that time. Perhaps this is the texting the repairman witnessed, and THEN she called Charlie, perhaps he only THOUGHT it was her brother. The fact that she called her brother after the swimming argument, in my opinion, is significant.Has anyone seen the police report for the Best Buy guy?
Interesting to me is a couple of things:
1. He said he called (I assume it was Harvey) and a man picked up and said to call Wendi (Gave her number.)
Wendi had said she made the appointment and somehow Best Buy must have connected the buyers phone number instead of hers.
She also said she paid for the appointment (when it was under warranty.
2. Best Buy guy said it could not be fixed and was not under warranty.
3. Best Buy guy says after he told her, she looked disappointed, and then started texting someone who he believed was her brother. He also said that W told him her brother got the TV (No mention here of her telling him “The joke”.
Are there records that she texted anyone? We know she called Charlie and spoke to him 18 minutes, but I didnt recall any texts being brought up at trial.
Right, at one trial (maybe KMS 1st), she says she had to call Charlie because she was SO upset that Dan wanted to take the boys swimming (ridiculous).In her police interview, she shows him texts between her and Dan about him taking the boys swimming. If I recall correctly, these took place around 9:15 am, which, if I recall correctly, was when he would have been entering the gym. If I recall correctly, she calls Charlie around that time. Perhaps this is the texting the repairman witnessed, and THEN she called Charlie, perhaps he only THOUGHT it was her brother. The fact that she called her brother after the swimming argument, in my opinion, is significant.
Last post seems to refute that.I’ve seen those, I don’t remember where. If I recall correctly, this person said she believes W was involved or had knowledge, no?
Oh is that who it was? How did you know that? LolSondra the piano teacher (apparently, that’s what it seems to me from the recording). Forever immortalized in the annals of true crime.
Yep. Didn’t know that.Last post seems to refute that.
You are absolutely right. Who would have known internet would have existed when they laws were made (assuming they were older laws). Maybe some news laws should be in effect (too lazy to look up when the sunshine laws were in effect)..darn, I will have to now look it up. ADHD lolI do have some concerns about the impact of all this on the lawyers. They do not generally practice with the expectation that all of the discovery will be viewed and commented on by the public. This, and the general interest in true crime by average joes and not established news organizations, is new. The older established news organizations had legal departments to advise them on what was appropriate to disclose and what would be the consequences of disclosure. These new people (basically any Joe with a microphone or a free Reddit account), do not. Some are lawyers, most are not. They may have a strong interest in seeing justice served, but they may not be aware of ways in which their own conduct could inadvertently jeopardize that. This certainly adds a layer of complexity to the legal strategy, and it’s annoying and distracting, I would imagine, for the lawyers who would like to pay attention to preparing their case outside the glare of the public eye. Such is life now, I guess. But the justice system is not entertainment and treating it as such may not serve the public interest and may lead to unfair situations for the lawyers and the system. Of particular concern to me, for example, is that there are some ex-parte motions which have been publicized on various channels and forums. Ex-parte motions are made by one party to the judge, without copying the other party. While generally each side must copy the other on what it presents to the judge, not doing so is permitted in certain situations with certain justifications which must be made by motion. Publishing them to the world negates the ex-parte nature of these pleadings. In one, I believe, the defense states a reason why he is making the motion ex-parte. Whatever reason he may have, once somebody puts it on the internet, that goes out the window. I realize that Florida sunshine laws permit the public to see all of this. But, Florida Sunshine Laws were enacted to ensure that officials conducted their affairs in the open, and to provide a check on their behavior, from the media, for example, or from those aggrieved by a particular policy or government action. For most of the life of these laws, requesting a document would have involved traveling to a local courthouse or government office and filling out forms and making copies. Only a news organization, or a directly interested party, would have the time and the resources to do this. Things have changed drastically in the past ten years, at a speed and in a manner the state must have found difficult to counteract or address. It was never anticipated at the time these laws were made that so many members of the public would have any actual interest in requesting documents filed in individual legal cases, nor that it would be so easy for them to do so from the comfort of their couch. Why would they, but for the internet?
(Off soapbox now.)
I don’t know for sure, but on the recording, I believe she says the boys are having their piano lesson, and then she seems, to me, to let someone in the door, who she refers to as “Sondra,” and she seems to be explaining which boy will have his lesson first. All while, according to prosecutors, they are discussing their involvement in a murder for hire, allegedly.Oh is that who it was? How did you know that? Lol
Yes I do remember the piano teacher but didn’t put it together.I don’t know for sure, but on the recording, I believe she says the boys are having their piano lesson, and then she seems, to me, to let someone in the door, who she refers to as “Sondra,” and she seems to be explaining which boy will have his lesson first. All while, according to prosecutors, they are discussing their involvement in a murder for hire, allegedly.
Yes, a lawyer can absolutely argue that. Rashbaum sort of has, IMO, by saying he can’t get a fair jury because people are talking about the case online, hasn’t he?). Not sure what the remedy would be for the argument that the internet in general has prejudiced the client- you can’t put a gag order on the whole internet and you can’t just throw out the case pm can you? Can you try ti find a venue where people aren’t on the internet as much? I really don’t know. But I do think we will be seeing more of the type of arguments Rashbaum is making with regard to Prejudicing the potential jurors. We want justice, but we also want it to be fairly achieved, and not vulnerable to appeal.Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine Law was enacted in 1967. Today, the Sunshine Law regarding open government can be found in Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes.
So, can an attorney argue that the internet information has prevented his client from a Fair trial?
Where are the lawyers here?
Seems the laws need to be updated with the times.
