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

[Going Rogue]

Levity aside, I would agree a "non traditional lender" wouldn't get paid back if they killed their client...But, this was not a borrower/lender situation. IMO, WA did not see it as a repayment of a loan...it was her entitlement. And, the murder of DM was the one way WA could assure receipt of the funds ($120K), avoid ever escalating attorney fees, save her public/professional career, have sole custody of the children (no doubt thrilling DA), Max Soc Sec benefits for the children, no more scrutiny over food/religious observance/school choices, 2 million in life insurance proceeds (her attempt to get control was thwarted) and move back to South Florida (civilization?). As CA said, "At least she no longer sees herself as a victim." That, in my mind is how she manipulated her family...I am being victimized by Dan and I want to come home. Catalyst or co-conspirator?

For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.

PS: Simply having knowledge a murder/grievous act is about to rained down upon an innocent man is not a crime? But, what if she made the call to ensure the event doesn't occur "when my children are around?" For example: IE, Gee whiz golly, I'm so upset DM is going to pick up the boys early to go swimming? Oh don't worry, my hired killers will be sure they kill him before he goes to the daycare. Hold on while I call KM (the 18 minute call & hold time) and make sure it happens long before 2PM.
Okey dokey, I just got off the phone with KM and it is a go! BTW go out to lunch with some girlfriend(s) in the opposite direction of the crime scene.... the more witnesses who can attest to your shock and dismay, the better.
OOPS!! Dammit WA I said the opposite direction!!

Right, the $ Dan owed Wendi would have been paid upon Dan’s death and the $ owed was not at all in the same vein as $ from a "non traditional lender".

As far as your hypothetical, if there is no proof Wendi plotted this murder with Donna & Charlie, BUT was aware and raised the concern about the children in the ‘exact’ manner you outlined, I am not sure that constitutes an act of furtherance. Although I guess that could be up for debate. I know I could easily make an argument for either side of that hypothetical.

 

[apeXperience]

Here comes the State Attorneys, adding long time (43 years of experience) defense attorney James S. Lewis as Cat. A witness, perhaps as an expert witness for the prosecution.
It seems as if Donna Adelson's defense attorneys and the State are playing a blitz chess game now.
The tardy selective depositions and motions by the defense allow educated guess about potential defense planning. And, the State react by updating their priors and injecting more items, Donna's passport yesterday and additional Cat. A witness today, in the discovery process.

 

[ch_13]

Snipping a couple of comments.

For example: IE, Gee whiz golly, I'm so upset DM is going to pick up the boys early to go swimming? Oh don't worry, my hired killers will be sure they kill him before he goes to the daycare. Hold on while I call KM (the 18 minute call & hold time) and make sure it happens long before 2PM.
Okey dokey, I just got off the phone with KM and it is a go!

As far as your hypothetical, if there is no proof Wendi plotted this murder with Donna & Charlie, BUT was aware and raised the concern about the children in the ‘exact’ manner you outlined, I am not sure that constitutes an act of furtherance. Although I guess that could be up for debate. I know I could easily make an argument for either side of that hypothetical.

If Wendi provided information about Dan's schedule so that the killers would know when to act, then how is she not a part of the conspiracy? She was actively colluding with CA if she told him that the murder needed to happen before day care lets out.

It's a very different situation from her just being told that a murder will occur and passively not doing anything about it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Snipping a couple of comments.




If Wendi provided information about Dan's schedule so that the killers would know when to act, then how is she not a part of the conspiracy? She was actively colluding with CA if she told him that the murder needed to happen before day care lets out.

It's a very different situation from her just being told that a murder will occur and passively not doing anything about it.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that I’m responding to a hypothetical and I am saying it can be argued either way.

The way it was laid out (again a hypothetical) we are working off the assumption Wendi just had knowledge it was happening and was not part of the planning. The day of she is raising a concern that Dan is going to pick up the boys early to go swimming and concerned about her kids. The plan was already fully in motion and she is just a concerned mother in that scenario worried her kids could be in danger. Yes, you can argue it the other way as well – but the ‘information’ she is giving is not for the purpose of ‘tracking’ Dan’s whereabouts for the hit.

