FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #24

[Knitpicker]

I look forward to hearing what Sarah Yosef has to say. I wish Sigfredo would grow a conscience and come forward, you'd think he would be pissed at their extortion story putting the blame on him for this idea. He's done with appeals so what does he have to lose?

His coming clean would ruin any appeal for Charlie.
Are S and K’s kids still benefitting from the A’s with S and K still protecting them?
Why else would they not come forward and lay it all out? It makes no sense.

 

[newbysleuther]

His coming clean would ruin any appeal for Charlie.
Are S and K’s kids still benefitting from the A’s with S and K still protecting them?
Why else would they not come forward and lay it all out? It makes no sense.

What's interesting is he is on the defense witness list...

 

[Knitpicker]

I’m not sure I agree with what you are referring to as “a flurry of text messages and phone calls” as it relates to anything on or around the bump that ties Wendi into this loop - if that’s what you are suggesting? One of the issues in the case against Wendi is she is the only Adelson (excluding Rob) that didn’t get looped in during any of the ‘strategy’ sessions after the bump. I’ve heard people justify that by saying they didn’t want to get her nervous – or similar, but facts there is no evidence she was looped in.

Regarding the ‘WhatsApp’ messages to Wendi, I just spent a few minutes looking into this. The bump was April 19th. The conversation you reference was between Charlie and June U on May 9th – 3 weeks after the bump. Here is what happened, June caught Charlie texting another girl and confronted him about it. In part of Charlie’s response to June he said (verbatim) – “I’ve been texting Scott all F’ing day, I talk to 5 or 6 people on WhatsApp nonstop, my sister being one of them”.

Other than establishing Wendi communicated to Charlie on WhatsApp, the above is not evidence of anything that is useful in this case against Wendi. I know there have been YouTube videos (at least one) that suggest exactly what you are alleging - that what Charlie said indicates (or suggests) he was communicating with Wendi about the bump. IMO that’s major conjecture and without the actual content of the said messages, it’s totally useless information on the case against her. I’m sure most will disagree with me – but that’s my objective take without conjecture.

I still stand by my comment that in 2 years nothing ‘new’ that is ‘meaningful’ about the case against Wendi except the text to Dan has surfaced – stressing 'at least that is public'. I appreciate and considered the things you are saying, but I don’t agree the WhatsApp comment by Charlie to June is anything useful – it’s also not new evidence. As far as the other new stuff you listed, it might be useful, but until that ‘information’ is available (the actual content), we don’t have any idea if it strengthens the case against Wendi. I’m happy to be wrong, so I’m open to hearing other opinions / angles.

Do you believe that wendi needed to Call charlie re TV 7/18:

1. Because she was so upset that Dan wanted to pick up the boys early and take them swimming.She just had to talk to Charlie about it.
2. To Discuss whether to fix a fix less TV or buy a new one?
Those are her reasons for calling him and talking ot him for 18 minutes.
Do you actually believe her?

Oh and #1 was at one Katie trial and the other was at another Katie trial.
Just as the alternating versions of either being on Trescott or not being able to turn onto it.

Charlies version of why he said she called him:
-to discuss his relationship problems with Katie with her. He needed to talk to his sis about his woes with Katie. As if he or she even would care about his relationship with Katie. That was laughable.

Do you believe any of these reasons?

Interesting to note that in the police report of Swartz the BBguy he says he thinks she is texting (not calling) her brother.

If you know where that police report is, maybe you can find it.’I found it accidentally looking for something else on the case and tried for hours to find it.
It is not the handwritten report by him-its the typed up one.

 

[Knitpicker]

What's interesting is he is on the defense witness list...

Right -because of the extortion. Charlie never hired him to do the hit.

