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

[cottonweaver]

An attorney I will not name just said recently on STS that he knew them both and they were always laughing and affectionate and he doesnt believe that she wasn’t in love with him, or didn’t find him attractive. Kind of shocking.

I watched that one but I don't think he knew either of them well at all. Oftentimes I wonder re the show ' why are you asking X about Y when it's not their wheelhouse?'

However back on the Sunpass issue - and Floridians or ex Floridians can fact check this :
Donna's sunpass not registering as they left home to travel to Wendis on 14 July means nothing even if that's what defense will try to suggest ( Because she could've paid cash at toll, or used another vehicle, or used somebody else's sunpass )

 

[Zedzded]

I watched that one but I don't think he knew either of them well at all. Oftentimes I wonder re the show ' why are you asking X about Y when it's not their wheelhouse?'

However back on the Sunpass issue - and Floridians or ex Floridians can fact check this :
Donna's sunpass not registering as they left home to travel to Wendis on 14 July means nothing even if that's what defense will try to suggest ( Because she could've paid cash at toll, or used another vehicle, or used somebody else's sunpass )

The 18th you mean?

The Sun pass issue is moot anyway. LE have confirmed that DA's phone pinged outside CA's house at 8.57PM, and then was pinging off towers in Orlando around 1.30AM. So their movements can be proved.

 

[Knitpicker]

I watched that one but I don't think he knew either of them well at all. Oftentimes I wonder re the show ' why are you asking X about Y when it's not their wheelhouse?'

However back on the Sunpass issue - and Floridians or ex Floridians can fact check this :
Donna's sunpass not registering as they left home to travel to Wendis on 14 July means nothing even if that's what defense will try to suggest ( Because she could've paid cash at toll, or used another vehicle, or used somebody else's sunpass )

Cash stopped at tolls January 2014

 

[IQuestion]

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.

So far behind on reading, but I love the fact the public has access to information on the internet. We get safety notices, warnings, Amber alerts, endangered adults, traffic reports and a host of other benefits. Up until then, we received "sanitized" information from a newspaper thown on our front porch, or 30 second sound bites (with a 7 second delay) from someone reading a script.
Sure attorneys "can argue" it prejudices their case...heck they can argue anything! If we believed Rashbaum's last arguments, every murder for hire plot can now be attributed to gangs cornering unsuspecting citizens in extortion plots. Oh brother. The A's got years (lots of years btw) when the powers that be claimed they had no involvement via internet, newsprint, radio. I'd rather have more information (pro & con) and be able to make my own choices. back to catching up

 

[arielilane]

Her attorneys, Dan Rashbaum of Miami and Robert "Alex" Morris of Tallahassee, informed Leon Circuit Judge Stephen Everett and Assistant State Attorney Sarah Dugan of the motions they intend to file ahead of trial, currently set for Sept. 17.


Also, a deadline of Aug. 12 was set for witness and exhibit lists.


Full article, including photos at link...

Donna Adelson back in court as her trial in Dan Markel's murder nears

Her attorneys told the judge and prosecutor of the motions they intend to file ahead of trial.

www.tallahassee.com

July 22, 2024


Catching up on this case. Is WA next in line? moo

 

[IQuestion]

Whoever he is..... imagine being the BF and not being tempted to do some research on your prospective bride or GF?

Research. For example listening to Wondery's OMDB or ordering the Steven Epstein book on the sly where you'd find out that in her last marriage the couple gave the impression of being head over heels and then you keep reading and find she's said she'd never found her husband sexually attractive but married him anyway.
I'd find that off-putting even if I was sold on her innocence

Or even worse getting the poor guy to join her yoga sessions (flashbacks to her bio description "contortionist" ugh.) I think of all the age old cliches: Love is blind, The heart wants what the heart wants, Head over heels in love, et al. just might apply in this situation.

