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

[cottonweaver]

Re 'That Alternate' ( WS post #582 on the previous WS page) and the Motion to move to the smaller court room

have just listened to a really good rebuttal by KatieCoolLady ( also a member on WS)
Am mentioning because during the trial she was the first person to flag during her jury perception feedback. Credit to K.
Anyway, that motion sounds like it was written by Rashbaum. Rather weak


Where's that animus come from? His client!
I shouldn't laugh but when that motion is dismissed and the reporters & senior producer from Over My Dead Body are sat in the public gallery, she's not going to be a happy bunny. ( In the new discovery, DA had made a list of everybody she planned to sue after Charlie was found not guilty. Podcasters, various newspapers etc. I'll try & find the screenshot again. One line said ' Podcasters.Rob & Haritha'

The motion is the fifth one in this batch which Zedzed kindly uploaded here. Clicking on will bring that source.

pre-trial motions.

 

[Going Rogue]

Re 'That Alternate' ( WS post #582 on the previous WS page) and the Motion to move to the smaller court room

have just listened to a really good rebuttal by KatieCoolLady ( also a member on WS)
Am mentioning because during the trial she was the first person to flag during her jury perception feedback. Credit to K.
Anyway, that motion sounds like it was written by Rashbaum. Rather weak


Where's that animus come from? His client!
I shouldn't laugh but when that motion is dismissed and the reporters & senior producer from Over My Dead Body are sat in the public gallery, she's not going to be a happy bunny. ( In the new discovery, DA had made a list of everybody she planned to sue after Charlie was found not guilty. Podcasters, various newspapers etc. I'll try & find the screenshot again. One line said ' Podcasters.Rob & Haritha'

The motion is the fifth one in this batch which Zedzed kindly uploaded here. Clicking on will bring that source.

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

 

[Knitpicker]

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

I agree with you. It’s like going to a trade show when you have something to sell.
The channel hosts have invested a lot of time sacrificially to grow their channels and the Adelsons already know who they are and it probably stresses out Donna a lot.
Thats the price you pay for hiring a hitman.
Last trial there were many of them sitting there.

 

[IQuestion]

I’m sorry this is tiring,
I am not defending Katie, but I’m just saying that SG isn’t an innocent victim. He did decide to shoot a man twice in the head.
Most men would not do that even if they’d do “anything” for their baby momma.
He did cheat on Katie with a “professional” also….and yes July 1 was a Tuesday.
I think it makes a difference.
The site is “websleuth” and it’s just putting puzzle pieces together.
Thats all, But I will refrain from any more….
By the way, Katie stated she was “broken up” with SG when she met Charlie, and I don’t believe it was a secret to him that she was dating him at least 8 months before the jetski incident.

KNITPICKER Sometimes you just have to dump a pile of rocks on my head before I finally get it and I just got it...I think.
The call from SG to HA is the only electronic connection that could prove HA was involved/ had direct contact with the assassins? The timing is suspicious. Is that why GCap asks about it in court? Hmmm, I'll keep that on my list of "coincidences." But KM, despite testifying against CA continues to perpetuate the event; to what end?

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

I agree GoRo...DR is just going through the steps: try to get evidence thrown out, ask for dismissal, get the jury to have a personal connection, etc. I learned something new today...DA can actually request to be seated closer to the jurors. "typically, the Plaintiff’s table is on the right side, and the Defendant’s table is on the left side. However, the Plaintiff’s side has the right to sit closest to the jury box."

Courtroom Layout: Who Sits Where?

Going into a courtroom can be an unsettling experience. The rooms are large and often overwhelming, and their layout is both confusing and intimidating.

www.rhodeslaw.com

 

[Knitpicker]

KNITPICKER Sometimes you just have to dump a pile of rocks on my head before I finally get it and I just got it...I think.
The call from SG to HA is the only electronic connection that could prove HA was involved/ had direct contact with the assassins? The timing is suspicious. Is that why GCap asks about it in court? Hmmm, I'll keep that on my list of "coincidences." But KM, despite testifying against CA continues to perpetuate the event; to what end?

I agree GoRo...DR is just going through the steps: try to get evidence thrown out, ask for dismissal, get the jury to have a personal connection, etc. I learned something new today...DA can actually request to be seated closer to the jurors. "typically, the Plaintiff’s table is on the right side, and the Defendant’s table is on the left side. However, the Plaintiff’s side has the right to sit closest to the jury box."

Courtroom Layout: Who Sits Where?

