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

[amicuscurie]

Why is Det Isom being called as a witness for the defence?

It may be the case that each party has provided a witness list, and they’ve just listed everyone they might want to call or depose.

 

[Going Rogue]

Why is Det Isom being called as a witness for the defence?

When Rashbaum defended Charlie, in my opinion, he made a lot of ‘statements’ and asked a lot of questions during Wendi’s cross that were ‘favorable’ towards Wendi’s public perception. I can think of a lot of questions that Rashbaum can ask Isom under oath that would be favorable to Wendi. Mentour Lawyer mentioned some of this in a recent video. Do you know how many people continue to say (and some with 20k YouTube followers) that Wendi got into the police car without demanding why or never asked if her kids were okay. I would say if that were true, it’s not a good look. Facts are that Wendi said during her police interview that they told her kids were okay and that she kept asking them what was this was all about but the wouldn’t tell her – yet we still constantly hear a different perspective in social media. Isom can clear up that ‘confusion’ in his testimony – I bet that is part of the motive.

 

[Knitpicker]

I disagree. The place they lived on weekends before the murder was the place in the Continuum. They didnt start renting in the Icon until after the murder. Charlie had a separate place in FLL, but I think he also used the apartment in Continuum from time to time. Again, Katie testified the beach photo was taken at Continuum. Harvey’s birthday was there, and there is a text before the murder from Donna to Charlie asking whether he wanted to use the apartment that weekend. I believe that apartment was in Continuum. Unless there is evidence that they leased the apartment at the Icon before the murder. I don’t believe that’s the case, I believe they moved there afterward. In the bump calls, Donna is talking about renting another unit at the Icon, most likely because the one she’s in is up for sale.

Ok You are right. Somehow I thought the first apartment they rented (before the 2016 call from C to D about another apartment in the same building ) was rented when they spent weekends on S Beach (when Harvey was working M-F). I didn’t know it was the Continuim-I thought the first apartment was the Icon.
So if they lived with Wendi in the Continuim for a year (or are you saying more) that brings us into at least May 2015, when would they have rented the first place at the Icon, if Charlie is talking to Donna about that Japanese inspired other apartment in the same building? Or was that conversation about their first Icon condo?
To be more clear bc I’m rushing.

They rented at the Continuim May 2014
May 2015 -Did they rent their first condo at the Icon?
April 2016 Charlie is talking to Donna about renting another place int he same building. Quite posh and such.
So that means they only rented their first place from May 2015 until their second place? Was the second place the one C and D were talking about?
Maybe we will find all this out at Charlies trial.

PS I do think w moved into The Courts sometime in 2015. Theres a channel which has a video of her in her kitchen there.
Also, we do know in 2016 Donna is saying to Charlie on wiretaps that she is bringing the boys to Wendis. I believe it was 2016 that the place went up for sale by owners (with her stuff in there) and thats when she bought it.

 

[Knitpicker]

When Rashbaum defended Charlie, in my opinion, he made a lot of ‘statements’ and asked a lot of questions during Wendi’s cross that were ‘favorable’ towards Wendi’s public perception. I can think of a lot of questions that Rashbaum can ask Isom under oath that would be favorable to Wendi. Mentour Lawyer mentioned some of this in a recent video. Do you know how many people continue to say (and some with 20k YouTube followers) that Wendi got into the police car without demanding why or never asked if her kids were okay. I would say if that were true, it’s not a good look. Facts are that Wendi said during her police interview that they told her kids were okay and that she kept asking them what was this was all about but the wouldn’t tell her – yet we still constantly hear a different perspective in social media. Isom can clear up that ‘confusion’ in his testimony – I bet that is part of the motive.

That police drive leaves lots of unanswered questions.
Ex: W saying at the station “I thought I was a suspect driving here”.
So that means Isom had already told her what happened, even though it seems he first told her at the station.
This part of the case baffles me the most.
How could she be sitting calmly at a police station being picked up and not knowing what was going on? Did she not ask?

 

[Going Rogue]

That police drive leaves lots of unanswered questions.
Ex: W saying at the station “I thought I was a suspect driving here”.
So that means Isom had already told her what happened, even though it seems he first told her at the station.
This part of the case baffles me the most.
How could she be sitting calmly at a police station being picked up and not knowing what was going on? Did she not ask?

