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”?

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

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.

On Lacasse, I’m not saying he wasn’t insightful and obviously he got a lot of things right. Regarding his vibe on Charlie and the fact that "Charlie popped into my (his) head within 20 seconds of hearing this", I don’t know why so many are so surprised that he identified Charlie as a suspect and expressed that they need to investigate him. Literally days prior to Dan’s murder and Jeff’s police interview, Wendi told Jeff Charlie had seriously looked into hiring a hitman and, per Jeff, it was ‘chilling and made his stomach flip’. From my perspective, it would be MUCH more surprising if Jeff had not identified Charlie as a potential suspect after hearing Wendi’s ‘chilling’ disclosure days before the murder.

All the additional color Jeff provided on Charlie is not surprising either based on the details Jeff shared from his first-hand encounter with Charlie and all the ‘stories’ he was subjected to during the visit a few months prior. Sex tourism with underage girls, punishing a girl with an act I won’t repeat and sharing that story with Jeff in front of Wendi – I’ll stop there. IMO, any ‘normal’ person would have come to the same conclusion or suspicions that Jeff came to. That’s not a knock on Jeff, its just the simple reality.

As far as my opinion that I believe that Jeff was ‘subconsciously’ trying to help the prosecution with the case against Wendi because he believes she was likely part of the plot, I can cite many ‘things’ in Jeff’s sworn statements that lead me to believe this. I have previously shared some of my ‘observations’, and honestly they generally don’t go over well with most, so I’m not so sure I’d like to expand on any of the details, but I feel strongly that if the day comes, they wont be missed by the defense. With that said, Jeff still provided a great deal of key testimony and was a positive catalyst in all three trials he testified in so I am not anti Jeff Lacasse, I give him a lot of credit for deciding to, as he put it, ‘man up’. I lot of people would have decided not to get involved. In my view, although I believe when he reflected back on things, he subconsciously tried to help the states case against Wendi, I still do view him as a hero.

 

[IQuestion]

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.

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.

I am replying to myself because I somehow pushed the "post button" and hadn't fully edited it first. (I wish I could write like ZZ & GoRo) But just wanted to convey...
Even JLaCasse was willing to opine WA might not have known and her brother did this behind her back, in the first interview. Eventually and painfully (I emphasize the personal pain) as his thought processess crossed the Rubicon from blinded love to the sickening realization too many coincidences were not coincidences at all.

 

[apeXperience]

Let us review linearly the salient elements of Dan Markel’s murder. Only the evidence and PCA allegations in the 6 dockets (5 of which in the criminal division) should be the main bases of the review.
What are the proven or alleged motives of each alleged co-conspirator?

• WA has 5, one of which is thus far seldom mentioned and rarely discussed in court and in social media
• HA has 3, all 3 implied but not discussed in court of which one is rarely discussed in social media
• DA has 2
• CA has 2
• KM has 2
• Sigfredo Garcia has 2
• Luis Rivera has 1.

It is hoped such review would elicit enthusiastic discussion toward new sleuthing investigative ideas and evidence.

 

[IQuestion]

Let us review linearly the salient elements of Dan Markel’s murder. Only the evidence and PCA allegations in the 6 dockets (5 of which in the criminal division) should be the main bases of the review.
What are the proven or alleged motives of each alleged co-conspirator?

• WA has 5, one of which is thus far seldom mentioned and rarely discussed in court and in social media
• HA has 3, all 3 implied but not discussed in court of which one is rarely discussed in social media
• DA has 2
• CA has 2
• KM has 2
• Sigfredo Garcia has 2
• Luis Rivera has 1.

It is hoped such review would elicit enthusiastic discussion toward new sleuthing investigative ideas and evidence.

Dan Rashbaum would surely be interested in the review of linearly salient elements as well. I'll just opt out.