Going into a courtroom can be an unsettling experience. The rooms are large and often overwhelming, and their layout is both confusing and intimidating.

www.rhodeslaw.com

Yes, you got it. ‘If you go through all of GC’s questioning..she is hinting.
She also asked Wendi if her parents drove up with her to Tallahasse.
(Basically, she was hardly ever driving by herself)I think she also says specifically Donna.
Theres a reason.
Almost sure she has said that her mother helps her drive because she was breastfeeding.
Georgia makes her comeback and says “In 2014, you were breastfeeding”?
So she’s getting at something.
The parents were BOTH there the weekend before the murder.
Perhaps only one of them came back.
We have not heard at all where Harveys phone pinged that night.
We don’t need to know.
We may find that out at Harveys trial.
Not sure why it’s such a stretch that Harvey may have stayed up there. Moral support for Wendi. And maybe a reason why she didn’t want Jeffrey driving by that week.

PS I also think Donna spent many weeks up there while Harvey worked, to help W with the kids.
Donna has said to Charlie how much dad has sacrificed flying up there and the cost etc.
So that means Donna was there alone a lot
We know that from Jeffrey.

 

[cottonweaver]

I have a different take on Rashbaum’s motion and the outrage by many that closely follow this case doesn’t surprise me. It’s easy to dislike someone that is defending a murderer and Rashbaum is defending someone that, in my opinion, is the worst kind of murder – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have no issue with Rashbaum’s motion, he’s doing exactly what he should be doing – trying to put his client in the best environment for a fair trial. The public’s right to access is not absolute and he makes a decent argument as to how it could unfairly impact his defendant’s rights to a fair trial. Did he take some liberties with the ‘note’ example from Charlie’s trial? Possibly, but the fact that may have taken that liberty, doesn’t mean the motion is a ridiculous. I’m not saying you are saying it’s ‘ridiculous’, but that seems to be the overall vibe I get from most case followers, content creators that have spoken, and by the comments I have read. I think the ‘outrage’ amongst case followers is more fueled by those planning to attend OR want to see their favorite ‘YouTube’ personality in the gallery and they are realizing if the Judge Everett rules in favor of this motion something is being taken away from them. How do people react when they feel their ‘rights’ are being taken from them – its a natural reaction / instinct to criticize, complain and outwardly display outrage towards the ‘entity’ trying to take away their ‘rights’ – in this case Rashbaum. The way I look at this is simple, Rashbaum is doing his job and it’s nothing personal. Like any criminal defense attorney, he has taken an ethical oath and obligation to be a zealous advocate for his client, and in this motion, he is doing just that. The reality is in this specific case, a smaller courtroom would favor the defendant, so this notion shouldn’t be a surprise nor should it be taken personally – it’s actually a smart tactical move or attempt by Rashbaum.

Take too long to address all of those points and I agree with a few of them too.

Anyway, going forward I'd venture to add that if Rashbaum has little role in cross or direct in DA's trial maybe people will start to miss him?
Morris has a different style & it could be duller even though he's more experienced than Rash as a criminal trial lawyer

I've watched some really boring trial lawyering over the last couple of years ( Other trials, not Dan Markel)

 

[Going Rogue]

Anyone catch Court TV’s closing arguments tonight? Tim and Carl were on together – no real interaction between them, but it’s a good sign they agreed to be on the same episode. No knock on anyone, but honestly, it was nothing worth watching. Nothing new was discussed, essentially Vinnie gave his normal high-level case summary and asked the same questions that anyone following this board could answer in their sleep.

 

[yazoost]

The state should point out that it's Donna who engages in outbursts, not the gallery. Bound and gagged like Bobby Seale, perhaps?

 

[Going Rogue]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

I did say it’s ‘possible’ that Donna and Charlie may have acted behind Wendi’s back and she was at a minimum ‘aware’. <modsnip> I also did say that certain parts of Jeff’s testimony evolved. Very specifically the changing versions of when he was leaving for TN. He initially said he had vague plans to leave on Fri or Sat which later changed to Wendi knew he was leaving on Fri at 11:00. When Isom called him out when he changed his story to Wendi knowing the precise time he was leaving, Jeff then said “well she could have found out from others”. Just one example and that’s a very significant detail to the “Lacasse setup theory” and it’s a verifiable fact. I didn’t call him a liar, just pointed out a major inconsistency that’s too big to be small.

