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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
It seems that Charlie could have changed his mind, even with a signed waver.
yes Charlie had that right at any point but having done this today, you could argue his action has other unintended consequences.
We've heard the old jail calls so it's not hard to imagine his baby momma congratulating him on the phone with him tonight

This is very Charlie. Good on tactics, lacking on strategy.
 
There's an IGer that does videos on prison food. TBH I ate a lot worse when I was at uni (college). Not sure what those prison guys ate outside of prison, sure it wasn't lobster every night...
Florida prison food is AWFUL, and they don't feed inmates enough, imo. It's pretty bad.
 
yes Charlie had that right at any point but having done this today, you could argue his action has other unintended consequences.
We've heard the old jail calls so it's not hard to imagine his baby momma congratulating him on the phone with him tonight

This is very Charlie. Good on tactics, lacking on strategy.
It is a litigious family, who always found loopholes- the family was always going to win on technicalities. I can only imagine how pleased Wendi is to have at least another 6 months of freedom. But as Carl has always said, try Wendi and Donna together. If the state got more from Donnas cell and such, there may be enough to get Wendi first. That would be interesting and mimosa worthy.
 
I

It seems us websleuths are putting blame on the state which the attorneys doing commentary in Tallahassee are not. The judge asked Donna twice if she is sure she wants to retain her son’s counsel yet trusts that the defense has a signed waver? Shouldn’t that be asked for BEFORE they ship Charlie out to Florida for 19K?

IANAL and can't give a legal answer.However, the conflict of interest has been discussed by various experts for a while and DR's representation of DA has been a big question mark. Why resolving the issue at the outset didn't happen to begin with is something I don't understand or can make sense of aside from CA and his conflict. It seemed to be common knowledge that CA would pursue an appeal to his conviction at some point. Doesn't make sense that he would put his appeal in jeopardy by putting himself out there testifying in another proceeding. I guess I feel the state should have seen this coming if I am correct in my assumptions. JMO
 
I’m so mad Rashy dropped out. Donna was a goner with that incompetent attorney. She’s guilty as sin but I loved that she had a dumb attorney representing her. It just would have made it easier to convict. I was betting in under an hour. What if Donna hires someone competent and savvy like Jose Baez?
 
Yes. It did from the start seem like a ploy, but the state can’t do anything about it. This is an unusual case int his regard. I am sure Charlies appellate attorney came up with the idea and filled him in. Charlie knew he was coming to FLorida for this circus. Everyone said how happy he looked. In the long run, he will find ways to appeal through other missteps of Rashbaum. And the next lawyer for Donna will do a better job. I just hope she doesnt hire Tim Jansen. Lol.
Agree on all. Lol. I can't imagine that Tim J would do that. As a matter fact, I'm pretty sure that he was on the record of saying he would never take her case. We would all be in trouble because he is really good. It does bring up a good point though. Since Morris does need to withdraw as well, or the judge should boot him, I wonder who in the world is going to take on Donna? Hopefully not Jose Baez. By the way, I dictated my last post and see how many typos there were. Lol.
 
Last edited:
Agree on all. Lol. I can't imagine that Tim J would do that. As a matter fact, I'm pretty sure that he was on the record of saying he would never take her case. We would all be in trouble. It does bring up a good point though. Since Morris does need to withdraw as well, or the judge should boot him, I wonder who in the world is going to take on Donna? Hopefully not Jose Baez. By the way, I dictated my last post and see how many typos there were. Lol.
I was joking. Which is why I put an lol.
It just doesnt sit well with me that Donna was so gloomy at the last hearing and she pretending to wipe tears from an eye not visible to us today.
Before I caught that, I may think she was really unaware.
I have never cried tears from only one eye. Have you?
Her right eye was dry. Red, but dry.
I have just rewatched her and I’m convinced now this was all a planned strategy .
The goal is to protect Wendi. BC her and Charlie really messed things up- I think Donna is thinking of the boys.
I don’t think Donna believes she will ever get out.
 
I’m so mad Rashy dropped out. Donna was a goner with that incompetent attorney. She’s guilty as sin but I loved that she had a dumb attorney representing her. It just would have made it easier to convict. I was betting in under an hour. What if Donna hires someone competent and savvy like Jose Baez?
Rashbaum is now enjoying a Pina Colada in the Bahamas happy he is out of this mess.. :)
 
I was joking. Which is why I put an lol.
It just doesnt sit well with me that Donna was so gloomy at the last hearing and she pretending to wipe tears from an eye not visible to us today.
Before I caught that, I may think she was really unaware.
I have never cried tears from only one eye. Have you?
Her right eye was dry. Red, but dry.
I have just rewatched her and I’m convinced now this was all a planned strategy .
The goal is to protect Wendi. BC her and Charlie really messed things up- I think Donna is thinking of the boys.
I don’t think Donna believes she will ever get out.

And I can't see CA possibly putting his appeal in jeopardy by testifying in another trial. I don't know what has motivated any of these players but put nothing past the lot of them. JMO
 
I’m so mad Rashy dropped out. Donna was a goner with that incompetent attorney. She’s guilty as sin but I loved that she had a dumb attorney representing her. It just would have made it easier to convict. I was betting in under an hour. What if Donna hires someone competent and savvy like Jose Baez?