 

[amicuscurie]

On Lacasse, I’m not saying he wasn’t insightful and obviously he got a lot of things right. Regarding his vibe on Charlie and the fact that "Charlie popped into my (his) head within 20 seconds of hearing this", I don’t know why so many are so surprised that he identified Charlie as a suspect and expressed that they need to investigate him. Literally days prior to Dan’s murder and Jeff’s police interview, Wendi told Jeff Charlie had seriously looked into hiring a hitman and, per Jeff, it was ‘chilling and made his stomach flip’. From my perspective, it would be MUCH more surprising if Jeff had not identified Charlie as a potential suspect after hearing Wendi’s ‘chilling’ disclosure days before the murder.

All the additional color Jeff provided on Charlie is not surprising either based on the details Jeff shared from his first-hand encounter with Charlie and all the ‘stories’ he was subjected to during the visit a few months prior. Sex tourism with underage girls, punishing a girl with an act I won’t repeat and sharing that story with Jeff in front of Wendi – I’ll stop there. IMO, any ‘normal’ person would have come to the same conclusion or suspicions that Jeff came to. That’s not a knock on Jeff, its just the simple reality.

As far as my opinion that I believe that Jeff was ‘subconsciously’ trying to help the prosecution with the case against Wendi because he believes she was likely part of the plot, I can cite many ‘things’ in Jeff’s sworn statements that lead me to believe this. I have previously shared some of my ‘observations’, and honestly they generally don’t go over well with most, so I’m not so sure I’d like to expand on any of the details, but I feel strongly that if the day comes, they wont be missed by the defense. With that said, Jeff still provided a great deal of key testimony and was a positive catalyst in all three trials he testified in so I am not anti Jeff Lacasse, I give him a lot of credit for deciding to, as he put it, ‘man up’. I lot of people would have decided not to get involved. In my view, although I believe when he reflected back on things, he subconsciously tried to help the states case against Wendi, I still do view him as a hero.

Jeff’s possible “subconscious” belief that she was part of the plot does not rule out her being part of the plot.

Beliefs, even subconscious, don’t come out of nowhere but are generally the result of observations one is not consciously aware but which matter, nonetheless.

 

[Seattle1]

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.

Conspiracy laws are fairly consistent from state to state. More recently, we had the conspiracy to commit murder trial in CT of Michelle Troconis (Jennifer Dulos, murder victim).

IMO, MT was convicted because jurors could infer from the circumstantial evidence, and her conduct (a specific act) that she was part of an agreement (alibi). Believing she was the smartest person in the room, Troconis also gave 3 inconsistent police interviews which were admitted as evidence. However, her co-conspirator, Kent Mawhinney-- equally charged, still has no trial date.

IMO, I think arresting KM and holding him in jail for more than a year (until his bail reduced substantially) produced the intended result (i.e., cooperation to convict MT) but there's insufficient evidence pursuant to the conspiracy statute to convict him of murder. Driving by or a phone ping near a residence isn't enough to convince a jury to convict!

IMO, the early arrest of WA would have likely played out like KM. And unless CA or DA drop some bombshell in the upcoming trial, I don't think prosecuting WA as a conspirator has improved with time. JMO

ETA: Mawhinney, like WA, is also an attorney.

"Conspiracy to Commit Murder" – How is it Defined?

Most states say that you are guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder if you: agree with one or more other people to intentionally and unlawfully kill someone, and at least one of the persons involved commits some act to further the agreement. As to an “agreement,” it does not have to be

www.shouselaw.com

 

[apeXperience]

Dan Rashbaum would surely be interested in the review of linearly salient elements as well. I'll just opt out.

Georgia Cappleman's office should have a long list of chronologically ordered salient elements of Dan Markel’s murder, with detailed annotation of each element, including many more elements unbeknownst to the public thus far.

Dan Rashbaum already has a linear review of these salient elements, based on the answers to demand for discovery shared by the State, which must include more details than enthusiastic sleuths could gather.