Exactly. Many thought (and maybe still do) they picked her up from the restaurant and the first words uttered to her were when they pressed ‘play’ on the police recorder. There were clearly conversations at the restaurant and in route to the station and although they didn’t tell her Dan was shot, I’m fairly confident that at a minimum they said, “it involves your ex husband” and probably made it very clear it wasn’t something minor. All the ‘talk’ about her saying ‘by the way you were talking in the car, I though I was a suspect’ is a great example of what I have been saying for a long time – the confirmation bias on this case is next level. Many people took that statement as proof she was guilty without looking at it in its full context. That is another thing they can clear up.

 

[IQuestion]

That police drive leaves lots of unanswered questions.
Ex: W saying at the station “I thought I was a suspect driving here”.
So that means Isom had already told her what happened, even though it seems he first told her at the station.
This part of the case baffles me the most.
How could she be sitting calmly at a police station being picked up and not knowing what was going on? Did she not ask?

The police station & where Isom tells her why she is there 2:49:12 PM
Det Isom: "Now you know why I wanted you to come here before I discussed this."
Dr. G has a great review of first part of interview...almost as if she had her acting skills honed even before the details of the shooting are released.
Isn't it strange how she throws in her drive down Trescott: oh boo hoo, hyperventilation.
edited to add, Dr. G has the best speaking voice ever!! Rewatching the "salient" (my new go-to word ) parts of the interview I can't help be amazed at the histronics and then absolute clear responses one second later...especially when it comes to her alibi, huh?
Merriamwebster.com histronics:· Histrionics are theatrical performances or exaggerated displays of emotion for effect.

 

[Cryptic]

The apartment Wendi owns is worth 1 million. One of the properties is a building with 14 units and the other smaller building was 8 units. I believe they have about 25-30 rentals that they collect upwards of 30K plus every month (and that was before they began upping the rental charges.)
I hardly think Wendi is struggling, and such.
I guess wealth is all relative..

Wendi lives in an apartment valued at 1 million. Even if she truly owns it in full, it may not be liquid in true sense of the word as she needs to live somewhere- and likely has exacting definitions of "safe area" and "good schools" that further limit her options.

As for apartments, theoretical net income can be very different from actual gross income. If applicable, mortgage payment on the properties must be met. Rental properties need maintenance- and efficient, reliable maintenance guys charge accordingly. Even units in good areas can get blitzed with non paying deadbeats taking advantage of cumbersome eviction processes- extended by free and easy appeals. Then, the tax guy / girl comes.... .

In the end, I think your observation of wealth being relative is key: By many standards, Wendi lives well.

But, there maybe a hint of "Quiet Desperation" to her standard of living:

Non liquid assets, Gross verse net rental income realities, and..... as @amicuscurie notes, having little real world experience and competing in a job market featuring a glut of attorneys while having a reputation that some employers probably just don't want to deal with.

 

[amicuscurie]

When Rashbaum defended Charlie, in my opinion, he made a lot of ‘statements’ and asked a lot of questions during Wendi’s cross that were ‘favorable’ towards Wendi’s public perception. I can think of a lot of questions that Rashbaum can ask Isom under oath that would be favorable to Wendi. Mentour Lawyer mentioned some of this in a recent video. Do you know how many people continue to say (and some with 20k YouTube followers) that Wendi got into the police car without demanding why or never asked if her kids were okay. I would say if that were true, it’s not a good look. Facts are that Wendi said during her police interview that they told her kids were okay and that she kept asking them what was this was all about but the wouldn’t tell her – yet we still constantly hear a different perspective in social media. Isom can clear up that ‘confusion’ in his testimony – I bet that is part of the motive.

While I do think it’s likely they told her the kids were ok when they picked her up, I am not certain she was telling the whole truth when she repeated to Jane what had happened before Jane got there.

One glaring example: she says to Jane something to the effect of (paraphrasing) “they asked me if he had gambling debts.” They did NOT ask her that. At all. They asked her whether he owed any money to anyone. She said he owned money to HER. (She then volunteered, not in response to any question, that he wasn’t involved in anything shady or illegal.)

Again, the question was “does he owe money to anyone.” The answer was HER. This is very different than “they asked me if he had any gambling debts.”

