Yes, I’m now clear about that. I must have missed a comment where you mention another woman. I corrected myself..Time to go to sleep. It’s been thundering and I didn’t sleep last night bc my dog freaks with thunder. So I’m not quite as sharp today.Also, Hamm was dating after he and Jennifer W broke up. It was years later that he recently got married to this other woman. Again, Judith light was not in that movie and she was not dating him. I really hope she plays Donna and that there is something on TV about this unreal case.
I’ve seen a copy of the invitation, (supposedly,) and the one I saw has a little tag attached with the specific name of that bourbon to get. (Wendi said in her police interview, if I recall correctly, that a friend either wrote that name down or told her to get that kind.)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.
I saw the flyer. Yes, the tag was in red that said BULLEIT BOURBON, but then underneath, it said “Or your favorite wine or spirit”. Theres a channel that showed it. Darklivity months ago when they did a few parts on the case. It seems to be the same as someone else showed (maybe Mentour). It looks like a printed flyer.I’ve seen a copy of the invitation, (supposedly,) and the one I saw has a little tag attached with the specific name of that bourbon to get. (Wendi said in her police interview, if I recall correctly, that a friend either wrote that name down or told her to get that kind.)
My assumption is that there was a standard printed invitation and then there was a little tag appended to it for each individual guest, with the name of a particular liquor. It was a “stock the bar” party, so you’d want to be sure you got all the different types of liquor you wanted, right, either for your wedding reception or your house. Otherwise, if you didn’t specify, your bar might not be sufficiently “stocked,” you’d get like fifteen bottles of vodka or whatever.
I highly doubt that hypothetically someone involved in a murder would decide to be cute and buy something called Bulleit on purpose. Sometimes a bottle of bourbon is just a bottle of bourbon.
Agree on the likelihood of getting disbarred being practically low. Stealing a client's money is the way to get disbarred or criminal behavior like, murder. However, I do think it would have been very problematic for her in the divorce. Once the judge saw she was lying, Dan could really start wiping the floor with her on all of his motions. I did not think that WA's attorney was believable. I think there was a lot that they could've done to her on the cross exam.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.
I thought he did a great job. He kept a lawyer talking for 5+ hours.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.
Do we know when his uncle wrote the letter to Wendi asking for that ring back?Agree on the likelihood of getting disbarred being practically low. Stealing a client's money is the way to get disbarred or criminal behavior like, murder. However, I do think it would have been very problematic for her in the divorce. Once the judge saw she was lying, Dan could really start wiping the floor with her on all of his motions. I did not think that WA's attorney was believable. I think there was a lot that they could've done to her on the cross exam.
What I would love for an attorney who specializes in family law in Florida to explain is how the holocaust diamond was never used as leverage in their negotiations. I believe it is that because he gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, it was a gift. Therefore, as a gift, he could not get it back. However, since it was of such sentimental and actual value, I cannot understand at all how that was not utilized by his attorneys/him in negotiating their marital settlement agreement. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
They entered into a marital settlement agreement and, I believe that the ring was not included in the terms of that agreement. How is that possible? How did he not negotiate that? I know they were asking her to give it back, but who would expect that woman to do the right thing? If they really did hard-core negotiations with her, even if it meant giving up actual cash in exchange for the sentimental value of that ring, I don't understand why it was never done.
Which makes no sense. The stock the bar party was for the bride and groom to be to build up their alcohol supply for the wedding, which their 100+ wedding guests are going to consume. Some people might bring other types of alcohol, but most are going to bring Bulleit Bourbon as it was requested first. So they'll end up 50+ bottles of bourbon and still have to go out and buy craploads of beer, wine and other spirits. The alcohol is for the guests not for them, so it's irrelevant whether their favourite alcohol and brand is Bulleit Bourbon.I saw the flyer. Yes, the tag was in red that said BULLEIT BOURBON, but then underneath, it said “Or your favorite wine or spirit”.
And we got Jane as a bonus.I thought he did a great job. He kept a lawyer talking for 5+ hours.