During CA's trial I am 99% certain I heard Rashbaum tell the court that he'd tried to get the records but they had no longer held 2014 records.
( Sig & Luis Sunpass data was requested closer to the date of the crime)

Anyway, this is why I was asking , last week, why he's requesting something he already knows is unavailable. ( This is one of reasons I next wondered about delay ploys but it's just my baffled speculation)

Billable hours? I bet there is a lot of "double submissions" of requests. I'm thinking since DR was their (HA,DA,CA) attorney in previous financial matters and had some success. Example, the IRS says you owe $1 million in fines and penalties, but he negotiated it down to just a $29 thousand penalty. Literally pennies on the dollar. What Adelson wouldn't think he was brilliant??? However I don't think you can get that kind of negotiated "offer/compromise" in a murder for hire conviction. If DA is convicted as an accessory & gets a 20 year sentence, I don't think he can negotiate down to a million dollar fine and time served. Laughably, it makes me remember WA claiming her parents were not mllionaires but minutes later admits a million dollar offer was being contemplated by her parents to bribe Danny Markel into letting WA leave town with the children. "Uh Wendi... most senior citizens would not even make and/or consider a million dollar offer if they were just "getting by on social security and a small pension." Go figure...but what do I expect from someone who claims driving by your ex-spous's home for two years helps to "come to terms" with her divorce. What the heck does that mean anyways? In my family, we call that stalking. Go figure...

 

[Going Rogue]

It seems that ‘viewership’ of the Dan Markel case has grown exponentially in the past year. I’ve been following the case for about 4 years and I have always said that I believe in the ‘possibility’ that Donna and Charlie may have done this behind Wendi’s back. I no longer feel like the community leper because I’m starting to see more people express that same opinion. In the past that opinion was not well received by other case followers and I have always been puzzled at why people take it personally and attacked people with that view and accused them of being on the Adelson PR team or of being a ‘troll’.

I’m not posting my above perspective to debate the evidence because nothing of substance regarding Wendi has changed in 2 years. I’m looking forward to Donna’s trial with the hopes that the state releases something new that helps to bring more clarity to Wendi’s potential role. I just don’t understand how anyone can question the motive of someone that follows the case that shares my perspective or a similar perspective. Had 10 years not passed since Dan was murdered, I’d be more inclined to believe the very common belief that the state is leveraging the ‘one-by-one’ prosecution strategy. Personally, I do not believe that is their strategy, I really think it's a simple case of the state not being confident that they have a strong enough case against Wendi – another opinion that for some reason people have an issue with. Rant over.

 

[JerseyPride]

nothing of substance regarding Wendi has changed in 2 years.

"Your brother protected you for years. Now you are not guilty"

 

[Going Rogue]

"Your brother protected you for years. Now you are not guilty"

If that’s the best piece of evidence that’s ‘new’ in the last two years, it further drills home my point that nothing of ‘substance’ has changed in 2 years.

It was well established that Charlie always protected Wendi – as she said in her police interview ‘he’s my big brother and has always protected me since I was little’. Had Donna said ‘Charlie has been protecting you for the last few years”, I would interpret it much differently. Also the second part of her statement can be interpreted either way – ‘now’ as in you were ‘perceived’ guilty before but are not ‘now’ because of Charlie - OR “now your not guilty” – as in you never were.

 

[IQuestion]

It seems that ‘viewership’ of the Dan Markel case has grown exponentially in the past year. I’ve been following the case for about 4 years and I have always said that I believe in the ‘possibility’ that Donna and Charlie may have done this behind Wendi’s back. I no longer feel like the community leper because I’m starting to see more people express that same opinion. In the past that opinion was not well received by other case followers and I have always been puzzled at why people take it personally and attacked people with that view and accused them of being on the Adelson PR team or of being a ‘troll’.

I’m not posting my above perspective to debate the evidence because nothing of substance regarding Wendi has changed in 2 years. I’m looking forward to Donna’s trial with the hopes that the state releases something new that helps to bring more clarity to Wendi’s potential role. I just don’t understand how anyone can question the motive of someone that follows the case that shares my perspective or a similar perspective. Had 10 years not passed since Dan was murdered, I’d be more inclined to believe the very common belief that the state is leveraging the ‘one-by-one’ prosecution strategy. Personally, I do not believe that is their strategy, I really think it's a simple case of the state not being confident that they have a strong enough case against Wendi – another opinion that for some reason people have an issue with. Rant over.

