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

[IQuestion]

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.

AMICUSCURIE, You are a brilliant contributor, but this is depressing for the parent of any crime to read. snipped/bolded and enlarged for emphasis: "That said: mere knowledge that a crime is going to occur is not a crime in Florida." Wow, double wow. I think you just laid out what many fear.

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.

GORO...bbma See, now that's the problem: the ‘shortcut’ was confirmed by Lacasse. And therein lies the rub!!! Why are some so willing to point out JL mght be a disgruntled former boyfriend, thinks WA tried to set him up as a potential suspect, illuminating HA, CA, DA & WA's extreme enmity towards Dan Markel and that Wendi lies all the time. If he was all those things and hell bent on destroying WA, he wouldn't have said "she drives down the street often", "has a poor sense of direction and is horribly disorganized." I find his comments painfully truthful even though he uses "social work nomeclature" that drives me crazy, in a good way. Decompensating? Really? I call it a temper tantrum." And still can't argue with the words he said on his July 21, 2014 interview. "I don't think anyone has spent more time with Wendi than me over the last 6 months."
"I can make it simpler than that and I could just say I would be investigating Charlie Adelson. I mean it's that simple."
Why do you think it would be pertinent for us to investigate Charlie?
"He's very angry about Danny"
"..If you got in front of this guy he would set off your radar."
(Interestingly JLaC also mentions that he did some work in the juvenile justice forensic psychiatry)
"He's a weird guy, He's a conduct disorder kid"...etc, etc, etc "And he hates Danny."
"He's also cocky, arrogant and narcissistic
"Charlie popped into my head within 20 seconds of hearing this"
"And, I could also see him doing this without telling Wendi..." Yep, yep, yep...even JLaC did say CA could have done this behind her back.

 

[Florida_marlin]

I’ve followed this case since 2014, being a Tallahassee resident and having lived nearby from 30 years at the time of the murder. Regarding WA, I believe the “jury is still out on that one”. We shall see. With this next statement, I’m not claiming she’s particularly brilliantly cunning or anything of the sort. But, I do believe, of all the sorted and disgusting characters in this crime, she is probably the most manipulative of the whole bunch. I personally believe she “knew/didn’t know” and played her family members like puppets, including allowing DA the visible role of the instigator. MOO.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

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..

Wonderful summaries and perspective Zedzded!^^…. And it will surely be interesting to monitor progress in these cases.

Just had to chime in on the TV repair. I don’t know that it was ever given what type of TV that WA had which was supposed to be repaired? But from my own experience and observations the last 15 or 20 years - doesn’t really seem IMO that any of the recent or new flat screen or LED are likely to be repaired? Sadly nowadays seems everything is replaced or disposed of instead.

Wonder if we will ever learn more on that? And whether that story had merit. MOO

 

[amicuscurie]

Wonderful summaries and perspective Zedzded!^^…. And it will surely be interesting to monitor progress in these cases.

Just had to chime in on the TV repair. I don’t know that it was ever given what type of TV that WA had which was supposed to be repaired? But from my own experience and observations the last 15 or 20 years - doesn’t really seem IMO that any of the recent or new flat screen or LED are likely to be repaired? Sadly nowadays seems everything is replaced or disposed of instead.

Wonder if we will ever learn more on that? And whether that story had merit. MOO

The way LaCasse told that story chilled me, picturing him arriving to a tv that he said looked like an adult smashed it somehow, and then his description of the two children essentially being forced to watch it and crying throughout. Just my opinion, but the story was extremely creepy to me.

IMO the prosecution did a good job with all of the witnesses of telling a disturbing story using things like this, as well as law enforcement testifying about cell tower records which could ordinarily seem dry and boring but did not in the hands of the able prosecutors and their questioning. (See my earlier post about the text from Wendi to Dan.)

 

[Going Rogue]

Now you are saying that she may have taken some part in the planning. You’re coming around.

“Now you are saying that she may have taken some part in the planning. You’re coming around.” ?????

How do you interpret: “Now your not guilty”

I think you are the perfect person to ask based on the statement or question directed at my statement. I have never changed my stance on Wendi. I have always said I’m 50 / 50 on her involvement on the plot. If I am 50 / 50, why would its surprise you that I’m saying “she may have taken some part of the planning”?