Going Rogue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 835
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.
Last edited: