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

[amicuscurie]

Hah! I love that movie. I know. I always think how bad I feel for her that she was with him for like 16 years, & then he recently finally got married to a younger woman and now wants kids.

Totally agree on the book and his treatment of JL and W.A.. Given that he is an attorney and should be able to evaluate evidence, it is really difficult to see those portrayals and think they were not shaped by outside forces IMO. JL absolutely realized things very quickly. So did Tamara D despite not having spend anywhere near as much time with WA.

However, I wonder what he thinks now. Regardless, he has a lot of detailed information that I at least was not aware of until I read the book.

I get it. There’s what we think and what the state can prove, and the specific crimes that are alleged in this case have specific elements that the state needs evidence for. When I first started following this case, I thought there was a possibility they did this without Wendi’s knowledge, as I hadn’t seen any evidence connecting her to the crime other than the drive-by, which to me may have suggested foreknowledge (that’s not a crime in Florida, apparently). I have always believed she knew after the fact. But I had seen nothing from before the murder and no communications between her and the other parties to the alleged conspiracy. It wasn’t until Charlie’s trial that I changed my opinion, and this was, for me, based primarily on that text that they showed that she sent to Dan asking if he would be in town the week of the murder. In my opinion, the state has been keeping its cards pretty close to the vest with regard to what evidence they may have regarding Wendi’s possible involvement, and it’s also my opinion that this crime was planned in a way to keep her as distanced as possible and give her plausible deniability, so that complicates things. As Georgia said, “Don’t let the way they thought they’d get away with this be the way they get away with this.”

 

[Missyrocks5]

I get it. There’s what we think and what the state can prove, and the specific crimes that are alleged in this case have specific elements that the state needs evidence for. When I first started following this case, I thought there was a possibility they did this without Wendi’s knowledge, as I hadn’t seen any evidence connecting her to the crime other than the drive-by, which to me may have suggested foreknowledge (that’s not a crime in Florida, apparently). I have always believed she knew after the fact. But I had seen nothing from before the murder and no communications between her and the other parties to the alleged conspiracy. It wasn’t until Charlie’s trial that I changed my opinion, and this was, for me, based primarily on that text that they showed that she sent to Dan asking if he would be in town the week of the murder. In my opinion, the state has been keeping its cards pretty close to the vest with regard to what evidence they may have regarding Wendi’s possible involvement, and it’s also my opinion that this crime was planned in a way to keep her as distanced as possible and give her plausible deniability, so that complicates things. As Georgia said, “Don’t let the way they thought they’d get away with this be the way they get away with this.”

Yes. I absolutely see that. I don't think that Harvey will ever be charged, but I do think that she will be. Absolutely she will try to maintain plausible deniability at her trial, but I have always thought that the number of coincidences are the equivalent of having DNA against her. To me, driving to the crime scene is everything as is not asking the officer there what happened. She admits she was running late, doesn't take a shower, but drives to another part of town to go get liquor that she didn't have to get until 630 that night and just happens to drive down the street with multiple speed humps and low speed limit. The text to Dan that you are referring to, & Dan's schedule. I do see where the argument could be made on the schedule thing that she can come up with an explanation.

As I have also said before, I think JL was picked as a patsy from the jump. If it can be proven that both times he left Tally were the attempt and the murder, that's huge. SG knew the car rental employee to be able to request a certain color Prius. True, no smoking gun texts THAT WE KNOW OF. I agree that GC has more. But it just becomes too overwhelming with the venom from that divorce to swat away so many coincidences. They're too compelling & overwhelming despite her family obviously trying to give her that plausible deniability for everything knowing she was going to be the primary suspect IMO.

Also, I wonder if from DM's attorney and or Dan's computer, they will have the paperwork that his friend said that he was on the verge of filing that Thursday even that were going to show how she was allegedly being deceitful concealing assets on all the paperwork. The bomb he told Tamara D about & I think the Greenbergs. It is not a coincidence that he had to be killed, if proven true, right before that was filed, or the hearing was scheduled & held.

