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.

 

[Going Rogue]

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..

Understood and I agree. I was trying to make the point that the ‘burden of proof’ is high standard and I’m not saying that JerseyPride is wrong, just that something she / he views as such a damming piece of evidence may not be viewed that way by the 12 people that get to vote. I also understand the argument of totality of the ‘evidence’, and I believe the issue with the public ‘perception’ of the ‘case’ and ‘evidence’ argued against Wendi, is that all the ‘things’ that are highlighted in social media are ONLY inculpatory and there is also a lot of conjecture. I agree, some are hurdles and some are probably exaggerated or can be up for interpretation. That statement does NOT mean you aren’t making good points, but I can easily draft something that paints a different picture. I really don’t want to do that, because it will do is have people question my motives. Simply put, I think the strength of the case against Wendi is not as strong as argued in social media.

 

[ch_13]

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.

The thing is that Wendi was the primary beneficiary of Dan's death. His murder allowed her to move back to Miami, take full custody of the kids and shut out the Markel grandparents. This isn't analogous to a situation where someone tells their pal about a murder that's going to happen, but the friend is otherwise uninvolved. If Wendi hadn't been in the situation she was in, the murder would have never occurred.

I think the family didn't want her to get her hands dirty, so it's unlikely ever be a smoking gun. Instead I think it was a nudge-and-a-wink situation with everyone involved knowing what was going down and each played their role.

One strong piece of evidence against Wendi are the calls she was having the morning of the murder with Donna and Charlie. The other four people who were calling back and forth that morning were all members of the conspiracy (Donna, Charlie, Katherine and Sigfredo) yet we have to believe that at the same time Charlie was planning a murder he also was having a 20 minute long call with his sister about whether to repair a $300 tv? Maybe not a smoking gun, but IMO it strains credulity.

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

snipped by me

Just to make the point that, surely, we're gonna wait til the end of the trial to judge whether State's any further forward in terms of prosecuting a case against Wendi?


we can't put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes

 

[cottonweaver]

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

That made me laugh because he's so sly

 

[Going Rogue]

The thing is that Wendi was the primary beneficiary of Dan's death. His murder allowed her to move back to Miami, take full custody of the kids and shut out the Markel grandparents. This isn't analogous to a situation where someone tells their pal about a murder that's going to happen, but the friend is otherwise uninvolved. If Wendi hadn't been in the situation she was in, the murder would have never occurred.

I think the family didn't want her to get her hands dirty, so it's unlikely ever be a smoking gun. Instead I think it was a nudge-and-a-wink situation with everyone involved knowing what was going down and each played their role.

One strong piece of evidence against Wendi are the calls she was having the morning of the murder with Donna and Charlie. The other four people who were calling back and forth that morning were all members of the conspiracy (Donna, Charlie, Katherine and Sigfredo) yet we have to believe that at the same time Charlie was planning a murder he also was having a 20 minute long call with his sister about whether to repair a $300 tv? Maybe not a smoking gun, but IMO it strains credulity.

Yes, Wendi benefited from Dan’s murder but that doesn’t diminish the fact that Donna wanted Dan out of the picture and arguably MORE than Wendi and you can easily argue Donna was the primary beneficiary of Dan's death.

I can buy the nudge-and-a-wink theory and that may very well be exactly what happened. Donna & Charlie may have got Wendi’s ‘buy-in’ and her level of involvement could have been anything from no participation to a very active role.
For sake of discussion, lets assume they conspired behind her back. The TV alibi can be argued as part of Donna and Charlie’s plan to keep Wendi busy and give her an alibi – the appoint was set up by Donna and the call with Donna was related to the appointment. The 18-minute call with Charlie (he called her, she returned his call) can be argued many ways from him Charlie ‘probing’ and checking her whereabouts, perhaps first looping her in on the plot, or just running interference.

