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

New Posts

IQuestion said:
Hi Niner Am only answering because I had recently brought this up with a pal. AK was just "too involved/eager" to physically move up so close to a woman he had only met for 30 minutes.(creepy) Then jumping up to get a box of tissue was just awkward, IMO. DR didn't have a handkerchief in his suit pocket in anticipation of the devastating news he is about to give his client on nationally televised courtroom event? Morris is in need of a defense team and AK desperately wants to be a part of it, IMO. (I'm suited up and ready to go coach!)
DR managed to get the job. Go figure.
Apparently rich old ladies facing prosecution can attract a lot of sychophants.
A sycophant is a person who tries to win favor from wealthy or influential people by flattering them. Also known as brown-nosers, teacher's pets or suck-ups.
Click to expand...
You brought back memories of having to iron my father’s “Hankies” as a kid. That was decades ago.
Do men even use handkerchiefs today?
Yes I found him to be awkward.
Just thinking of how the trial would have had to be delayed due to the hurricane coming tomorrow directly to Tallahassee and all that came to the trial stranded and not being able to get flights out, etc.
 
Zedzded said:
LR got 19 years and was one of the hitmen, so I reckon they could do something with a plea for DA that would see her accept it.
Her issues at the moment (speculatively):
1. She does not want the stress of having to wait and prepare for another trial.
2. She wants out of her hellhole jail and into a more liveable prison.
3. She does not want to fork out another $1 million in legal fees.

And I think now she finally is cognisant of the fact that the case against her is a slam dunk. So she knows she either makes a deal or does LWOP. There is no not guilty scenario. What we what and what the State want is for DA to die in prison and primarily to have Wendi's head on a platter, with an orange in mouth. That can be done. 10 years for DA and she will die in prison.
Click to expand...
In my opinion based on my impressions from that press conference the state gave, the state has an interest in attempting to negotiate a plea at this point. In my opinion, it’s possible the state might believe that it has spent so much money preparing for a trial which did not take place, that the taxpayers would look kindly on its having to do the same thing, with the same expenditures, in a year or so. Also, in my opinion, it’s possible the state might fear that the public might believe that the state is not entirely blameless in this situation and could have done more to clear up the waiver issue. In my opinion the press conference may possibly have been a way for the state to get in front of some of this criticism, and to signal its willingness to negotiate.
 
Last edited:
DA will listen to her lawyer. If he tells her, she has zero chance if they go to trial, she will accept that. So I fully expect some kind of attempt at making a deal with the State.
 
Zedzded said:
DA will listen to her lawyer. If he tells her, she has zero chance if they go to trial, she will accept that. So I fully expect some kind of attempt at making a deal with the State.
Click to expand...

JMO -

The State is holding all of the cards as DA is 74 years old and is under no obligation to agree to a plea unless DA is willing to give up Wendi. Even then, she could plea down to 2nd degree and get 20 to life but she would likely die in prison. Perhaps the State could assure her she'd be sent to a minimum security prison near HA ?
 
Zedzded said:
DA will listen to her lawyer. If he tells her, she has zero chance if they go to trial, she will accept that. So I fully expect some kind of attempt at making a deal with the State.
Click to expand...
ZZ...Interesting assertion "DA will listen to her lawyer."??? IMO DA doesn't listen and process; I think she hears and reacts. (The obsession is what makes her scary.) She is a planner, notebook scribbling plotter who can't separate normal life functions from her racing thoughts of retribution against anyone who dares to cast a shadow over her "carefully contrived & detailed coordination" of public perception. Perhaps as the spotlight of her accomplishments began to dim, even realizing she could no longer "push it" alone. It seems she did finally reach out (Riggs?). I'm thinking a health professional would have been more important than a "life coach." (Maybe the life coach was a medical professional?) the But since appearances are so important to DA, I think she would never have allow herself to be seen walking into the office of a mental health professional. Ergo "phone-a-friend?"
But I digress...and my point. I am far more interested in your thoughts as to why, after 50 years of "getting her way" is she willing to break?
 
amicuscurie said:
What evidence (other than her own testimony) might Donna have to offer against Wendi that the state does not/will not already have? Is her testimony enough?
Click to expand...
Maybe DA knows "the location" of evidence? The possibility of CA's (her son's) burner phone being the reason AMorris mentioned it in court?????? Yes, yes, yes. wtte "Charlie asked me if I had seen his phone?" OMG!!!...I think it now makes sense (even if only to me, lol).
Trying to think outside the box, okay. If DA could provide the phone, she has a bargaining chip, without her directly giving up WA. If the phone generates info/evidence of CA &WA planning, DA wouldn't be directly responsible for the plan her offspring hatched. DA walks out after short prison term (accessory after the fact) and still gets to fulfill her dream of being grandma again.
Just think about it. Of all the things AMorris could have said in court, he mentions "Charlie asking if he had seen his phone." Not the "contents" of the phone, but the actual phone is how I interpreted the issue. Really curious, huh?
 
amicuscurie said:
The only way, in my opinion, she would testify against Wendi is if she has begun to view Wendi as a threat to herself rather than an extension of it.
Click to expand...
What is confusing and so paradoxical about the Adelsons is that for the most part they present as a normal, stable, loving and successful family. They did all the right things, got good careers, nice houses, sent their kids to good schools, loved them, nurtured them, supported them and this carried on into adulthood.

