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

[Going Rogue]

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."

I don’t disagree with your logic, but if reasonable doubt was measured in %, what % do you give your statement “it's not a big inferential leap” on the reasonable doubt scale? I know you aren’t saying that single statement is the key to the case, but like many other ‘data points’ in this saga, there is a lot of conjecture. I do agree that the text to Dan on travel and the ‘this is so sweet’ text to Charlie will be hurdles for the defense if we ever get to Wendi’s trial.

 

[Zedzded]

Rightly or wrongly the State are holding off on arresting WA until after DAs trial and conviction. Her conviction makes the case against WA infinitely stronger, simply because it would be extremely unlikely that CA and DA would conspire to kill DA without WA's knowledge and approval. Obviously that's not going to be enough to convict WA, the State needs strong evidence, but DA's conviction gives them an upper hand in WA's trial.

I think the State also has lots more evidence that incriminates WA that they have not released and also more evidence that will be produced as they continue with pulling data from the various electronic devices, this can take months. There will be a number of witness depositions in August as well which will strengthen their case e.g deposition of Sara Yousef who went to the University of Miami and then severed ties with WA for unknown personal issues. The State aren't taking her deposition because Wendi called her fat, it will be something significant and relating to DM's murder.

Other incriminating evidence that I think will be forthcoming that will further incriminate WA:

• OK Cupid data showing WA intended to move to Miami before DM was killed
• lunch dates testimony detailing WA's state of mind, presumably she was all over the place
• Geek squad testimony. He would have told WA within 1 minute of seeing the TV it could not be repaired. They did not have the parts to repair cheap TVs as it was not economically viable. However he remained there for 40 minutes.
• DA was an obsessive note taker and organiser, I believe there will be something in her notebooks and devices that shows WA was planning to move to Miami pre-murder e.g google searches for schools
• WA's cellbrighted phone. New tech developed feb 2024 allowed LE to do much deeper data recovery on phones.
• WA's WhatsApp data. In 2016, on the day of the bump, CA admitted he had been messaging WA all day on WhatsApp. Yet when WA was on the stand in the various trials she played dumb when asked about WhatsApp, unsure of her history with the app. If she was a prodigious WhatsApp user in 2016, then the likelihood she would have been in 2014.

 

[Zedzded]

I don’t disagree with your logic, but if reasonable doubt was measured in %, what % do you give your statement “it's not a big inferential leap” on the reasonable doubt scale? I know you aren’t saying that single statement is the key to the case, but like many other ‘data points’ in this saga, there is a lot of conjecture. I do agree that the text to Dan on travel and the ‘this is so sweet’ text to Charlie will be hurdles for the defense if we ever get to Wendi’s trial.

You cannot look at the evidence that incriminates WA and try and give it a %. Reasonable doubt can be attributed to all of the incriminating evidence. She normally drove down Trescott, she liked the liquor store that was out of her way, she normally deleted text messages, she loved her broken TV and wanted it repaired, she was lonely hence the reason she was messaging guys on OK Cupid the day after DM was shot etc etc

Similarly "this is so sweet" could be anything. CA arranging for her to get a new TV perhaps? She wanted to know where DM was travelling to in order to let the boys know.

And all of that stuff is defendable. But there comes a point when a jury has to listen to WA's lawyer try and defend 100+ pieces of circumstantial evidence. It's too voluminous. You can defend 5,6,7 pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence and still be innocent. You can't have 30, 40+. Now WA and her lawyer might come with CA and Rashbaum's genius defence strategy that all they need to do is find an answer for everything and they will be home free, but what they neglected to absorb is that those answers need to have credibility, if they don't, then that incriminates the person further. e.g CA stating that he did not go to DM's funeral because he was too upset lol. That was laughable and also disproved by text messages he sent that day.

So WA is screwed because whilst the individual pieces of evidence singularly don't amount to much, as a whole they do and she can't excuse all of them as she then damages her credibility and she also can't reply "she can't remember" to all of them as she also damages her credibility. She's in a wee bit of a pickle..

 

[Zedzded]

I also believe CA will "accidently" implicate WA when he is called as a States witness in DA's trial.