 

[Knitpicker]

Hah! I love that movie. I know. I always think how bad I feel for her that she was with him for like 16 years, & then he recently finally got married to a younger woman and now wants kids.

Totally agree on the book and his treatment of JL and W.A.. Given that he is an attorney and should be able to evaluate evidence, it is really difficult to see those portrayals and think they were not shaped by outside forces IMO. JL absolutely realized things very quickly. So did Tamara D despite not having spend anywhere near as much time with WA.

However, I wonder what he thinks now. Regardless, he has a lot of detailed information that I at least was not aware of until I read the book.

Well now that I'm one hour into the audiobook, should I invest another 22 hours on it?

 

[Missyrocks5]

Well now that I'm one hour into the audiobook, should I invest another 22 hours on it?

Audiobook? Well, I definitely read it from cover to cover. And I would absolutely say it was worth the read. As I say, I know a lot of this case, a lot I have forgotten, true, but I was learning things for the first time in several parts, particularly at the beginning of the case behind the scenes that we never knew.

 

[Zedzded]

I get it. There’s what we think and what the state can prove, and the specific crimes that are alleged in this case have specific elements that the state needs evidence for. When I first started following this case, I thought there was a possibility they did this without Wendi’s knowledge,

I suspected her as soon as I found out she was being colourful with the truth. Innocent people don't tend to lie about specific facts when being interviewed about a murder. And WA being a lawyer would know better.

 

[Knitpicker]

Hah! I love that movie. I know. I always think how bad I feel for her that she was with him for like 16 years, & then he recently finally got married to a younger woman and now wants kids.

Totally agree on the book and his treatment of JL and W.A.. Given that he is an attorney and should be able to evaluate evidence, it is really difficult to see those portrayals and think they were not shaped by outside forces IMO. JL absolutely realized things very quickly. So did Tamara D despite not having spend anywhere near as much time with WA.

However, I wonder what he thinks now. Regardless, he has a lot of detailed information that I at least was not aware of until I read the book.

I just looked at Judiths Wiki bc I know Judith is in her 70’s and Hamm is a much younger guy, and it says shes been married to someone since 1983….I actually never knew she was Jewish. I always thought she was Italian!

PS I see he is 22 yrs younger than Judith.

 

[Zedzded]

Yes. I absolutely see that. I don't think that Harvey will ever be charged,

Well I think he will now. And he can thank DR for that. DR is going to go with the story that DA and HA didn't visit CA on the 18th of July. That will easily disproved and just like that, HA is in deep doo doo.

 

[Knitpicker]

Audiobook? Well, I definitely read it from cover to cover. And I would absolutely say it was worth the read. As I say, I know a lot of this case, a lot I have forgotten, true, but I was learning things for the first time in several parts, particularly at the beginning of the case behind the scenes that we never knew.

Yes theres definitely things I already didn't know. But what made him think she was wearing a cocktail dress to the stock the bar party? If thats the case, then she was definitely going to need baby sitters to watch the kids, right?

 

[Missyrocks5]

I just looked at Judiths Wiki bc I know Judith is in her 70’s and Hamm is a much younger guy, and it says shes been married to someone since 1983….I actually never knew she was Jewish. I always thought she was Italian!

PS I see he is 22 yrs younger than Judith.

For folks who haven't seen the movie, let me be clear. The actress and writer of kissing Jessica Stein is Jennifer Westerfeldt. Anyway, she was the one who was the longtime partner of Jon Hamm. Tovah F was the mom in the movie. Judith Light was not in that movie. The other poster here was recommending that she play Donna. I agree, even age appropriate. She really is good and can play anyone.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Yes theres definitely things I already didn't know. But what made him think she was wearing a cocktail dress to the stock the bar party? If thats the case, then she was definitely going to need baby sitters to watch the kids, right?

