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

[Going Rogue]

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

Yes it is.. 100%. The problem is she is clever, try to prove her lies. They are mainly ‘opinion’ based or lies that cant be easily proven or are up for interpretation. The exception is the most talked about lie about the varying versions of the famous trip to the crime scene.

 

[amicuscurie]

Yes it is.. 100%. The problem is she is clever, try to prove her lies. They are mainly ‘opinion’ based or lies that cant be easily proven or are up for interpretation. The exception is the most talked about lie about the varying versions of the famous trip to the crime scene.

In my opinion she can be seen to contradict herself multiple times in her police interview about when she listened to Dan’s message that morning, why she drove by the scene, when she left her home, and when the Best Buy guy was there and how long he stayed, for example.

 

[Knitpicker]

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

View attachment 528603

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.”

 

[Reporter-C.Lin]

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.

I just wanted to point out, who else would know that Dan's schedule that day? (When to go workout and then when to return home). Perhaps the ex-wife? She also coincidentally happened to drive by Dan's house even though she didn't have to that day.

 

[Going Rogue]

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

View attachment 528603

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).

We in a world today where sources don’t matter as long as it aligns with someone’s personal beliefs or theory. If someone heard it on a YouTube channel or other forum and it supports their personal beliefs, it’s repeated as fact. I’ve seen a lot of that in this case.

 

[cottonweaver]

It would be great if the persons who are complaining about lack of links were persons who commonly* posted links with their own posts

This isn't Youtube or reddit

* or ever

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey folks,

Snarky comments, personalizing and personal attacks toward other members are absolutely not allowed.

Discuss the post and NOT the poster; post respectfully .. or face a loss of posting privileges.

 

[Zedzded]

We in a world today where sources don’t matter as long as it aligns with someone’s personal beliefs or theory. If someone heard it on a YouTube channel or other forum and it supports their personal beliefs, it’s repeated as fact. I’ve seen a lot of that in this case.

Yup confirmation bias. I try to be impartial, but it is hard. Re your thoughts on the case against WA. If we go on what we know about the current available evidence, I would say there is enough for her to be indicted, but it will be a difficult case to prosecute. It certainly won't be a slam dunk case like CAs and DAs. If she had been arrested before CA, I don't think she would have been convicted. But with DA's conviction and the revelation of new evidence and evidence we are not privy to, I think she will be convicted.

Re the evidence we are not privy to, it's clear that the State has more evidence, but it was unnecessary to reveal it in CA's trial. It would have been deemed irrelevant to demonstrate to the jury that WA planned to move to Miami prior to DM's murder.

There's also the potential possibility of perjury charges. This has been written this off as people are rarely charged with perjury, for many reasons. One being, for example, DV victims might lie in court to protect their abusive spouse and it would be pretty callous of the courts to charge them with perjury. But WA has lied multiple times in a murder trial. Big lies. Not lying about what she had for breakfast.

The State will get WA, it might not be as easy as her other family members, but they will get her.

 

[Zedzded]

Perhaps the ex-wife? She also coincidentally happened to drive by Dan's house even though she didn't have to that day.

Yup, this gets sold as a shortcut she took. But a shortcut to a liquor store that was miles from her house. She had a liquor store much closer to her. This will come up in much more detail in WA's trial. She had lived in the area for 7+ years and with her predilection for grog, she would have known exactly where to go. Plus. according to her, she was in a rush. And ultimately what will be the nail in her coffin, she lied about her journey. The prime suspect with a strong motive, drives past the victims house, shortly after they are shot and then lies about it. That alone is sufficient to secure a conviction.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yup confirmation bias. I try to be impartial, but it is hard. Re your thoughts on the case against WA. If we go on what we know about the current available evidence, I would say there is enough for her to be indicted, but it will be a difficult case to prosecute. It certainly won't be a slam dunk case like CAs and DAs. If she had been arrested before CA, I don't think she would have been convicted. But with DA's conviction and the revelation of new evidence and evidence we are not privy to, I think she will be convicted.

Re the evidence we are not privy to, it's clear that the State has more evidence, but it was unnecessary to reveal it in CA's trial. It would have been deemed irrelevant to demonstrate to the jury that WA planned to move to Miami prior to DM's murder.

There's also the potential possibility of perjury charges. This has been written this off as people are rarely charged with perjury, for many reasons. One being, for example, DV victims might lie in court to protect their abusive spouse and it would be pretty callous of the courts to charge them with perjury. But WA has lied multiple times in a murder trial. Big lies. Not lying about what she had for breakfast.

The State will get WA, it might not be as easy as her other family members, but they will get her.

I agree with you re Wendi’s case and I’ve been saying that for a long time. I know you’re not from but states, but 99% of cases brought in front of a Grand Jury’s here move forward. I sat on a GJ a few years ago for 4 weeks and saw at least 75 cases we voted in favor of indictment on every one. The reality is you get very one-sided ‘presentation’ of the evidence. A Wendi indictment will be simple but unless they have something else not yet public, I just don’t see an easy conviction AND I’ve said for a LONG time this is precisely why the prosecution has not yet made a move on her. IMO, despite what we are hearing from some ‘experts’, the prosecution feels exactly as you and I do.