 

[Knitpicker]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

I did say it’s ‘possible’ that Donna and Charlie may have acted behind Wendi’s back and she was at a minimum ‘aware’. <modsnip> I also did say that certain parts of Jeff’s testimony evolved. Very specifically the changing versions of when he was leaving for TN. He initially said he had vague plans to leave on Fri or Sat which later changed to Wendi knew he was leaving on Fri at 11:00. When Isom called him out when he changed his story to Wendi knowing the precise time he was leaving, Jeff then said “well she could have found out from others”. Just one example and that’s a very significant detail to the “Lacasse setup theory” and it’s a verifiable fact. I didn’t call him a liar, just pointed out a major inconsistency that’s too big to be small.

Your wording sounded like he had an agenda.

 

[Going Rogue]

Your wording sounded like he had an agenda.

My wording is very close to a verbatim account of exactly what was said and how his testimony evolved. I have nothing against Jeff Lacasse and I believe he was a great witness for the state. I also think we have to be fair and objective and it’s a fact his testimony about his travel plans evolved and also conveniently play right into the ‘set up’ narrative. If you interpret my words as ‘sounding like Jeff had an agenda’, I guess its easy to feel that way if you objectively analyze exactly how his statements evolved. I have always said Jeff is a good guy and a great witness, but ‘certain’ parts of his testimony left me with the feeling he was ‘subconsciously’ trying to bury Wendi. The evolving testimony of the TN trip is just one example.

<modsnip - what happens on other forums is off topic to Websleuths. Discuss the case, not other members>

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1824159390200631573

 

[ch_13]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

I did say it’s ‘possible’ that Donna and Charlie may have acted behind Wendi’s back and she was at a minimum ‘aware’. <modsnip> I also did say that certain parts of Jeff’s testimony evolved. Very specifically the changing versions of when he was leaving for TN. He initially said he had vague plans to leave on Fri or Sat which later changed to Wendi knew he was leaving on Fri at 11:00. When Isom called him out when he changed his story to Wendi knowing the precise time he was leaving, Jeff then said “well she could have found out from others”. Just one example and that’s a very significant detail to the “Lacasse setup theory” and it’s a verifiable fact. I didn’t call him a liar, just pointed out a major inconsistency that’s too big to be small.

Do you have a timeline of when / how his testimony changed? And was this actual testimony (i.e., in a courtroom) or are we talking about what he said to Isom in the interview room?

It's been a while since I watched JL's police interviews, but I recall that the first one took place immediately following Dan's death right after he had just driven back to Florida. He was pretty discombobulated and just wanted to prove that he had nothing to do with the murder. I think it was only later when he knew he wasn't a suspect and he really had a chance to think things over that he started zero-ing in on Wendi's potential involvement.

I do agree that over time we can see how his feelings towards Wendi have evolved, and by the time the trials rolled around he believed that she had set him up.

 

[Going Rogue]

Do you have a timeline of when / how his testimony changed? And was this actual testimony (i.e., in a courtroom) or are we talking about what he said to Isom in the interview room?

It's been a while since I watched JL's police interviews, but I recall that the first one took place immediately following Dan's death right after he had just driven back to Florida. He was pretty discombobulated and just wanted to prove that he had nothing to do with the murder. I think it was only later when he knew he wasn't a suspect and he really had a chance to think things over that he started zero-ing in on Wendi's potential involvement.

I do agree that over time we can see how his feelings towards Wendi have evolved, and by the time the trials rolled around he believed that she had set him up.

Sadly this is ingrained in my memory. This is going on memory so probably not verbatim but very close:

In the first 10 minutes of his first police interview Jeff said “I had vague plans to go to TN on either Friday or Saturday". In the third interview he said to Isom "my friends told me had I left on Friday at 11:00am, it would have looked like I was fleeing the scene of the crime and they wanted me to tell you (Isom) that Wendi may have been trying to frame me" Jeff acknowledged it seemed like a ‘far-flung’ idea to him but he wanted to mention it.

Later in the third interview (I think towards the end), Jeff is again discussing the trip to TN and said he changed his plans from leaving on Friday to Thursday and he said "Wendi knew I was scheduled to leave at 11:00am on Friday”. Isom immediately interrupted him and said "I thought you said you didn’t know when you where leaving, it was up in the air”.... after a long pause, Jeff said, “Yea I didn’t know for sure when I was leaving, but I’m sure I discussed leaving on Friday with people at work and Wendi could have found out from others”. Fast forward to the trials and Jeff testified that ‘Wendi knew he was leaving at 11:00am on Friday'. I’m not sure if it was all 3 trials, but I think it was all three.

I have brought the above up before but it seems like no one understands how critical this is to the ‘set up narrative’.