Why wasn’t the flyer allowed into evidence? I forgot what happened with it at trial.Which makes no sense. The stock the bar party was for the bride and groom to be to build up their alcohol supply for the wedding, which their 100+ wedding guests are going to consume. Some people might bring other types of alcohol, but most are going to bring Bulleit Bourbon as it was requested first. So they'll end up 50+ bottles of bourbon and still have to go out and buy craploads of beer, wine and other spirits. The alcohol is for the guests not for them, so it's irrelevant whether their favourite alcohol and brand is Bulleit Bourbon.
I wish there was a better way to refer to this ring other than as a “Holocaust ring” like it was some kind of souvenir. I believe Dan had a great Aunt who was able to hang onto this ring somehow, despite losing everything and nearly everyone in the Holocaust, so it had great sentimental value for the family as a symbol of their survival.Agree on the likelihood of getting disbarred being practically low. Stealing a client's money is the way to get disbarred or criminal behavior like, murder. However, I do think it would have been very problematic for her in the divorce. Once the judge saw she was lying, Dan could really start wiping the floor with her on all of his motions. I did not think that WA's attorney was believable. I think there was a lot that they could've done to her on the cross exam.
What I would love for an attorney who specializes in family law in Florida to explain is how the holocaust diamond was never used as leverage in their negotiations. I believe it is that because he gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, it was a gift. Therefore, as a gift, he could not get it back. However, since it was of such sentimental and actual value, I cannot understand at all how that was not utilized by his attorneys/him in negotiating their marital settlement agreement. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
They entered into a marital settlement agreement and, I believe that the ring was not included in the terms of that agreement. How is that possible? How did he not negotiate that? I know they were asking her to give it back, but who would expect that woman to do the right thing? If they really did hard-core negotiations with her, even if it meant giving up actual cash in exchange for the sentimental value of that ring, I don't understand why it was never done.
My understanding is that each invitation came with an individual tag with a different specific brand on it. Each person was told to get something different so as to make a complete bar.Which makes no sense. The stock the bar party was for the bride and groom to be to build up their alcohol supply for the wedding, which their 100+ wedding guests are going to consume. Some people might bring other types of alcohol, but most are going to bring Bulleit Bourbon as it was requested first. So they'll end up 50+ bottles of bourbon and still have to go out and buy craploads of beer, wine and other spirits. The alcohol is for the guests not for them, so it's irrelevant whether their favourite alcohol and brand is Bulleit Bourbon.
Wonder which is more lucrative, a law license or a makeup channel?I saw the flyer. Yes, the tag was in red that said BULLEIT BOURBON, but then underneath, it said “Or your favorite wine or spirit”. Theres a channel that showed it. Darklivity months ago when they did a few parts on the case. It seems to be the same as someone else showed (maybe Mentour). It looks like a printed flyer.
The channel host went to school with Sarah Dugan (I think undergrad) and is a lawyer but never sat for the bar.
She had a successful makeup channel of over half a mil, and then went into true crime.
Kimberly or similar.
She also knew Wendis eyes were really blue, when everyone was saying they were brown (proved blue by the video of Wendi at a wedding as a child) she had Bright blue eyes there.
The channel host says she wears the same enhancers (tho she has brown eyes)
Lol Im listening tot he book…apparently, Wendi wore her grandmothers ring and not the holocost one. I believe thats the one she wore to her wedding,I wish there was a better way to refer to this ring other than as a “Holocaust ring” like it was some kind of souvenir. I believe Dan had a great Aunt who was able to hang onto this ring somehow, despite losing everything and nearly everyone in the Holocaust, so it had great sentimental value for the family as a symbol of their survival.
Yes, I believe it was a gift, I believe Dan gave it to Wendi as an engagement ring, but I think I read in Ruth Markel’s book or heard Ruth say that Wendi never wanted to wear it and got another one she liked better. I remember hearing that she was asked to return it after the divorce, and in her deposition under oath said she would agree to return it if the great Uncle would personally ask her for it. I believe I heard or read somewhere that the old man DID ask her personally for it back, but she did not give it to him.
I believe this is the same old Uncle that, per Ruth Markel’s book, was told of the murder and immediately pounded the table and shouted “ In-Laws!” in Yiddish. That needs to go in the movie, in my opinion.
500K subs and 100K’s views, Id say a channel. One hour a few times a week. Vs 10 hours a day.Wonder which is more lucrative, a law license or a makeup channel?