You can hear the warmth and tenderness in DA's voice when she talks to CA on the phone and when she talks about her daughter and her Grandkids. She sounds like any other loving, devoted parent. And that's why people maintain she would never flip on CA or WA.

But this is the paradox. She supposedly loves and cares for her kids, yet she not only allowed them to engage in a murder conspiracy, but actively encouraged it. She knew that the risk was her kids would be arrested and would spend the rest of their lives in prison, but she did not hesitate for a second.No loving parent does that. She should have done absolutely everything in her power to stop them, irrespective of how much she hated DM. Your primal instinct when that baby pops out is to protect. She did not have that instinct back in 2014, so why would she have that now? She sold her kids down the river...

Mothers get 'failure to bond.' They have zero connection with their babies, but they put on a brave face and manage to at least present like a loving, caring mother. Perhaps this is DA. Says and does the right things, but cares for her kids like one would with a pet hamster.

That said I still can't believe she would, as a parent, I'd prefer to die in prison rather than have my kids spend one day in there, but then I'm not a narcissistic sociopath!
 
Zedzded said:
But this is the paradox. She supposedly loves and cares for her kids, yet she not only allowed them to engage in a murder conspiracy, but actively encouraged it. She knew that the risk was her kids would be arrested and would spend the rest of their lives in prison, but she did not hesitate for a second.No loving parent does that.
Click to expand...

It’s truly mind boggling. I think people like her misunderstand what their own best interest is because they have a distorted sense of reality. She incorrectly assessed both the risk and the benefits of this plot and made all sorts of horrible choices. If she had any reasonable sense of reality IMO she would have realized that. And of course there are no fixed set of morals or values other than what she thinks is “best” for herself and/or her family. And her kids are exactly the same.
 
Zedzded said:
What is confusing and so paradoxical about the Adelsons is that for the most part they present as a normal, stable, loving and successful family. They did all the right things, got good careers, nice houses, sent their kids to good schools, loved them, nurtured them, supported them and this carried on into adulthood.

You can hear the warmth and tenderness in DA's voice when she talks to CA on the phone and when she talks about her daughter and her Grandkids. She sounds like any other loving, devoted parent. And that's why people maintain she would never flip on CA or WA.

But this is the paradox. She supposedly loves and cares for her kids, yet she not only allowed them to engage in a murder conspiracy, but actively encouraged it. She knew that the risk was her kids would be arrested and would spend the rest of their lives in prison, but she did not hesitate for a second.No loving parent does that. She should have done absolutely everything in her power to stop them, irrespective of how much she hated DM. Your primal instinct when that baby pops out is to protect. She did not have that instinct back in 2014, so why would she have that now? She sold her kids down the river...

Mothers get 'failure to bond.' They have zero connection with their babies, but they put on a brave face and manage to at least present like a loving, caring mother. Perhaps this is DA. Says and does the right things, but cares for her kids like one would with a pet hamster.

That said I still can't believe she would, as a parent, I'd prefer to die in prison rather than have my kids spend one day in there, but then I'm not a narcissistic sociopath!
Click to expand...

I think too many people make assumptions about the Adelson family dynamics based on information that is in the public domain when that information is a ‘relatively’ small sample size of what we know about the family. We make these assumptions based on the below ‘main’ things that are public and few other ancillary bits of information:

1) Wiretaps – mainly between Charlie & Donna
2) Jeff Lacasse’s police interview
3) Donna’s emails
4) Robert Asdelson’s commentary in first 20/20 special

Based on the above, its hard to argue with almost every negative comment written about anyone not named Robert. I said ‘relatively’ small sample size because in reality that’s what it really is and its some seriously abnormal ‘stuff’, but I don’t think we should be making a lot of the definitive conclusions that I see made constantly all over social media. I do agree with a lot of what you said, but how do we know Donna “actively encouraged” Dan’s murder? Maybe Charlie led the charge and convinced Donna it needs to be done. Maybe Donna was actively encouraged that it was the right thing as opposed to actively encouraging the murder.