 

[amicuscurie]

I caught the video before it went private – here is a summary on memory:

Wendi reached out to Sarah in August on 2016 on the advice of her attorney asking if Sarah could give a statement to help Wendi with her public image. At that time the heat was on the Adelson family. Sarah declined and the reason given was she feared the investigators would reach out to her and ask her questions about Wendi’s marriage and she basically used the excuse didn’t want to get involved – or as she put it she didn’t want to ‘hurt Wendi’. Several months later Sarah sent Wendi a very polite email cutting ties because she was working on herself - thus the state title in evidence ‘self love email from Sarah’ (or similar title?).

After Donna’s arrest, Sarah reached out to the Markel's attorney because she was moved by Phil Markel’s victim impact statement and said she like to speak to them about ‘something’ she thinks would be useful to the Markel family. Sarah was deposed, but the deposition is not yet public – or at least no one (to my knowledge) has posted it. Until we hear the deposition or her testimony, we don’t know if there is anything of substance.

In my opinion much of this could be surmised from the listing of the exhibits of SY’s communications with Wendi in 2016, and communications with the attorney for the Markels after Donna’s arrest. There is no new substantive info, we don’t know what info she has, EXCEPT, it seems that Mentour reports that W asked SY to speak to the media on her behalf. If true, this suggests to me that it’s possible the family has done this type of reaching out for to others, such as Ben Graber.

 

[amicuscurie]

Do you believe that wendi needed to Call charlie re TV 7/18:

1. Because she was so upset that Dan wanted to pick up the boys early and take them swimming.She just had to talk to Charlie about it.
2. To Discuss whether to fix a fix less TV or buy a new one?
Those are her reasons for calling him and talking ot him for 18 minutes.
Do you actually believe her?

Oh and #1 was at one Katie trial and the other was at another Katie trial.
Just as the alternating versions of either being on Trescott or not being able to turn onto it.

Charlies version of why he said she called him:
-to discuss his relationship problems with Katie with her. He needed to talk to his sis about his woes with Katie. As if he or she even would care about his relationship with Katie. That was laughable.

Do you believe any of these reasons?

Interesting to note that in the police report of Swartz the BBguy he says he thinks she is texting (not calling) her brother.

If you know where that police report is, maybe you can find it.’I found it accidentally looking for something else on the case and tried for hours to find it.
It is not the handwritten report by him-its the typed up one.

Records I’ve seen from police interviews with an employee of the school state that Dan was supposed to pick them up that day. (I don’t know where I saw these, I think it was on Jay’s channel, not sure if I am allowed to mention him.)

In her police interview, if I recall correctly, she says SHE wanted to pick them up early, but he wanted to take them swimming. As I recall, she reads the last text, which is her telling Dan “I guess I will see you at 4:30”, which to me sounds like he was going to pick them up.

On the stand in Charlie’s trial, in my recollection, she says SHE was supposed to pick them up that day. This appears to me to be inconsistent with her own words at the police station and with what the school employee appears to me to have told the police.

The BB guy, in a police report I’ve seen, said he left at 9:15, and he saw her texting before that and assumed it was with her brother. (I believe it was with Dan). Per her police interview, the texting with Dan happens around 9:12, if I recall correctly. If I recall correctly, the call to Charlie occurs just after that, at around 9:15.

In my opinion, the call to Charlie may have possibly been to tell him that she would not be able to pick the kids up early that day, and that Dan would be picking up the kids and taking them swimming at some point and so he would have them during at least part of the day/afternoon.

According to Wendi herself as I recall from her police interview, Charlie told her not to worry about it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Do you believe that wendi needed to Call charlie re TV 7/18:

1. Because she was so upset that Dan wanted to pick up the boys early and take them swimming.She just had to talk to Charlie about it.
2. To Discuss whether to fix a fix less TV or buy a new one?
Those are her reasons for calling him and talking ot him for 18 minutes.
Do you actually believe her?

Oh and #1 was at one Katie trial and the other was at another Katie trial.
Just as the alternating versions of either being on Trescott or not being able to turn onto it.