She may have wanted Jane to believe they asked her that. In my opinion it might have been another way to subtly suggest a motive to the murder. It may also have been part of a general tendency she had to overdramatize things that happen to her, though I do not know this, of course.

I do believe, however, that it is certainly possible they told her the kids were OK before she went with them. Isom does not tell her that at beginning of the interview, and I imagine a cop would tell a mother something like that, so I think it’s a reasonable assumption that she has already been told.

He later assures her that they did check on the kids before they picked her up. He says specifically that after they were called to the scene, they tried to find out where the kids were, and where she was.

Whether she herself asked about them before they told her, or whether she “kept asking them” as she told Jane she did, is another matter. Again, there’s at least one example where what she told Jane is demonstrably different from what happened.

I really can’t think of anything else he could say that would be helpful to Wendi. The interview speaks for itself, we can see what she says, and what he says, and how she describes this to Jane.

 

[Going Rogue]

While I do think it’s likely they told her the kids were ok when they picked her up, I do not believe she was telling the whole truth when she repeated to Jane what had happened before Jane got there.

One glaring example: she says to Jane something to the effect of (paraphrasing) “they asked me if he had gambling debts.” They did NOT ask her that. At all. They asked her whether he owed any money to anyone. She said he owned money to HER. (She then volunteered, not in response to any question, that he wasn’t involved in anything shady or illegal.)

Again, the question was “does he owe money to anyone.” The answer was HER. This is very different than “they asked me if he had any gambling debts.”

She may have wanted Jane to believe they asked her that. In my opinion it might have been another way to subtly suggest a motive to the murder. It may also have been part of a general tendency she had to overdramatize things that happen to her, though I do not know this, of course.

I do believe, however, that it is certainly possible they told her the kids were OK before she went with them. Isom does not tell her that at beginning of the interview, and I imagine a cop would tell a mother something like that, so I think it’s a reasonable assumption that she has already been told.

He later assures her that they did check on the kids before they picked her up. He says specifically that after they were called to the scene, they tried to find out where the kids were, and where she was.

Whether she herself asked about them before they told her, or whether she “kept asking them” as she told Jane she did, is another matter. Again, there’s at least one example where what she told Jane is demonstrably different from what happened.

I really can’t think of anything else he could say that would be helpful to Wendi. The interview speaks for itself, we can see what she says, and what he says, and how she describes this to Jane.

I wouldn’t doubt that she exaggerated about certain things but I also believe a lot of opinions expressed in social media aren’t a fair and objective representation of the facts at hand. The point I’m trying to make is Wendi made clear statements in the police interview that she was told the kids were okay and she asked why they were bringing in her for questioning or 'what this was all about and they wouldn't tell her'. Based on what I’ve seen in social media, I’d bet many aren’t aware she (at least claimed) was told about the safety of the kids or asked why they wanted to bring her in for questioning. As I said Isom’s testimony will clear that up and I wouldn’t doubt if Rashbaum assured Donna he would help clear certain public narratives on Wendi. Isom's testimony can do just that.

BTW, I always found Isom’s question asking if Dan owed anyone money puzzling - if someone owed you money, wouldn’t you want them alive? Maybe he meant to ask, did someone owe Dan money?

 

[amicuscurie]

Ok You are right. Somehow I thought the first apartment they rented (before the 2016 call from C to D about another apartment in the same building ) was rented when they spent weekends on S Beach (when Harvey was working M-F). I didn’t know it was the Continuim-I thought the first apartment was the Icon.
So if they lived with Wendi in the Continuim for a year (or are you saying more) that brings us into at least May 2015, when would they have rented the first place at the Icon, if Charlie is talking to Donna about that Japanese inspired other apartment in the same building? Or was that conversation about their first Icon condo?
To be more clear bc I’m rushing.

They rented at the Continuim May 2014
May 2015 -Did they rent their first condo at the Icon?
April 2016 Charlie is talking to Donna about renting another place int he same building. Quite posh and such.
So that means they only rented their first place from May 2015 until their second place? Was the second place the one C and D were talking about?
Maybe we will find all this out at Charlies trial.