IMO, that narrative is based on three key things:

1) The hit team purposely rented a ‘similar’ car as Lacasse. There is proof from Rivera’s testimony this is false (at least for the Prius) not to mention the cars (IMO) are not similar EVEN though Jeff played along with the state and testified that he agreed that his car was similar to the Prius to fit the states narrative of the ‘setup’.

2) Wendi knew Jeff was leaving at 11:00am on Friday – IMO, Jeff’s account as described above seems to reasonably contradict this.

3) The hit was timed to happen with Jeff’s 11:00am departure – that doesn’t seem likely based on any of Rivera’s testimony – there was never a mention of timing the hit at 11:00am on Friday.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I am not a JL fan and posted my very unpopular opinion about him during Charlie's trial. He seemed too eager to me to fit in and it just kinda gave me the creeps. I believe I posted that I did not trust his testimony.

And while I do believe Wendi was peripherally involved, I do not believe JL was set up to take the fall for Dan's murder. To me, that was along the lines of the owl T-shirt.

 

[Ferpo]

I am not a JL fan and posted my very unpopular opinion about him during Charlie's trial. He seemed too eager to me to fit in and it just kinda gave me the creeps. I believe I posted that I did not trust his testimony.

JL thought he had met his forever partner. When this happens, it's not uncommon to go overboard especially when trying to gain acceptance from the kids.

I can see why your opinion was not popular but it's good to have a place like this to express it.

 

[Going Rogue]

I am not a JL fan and posted my very unpopular opinion about him during Charlie's trial. He seemed too eager to me to fit in and it just kinda gave me the creeps. I believe I posted that I did not trust his testimony.

And while I do believe Wendi was peripherally involved, I do not believe JL was set up to take the fall for Dan's murder. To me, that was along the lines of the owl T-shirt.

Yes, a very unpopular opinion. I never believed in the set up theory either and I believe Jeff’s police interview and his testimony during the first two trials is the biggest reason (at least a major reason) most are convinced Wendi was involved in some capacity. The only issue I have with Jeff is, in my opinion, he took some liberties when testifying. I really think it may have been subconscious revenge after he reflected back on the entire relationship and realized she never really cared about him - he probably felt immense anger and resentment which is a natural human reaction / feeling when you feel you've been rejected and discarded by someone you loved. An example of that subconscious revenge is saying she knew he was leaving at 11:00am on Friday to fit the setup narrative – that was damaging to Wendi and he knew it when he testified. Maybe she did know, but Jeff made it clear he didn’t tell her – so, if he didn’t tell her who did? I need better reassurances she knew besides his statement to Isom -“she could have found out from others”. This detail has bothered me for a long time. What bothers me about it besides knowing Jeff didn’t tell her he was leaving at that time, is that those that follow this case simply have ignored this detail when I brought it up in the past. Frankly, it seems that most will ignore or dismiss any ‘detail’ or ‘incident’ that might favor the ‘argument’ that Wendi ‘might’ not have been involved in the conspiracy.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes, a very unpopular opinion. I never believed in the set up theory either and I believe Jeff’s police interview and his testimony during the first two trials is the biggest reason (at least a major reason) most are convinced Wendi was involved in some capacity. The only issue I have with Jeff is, in my opinion, he took some liberties when testifying. I really think it may have been subconscious revenge after he reflected back on the entire relationship and realized she never really cared about him - he probably felt immense anger and resentment which is a natural human reaction / feeling when you feel you've been rejected and discarded by someone you loved. An example of that subconscious revenge is saying she knew he was leaving at 11:00am on Friday to fit the setup narrative – that was damaging to Wendi and he knew it when he testified. Maybe she did know, but Jeff made it clear he didn’t tell her – so, if he didn’t tell her who did? I need better reassurances she knew besides his statement to Isom -“she could have found out from others”. This detail has bothered me for a long time. What bothers me about it besides knowing Jeff didn’t tell her he was leaving at that time, is that those that follow this case simply have ignored this detail when I brought it up in the past. Frankly, it seems that most will ignore or dismiss any ‘detail’ or ‘incident’ that might favor the ‘argument’ that Wendi ‘might’ not have been involved in the conspiracy.

Liberties as in perjury?

Well, setting aside speculation about his feelings, motives or subconscious, or jurors perceptions of his testimony & how the State might strengthen or bolster his input in any future Wendi prosecution......... and just focussing on your comments re the importance of details..... maybe we want to nail this down? ( saves rehashing time in the future?)

Absolutely agree about details and this is the place where one can pore over details- even if it's really, really boring.