GOING ROGUE (I have nicknamed you GoRo) and have never taken offense to people calling me IQ and adding Low or Average before or after. I enjoy reading the deep thoughts of contributors. Can you tell me what parti-
cular area "of knowns/unknowns" leads you to believe WA is not involved or had foreknowledge?
Like you, I entertained the thought of family going behind her back....but deeper review changed my mind.
As for me (just in case you ask a reciprocating question) is WA claiming she was unaware of her parent's accumulated wealth and listening/watching over 6 hours of JLaCasse interviews..."numerous times" "multiple times." If she had to make so many calls for something as ordinary as a broken TV screen, I shudder to think what of crisis management her family would have if she had a flat tire? Ironically, even though she said she doesn't like/think JLaCasse is a nice guy anymore....both she and JLaCasse named Charlie right from the start in the police station, huh?
Just think about it...she either has to be the most vapid or unluckiest victim on the planet. Who gets an email from their Mother (paraphrasing cuz too tired to look up exact words right now.) "You need to put on the performance of a lifetime for the next 30 days. Our future depends on it." ??? Drives on the very street of the murder while the police are there, repeats joke of "hitman &TV's" on the very morning it occurs, hastily arranged luncheon date and then compliments the victim's advocate on her fashion choices?

 

[Knitpicker]

So far behind on reading, but I love the fact the public has access to information on the internet. We get safety notices, warnings, Amber alerts, endangered adults, traffic reports and a host of other benefits. Up until then, we received "sanitized" information from a newspaper thown on our front porch, or 30 second sound bites (with a 7 second delay) from someone reading a script.
Sure attorneys "can argue" it prejudices their case...heck they can argue anything! If we believed Rashbaum's last arguments, every murder for hire plot can now be attributed to gangs cornering unsuspecting citizens in extortion plots. Oh brother. The A's got years (lots of years btw) when the powers that be claimed they had no involvement via internet, newsprint, radio. I'd rather have more information (pro & con) and be able to make my own choices. back to catching up

Actually, in 2016 Chief of police DeLeo in Tallahassee wanted to arrest the whole family, theres an article in Tall. Dem.

 

[amicuscurie]

My personal opinion is that W knew the crime was going to occur, and the text from her to Dan which was shown at Charlie’s trial asking oh-by-the-way-are-you-going-to-be home-the week-of-the-murder-so-I can-have-the-kids-which-I’m-scheduled-to-have-anyway (paraphrasing) leads me to believe she may have done more. That said: mere knowledge that a crime is going to occur is not a crime in Florida. I looked it up. To prove conspiracy to murder, you have to prove 1. An intent for a person to die and 2. An agreement with a member of the conspiracy that this person would be killed.

So- have we seen ANY evidence to date showing an agreement between Wendi and Donna/Charlie that the murder would occur?

Driving by the house does not count.

Discuss.

 

[Going Rogue]

GOING ROGUE (I have nicknamed you GoRo) and have never taken offense to people calling me IQ and adding Low or Average before or after. I enjoy reading the deep thoughts of contributors. Can you tell me what parti-
cular area "of knowns/unknowns" leads you to believe WA is not involved or had foreknowledge?
Like you, I entertained the thought of family going behind her back....but deeper review changed my mind.
As for me (just in case you ask a reciprocating question) is WA claiming she was unaware of her parent's accumulated wealth and listening/watching over 6 hours of JLaCasse interviews..."numerous times" "multiple times." If she had to make so many calls for something as ordinary as a broken TV screen, I shudder to think what of crisis management her family would have if she had a flat tire? Ironically, even though she said she doesn't like/think JLaCasse is a nice guy anymore....both she and JLaCasse named Charlie right from the start in the police station, huh?
Just think about it...she either has to be the most vapid or unluckiest victim on the planet. Who gets an email from their Mother (paraphrasing cuz too tired to look up exact words right now.) "You need to put on the performance of a lifetime for the next 30 days. Our future depends on it." ??? Drives on the very street of the murder while the police are there, repeats joke of "hitman &TV's" on the very morning it occurs, hastily arranged luncheon date and then compliments the victim's advocate on her fashion choices?