A basic inventory of proven or alleged motives of each alleged co-conspirator based solely on the evidence and PCA allegations should a) help the less informed sleuths expand their views and b) encourage the well documented sleuths toward leading less circular discussion. If I were smart enough to originate potential work product for the defense attorney of a suspect the State labeled as unindicted coconspirator, should not I be sensible enough to discern which items I must not share in a public forum?

 

[Going Rogue]

Jeff’s possible “subconscious” belief that she was part of the plot does not rule out her being part of the plot.

Beliefs, even subconscious, don’t come out of nowhere but are generally the result of observations one is not consciously aware but which matter, nonetheless.

I’m in full agreement with your declaration. Jeff ‘subconsciously’ trying to aid the prosecution is not mutually exclusive with either Wendi’s guilt or innocence. His ‘feelings’ about her involvement did evolve from interview 1 to 3 – that’s a fact. How did he go from expressing in his initial interview “I can see them doing this without her knowledge” to his 3rd interview where he was expressing that he believes she was directly involved? IMO, it was after the painstaking process of reviewing the entire relationship and all the dysfunctional behavior displayed by Wendi throughout the relationship. It’s not a stretch that he has anger and resentment towards Wendi for the way she discarded him and for seeing multiple people (his belief) during their relationship. He even said during his testimony in the first trial that he felt she ‘wronged him’. I’m not basing my opinion that he was ‘subconsciously’ trying to aid the persecution solely on his feeling of being ‘wronged’. I’m basing it on some of his testimony where it was clear to me he was ‘adding’ in details (I believe subconsciously) to parts of his story that help certain narratives – again I have detailed this before. I have never heard anyone pick apart the evolution of certain parts of Jeff’s testimony, but, in my opinion, there are some clear liberties he took in parts of his testimony that helped certain narratives.

 

[amicuscurie]

I’m in full agreement with your declaration. Jeff ‘subconsciously’ trying to aid the prosecution is not mutually exclusive with either Wendi’s guilt or innocence. His ‘feelings’ about her involvement did evolve from interview 1 to 3 – that’s a fact. How did he go from expressing in his initial interview “I can see them doing this without her knowledge” to his 3rd interview where he was expressing that he believes she was directly involved? IMO, it was after the painstaking process of reviewing the entire relationship and all the dysfunctional behavior displayed by Wendi throughout the relationship. It’s not a stretch that he has anger and resentment towards Wendi for the way she discarded him and for seeing multiple people (his belief) during their relationship. He even said during his testimony in the first trial that he felt she ‘wronged him’. I’m not basing my opinion that he was ‘subconsciously’ trying to aid the persecution solely on his feeling of being ‘wronged’. I’m basing it on some of his testimony where it was clear to me he was ‘adding’ in details (I believe subconsciously) to parts of his story that help certain narratives – again I have detailed this before. I have never heard anyone pick apart the evolution of certain parts of Jeff’s testimony, but, in my opinion, there are some clear liberties he took in parts of his testimony that helped certain narratives.

True, I do think his testimony evolved as he questioned the relationship and began to be less besotted with Wendi. But I think his suspicions of her are not merely the result of hurt feelings.

It’s always been my opinion (and it’s not a popular one), that his feeling that she was trying to frame him and that if he had left when he was supposed to he would have been arrested, is exaggerated. The car they ended up renting for the second attempt looks nothing like his. IMO, timing the murder to occur at the precise moment he was speeding away on the same road as the actual killers would have involved an almost unfathomable degree of precision and advance coordination. Per his testimony, she only found out he was definitely leaving, and when he was leaving, the Monday before the murder. (What if he had said he was not leaving? Would they have hypothetically rented a similar car for nothing, in that case?).

Even if he had left when he said he would, he could have been easily cleared through ballistics evidence fairly quickly, as he did not fire the gun. Even assuming he had washed his hands during the trip, he does not own a metallic Prius such as the one spotted by the eyewitness, and that would have been established pretty early on as well. The cops were on trail of that Prius and found footage of it at the gym fairly quickly. IMO, Jeff was never in any serious danger of being arrested for this crime.

