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

[Knitpicker]

I believe Rob was present at Harvey’s birthday party. I would like it if he could at least be permitted to testify as to exactly where they were living at that time.

He was there. It appears it was the last time he was with his family.
I am hoping he can fill in who was at the Party. It could be that Wendi may not be telling the truth when she doesn’t “remember” who was there or if Katie or any of Charlies other girlfriends were there. (Georgia asked her about it on the stand. She even named the girlfriends. Seems suspect that W would not remember, just as she doesnt remember what she got her father for his Bday.
Perhaps Robert had some conversation there with someone?
I do remember that there was a wire call where Donna was complaining that when Robert goes to Naples, (W coast of Florida not Italy)he flies into Ft Lauderdale airport and never meets Donna and Harvey for lunch and she was angry about it. So that either means he saw them again after the party in 2014 (that wiretap was 2016) or he didn’t.

 

[amicuscurie]

He was there. It appears it was the last time he was with his family.
I am hoping he can fill in who was at the Party. It could be that Wendi may not be telling the truth when she doesn’t “remember” who was there or if Katie or any of Charlies other girlfriends were there. (Georgia asked her about it on the stand. She even named the girlfriends. Seems suspect that W would not remember, just as she doesnt remember what she got her father for his Bday.
Perhaps Robert had some conversation there with someone?
I do remember that there was a wire call where Donna was complaining that when Robert flies to Naples, he flies into Ft Lauderdale airport and never meets Donna and Harvey for lunch and she was angry about it. So that either means he saw them again after the party in 2014 (that wiretap was 2016) or he didn’t.

Yep. I also remember that call, and something about a conversation with Rob at the party. As I recall, in that call she says something about “downstairs,” which is how I started to picture the party being in a townhouse, because generally I believe those are two stories, if we are talking about Continuum. Of course, it’s possible the reference to “downstairs” just meant the building lobby. Anyway, it’s possible Rob may have heard something at the party. Generally as a matter of law evidence of bad character is not admissible in my understanding, but any relevant facts Rob might testify to may be.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yep. I also remember that call, and something about a conversation with Rob at the party. As I recall, in that call she says something about “downstairs,” which is how I started to picture the party being in a townhouse, because generally I believe those are two stories, if we are talking about Continuum. Of course, it’s possible the reference to “downstairs” just meant the building lobby. Anyway, it’s possible Rob may have heard something at the party. Generally as a matter of law evidence of bad character is not admissible in my understanding, but any relevant facts Rob might testify to may be.

I don’t remember anything about downstairs. Thats good you remembered that.

 

[amicuscurie]

I don’t remember anything about downstairs. Thats good you remembered that.

Maybe I imagined it, but it sticks in my head somehow

 

[nodamselindistress]

Anything noteworthy from the hearing this morning? Had a dr appointment and missed it.

 

[Going Rogue]

There will be so many great case studies on this case after the final chapter reaches a conclusion. Front and center should be how those that closely follow this case overthink and overanalyze every detail. I’m often surprised at how some people interpret certain events and scrutinize every detail. In the grand scheme of things, 95% of the ‘evidence’ we have been working off of in this case has been the same since Charlie Adelson’s initial arrest affidavit was written in 2016. Yes, a lot has happened since that date, but as far as evidence is concerned, very little has been introduced since that date. IMO, the three biggest reveals (that are public) since that date are:

1) Donnas text ‘outside your house’ & Charlie’s response ’10 minutes’
2) Wendi deleting the text - ‘This is so sweet”
3) Wendi inquiring on Dan’s travel plans for the week of his murder

IMO the key to a Donna conviction is the ‘outside your house’ text and Charlie’s response ‘10 minutes’. It’s obvious to me Donnas defense strategy will be Donna was in the dark and just listening to Charlie which accounts for all her ‘post murder’ behavior EXCEPT stopping at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee. With the defense I anticipate they go with, they don’t have to agree or admit they believe Charlie is guilty, JUST that Donna believed what Charlie was telling her and she was scared. I can see that defense being effective EXCEPT I don’t see a way around the implications of the text ‘outside your house’. That text is going to bury Donna.

I think Donna will be an easy conviction as long as they have a competent jury. My interest in Donna’s trial is simply what new evidence will be introduced. The majority of trial will be redundant testimony that we already all heard multiple times in the previous trials - what a waste of taxpayer’s money.

 

[amicuscurie]

Maybe I imagined it, but it sticks in my head somehow

dbm

 

[nodamselindistress]

There will be so many great case studies on this case after the final chapter reaches a conclusion. Front and center should be how those that closely follow this case overthink and overanalyze every detail. I’m often surprised at how some people interpret certain events and scrutinize every detail. In the grand scheme of things, 95% of the ‘evidence’ we have been working off of in this case has been the same since Charlie Adelson’s initial arrest affidavit was written in 2016. Yes, a lot has happened since that date, but as far as evidence is concerned, very little has been introduced since that date. IMO, the three biggest reveals (that are public) since that date are:

1) Donnas text ‘outside your house’ & Charlie’s response ’10 minutes’
2) Wendi deleting the text - ‘This is so sweet”
3) Wendi inquiring on Dan’s travel plans for the week of his murder

IMO the key to a Donna conviction is the ‘outside your house’ text and Charlie’s response ‘10 minutes’. It’s obvious to me Donnas defense strategy will be Donna was in the dark and just listening to Charlie which accounts for all her ‘post murder’ behavior EXCEPT stopping at Charlie’s house on the way up to Tallahassee. With the defense I anticipate they go with, they don’t have to agree or admit they believe Charlie is guilty, JUST that Donna believed what Charlie was telling her and she was scared. I can see that defense being effective EXCEPT I don’t see a way around the implications of the text ‘outside your house’. That text is going to bury Donna.

I think Donna will be an easy conviction as long as they have a competent jury. My interest in Donna’s trial is simply what new evidence will be introduced. The majority of trial will be redundant testimony that we already all heard multiple times in the previous trials - what a waste of taxpayer’s money.

Not sure what you are suggesting they do so as not to "waste" taxpayer's money?