No offense on the nickname First, just to be clear and fully transparent, I’m not saying I believe she was not involved. I’m making that clarification because you are asking what “leads you (me) to believe WA is not involved or had foreknowledge”. I can see it either way. I would not be surprised if she took some part in the planning and I wouldn’t be surprised if she was purposely left out BUT became aware at some point. There are way too many scenarios to cover in a post, but I have thought of them all.

I think a lot of the ‘conclusions’ people make on Wendi’s involvement are heavily based on Jeff’s police interview and testimony. I’ve said this before, and people don’t like hearing it take it the wrong way, but I think Jeff was subconsciously trying to ‘help’ the states case against Wendi because in his gut he believes she was part of the plot. I’ve gone into some detail on that before and it’s usually not received well. In NO WAY am I trying to disparage Jeff Lacasse, because I don’t think he did anything with any evil intent.

 

[JerseyPride]

My personal opinion is that W knew the crime was going to occur, and the text from her to Dan which was shown at Charlie’s trial asking oh-by-the-way-are-you-going-to-be home-the week-of-the-murder-so-I can-have-the-kids-which-I’m-scheduled-to-have-anyway (paraphrasing) leads me to believe she may have done more. That said: mere knowledge that a crime is going to occur is not a crime in Florida. I looked it up. To prove conspiracy to murder, you have to prove 1. An intent for a person to die and 2. An agreement with a member of the conspiracy that this person would be killed.

So- have we seen ANY evidence to date showing an agreement between Wendi and Donna/Charlie that the murder would occur?

Driving by the house does not count.

Discuss.

Texting "This is so sweet" to one of the murderers . . . On the morning of the murder . . . After she spoke on the phone to that murderer . . . While someone was at her house to service a television that this particular murderer purchased for her . . . The television that was *jokingly* less expensive than paying someone to murder the person who got murdered that morning . . . The murder that was at the behest of the person who made that *joke*

And then deleting that text.

 

[amicuscurie]

Texting "This is so sweet" to one of the murderers . . . On the morning of the murder . . . After she spoke on the phone to that murderer . . . While someone was at her house to service a television that this particular murderer purchased for her . . . The television that was *jokingly* less expensive than paying someone to murder the person who got murdered that morning . . . The murder that was at the behest of the person who made that *joke*

And then deleting that text.

Again, all of that to me shows foreknowledge. But is it evidence of an agreement with a participant in the conspiracy? I realize that circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Also, if someone murdered someone for me, the last thing I’d text him that morning is “this is so sweet.” That just doesn’t seem like something someone would say to someone who arranged a murder. That’s something you’d say if someone maybe offered to water your plants while you were away, or if someone sent you a complimentary word about your kids.

I admit, it is strange to me that she apparently erased the rest of that message. But do we really think the rest of it was “this is so sweet, that you’ve arranged to have Dan killed!” Just doesn’t sound like something someone would say, IMO.

I am waiting for something in writing between Wendi and Donna which would indicate 1. she knew the murder was going to occur and 2. she agreed to it. A note about “we’ve rented you a place in Miami for after the murder,” for example. Or “how is it going on packing up the house for the move” might do it. Or even “I’ve arranged for Best Buy to repair the Tv for you so you have an alibi, as we discussed.”

Perhaps we don’t need that much, I don’t know. But I think we need more than that 1. a TV was repaired that day and 2. the TV had been joked about by one of the conspirators. I think we need some missing logical link between those two things. Like evidence that the Tv was going to be used as an alibi, and everyone knew that.