 

[amicuscurie]

Levity aside, I would agree a "non traditional lender" wouldn't get paid back if they killed their client...But, this was not a borrower/lender situation. IMO, WA did not see it as a repayment of a loan...it was her entitlement. And, the murder of DM was the one way WA could assure receipt of the funds ($120K), avoid ever escalating attorney fees, save her public/professional career, have sole custody of the children (no doubt thrilling DA), Max Soc Sec benefits for the children, no more scrutiny over food/religious observance/school choices, 2 million in life insurance proceeds (her attempt to get control was thwarted) and move back to South Florida (civilization?). As CA said, "At least she no longer sees herself as a victim." That, in my mind is how she manipulated her family...I am being victimized by Dan and I want to come home. Catalyst or co-conspirator?

For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.

PS: Simply having knowledge a murder/grievous act is about to rained down upon an innocent man is not a crime? But, what if she made the call to ensure the event doesn't occur "when my children are around?" For example: IE, Gee whiz golly, I'm so upset DM is going to pick up the boys early to go swimming? Oh don't worry, my hired killers will be sure they kill him before he goes to the daycare. Hold on while I call KM (the 18 minute call & hold time) and make sure it happens long before 2PM.
Okey dokey, I just got off the phone with KM and it is a go! BTW go out to lunch with some girlfriend(s) in the opposite direction of the crime scene.... the more witnesses who can attest to your shock and dismay, the better.
OOPS!! Dammit WA I said the opposite direction!!

I never understood that line of Charlie’s “at least she no longer sees herself as a victim.” Thanks!

 

[amicuscurie]

All I’m saying is that it’s not a coincidence Donna & Harvey rented the apartment in May of 2014. IMO, Donna wanted a second place in anticipation of Wendi’s arrival and it’s possible Wendi was part of that plan. Not sure if that was a short-term plan or long-term, but I believe the decision to rent the place at the Continuum was 100% driven by Wendi's pending relocation to S. Florida. What the specific plan was as to who 'stayed' or ‘slept’ where on any given day / night is anyone’s guess. I could be completely wrong and Donna and Harvey just wanted a place in S. Beach and it had nothing to do with the plan to murder Dan and Wendi's move to S. Florida.

IMO, they didn’t necessarily need a second place in anticipation of her arrival, they had a 5br home 10 minutes away from H’s office. To me, the fact that they leased a place in Miami suggest W’s possible involvement in the plan.

 

[amicuscurie]

Is

Here comes the State Attorneys, adding long time (43 years of experience) defense attorney James S. Lewis as Cat. A witness, perhaps as an expert witness for the prosecution.
It seems as if Donna Adelson's defense attorneys and the State are playing a blitz chess game now.
The tardy selective depositions and motions by the defense allow educated guess about potential defense planning. And, the State react by updating their priors and injecting more items, Donna's passport yesterday and additional Cat. A witness today, in the discovery process.

Is this person the lawyer who Katie is talking to on one of the bump calls? The one who Sig got after he was arrested? Does anybody know?

ETA: it is. And there are wiretaps where he is speaking to Katie about how he has been in contact with the lawyers for “that family,” and “that family” will not go to the cops.

 

[ch_13]

Lets not lose sight of the fact that I’m responding to a hypothetical and I am saying it can be argued either way.

The way it was laid out (again a hypothetical) we are working off the assumption Wendi just had knowledge it was happening and was not part of the planning. The day of she is raising a concern that Dan is going to pick up the boys early to go swimming and concerned about her kids. The plan was already fully in motion and she is just a concerned mother in that scenario worried her kids could be in danger. Yes, you can argue it the other way as well – but the ‘information’ she is giving is not for the purpose of ‘tracking’ Dan’s whereabouts for the hit.

I understand this was a hypothetical, but what I'm saying is that once you take an active role in a conspiracy--no matter how small--then you can no longer claim that you're just a passive observer with no other involvement. Even if the only thing that Wendi did was intercede to make sure the murder happened before 2 PM and she had no other involvement, then she's now part of the gang.

 

[Going Rogue]

I understand this was a hypothetical, but what I'm saying is that once you take an active role in a conspiracy--no matter how small--then you can no longer claim that you're just a passive observer with no other involvement. Even if the only thing that Wendi did was intercede to make sure the murder happened before 2 PM and she had no other involvement, then she's now part of the gang.

Right, I guess ‘active role’ is subjective. I was responding to the hypothetical exactly as it was laid out and, again, I believe it can be argued either way.