Charlies version of why he said she called him:
-to discuss his relationship problems with Katie with her. He needed to talk to his sis about his woes with Katie. As if he or she even would care about his relationship with Katie. That was laughable.

Do you believe any of these reasons?

Interesting to note that in the police report of Swartz the BBguy he says he thinks she is texting (not calling) her brother.

If you know where that police report is, maybe you can find it.’I found it accidentally looking for something else on the case and tried for hours to find it.
It is not the handwritten report by him-its the typed up one.

My simple response is Wendi probably lied about a LOT of things so it makes no difference if I believe anything she said about any case detail you referenced. I don’t believe she was truthful about MANY things BUT that does not mean she was directly involved. I’ve said this many times before, if she wasn’t involved she made a conscience decision to lie and cover for her family. It seems to me that you (and many others) think because she lied, she is guilty of being directly involved. I don’t know how else to say it, but (as per Lacasse) she is likely a pathological liar and very likely lied about MANY things, BUT that does not mean she was directly involved.

 

[amicuscurie]

My simple response is Wendi probably lied about a LOT of things so it makes no difference if I believe anything she said about any case detail you referenced. I don’t believe she was truthful about MANY things BUT that does not mean she was directly involved. I’ve said this many times before, if she wasn’t involved she made a conscience decision to lie and cover for her family. It seems to me that you (and many others) think because she lied, she is guilty of being directly involved. I don’t know how else to say it, but (as per Lacasse) she is likely a pathological liar and very likely lied about MANY things, BUT that does not mean she was directly involved.

Agree with you generally. But in my understanding, in order to prove conspiracy in Florida, you don’t need to show that a person did an overt act in furtherance.

You have to show
1. That a person wanted the murder to occur, and
2. That the person AGREED with one of the co-conspirators, that the murder would take place.

It is possible in my opinion that there may be evidence that some of her actions indicate she not only knew about the plan but AGREED to it. We don’t know.

 

[Knitpicker]

My simple response is Wendi probably lied about a LOT of things so it makes no difference if I believe anything she said about any case detail you referenced. I don’t believe she was truthful about MANY things BUT that does not mean she was directly involved. I’ve said this many times before, if she wasn’t involved she made a conscience decision to lie and cover for her family. It seems to me that you (and many others) think because she lied, she is guilty of being directly involved. I don’t know how else to say it, but (as per Lacasse) she is likely a pathological liar and very likely lied about MANY things, BUT that does not mean she was directly involved.

She would not have to lie about why she spoke to Charlie for 18 minutes right before a hit was to happen.
What would be the reason why she lied? And told two different versions?
And why would he also lie?
So you believe pathological liars just lie about everything for no reason?

At least she would have a consistent reason from one trial to the other.
If you are excusing everything Wendi does by excusing evidence with a “pathological liar” defense, it is really beneficial to your argument of “lack of evidence “for her.

You keep saying theres no evidence, but then when faced with evidence you make excuses for her.
Seems anything she does warrants a defense from you.
Why are you so vested in this case? I ask because my husband has a full time job and would never know the details you seem to know, or would ever care about anyone involved in a murder case, as you do with Wendi.
I am not challenging you, I’m just really curious.
This is a full time job for you.

 

[ch_13]

In my opinion much of this could be surmised from the listing of the exhibits of SY’s communications with Wendi in 2016, and communications with the attorney for the Markels after Donna’s arrest. There is no new substantive info, we don’t know what info she has, EXCEPT, it seems that Mentour reports that W asked SY to speak to the media on her behalf. If true, this suggests to me that it’s possible the family has done this type of reaching out for to others, such as Ben Graber.

If I recall, Graber's op-ed defending the Adelsons came out last year.

But Wendi reached out to Sara back in 2016. Out of curiosity...did anyone come out in that timeframe to defend Wendi? Assuming multiple people were asked, I'm wondering if they all turned her down or if some acquiesced.

 

[amicuscurie]

If I recall, Graber's op-ed defending the Adelsons came out last year.