I always add my disclaimer that my analysis is only based on the evidence that is public and I don’t place a lot of weight on a lot of ‘things’ that people constantly argue as evidence that are PURELY speculation (and way too many to list). If something ‘new’ is brought forward, it might change my perspective, which is why I’m looking forward to seeing what comes out of Donna’s trial. I have been hearing a lot of buzz and optimism on ‘something’ new of substance that they have on Wendi. Time will tell.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yup, this gets sold as a shortcut she took. But a shortcut to a liquor store that was miles from her house. She had a liquor store she could have walked to. This will come up in much more detail in WA's trial. She had lived in the area for 7+ years and with her predilection for grog, she would have known exactly where to go. Plus. according to her, she was in a rush. And ultimately what will be the nail in her coffin, she lied about her journey. The prime suspect with a strong motive, drives past the victims house, shortly after they are shot and then lies about it. That alone is sufficient to secure a conviction.

A store she could have walked to?

 

[Zedzded]

A store she could have walked to?

Correction - much closer than the one she drove to.

 

[Knitpicker]

Correction - much closer than the one she drove to.

Ok….yes.

 

[Zedzded]

I agree with you re Wendi’s case and I’ve been saying that for a long time. I know you’re not from but states, but 99% of cases brought in front of a Grand Jury’s here move forward. I sat on a GJ a few years ago for 4 weeks and saw at least 75 cases we voted in favor of indictment on every one. The reality is you get very one-sided ‘presentation’ of the evidence. A Wendi indictment will be simple but unless they have something else not yet public, I just don’t see an easy conviction AND I’ve said for a LONG time this is precisely why the prosecution has not yet made a move on her. IMO, despite what we are hearing from some ‘experts’, the prosecution feels exactly as you and I do.

I always add my disclaimer that my analysis is only based on the evidence that is public and I don’t place a lot of weight on a lot of ‘things’ that people constantly argue as evidence that are PURELY speculation (and way too many to list). If something ‘new’ is brought forward, it might change my perspective, which is why I’m looking forward to seeing what comes out of Donna’s trial. I have been hearing a lot of buzz and optimism on ‘something’ new of substance that they have on Wendi. Time will tell.

It's a complicated case (WA). On the surface of it, is it relevant or pertinent to the case that WA messaged guys on Ok Cupid the day after the murder. Whilst most would be traumatised from their ex-partners death, concerned for their children's well being, she's out there trying to get laid. It doesn't meant she's a murderer, but I suppose it gives us an insight into the mind of Wendi Adelson and how she works.

The State need to pick up these little pieces of evidence and somehow link them to the crime. Same with the TV repair. We really need the TV repair guy to divulge what really went on in that 45min visit. Was WA a complete trainwreck or was it a simple case of him saying the TV couldn't be repaired, they chatted and that was it. If it's the latter, then the TV repair probably ceases to be relevant. And plenty of circumstantial evidence can be easily dismissed by a semi-competent lawyer, e.g puking in the restaurant, planning Dad's birthday present, not returning detectives calls, appearing apathetic about DM's murder in the years after it, deleted texts and calendar entries.

Superficially incriminating, but easily dismissed. So potentially there's not a lot of strong evidence there, other than her trip down Trescott. And if WA goes with the theory that she thinks CA and DA were involved and she was against the idea, she could argue that she drove down Trescott because she feared CA had carried out his threat to kill DM and she was concerned.

I do think we are missing a few pieces to the puzzle to ensure we get a conviction for WA. I think there will be something, just not sure what. It doesn't need to be significant, just a small puzzle piece that somehow acts like the proverbial final puzzle piece e.g if she arranged dates with guys in Miami before Dan was murdered. That would be critical.

 

[Zedzded]

Do they sell alcohol/spirits in supermarkets in the US?

 

[Knitpicker]

Do they sell alcohol/spirits in supermarkets in the US?

In Florida, you can get wine at a local pharmacy like Walgreens and CVS. Not hard liquor. Also at a gas station.
Most Publix supermarkets, the popular store with one every few miles, has an adjacent liquor store where you can get hard alcohol. They sell wine only in the supermarket.

 

[LinasK]

Do they sell alcohol/spirits in supermarkets in the US?

Yes, but you can't do it through the self-checkouts. You must show your ID to prove that you are old enough to buy it. In California, they sell hard alcohol in the markets and CVS as well as wine. You can get Whiskey, Bourbon, Rum, whatever you'd like.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, but you can't do it through the self-checkouts. You must show your ID to prove that you are old enough to buy it. In California, they sell hard alcohol in the markets as well as wine. You can get Whiskey, Bourbon, Rum, whatever you'd like.

We don’t have hard liquor sold in supermarkets in Florida.
I remember 35 years ago, Publix didn’t sell wine until 12 PM on Sundays.
Not sure when that stopped.

 

[Knitpicker]

LIQUOR LAWS IN FLORIDA​

Florida is one of only nine states where individual counties can dictate whether alcohol can be purchased on Sundays. Some counties limit Sunday alcohol sales. Most states allow these sales across all counties.

The Sunshine State also limits the type of alcohol that consumers can buy in a grocery store. Only wine and beer sales are permitted in supermarkets. Hard alcohol cannot be sold in the Florida grocery stores, only in liquor stores.

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,
Isn't it nice that you no longer have to deal with the obnoxious ads on Websleuths. You also don't have to deal with me whining asking for donations for the server. Websleuths is so much better now and that is because of our partnership with Othram. We are now free of my whining and those horrid ads.
If you like the fact that we are ad-free then please consider making a monthly donation to DNA Solves.com CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR A MONTHLY DONATION TO DNA SOLVES
By subscribing and making a monthly donation, you will be helping the families finally get the answers they deserve.
The amazing people at DNA Solves/Othram care deeply about finding the families of the unidentified.
Even 5 dollars a month would go a long way to finding the families of the unidentified.
Please do not discuss this on this thread. CLICK HERE if you would like to discuss further or have any questions.
Thank you,
Tricia Griffith
Manager/Websleuths.com