 

[Going Rogue]

snipped by me

Just to make the point that, surely, we're gonna wait til the end of the trial to judge whether State's any further forward in terms of prosecuting a case against Wendi?


we can't put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes

I agree. I’m careful when commenting on this case and I am generally more conservative than most when drawing ‘conclusions’. I base my ‘opinions’ on what’s publicly available and try not to read too deeply into anything and try doing it without any strong bias either way. I anxiously await Donna trial and look forward to what new information comes forward. Many seem to be speculating they have much more on Wendi and it will be reveled in Donna’s trial. We will soon see. My personal perspective is if that’s true, and it was evidence they’ve been sitting on AND makes the case against her iron-clad, I will be the first to criticize the Tally DA for delaying her indictment.

 

[Zedzded]

Understood and I agree. I was trying to make the point that the ‘burden of proof’ is high standard and I’m not saying that JerseyPride is wrong, just that something she / he views as such a damming piece of evidence may not be viewed that way by the 12 people that get to vote. I also understand the argument of totality of the ‘evidence’, and I believe the issue with the public ‘perception’ of the ‘case’ and ‘evidence’ argued against Wendi, is that all the ‘things’ that are highlighted in social media are ONLY inculpatory and there is also a lot of conjecture. I agree, some are hurdles and some are probably exaggerated or can be up for interpretation. That statement does NOT mean you aren’t making good points, but I can easily draft something that paints a different picture. I really don’t want to do that, because it will do is have people question my motives. Simply put, I think the strength of the case against Wendi is not as strong as argued in social media.

I don't see any evidence against WA that would be considered damning, even the drive down Trescott. JL confirmed this was a semi-regular route she took even though it wasn't the quickest. We're human, we sometimes take longer routes, perhaps they are more scenic.

And yeah the case against WA has been stated as a "slam dunk" in some quarters on social media. It is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination and it will be a difficult case to try because the evidence is largely circumstantial whereas with CA and DA you had the bump, the tapped calls, the attempt to flee etc

I feel that there needs to be more inculpatory evidence and I believe there will be. The co-conspirators were all careless, reckless, impulsive, especially DA.

 

[Going Rogue]

I don't see any evidence against WA that would be considered damning, even the drive down Trescott. JL confirmed this was a semi-regular route she took even though it wasn't the quickest. We're human, we sometimes take longer routes, perhaps they are more scenic.

And yeah the case against WA has been stated as a "slam dunk" in some quarters on social media. It is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination and it will be a difficult case to try because the evidence is largely circumstantial whereas with CA and DA you had the bump, the tapped calls, the attempt to flee etc

I feel that there needs to be more inculpatory evidence and I believe there will be. The co-conspirators were all careless, reckless, impulsive, especially DA.

Wow, I’ve spoken those same words and was branded and labeled a troll and a member of the Adelson PR / defense team. You must have a lot of street cred here to be posting that so boldly and freely

That opinion is not welcomed in other places Ask me how I know

I agree with everything you said!

 

[Zedzded]

yet we have to believe that at the same time Charlie was planning a murder he also was having a 20 minute long call with his sister about whether to repair a $300 tv? Maybe not a smoking gun, but IMO it strains credulity.

This is where I think CA will "accidently" throw WA under the bus. He will probably answer some questions a bit more honestly, not to necessarily help his appeal, but to destroy WA's credibility. He will contradict what WA said they talked about on the phone, he will probably have to be truthful anyway, as the Geek squad guy told them within the first few minutes the TV could not be repaired. So he can no longer suggest they discussed the TV being repaired.

He might also be truthful about what he spoke to WA about on the day of the bump. He stated to his mother that he had been messaging WA all day on WhatsApp (shortly after the bump happened) and I'm sure it wasn't about the Miami weather. So he will possibly confirm he told her about the bump when it happened and this puts her in deep *advertiser censored*. I don't know if the WhatsApp messages can be recovered?

 

[Zedzded]

Wow, I’ve spoken those same words and was branded and labeled a troll and a member of the Adelson PR / defense team. You must have a lot of street cred here to be posting that so boldly and freely

At risk of contradicting myself here, but I think it's important to add the disclaimer that the evidence against her is damning as a whole. The drive down Trescott isn't damning, but you add the fact the bottle shop was way out of her way and she was in a rush and she didn't call the daycare to check on the kids and she lied about her route numerous times and she tried to farcially suggest there was a fallen tree and she said she didn't see any emergency vehicles (bar one). Now that's damning.