But Wendi reached out to Sara back in 2016. Out of curiosity...did anyone come out in that timeframe to defend Wendi? Assuming multiple people were asked, I'm wondering if they all turned her down or if some acquiesced.

I believe I’ve seen Tova on some of the earlier 20/20 type programs around the time of the initial arrests.

 

[Going Rogue]

Agree with you generally. But in my understanding, in order to prove conspiracy in Florida, you don’t need to show that a person did an overt act in furtherance.

You have to show
1. That a person wanted the murder to occur, and
2. That the person AGREED with one of the co-conspirators, that the murder would take place.

It is possible in my opinion that there may be evidence that some of her actions indicate she not only knew about the plan but AGREED to it. We don’t know.

Well, IMO, lack of any solid evidence to support bullet point number two (2) is exactly why after 10 years Wendi hasn’t been charged. Maybe I’m wrong, but when I analyze this case totality, I am not seeing what some of the ‘experts’ are seeing or selling. I really can’t wait to see what surfaces in Donna’s trial.

 

[ch_13]

I believe I’ve seen Tova on some of the earlier 20/20 type programs around the time of the initial arrests.

Good point. I believe the first 20/20 segment was in 2016.

I wonder if that's what Wendi was looking for...a talking head to defend her on 20/20.

 

[amicuscurie]

Well, IMO, lack of any solid evidence to support bullet point number two (2) is exactly why after 10 years Wendi hasn’t been charged. Maybe I’m wrong, but when I analyze this case totality, I am not seeing what some of the ‘experts’ are seeing or selling. I really can’t wait to see what surfaces in Donna’s trial.

I believe that Wendi was intentionally kept out of the planning, and that absent some kind of writing, it may be difficult to show agreement. But- in my understanding of Florida law, the state does not need to show direct evidence of an agreement, it can be circumstantial, or inferred from the totality of the circumstances, so long as there isn’t any other innocent explanation.

 

[Going Rogue]

She would not have to lie about why she spoke to Charlie for 18 minutes right before a hit was to happen.
What would be the reason why she lied? And told two different versions?
And why would he also lie?
So you believe pathological liars just lie about everything for no reason?

At least she would have a consistent reason from one trial to the other.
If you are excusing everything Wendi does by excusing evidence with a “pathological liar” defense, it is really beneficial to your argument of “lack of evidence “for her.

You keep saying theres no evidence, but then when faced with evidence you make excuses for her.
Seems anything she does warrants a defense from you.
Why are you so vested in this case? I ask because my husband has a full time job and would never know the details you seem to know, or would ever care about anyone involved in a murder case, as you do with Wendi.
I am not challenging you, I’m just really curious.
This is a full time job for you.

You are way off base. I never said there is no evidence. I am saying the case against her (my personal opinion) is not strong. What excuses am I making? Full time job? LOL... I am retired I have a lot of free time. I guarantee the time you invested in this case is orders of magnitude greater than mine. Why are you so vested in this case?

Let me restate what I said – I agreed she lied about many things – that in itself does not mean she was involved. It’s a simple concept. I can’t explain why she lied other than (at a minimum) for cover for her family and perhaps cover for herself too.

 

[Knitpicker]

You are way off base. I never said there is no evidence. I am saying the case against her (my personal opinion) is not strong. What excuses am I making? Full time job? LOL... I am retired I have a lot of free time. I guarantee the time you invested in this case is orders of magnitude greater than mine. Why are you so vested in this case?

Let me restate what I said – I agreed she lied about many things – that in itself does not mean she was involved. It’s a simple concept. I can’t explain why she lied other than (at a minimum) for cover for her family and perhaps cover for herself too.

Oh ok. I didn't realize you are retired.
Yes, IMO you are making excuses for her. Kind of like saying an alcoholic can’t help what they do because of how their brain is wired.
“Wendi is a pathological liar, so we can’t use that as evidence, she lies about everything”
So how would you ever come to any evidence against her with that kind of logic?
In fairness to those who come here for facts on the case, I will bow out of challenging you.
I have my own reasons for interest in this case. Of a personal nature, unlike your reasons.
So she “Covered” for her family and knew about the murder about to happen in 90 minutes?
When she made that call to Charlie?