I'm trying to remember because it's been a while since I read it, but that is going to be very interesting presumably at Wendi's trial when we finally find out the testimony of the couple for the party that night. I believe it has been said that Wendi was going to be bringing the boys and that is why she did not have a babysitter scheduled.

 

[Knitpicker]

I'm trying to remember because it's been a while since I read it, but that is going to be very interesting presumably at Wendi's trial when we finally find out the testimony of the couple for the party that night. I believe it has been said that Wendi was going to be bringing the boys and that is why she did not have a babysitter scheduled.

Right. But she never married the guy or they got divorced quickly bc her mother died a few years later and she had another last name and it wasn’t her maiden name or the name of the guy she was marrying. It was in the obituary. I think it named her then husband. It was only about 4 yrs later. Don’t hold me to the years though. It’s been awhile..so the “couple” won’t be there, unless you saw the names on the witness list? It’s just odd—where would Epstein have found out she was wearing a cocktail dress? I find that bizarre.I do remember W saying she was the most beautiful mortician she had ever seen..as if she has seen many..or maybe I’m just remembering wrong. It happens lol.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes. I absolutely see that. I don't think that Harvey will ever be charged, but I do think that she will be. Absolutely she will try to maintain plausible deniability at her trial, but I have always thought that the number of coincidences are the equivalent of having DNA against her. To me, driving to the crime scene is everything as is not asking the officer there what happened. She admits she was running late, doesn't take a shower, but drives to another part of town to go get liquor that she didn't have to get until 630 that night and just happens to drive down the street with multiple speed humps and low speed limit. The text to Dan that you are referring to, & Dan's schedule. I do see where the argument could be made on the schedule thing that she can come up with an explanation.

As I have also said before, I think JL was picked as a patsy from the jump. If it can be proven that both times he left Tally were the attempt and the murder, that's huge. SG knew the car rental employee to be able to request a certain color Prius. True, no smoking gun texts THAT WE KNOW OF. I agree that GC has more. But it just becomes too overwhelming with the venom from that divorce to swat away so many coincidences. They're too compelling & overwhelming despite her family obviously trying to give her that plausible deniability for everything knowing she was going to be the primary suspect IMO.

Also, I wonder if from DM's attorney and or Dan's computer, they will have the paperwork that his friend said that he was on the verge of filing that Thursday even that were going to show how she was allegedly being deceitful concealing assets on all the paperwork. The bomb he told Tamara D about & I think the Greenbergs. It is not a coincidence that he had to be killed, if proven true, right before that was filed, or the hearing was scheduled & held.

I saw his lawyer being interviewed about a filing about Wendi’s failure to disclose certain assets on a financial affidavit, I think he was going to demand discovery from her on that, I think he said he was going to file it either the day of the murder or the day before. If I recall correctly, there was another filing, I think the one about supervised visitation for Donna, which was supposed to have been heard in May and was postponed, so it’s certainly possible they would have wanted the crime done before that hearing. In my experience, it’s pretty difficult to get someone permanently disbarred based on something like failure to disclose a particular asset on a financial affidavit, unless you can prove malicious intent or a pattern of bad faith, and you would have to go through a whole process of discovery and depositions to determine that (that’s what Dan was going to be seeking, if I recall correctly). So, I think that the immediate threat to her career has been exaggerated (just my opinion), though she may possibly have eventually faced some kind of sanctions or contempt. It was a nasty divorce from both sides in my understanding, with each of them accusing the other of various things. I do not believe her attorney would have allowed her to file a knowingly false financial affidavit, but I believe her attorney had to recuse herself because Dan had alleges she was a “witness” to the false affidavit, if I recall correctly. She testified at one of the trials, she seemed believable to me. That said, I think this filing would have made them angry, as did all his filings, based on the emails we’ve seen from Donna and the texts between Donna and Charlie.