That said, I do find it interesting that he was scheduled to be out of town, per his testimony, at the time of both the first and second attempts. I also find it odd that, per his testimony, Wendi asked him at their last meeting whether he was leaving town Friday. Asking whether he was going out of town may have been her way of finding out whether she could try to name him as a possible suspect which she, in fact did (though in my opinion she made it appear as though it was Jane’s idea). She may have wanted the crime to take place when he would be away just so she wouldn’t have to deal with him seeing her and possibly observing a suspicious mental state or behavior. He did, in fact, testify she was acting strangely at the time of the first attempt.

I also think that her “I need space” letter to Jeff was possibly to keep him away from her during the week the murder was to take place and/or to create a record that she had jilted him in case she needed to offer him as a possible suspect.

I believe the intent was to raise as many possibilities with the cops as possible, whether Amy, Amy’s ex, or Jeff. She mentions Amy and Amy’s Ex almost immediately when she is interviewed. She doesn’t get to Jeff for a while, not until Jane arrives. She does appear (to me) to seize on it and run with it at that point, though. Isom seems to, as well, but I did notice that he expresses some skepticism to Jane when Wendi is out of the room as to whether Wendi would tell them the truth.

 

[Going Rogue]

True, I do think his testimony evolved as he questioned the relationship and began to be less besotted with Wendi. But I think his suspicions of her are not merely the result of hurt feelings.

It’s always been my opinion (and it’s not a popular one), that his feeling that she was trying to frame him and that if he had left when he was supposed to he would have been arrested, is exaggerated. The car they ended up renting for the second attempt looks nothing like his. IMO, timing the murder to occur at the precise moment he was speeding away on the same road as the actual killers would have involved an almost unfathomable degree of precision and advance coordination. Per his testimony, only found out he was definitely leaving, and when he was leaving, the Monday before the murder. (What if he had said he was not leaving? Would they have hypothetically rented a similar car for nothing, in that case?).

Even if he had left when he said he would, he could have been easily cleared through ballistics evidence fairly quickly, as he did not fire the gun. Even assuming he had washed his hands during the trip, he does not own a metallic Prius such as the one spotted by the eyewitness, and that would have been established pretty early on as well. The cops were on trail of that Prius and found footage of it at the gym fairly quickly. IMO, Jeff was never in any serious danger of being arrested for this crime.

That said, I do find it interesting that he was scheduled to be out of town, per his testimony, at the time of both the first and second attempts. I also find it odd that, per his testimony, Wendi asked him at their last meeting whether he was leaving town Friday. Asking whether he was going out of town may have been her way of finding out whether she could try to name him as a possible suspect which she, in fact did (though in my opinion she made it appear as though it was Jane’s idea). She may have wanted the crime to take place when he would be away just so she wouldn’t have to deal with him seeing her and possibly observing a suspicious mental state or behavior. He did, in fact, testify she was acting strangely at the time of the first attempt.

I also think that her “I need space” letter to Jeff was possibly to keep him away from her during the week the murder was to take place and/or to create a record that she had jilted him in case she needed to offer him as a possible suspect.

I believe the intent was to raise as many possibilities with the cops as possible, whether Amy, Amy’s ex, or Jeff. She mentions Amy and Amy’s Ex almost immediately when she is interviewed. She doesn’t get to Jeff for a while, not until Jane arrives. She does appear (to me) to seize on it and run with it at that point, though. Isom seems to, as well, but I did notice that he expresses some skepticism to Jane when Wendi is out of the room as to whether Wendi would tell them the truth.

Yes, I have said many times that the ‘set up’ narrative is false – I’d bet my life savings on it. To be clear, the set up narrative is the belief that the hit team purposely rented a ‘similar’ car and coordinated the hit in coordination with Jeff’s ‘scheduled’ departure to pin the murder on Jeff. The ‘set-up’ narrative is not to be confused with Wendi potentially naming Jeff and others as potential suspects to run interference – that I can see that as very likely.