PS I do think w moved into The Courts sometime in 2015. Theres a channel which has a video of her in her kitchen there.
Also, we do know in 2016 Donna is saying to Charlie on wiretaps that she is bringing the boys to Wendis. I believe it was 2016 that the place went up for sale by owners (with her stuff in there) and thats when she bought it.

She says, if I recall, in the writing podcast that in around Sept. 2015 she is to start her new job with the judge. That may possibly have been when she moved into the Courts, and they moved into the Icon. Or possibly sometime before that but after the writing podcast episode. I believe that they rented the place in the Icon, and then on the bump calls were talking to Charlie about possibly moving into a different one. Possibly the owner of the first place was selling and wasn’t going to extend their lease, or possibly they just wanted something different, who knows. We don’t know whether they did, in fact move to a different Icon unit at that time.

I believe they continued to live in Icon until they moved to Brickell in 2021. I believe records show they bought the place in Brickell, possibly they didn’t want to rent anymore. Brickell is a strange area, in my opinion, for an older Jewish couple to move, and it’s not really that close enough to Wendi or their grandsons for them to help. If I recall correctly, Donna does say in one of the overheard post-conviction hot mic calls that Wendi doesn’t seem to need or want their help as much with the boys anymore, and that she rarely comes over. (Though the planners we’ve seen seem to me to indicate that weekly family dinners did continue in the time leading up to the trial). There may possibly have been some financial motive for the purchase.

 

[amicuscurie]

I wouldn’t doubt that she exaggerated about certain things but I also believe a lot of opinions expressed in social media aren’t a fair and objective representation of the facts at hand. The point I’m trying to make is Wendi made clear statements in the police interview that she was told the kids were okay and she asked why they were bringing in her for questioning or 'what this was all about and they wouldn't tell her'. Based on what I’ve seen in social media, I’d bet many aren’t aware she (at least claimed) was told about the safety of the kids or asked why they wanted to bring her in for questioning. As I said Isom’s testimony will clear that up and I wouldn’t doubt if Rashbaum assured Donna he would help clear certain public narratives on Wendi. Isom's testimony can do just that.

BTW, I always found Isom’s question asking if Dan owed anyone money puzzling - if someone owed you money, wouldn’t you want them alive? Maybe he meant to ask, did someone owe Dan money?

Some less reputable “non-traditional lenders,” shall we say, are known to hurt you if you don’t pay them back.

 

[amicuscurie]

That police drive leaves lots of unanswered questions.
Ex: W saying at the station “I thought I was a suspect driving here”.
So that means Isom had already told her what happened, even though it seems he first told her at the station.
This part of the case baffles me the most.
How could she be sitting calmly at a police station being picked up and not knowing what was going on? Did she not ask?

I don’t think he told her that Dan had been shot until she got to the station. She has a phone message about a shooting on Trescott, and they listen to it together, and then he tells her it’s Dan who has been shot. It looks to me like the phone message is the first she’s hearing about any shooting. They might have told her something bad happened involving her ex husband, we don’t know. But she starts crying hysterically when Isom tells her it’s Dan, which leads me to believe this is the first time they’ve told her. ,

 

[ilovewings]

I have to say I thought Wendi would get arrested-- I was hoping she would. Apparently that is not in the cards. Glad all the other characters are paying for what they did, but It bothers me that Wendi is getting away scot free. Oh well, justice is not always perfect, but there is a high level of justice in this case. Is there a question as to whether she was involved in his murder?

 

[Going Rogue]

Some less reputable “non-traditional lenders,” shall we say, are known to hurt you if you don’t pay them back.

Yea, but they usually break fingers . If you are a 'non traditional' lender, murdering your 'client' is a great way to guarantee you will never be paid back.

 

[amicuscurie]

The police station & where Isom tells her why she is there 2:49:12 PM
Det Isom: "Now you know why I wanted you to come here before I discussed this."
Dr. G has a great review of first part of interview...almost as if she had her acting skills honed even before the details of the shooting are released.
Isn't it strange how she throws in her drive down Trescott: oh boo hoo, hyperventilation.
edited to add, Dr. G has the best speaking voice ever!! Rewatching the "salient" (my new go-to word ) parts of the interview I can't help be amazed at the histronics and then absolute clear responses one second later...especially when it comes to her alibi, huh?
Merriamwebster.com histronics:· Histrionics are theatrical performances or exaggerated displays of emotion for effect.