 

[amicuscurie]

I just looked at Judiths Wiki bc I know Judith is in her 70’s and Hamm is a much younger guy, and it says shes been married to someone since 1983….I actually never knew she was Jewish. I always thought she was Italian!

PS I see he is 22 yrs younger than Judith.

Hamm was not with Judith, he was with the woman who wrote and starred in Kissing Jessica Stein.

 

[Knitpicker]

Well I think he will now. And he can thank DR for that. DR is going to go with the story that DA and HA didn't visit CA on the 18th of July. That will easily disproved and just like that, HA is in deep doo doo.

Yes, the “moldy money” is hard to disprove!!

 

[Knitpicker]

Hamm was not with Judith, he was with the woman who wrote and starred in Kissing Jessica Stein.

Write but Missyrocks said Hamm left Judith for a younger woman right? If not, I misread it . Oh, I see. I thought the woman being mentioned was still Judith. I need to keep to my own comments haha. Ok going to start listening to Epstein again, have a good night

 

[Missyrocks5]

Right. But she never married the guy or they got divorced quickly bc her mother died a few years later and she had another last name and it wasn’t her maiden name or the name of the guy she was marrying. It was in the obituary. I think it named her then husband. It was only about 4 yrs later. Don’t hold me to the years though. It’s been awhile..so the “couple” won’t be there, unless you saw the names on the witness list? It’s just odd—where would Epstein have found out she was wearing a cocktail dress? I find that bizarre.

Interesting. I had not heard that. But I would assume that LE spoke with them right after to obtain information. I don't know if they got a copy of the email invite with the stock the bar or not. I go back-and-forth on the significance of the bullet bourbon, and whether it is true that they asked for it. What makes no sense is, unless they specifically wrote on there for only her to bring that particular bourbon, who would have every person attending your party bring that bourbon. I mean, they would have to be way into that bourbon as a couple and everyone they are friends with that they would have over would only be drinking that.

 

[amicuscurie]

I suspected her as soon as I found out she was being colourful with the truth. Innocent people don't tend to lie about specific facts when being interviewed about a murder. And WA being a lawyer would know better.

It’s my belief that the cops suspected her pretty early on as well, and it’s interesting for me to watch her police interview knowing that Isom already knows she drove by the scene, because they had been on the lookout for her car. In my opinion, that’s why they brought her in the way they did. I’ve seen people argue that Isom was too nice to her, but I think he was using standard interrogation tactics to keep her there talking and possibly contradicting herself.

 

[Knitpicker]

Interesting. I had not heard that. But I would assume that LE spoke with them right after to obtain information. I don't know if they got a copy of the email invite with the stock the bar or not. I go back-and-forth on the significance of the bullet bourbon, and whether it is true that they asked for it. What makes no sense is, unless they specifically wrote on there for only her to bring that particular bourbon, who would have every person attending your party bring that bourbon. I mean, they would have to be way into that bourbon as a couple and everyone they are friends with that they would have over would only be drinking that.

The invite said “Bulleit Bourbon” OR your favorite wine or spirit.

 

[Knitpicker]

It’s my belief that the cops suspected her pretty early on as well, and it’s interesting for me to watch her police interview knowing that Isom already knows she drove by the scene, because they had been on the lookout for her car. In my opinion, that’s why they brought her in the way they did. I’ve seen people argue that Isom was too nice to her, but I think he was using standard interrogation tactics to keep her there talking and possibly contradicting herself.

Thats a good point that they already knew she drove by, and isn’t it a shame Brannon didn’t get her plate. He even said at Katies trial that he couldnt even say it was a woman or a man in the car. He should have been prepared to get her plate number. I was frustrated with him. Once he saw the car that he knew was hers, his first thought should have been “get the plate number” even if he only remembered 3 numbers. Is that being too hard on him?

 

[B4igo2it]

Possibly Kelly Reilly could represent "Donna" character since "Beth" no longer a thing