Any chance you can link to the interview & trial excerpts when you're pasting from your notes? I'm looking at your post 614 where you raise an issue of discrepancies
- JL 1st interview vs JL third interview
- any one or all of the three trials where he testifies and takes these liberties? ( Looking at the Magbanua retrial he does say that WA knew he was leaving at 11 Fri but in that trial he gives the reason why he believes WA knew specifcs)

This is going on memory so probably not verbatim but very close....
I have brought the above up before but it seems like no one understands how critical this is....
I’m not sure if it was all 3 trials, but I think it was all three......

Right now, am looking at the videos of his trial 3 testimony on this matter and also looking at the March 2015 Isom interview but you might want to signpost the items you're raising in Post 614 yourself? ( The links & timestamps from your notes)

------

To be clear - Me personally, I am more focused on Donna's forthcoming trial. More than testing arguments about evidence for any future prosecution of Wendi but seeing as you're raising this now why not thrash it out and nail it before Donna's trial starts, one at a time?

 

[Going Rogue]

Liberties as in perjury?

Well, setting aside speculation about his feelings, motives or subconscious, or jurors perceptions of his testimony & how the State might strengthen or bolster his input in any future Wendi prosecution......... and just focussing on your comments re the importance of details..... maybe we want to nail this down? ( saves rehashing time in the future?)

Absolutely agree about details and this is the place where one can pore over details- even if it's really, really boring.

Any chance you can link to the interview & trial excerpts when you're pasting from your notes? I'm looking at your post 614 where you raise an issue of discrepancies
- JL 1st interview vs JL third interview
- any one or all of the three trials where he testifies and takes these liberties? ( Looking at the Magbanua retrial he does say that WA knew he was leaving at 11 Fri but in that trial he gives the reason why he believes WA knew specifcs)



Right now, am looking at the videos of his trial 3 testimony on this matter and also looking at the March 2015 Isom interview but you might want to signpost the items you're raising in Post 614 yourself? ( The links & timestamps from your notes)

------

To be clear - Me personally, I am more focused on Donna's forthcoming trial. More than testing arguments about evidence for any future prosecution of Wendi but seeing as you're raising this now why not thrash it out and nail it before Donna's trial starts, one at a time?

The great George Constanza once said “if you believe it, it’s not a lie”. Perjury works the same way, the lie has to be a conscience lie and said purposely. I seriously think Jeff believes she knew he was ‘planning’ on leaving at 11:00an on Friday. He literally told Isom that ‘he probably told others and she probably found out from others’. As I said he is doing this as the subconscious level - he convinced himself she knew his exact departure time. The defense could Impeach Jeff’s testimony, but as far as the the prosecution going after Jeff on perjury charges, to quote Charlie - “not in a million years”.

As far as the ‘timestamps’, I know there is another ‘post’ on this exact topic in another ‘place’ where those are given. I will follow up with you on that later today when I have some time. It shouldn’t take me more than 10 minutes to dig that up, I just need to get in front of my PC.

 

[Knitpicker]

Liberties as in perjury?

Well, setting aside speculation about his feelings, motives or subconscious, or jurors perceptions of his testimony & how the State might strengthen or bolster his input in any future Wendi prosecution......... and just focussing on your comments re the importance of details..... maybe we want to nail this down? ( saves rehashing time in the future?)

Absolutely agree about details and this is the place where one can pore over details- even if it's really, really boring.

Any chance you can link to the interview & trial excerpts when you're pasting from your notes? I'm looking at your post 614 where you raise an issue of discrepancies
- JL 1st interview vs JL third interview
- any one or all of the three trials where he testifies and takes these liberties? ( Looking at the Magbanua retrial he does say that WA knew he was leaving at 11 Fri but in that trial he gives the reason why he believes WA knew specifcs)



Right now, am looking at the videos of his trial 3 testimony on this matter and also looking at the March 2015 Isom interview but you might want to signpost the items you're raising in Post 614 yourself? ( The links & timestamps from your notes)

------

To be clear - Me personally, I am more focused on Donna's forthcoming trial. More than testing arguments about evidence for any future prosecution of Wendi but seeing as you're raising this now why not thrash it out and nail it before Donna's trial starts, one at a time?

I recall that 11:00 seems to a “time” for Jeffrey. Didn’t he says somewhere he is not a morning person and that Wendi knew this?
Possibly when his classes were and when he made it out in the morning. .
As 8 am may be to someone else.
Did he never tell Wendi what time he was leaving?
I assumed he did.