 

[amicuscurie]

You are way off base. I never said there is no evidence. I am saying the case against her (my personal opinion) is not strong. What excuses am I making? Full time job? LOL... I am retired I have a lot of free time. I guarantee the time you invested in this case is orders of magnitude greater than mine. Why are you so vested in this case?

Let me restate what I said – I agreed she lied about many things – that in itself does not mean she was involved. It’s a simple concept. I can’t explain why she lied other than (at a minimum) for cover for her family and perhaps cover for herself too.

I think lying to cover up a crime is a crime of accessory before or after the fact.

 

[Knitpicker]

Agree with you generally. But in my understanding, in order to prove conspiracy in Florida, you don’t need to show that a person did an overt act in furtherance.

You have to show
1. That a person wanted the murder to occur, and
2. That the person AGREED with one of the co-conspirators, that the murder would take place.

It is possible in my opinion that there may be evidence that some of her actions indicate she not only knew about the plan but AGREED to it. We don’t know.

It will all come out in the wash. very soon.

 

[Going Rogue]

Oh ok. I didn't realize you are retired.
Yes, IMO you are making excuses for her. Kind of like saying an alcoholic can’t help what they do because of how their brain is wired.
“Wendi is a pathological liar, so we can’t use that as evidence, she lies about everything”
So how would you ever come to any evidence against her with that kind of logic?
In fairness to those who come here for facts on the case, I will bow out of challenging you.
I have my own reasons for interest in this case. Of a personal nature, unlike your reasons.
So she “Covered” for her family and knew about the murder about to happen in 90 minutes?
When she made that call to Charlie?

I don’t know how you interpret what I said to mean - “Wendi is a pathological liar, so we can’t use that as evidence, she lies about everything” – What?

I said I believe she lied about MANY things when she testified. I never said because she a pathological liar it cant be used as evidence. Again, I’m saying the fact that she lied does NOT mean she was involved. I think we should drop this.

 

[apeXperience]

Rest assured, nothing in the following should be construed as animus toward anyone of some ws prolific posters who recently use flip-flop and chimerical practices. The exemplification is just to illustrate the error inducing and dishonest manner.

Sleuthing is informal investigation to eventually help solve crimes.

As previously alluded, the chimeric practice … of presenting one assumption as unsourced fact ([…] some online source … not sure if it was in print, etc […]) to validate other speculations as valid arguments ([…] worked with the law firm through the other attorneys […]) and implying unsubstanciated conclusion ([…] retained him by familiarity) … is wrong. This malpractice induces other amateur investigators into errors.

None of the publicly available sourced legal battles (see below) of the Adelsons in South Florida courts, from medical malpractice to eviction of tenants to traffic violation such as running red light, from 1990 to 2022, mentioned Daniel Rashbaum or anyone from the firm “MNR Law Firm (Marcus, Neiman, Rashbaum & Pineiro, LLP)” as an Adelson’s attorney prior 2016.

In fact, their attorney around that time was Christine Brown, Esq., an associate at Billing, Cochran, Lyles, Mauro & Ramsey, PA https://bclmr.com/attorneys_brown.asp



It was only in 2016, after the PCA leading to Magbanua’s arrest and the similar PCA which the State Attorney of the time ridiculed as insufficient, that the 4 Adelsons’ “super lawyers” appear in the picture including Daniel Rashbaum and Jeff Neiman of MNR for Donna Adelson and Harvey Adelson.

Again, nothing in the above should be construed as animus toward anyone poster. Further, restating the factual and properly sourced posts' of others only amplifies echo chamber. Plagiarism does not make one look good. And, “I only drink to make other people seem more interesting” (common adage).