 

[Going Rogue]

At risk of contradicting myself here, but I think it's important to add the disclaimer that the evidence against her is damning as a whole. The drive down Trescott isn't damning, but you add the fact the bottle shop was way out of her way and she was in a rush and she didn't call the daycare to check on the kids and she lied about her route numerous times and she tried to farcially suggest there was a fallen tree and she said she didn't see any emergency vehicles (bar one). Now that's damning.

LOL, well, you succeeded in contradicting yourself - joking ... I understand your POV and appreciate your perspective, I also give you credit for having the guts to share some of the case facts that others refuse to acknowledge – i.e. the ‘shortcut’ was confirmed by Lacasse.

 

[amicuscurie]

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

Arguably, lying in the police interview might be considered to be a tacit agreement to the plot. Maybe? If it could be shown, or implied, that she had agreed to do that? Also- if there is evidence that she had agreed to move into a condo they bought, maybe? All of this could maybe constitute constructive agreement, especially when viewed as a whole. I wonder if there is case law on just what types of actions could constitute constructive agreement.

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

Good post!

 

[Going Rogue]

Arguably, lying in the police interview might be considered to be a tacit agreement to the plot. Maybe? If it could be shown, or implied, that she had agreed to do that? Also- if there is evidence that she had agreed to move into a condo they bought, maybe? All of this could maybe constitute constructive agreement, especially when viewed as a whole. I wonder if there is case law on just what types of actions could constitute constructive agreement.

IMO, ‘agreement’ to the plot in the absence of an act of furtherance, is still a hurdle for the state. I guess if she lied during her police interview as cover for her family, and it can only be proven that she had foreknowledge, you can make a good argument for aiding and abetting charges.

 

[amicuscurie]

IMO, ‘agreement’ to the plot in the absence of an act of furtherance, is still a hurdle for the state. I guess if she lied during her police interview as cover for her family, and it can only be proven that she had foreknowledge, you can make a good argument for aiding and abetting charges.

The most persuasive act of furtherance I’ve seen so far is the text to Dan asking if he would be home.

I know, this could have been a regular pattern with them, but we really don’t know whether that was the case.

What we do know: Their custody arrangement was that the parent who did not have the boys for the week would get a Wednesday overnight. (One way we know this is that Wendi herself explains this to Isom in her police interview, because she has, indeed, had the boys on Wednesday that week pursuant to the agreement.). There is no language in the custody agreement that I am aware of which would require the parent whose turn it was to have the overnight to ask in advance whether said overnight would take place.

So- It was her week to have a Wednesday overnight, unless Dan was traveling with the boys. If it was NOT going to happen, It would seem that the burden would be on him to tell her “you can’t have them this week, I’m traveling.” The alternative would be to have us believe that every single week, the parent who didn’t have the kids but was supposed to have the overnight, was supposed to ask if the other parent would be traveling, just to make sure the overnight would happen. For me that is a bridge to far, that’s not how a regular custody agreement works. You can’t require the parties to have a conversation every week about whether the regular default terms of the agreement would be honored. I don’t believe any court would structure it that way.

But, what happens with regard to the particular week of the murder? The evidence shows that nearly two weeks before what was to be her regular, default, scheduled overnight for the week of the murder, Wendi texts Dan and asks oh-by-the-way, whether he just might be traveling the week of the 18th, because she wanted to have the boys for the Wednesday overnight that week. The week she was already scheduled to have them overnight by default.

The evidence also showed that Wendi was at her parents’ home in Miami when this text was sent. It further shows that Charlie was at his house with Katie at that time. If I recall correctly the record shows calls from Donna’s house to Charlie’s (where he was with Katie) around the time that text was sent.

Imagine how that would look to a jury, explained in that manner. I know for me, personally, when I heard that testimony regarding that text, where the parties were when it was sent, and the communications between the parties at that time, I was persuaded that she not only knew about the plot but was involved.

I am but one person, however, and this is but one text.