I see so many labels and mental disorders / clinical diagnosis placed on all the Adelsons and I do agree that ‘something’ is off with them, but not sure any of us have enough information to pinpoint a specific mental disorder / clinical diagnoses on any of them. Personally, I think there is good reason to believe there are some serious mental health conditions in the family based on what I identified as the small sample size but not sure who has what. Additionally, I’m not sure how so many that actively follow this case seem to have such strong opinions on how certain Adelsons think, act and seem to know precisely what role each Adelson played with the information that is public. I believe its okay to speculate, so my post isn’t meant as a criticism on what you are saying, just that I’ve thought about this many times whenever I see certain posts the theorize on how a certain Adelson behaved in this conspiracy or what role they played. IMO, there are so many possibilities and without more information (that we may never get) it may be impossible to know how things truly went down and who pulled the strings or what any of them were thinking.
 
Going Rogue said:
I think too many people make assumptions about the Adelson family dynamics based on information that is in the public domain when that information is a ‘relatively’ small sample size of what we know about the family. We make these assumptions based on the below ‘main’ things that are public and few other ancillary bits of information:

1) Wiretaps – mainly between Charlie & Donna
2) Jeff Lacasse’s police interview
3) Donna’s emails
4) Robert Asdelson’s commentary in first 20/20 special

Based on the above, its hard to argue with almost every negative comment written about anyone not named Robert. I said ‘relatively’ small sample size because in reality that’s what it really is and its some seriously abnormal ‘stuff’, but I don’t think we should be making a lot of the definitive conclusions that I see made constantly all over social media. I do agree with a lot of what you said, but how do we know Donna “actively encouraged” Dan’s murder? Maybe Charlie led the charge and convinced Donna it needs to be done. Maybe Donna was actively encouraged that it was the right thing as opposed to actively encouraging the murder.

I see so many labels and mental disorders / clinical diagnosis placed on all the Adelsons and I do agree that ‘something’ is off with them, but not sure any of us have enough information to pinpoint a specific mental disorder / clinical diagnoses on any of them. Personally, I think there is good reason to believe there are some serious mental health conditions in the family based on what I identified as the small sample size but not sure who has what. Additionally, I’m not sure how so many that actively follow this case seem to have such strong opinions on how certain Adelsons think, act and seem to know precisely what role each Adelson played with the information that is public. I believe its okay to speculate, so my post isn’t meant as a criticism on what you are saying, just that I’ve thought about this many times whenever I see certain posts the theorize on how a certain Adelson behaved in this conspiracy or what role they played. IMO, there are so many possibilities and without more information (that we may never get) it may be impossible to know how things truly went down and who pulled the strings or what any of them were thinking.
Click to expand...

All I see is a filthy murdering family believing they are above the law and used to getting their way due to their financial status and friends in high places connections. (and maybe with their inflated egos thinking they were smart enough to fool the masses) Evidence that they are all morally deficient is their joint effort to do away with DM and not have an iota of remorse after the fact continuing on to this very day. It's my belief they all agreed to have DM murdered and all knew and participated in one way another. The entire worthless bunch needs to be locked up and the key thrown away. JMOO
 
Going Rogue said:
I think too many people make assumptions about the Adelson family dynamics based on information that is in the public domain when that information is a ‘relatively’ small sample size of what we know about the family. We make these assumptions based on the below ‘main’ things that are public and few other ancillary bits of information:

1) Wiretaps – mainly between Charlie & Donna
2) Jeff Lacasse’s police interview
3) Donna’s emails
4) Robert Asdelson’s commentary in first 20/20 special

Based on the above, its hard to argue with almost every negative comment written about anyone not named Robert. I said ‘relatively’ small sample size because in reality that’s what it really is and its some seriously abnormal ‘stuff’, but I don’t think we should be making a lot of the definitive conclusions that I see made constantly all over social media. I do agree with a lot of what you said, but how do we know Donna “actively encouraged” Dan’s murder? Maybe Charlie led the charge and convinced Donna it needs to be done. Maybe Donna was actively encouraged that it was the right thing as opposed to actively encouraging the murder.

I see so many labels and mental disorders / clinical diagnosis placed on all the Adelsons and I do agree that ‘something’ is off with them, but not sure any of us have enough information to pinpoint a specific mental disorder / clinical diagnoses on any of them. Personally, I think there is good reason to believe there are some serious mental health conditions in the family based on what I identified as the small sample size but not sure who has what. Additionally, I’m not sure how so many that actively follow this case seem to have such strong opinions on how certain Adelsons think, act and seem to know precisely what role each Adelson played with the information that is public. I believe its okay to speculate, so my post isn’t meant as a criticism on what you are saying, just that I’ve thought about this many times whenever I see certain posts the theorize on how a certain Adelson behaved in this conspiracy or what role they played. IMO, there are so many possibilities and without more information (that we may never get) it may be impossible to know how things truly went down and who pulled the strings or what any of them were thinking.
Click to expand...

