I understand the fervent hope and desire many people have to see WA indicted and in the dock. Be aware, however, that it is human nature to view issues through the lens of whatever conviction you personally have. If you have come to the conclusion WA is complicit and truly a coconspirator, your internal psyche will work hard to validate that conviction while minimizing or reinterpreting evidence to the contrary. Once you believe something it becomes very difficult to retain real objectivity. As a former trial lawyer, I was taught how essential it is to NOT be seduced into a blind conviction in favor of your client. Otherwise, it is difficult to do your job assessing the strength of the opposition's case.
Back in 2008 I, like many of you, followed the Jodi Arias trial and I found it interesting to follow a site maintained by her supporters (JodiAriasIsInnocent). I was struck by how hard that community worked to vilify the deceased victim and to interpret ALL evidence in favor of their heroine. To this day the site continues seeking donations while featuring a link to a screed on the front page that is shocking in its vituperative dismissal of the jury or anyone who doesn't believe Jodi is innocent. Here's just a small excerpt from it:
"You jurors should be put on exhibit in stockades along the 202 Phoenix freeway with impossible to miss flashing neon lights drawing attention to a sign that says, ‘dumbest bunch of assholes on a jury since the Simpson trial.' Did you think you were there to decide a verdict on someone charged with cocaine possession? Did you realize a woman was on trial for her LIFE and that it was your job to sift through every grain of evidence and micro analyze it ten ways to Sunday for the slightest shred of reasonable doubt? Did you realize that if there’s even a remotely plausible explanation for anything other than what the prosecution was trying to drive up your *advertiser censored*, that it was your duty to find that it did not meet the standard necessary to be found guilty in a criminal trial? Let alone a capital case? This was so patently obvious that the proof of premeditated murder wasn’t there, that it didn’t even take a high school graduate level of intelligence. It just took a desire to do your (expletive) job."
Aside from the extraordinary vulgar attack on the "system," it makes the point how some people convinced in a particular viewpoint can slip into abject disregard and even contempt for any opposing viewpoints. I can't help but be reminded of a certain presidential candidate who insists on referring to felons convicted in federal courts of law as "hostages" and "political prisoners."
In the case of Wendi Adelson, I try to look at the facts and evidence objectively and there are a number of very significant factors that would cause the prosecution to hesitate to proceed with a case against her:
1) She has testified twice under a grant of immunity. Make no mistake that this alone would seriously complicate any case against her and make conviction much more difficult.
2) She is LIGHT YEARS ahead of both Charlie and Donna as a witness. She's proven herself articulate, appealing, capable of preparing, and she is a mother with receipts that go far to isolating her from her idiot family. (She may be conniving and a liar, but any astute prosecutor would admit she would be extraordinarily difficult to convict based on all the evidence and testimony we have heard so far).
3) She has benefited greatly, whether intentional or not, from being walled from her family and from responding carefully on the few instances where communications have been recorded or documented.
I agree that if Donna or Charlie would implicate her, Wendi would be in deep doo-doo and likely would be convicted. I also personally believe that isn't going to happen and that, absent being thrown under the bus, she will not be indicted. The case against her, in my opinion, is just too difficult for the state to pursue at this point.