This analysis by Dr. G is the best, IMO!

If you watch the police interview again, there appear to me to be many inconsistencies as she continues to talk. For example:

Immediately after Isom tells her Dan has been shot, she says she had a message from him that morning.

She later says that she didn’t hear Dan’s earlier message when it came in, because she turned off her ringer.

Later in the interview, she says that she originally told them they were planning to talk at 11:15, but “when we listened to the message” she thinks it must have been 10:30 that they planned to talk, because he said he was getting out of the gym at 10:30.

Later, she’s asked again exactly when she listened to the message.

In response, she says “maybe after the repairman left,” which was “around 11.”

 

[IQuestion]

I just had an OMG moment...thanks to a detailed poster @amicuscurie. Isn't it interesting Det Isom asks, "Does he owe anyone money?" Because obviously "owing money/bad debt" could be a motive for murder. Some people get really, really upset about financial payments not being honored. And true to form, WA jumps in with "He owes me money!" Oh lordy...isn't that kinda like saying, "I agree with you" in a backhanded way? She's been divorced from him for 1 1/2 -2 years at this point and the sale or marital disbursement of equity had not finalized!! She had already signed off on the title (not sure about that, but she claimed she did) in order to get $120K from Danny and now he was threatening not only to renig on that agreement, but also asking for complete relief of the debt as punishment/penalty because he was going to prove in court she lied about how much money she had. Can you imagine how it must have been boiling up inside her to blurt that out? (She just can't help herself) Especially growing up in a household that has an unhealthy attachment to "keeping" money? It must have been boiling up inside her?? All she had to do was rile up her enmeshed family members and let them fight her battle, right? Imagine riding in a vehicle for 7 and one half hours listening to WA cry and complain her life has been ruined.
When asked if "those boys were his world," she replied, "As well as his work, yes." (Resentment still overflowing?)
Overriding themes: career and money.

 

[IQuestion]

Yea, but they usually break fingers . If you are a 'non traditional' lender, murdering your 'client' is a great way to guarantee you will never be paid back.

But, that is not Charlieto's Way.

 

[Cryptic]

Yea, but they usually break fingers . If you are a 'non traditional' lender, murdering your 'client' is a great way to guarantee you will never be paid back.

Very true. But....

I think the non traditionalists view murdering the client as a form of... uhmm....."negative advertising".

The ads encourages other clients to pay them back (with all applicable interest and penalties)- lest their own account also gets, you know... "closed"- permanently.

 

[JerseyPride]

This analysis by Dr. G is the best, IMO!

If you watch the police interview again, there appear to me to be many inconsistencies as she continues to talk. For example:

Immediately after Isom tells her Dan has been shot, she says she had a message from him that morning.

She later says that she didn’t hear Dan’s earlier message when it came in, because she turned off her ringer.

Later in the interview, she says that she originally told them they were planning to talk at 11:15, but “when we listened to the message” she thinks it must have been 10:30 that they planned to talk, because he said he was getting out of the gym at 10:30.

Later, she’s asked again exactly when she listened to the message.

In response, she says “maybe after the repairman left,” which was “around 11.”

It looks like you edited out a lot of this post. I wanted to respond to the portion where you referenced WA discussing DM wanting to take the boys swimming that day and her subsequent discussion with CA about it. I absolutely believe her when she says she discussed this with CA because she was terrified about the prospect of the boys being with DM before the hitmen committed the murder. I also believe her when she says CA told her not to worry about it (presumably because he was confident that the crime would have been completed). AND THAT, I believe, is why WA drove to the crime scene. She needed to make sure that there wasn't a chance she would be putting her children in the line of fire.

 

[sunix]

It looks like you edited out a lot of this post. I wanted to respond to the portion where you referenced WA discussing DM wanting to take the boys swimming that day and her subsequent discussion with CA about it. I absolutely believe her when she says she discussed this with CA because she was terrified about the prospect of the boys being with DM before the hitmen committed the murder. I also believe her when she says CA told her not to worry about it (presumably because he was confident that the crime would have been completed). AND THAT, I believe, is why WA drove to the crime scene. She needed to make sure that there wasn't a chance she would be putting her children in the line of fire.

This makes sense, though I never thought about this before myself.