 

[Going Rogue]

My personal opinion is that W knew the crime was going to occur, and the text from her to Dan which was shown at Charlie’s trial asking oh-by-the-way-are-you-going-to-be home-the week-of-the-murder-so-I can-have-the-kids-which-I’m-scheduled-to-have-anyway (paraphrasing) leads me to believe she may have done more. That said: mere knowledge that a crime is going to occur is not a crime in Florida. I looked it up. To prove conspiracy to murder, you have to prove 1. An intent for a person to die and 2. An agreement with a member of the conspiracy that this person would be killed.

So- have we seen ANY evidence to date showing an agreement between Wendi and Donna/Charlie that the murder would occur?

Driving by the house does not count.

Discuss.

What you are asking for does not exist in any public record. If it did, Wendi would not be walking the free earth. I agree that asking Dan if he would be in town that week is very suspicious and the only reason it’s suspicious is because Dan was murdered that week. Looking at it objectively, its also a question that they ‘likely’ may have asked each other leading into the others ‘week’ during summer months – the custody arrangements were very specific about parents traveling and how it trumped the Wednesday cross-over date. I have said before that I’d love to see the text exchanges between Wendi & Dan the several months prior to his murder.

 

[JerseyPride]

Again, all of that to me shows foreknowledge. But is it evidence of an agreement with a participant in the conspiracy? I realize that circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Also, if someone murdered someone for me, the last thing I’d text him that morning is “this is so sweet.” That just doesn’t seem like something someone would say to someone who arranged a murder. That’s something you’d say if someone maybe offered to water your plants while you were away, or if someone sent you a complimentary word about your kids.

I admit, it is strange to me that she apparently erased the rest of that message. But do we really think the rest of it was “this is so sweet, that you’ve arranged to have Dan killed!” Just doesn’t sound like something someone would say, IMO.

I am waiting for something in writing between Wendi and Donna which would indicate 1. she knew the murder was going to occur and 2. she agreed to it. A note about “we’ve rented you a place in Miami for after the murder,” for example. Or “how is it going on packing up the house for the move” might do it. Or even “I’ve arranged for Best Buy to repair the Tv for you so you have an alibi, as we discussed.”

Perhaps we don’t need that much, I don’t know. But I think we need more than that 1. a TV was repaired that day and 2. the TV had been joked about by one of the conspirators. I think we need some missing logical link between those two things. Like evidence that the Tv was going to be used as an alibi, and everyone knew that.

One quick point. The word "sweet" is not always used as a synonym for "kind." It is also used as a synonym for "awesome". Used in this manner, the text can be read as WA reveling in how great it is that the aim of the conspiracy was about to be accomplished. I also suspect that she meant to send this note through WhatsApp and sent as a text by mistake.

 

[Going Rogue]

One quick point. The word "sweet" is not always used as a synonym for "kind." It is also used as a synonym for "awesome". Used in this manner, the text can be read as WA reveling in how great it is that the aim of the conspiracy was about to be accomplished. I also suspect that she meant to send this note through WhatsApp and sent as a text by mistake.

Let’s say that you are correct and Wendi intended on using WhatsApp but texted it in error, to amicuscurie’s point, what does that prove? It doesn’t prove ‘involvement’ – you can argue it proves ‘awareness’. From my perspective the fact she deleted it is what’s key. IMO, she deleted it because, involved or not, she knew it was a bad look and it shows (in my opinion) that PRIOR to her police interview she VERY LIKELY already knew what had happened. I think we already discussed this in another place AD

 

[opt]

If she already knew what had happened and affected all those histrionics for the police, it's fair IMHO to infer complicity in the murder.

 

[JerseyPride]

Let’s say that you are correct and Wendi intended on using WhatsApp but texted it in error, to amicuscurie’s point, what does that prove? It doesn’t prove ‘involvement’ – you can argue it proves ‘awareness’. From my perspective the fact she deleted it is what’s key. IMO, she deleted it because, involved or not, she knew it was a bad look and it shows (in my opinion) that PRIOR to her police interview she VERY LIKELY already knew what had happened. I think we already discussed this in another place AD

If prior "awareness" of the plot is conceded, it's not a big inferential leap for a jury to conclude that WA's confirmation of DM's whereabouts on the day of the murder was "involvement."