I think we actually know a great deal about the Adelsons, certainly more than the vast majority of criminal defendants that are discussed in this forum. As you say, we have emails, private conversations and commentary from acquaintances and other family members. That's a lot of information.

There are a couple of reasons that I think Donna was the instigator. The first is motivation: Charlie's life wasn't really impacted by the custody struggle between Wendi and Dan. He seemed quite content living his playboy lifestyle. It was Donna who was constantly making trips to escort her daughter back and forth from Tallahassee to Miami. If Wendi was able to move to Miami, Donna's life would be significantly improved by seeing her grandchildren more regularly. I don't get the impression that Charlie was so dedicated to his nephews that he wanted to see them all the time.

The second is personality: Donna seems to meet all the stereotypes of the overbearing mother. This online definition fits Donna to a T: "excessive control, lack of boundaries, and a tendency to manipulate and dominate her adult child's life." In contrast, I haven't seen any indication that Charlie really cared too much about how others in his family lived their life. (The only exceptions I can think of are when his mother cared about something, like when she didn't want Wendi to buy a house in Tallahassee.)

Of course I agree that only those involved know the true story. But I don't agree that the relationships are totally opaque. All the sources we have are pretty much in agreement with regards to the family dynamic. And I know from my own experience how much those tendencies play out over and over again. In any given situation I know which family member is the provocateur, who avoids conflict, who is the peacemaker, etc.
 
Last edited:
ch_13 said:
I think we actually know a great deal about the Adelsons, certainly more than the vast majority of criminal defendants that are discussed in this forum. As you say, we have emails, private conversations and commentary from acquaintances and other family members. That's a lot of information.

There are a couple of reasons that I think Donna was the instigator. The first is motivation: Charlie's life wasn't really impacted by the custody struggle between Wendi and Dan. He seemed quite content living his playboy lifestyle. It was Donna who was constantly making trips to escort her daughter back and forth from Tallahassee to Miami. If Wendi was able to move to Miami, Donna's life would be significantly improved by seeing her grandchildren more regularly. I don't get the impression that Charlie was so dedicated to his nephews that he wanted to see them all the time.

The second is personality: Donna seems to meet all the stereotypes of the overbearing mother. This online definition fits Donna to a T: "excessive control, lack of boundaries, and a tendency to manipulate and dominate her adult child's life." In contrast, I haven't seen any indication that Charlie really cared too much about how others in his family lived their life. (The only exceptions I can think of are when his mother cared about something, like when she didn't want Wendi to buy a house in Tallahassee.)

Of course I agree that only those involved know the true story. But I don't agree that the relationships are totally opaque. All the sources we have are pretty much in agreement with regards to the family dynamic. And I know from my own experience how much those tendencies play out over and over again. In any given situation I know which family member is the provocateur, who avoids conflict, who is the peacemaker, etc.
Click to expand...

We do have a great deal based on the information I referenced, but I still say it’s a relatively small sample size in the grand scheme of things. We have a couple of hours of Lacasse’s personal perspective (mostly about Charlie & Wendi), a handful of Donna’s emails, Rob’s story, and several hours of phone calls. That’s essentially all the content we have to base our perspective on the family dynamics. Based on that, we can speculate all day long. In most of the calls, Charlie seems to be speaking to Donna in a very authoritative and controlling way. How do we know Charlie didn’t write those emails for Donna OR at least feed Donna the main points to focus on? I wouldn’t doubt it if Donna solicited Charlie’s guidance / advice on everything ‘Wendi’. Donna couldn’t place the Mother’s Day lunch order without Charlie blessing on all the details. I have no doubt Donna wanted Wendi in S. Florida in the worst way. I also have no doubt Charlie knew every detail about how Donna felt about the situation and all the details about the motion Dan was filing going after Wendi’s bar license and Donna’s supervised visits with the grandchildren and how that was impacting the ‘family’. I don’t think its too far-fetched to think Charlie hatched the plan. From my perspective, Charlie seems the most likely Adelson to concoct a plan to resort to murder to solve the problem and sell that plan to others. I’m not saying that is absolutely what happened, just a theory based on the ‘information’ we have that is just as conceivable as any other theory. I can roll off many theories. My main point is based on the information we are working off of, we can’t be 100% certain about how things unfolded – there are many possibilities. I’m not saying your theory or anyone else’s is wrong, just that there are many possibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 2,022 (members: 155, guests: 1,867)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
1,867
Total visitors
2,022
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,236
Messages
18,184,559
Members
233,283
Latest member
Herbstreit926
Back
Top