Baez has his hands full with Shanna Gardner.
 
Monday morning quarterback take (I know its Tuesday):

According to Rashbaum he said he had a waiver “but did not get a signature”. He said due to the events of the last two days (referring to Ufferman’s motion) he approached Ufferman for a ‘new’ waiver and that request was denied. I’ll give Rashbaum the benefit of the doubt that he was being truthful, but the court should have 100% asked for a copy of the waiver for the official record LONG ago I think we still would have has the same issue because even if Charlie signed a waiver (as far as I understand) he could have revoked it at anytime AND probably would have revoked it – that could have theoretically happened mid trial which would have been a far worse outcome. That said, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Not sure how the court could have prevented this other than a stronger ruling UPFRONT on the clear conflict of interest Rashbaum posed to the case. Judge Everett did address this with Donna a few time, but it seems clear now that she didn’t know what she was agreeing to OR the potential issues that may arise – and look where we landed. She is now responsible for all the court fees for transport / expenses due to the delay – that could easily be north of 100k in fees. I think the state should take equal blame here. They should have verified there was a waiver in place, but again, we still could have the same issue if the waiver was in place. The more I think about it, the Judge should have never allowed Rashbaum to represent Donna because of the conflict of interest. Not sure how that is done in practice, but either bulletproof waivers needed to be in place that cover every ‘conflict’ scenario (easier said than done) OR Rashbaum should have been prohibited from representing Donna by the court because of the conflict of interest.

Steinback was right all along... he was throwing up flares for months about the conflict Rashbaum posed to Donna’s case. I’m sure others agreed about the potential conflict, but I don’t recall anyone stressing it as loudly and as often as Carl - credit to Carl.
 
I was joking. Which is why I put an lol.
It just doesnt sit well with me that Donna was so gloomy at the last hearing and she pretending to wipe tears from an eye not visible to us today.
Before I caught that, I may think she was really unaware.
I have never cried tears from only one eye. Have you?
Her right eye was dry. Red, but dry.
I have just rewatched her and I’m convinced now this was all a planned strategy .
The goal is to protect Wendi. BC her and Charlie really messed things up- I think Donna is thinking of the boys.
I don’t think Donna believes she will ever get out.
Agree. The performance of her life, one of them anyway. I absolutely think this is strategized, if not by Rashy, by the attorneys at his firm, or, who knows, maybe through the team of lawyers that Wendi has. And I agree, it is all to protect Wendi.

I believe the whole strategy from the beginning with representing both mother and son was an effort to have any conviction overturned on appeal and hope that Georgia retires. Keep getting new trial issues to hope the State gives up. I absolutely think it was a strategy, I don't think her tears were real, I don't believe she only found out at the hearing, & there is no way that she didn't well understand. And Charlie, like he always does running his big mouth, did the equivalent with his smile and smirk in his mug shot. It was a plan.

Think about it. Even with the A insanity to believe that Charlie was going home, with the texts, emails, checks she wrote, there is no rational person who believes that she is going to get an acquittal. Her best case scenario (without some nefarious intervention) is a hung jury, which means she sits in jail awaiting yet another trial. So no matter what, she is sitting in jail. I think it is further delay hoping that the state will not arrest Wendi because they want her testifying at Donna's trial. What I need to hear is from someone like Tim or a Florida attorney of a high caliber who can come up with ways that the state could get all that they need against Donna from Wendi without using Wendi .

But I think it is so important to see her on the stand. I think that was part of the key for why Charlie got convicted. It was obvious she was lying & helped the State's case. Also, the name change, the GeekSquad TV visit, the history of her and Dan with their divorce documents, she is the one who authenticates all that. I just don't know how you get all that in without her. But I'm sure there is a way so maybe they can try mother and daughter at the same trial and go get W now.
 
I totally agree with you. On such an important issue, the state and the Judge should have gotten a written waiver. But isn’t it true that CA could have changed his mind at any time? Even up until day 1 of trial? Or did I misunderstand?

In hindsight and in light of what actually unfolded in the last 48 hours, there are probably many issues that could have arisen because of the Rashbaum conflict of counsel issue. Yes, IMO, the court should have asked for that waiver but, as I understand it, Charlie could have changed his mind at anytime and revoked his decision to waive privilege. Hypothetically if Charlie did have a waiver in place AND he changed his mind mid trial and revoked the waiver / privilege, that state would have been forced to drop him from the witness list. Today we learned that they only intended to call him as a rebuttal witness, but depending on Donna defense, Uffemans motion could be a blessing in disguise for the state. There could have been a scenario where they wanted to call Charlie but couldn’t because of an appellate concern. I predict that in many places (specifically meaning those that cover the case), Rashbaun’s name is going to be dragged through the mud, but I think equal blame is to be shared by the Tallahassee DA’s office and Judge Everett. We should have never gotten to this point. To quote Carl Steinback – “This was avoidable” – I think he said that :)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
3,312
Total visitors
3,498

Forum statistics

Threads
604,604
Messages
18,174,474
Members
232,748
Latest member
Maineguy1961
Back
Top