As far as Wendi’s ‘deep’ interest in whether Jeff was leaving on Friday - Occam's razor, maybe she needed a babysitter for the stock the bar party she was attending Friday night and was asking for that specific reason? It could also very well may been to make sure he wasn’t going to be around because she knew what was going down. I highly doubt it had anything to do with timing his departure, in a similar car as the hitmen, with the time of the hit.

 

[amicuscurie]

The police interview is very interesting to me. She says, within the first 20 minutes, a few things:

1. She got a phone message from Dan that morning
2. She drove down Trescott that morning and saw a roadblock near the house
3. Dan had a girlfriend, who had an ex husband
4. Her brother joked about hiring a hitman, and she repeated the joke that morning
5. Dan would not have shot himself

These statements are all volunteered, they are not given in response to any direct question (though she is later questioned further on these subjects). In my opinion, this may indicate these are things she wanted the police to hear. It’s interesting, to me, to consider why.

In the case of the drive down Trescott, she may have known that it was going to come out anyway, because she may have seen the cop at the scene who spotted her car. In my opinion, she may have thought admitting to the drive would be enough to satisfy the cops, and she did not anticipate having to answer so many follow-up questions about why she drove that way and what she saw. She does seem to me to be a bit flummoxed for answers the more she is asked (saying it was a “way of coming to terms with the divorce”, to me, is bizarre and not credible).

In the case of Amy and the ex, she may have wanted to plant them as suspects in the cops’ minds. This may also be why she said he would not have killed himself, (when nobody had suggested that) so that she could have a reason to then explain that he had a girlfriend.

In the case of the hitman joke, she may have mentioned that she told it to the repairman because she knew that might come out if he was interviewed. (But then, the question becomes, why tell it to the repairman?). She may also have wanted to plant a seed with the cops about Charlie.

This leaves the phone message from Dan. There are a lot of inconsistencies during her interview as she is repeatedly asked about this message, when she received it, and whether she listened to it. But she is the one who volunteered it first. Why is this something she may have wanted to get out there? Perhaps to show she had a good relationship with him and was communicating with him? Perhaps because it would have been discovered anyway? But- once she has volunteered it, why does the timing of it, and whether and when she listened to it, seem to become area of apparent obfuscation/inconsistency as the interview goes on?

All of these things she volunteered are true, and all of them are things she may have wanted to get across. But they led to follow up questions which she may not have anticipated. That’s my takeaway from the interview. The two chief areas of obfuscation in the interview, in my opinion, are the phone message and the drive down Trescott. These may have a particular significance in terms of the events that morning and her involvement, in my opinion. They are particularly significant for me not only because she later offers inconsistent explanations, but because she is the one who initially brought them up.

 

[ch_13]

As to the possible set up of LaCasse, it's interesting to listen to Jane and Wendi discuss Jeff in the police interview room. I'm very curious to know Jane's take on that discussion today. Does she think Wendi primed the pump by claiming Jeff' had a jealous nature in the days prior to the shooting, or did she bring up Jeff organically?

Jane is just one of several people in Wendi's orbit who have never spoken publicly about the case. (The women that Wendi met for lunch that day are also in that category.) One way or another, their testimony could end up playing a large factor at trial.

The LaCasse discussion starts at 2:13:34:

 

[Zedzded]

I wonder if Jane is still working with Jeff Lacasse lol. What a snake.

 

[Knitpicker]

“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”?

Your stance was always that she may have only known “after the fact”.
Never part of the planning.
Ps I didn’t put all those question marks
I was making a statement, not asking a question,

 

[Knitpicker]

I wonder if Jane is still working with Jeff Lacasse lol. What a snake.

Jane is in Georgia working as a professor there.