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

[Zedzded]

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.

Obviously very speculative on my part. I've never met the Adelsons and I'm not a clinical psychologist. But as you go through life, you meet lots of different people, some with personality disorders and I guess you meet enough of them, your sociopath radar can become quite accurate! They certainly a lot of the boxes, but yeah speculation.

The one thing that is not speculation is DA not protecting her kids, not stopping them from participating in a murder. You don't need to be a psychologist to know that what she did was profoundly wrong and totally contrary of what a naturally protective mother would/should do.

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

In Donna’s emails, she switches, sometimes mid-sentence, from “you” and “your” to address Wendi, to “me” and “my” to refer to her, and she does it more than once. Sure, it is possible it is an innocent mix-up, but in my opinion it indicates there may be a merging of identities in her mind.

I also think it’s possible the motive for the murder was at least partially financial for Donna, because she says in her emails that “your father”(or, sometimes, “my father”) is losing money in his business because he has to keep traveling to Tallahassee. As I recall, this is something Donna insists Wendi must include in her filings in support of relocation. In my understanding the sole consideration before the court when a parent asks to relocate is whether it is in the best interest of the CHILDREN. It would seem to me that whether Harvey’s business might lose money is not at all relevant to this inquiry, yet Donna insists in her emails that it be brought before the court. To me, this indicates that it’s possible Donna believes her own/the family’s interests are as important as Wendi’s and the children’s in the divorce, or even possibly that she is a party to it.

I believe that it is possible that these emails struck the police as completely unhinged and indicative of Donna’s involvement in the murder, because they are featured prominently in the probable cause affidavits I have read.

 

[Going Rogue]

Obviously very speculative on my part. I've never met the Adelsons and I'm not a clinical psychologist. But as you go through life, you meet lots of different people, some with personality disorders and I guess you meet enough of them, your sociopath radar can become quite accurate! They certainly a lot of the boxes, but yeah speculation.

The one thing that is not speculation is DA not protecting her kids, not stopping them from participating in a murder. You don't need to be a psychologist to know that what she did was profoundly wrong and totally contrary of what a naturally protective mother would/should do.

I believe we have plenty of information to suggest Donna was an overbearing mother that crossed boundaries, but at what point are ‘adults’ responsible for their own actions? I would wholeheartedly agree with placing blame on a parent for not protecting their child from participating in an unthinkable act like murder if the child was under the age of 25. Charlie was around 40 when Dan was murdered so I don’t agree that Donna was somehow responsible for ‘protecting’ him from making bad decisions. They were all fully developed adults at the time of Dan’s murder. As I suggested in my other post, it’s possible Charlie was the one that initially came up with the plan to murder Dan and convinced / manipulated Donna into believing Dan deserved his fate for trying to ‘harm’ the family. We have evidence that Charlie hated Dan with a passion (per Lacasse), so let’s not look past the possibility Charlie was the most driven of the bunch to erase Dan because of pure rage and jealousy. If it was Donna’s plan all along and she manipulated Charlie, I’d agree a lot more with what you are positioning, but back to my original point, we are all speculating and have no idea how this really went down.

 

[Going Rogue]

In Donna’s emails, she switches, sometimes mid-sentence, from “you” and “your” to address Wendi, to “me” and “my” to refer to her, and she does it more than once. Sure, it is possible it is an innocent mix-up, but in my opinion it indicates there may be a merging of identities in her mind.

I also think it’s possible the motive for the murder was at least partially financial for Donna, because she says in her emails that “your father”(or, sometimes, “my father”) is losing money in his business because he has to keep traveling to Tallahassee. As I recall, this is something Donna insists Wendi must include in her filings in support of relocation. In my understanding the sole consideration before the court when a parent asks to relocate is whether it is in the best interest of the CHILDREN. It would seem to me that whether Harvey’s business might lose money is not at all relevant to this inquiry, yet Donna insists in her emails that it be brought before the court. To me, this indicates that it’s possible Donna believes her own/the family’s interests are as important as Wendi’s and the children’s in the divorce, or even possibly that she is a party to it.

I believe that it is possible that these emails struck the police as completely unhinged and indicative of Donna’s involvement in the murder, because they are featured prominently in the probable cause affidavits I have read.

I never picked up on the grammatical errors in the email of switching from ‘your’ father and ‘my’ father and from ‘me’ and ‘my’. The only comment is it somewhat supports the theory I suggested that maybe Charlie helped write the emails. Perhaps he sent an email to Donna with ideas on what to say to Wendi and Donna merged her and Charlie’s thoughts - copied and pasted some of Charlie’s thoughts / ideas into her emails. I don’t see Donna referring to Harvey as ‘my’ father in an email to Wendi unless is was something she copied and pasted from something Charlie wrote to her.

 

[Zedzded]

I believe we have plenty of information to suggest Donna was an overbearing mother that crossed boundaries, but at what point are ‘adults’ responsible for their own actions? I would wholeheartedly agree with placing blame on a parent for not protecting their child from participating in an unthinkable act like murder if the child was under the age of 25. Charlie was around 40 when Dan was murdered so I don’t agree that Donna was somehow responsible for ‘protecting’ him from making bad decisions.

No, not to do with responsibility. A lot of people state that DA would never flip on WA, it's her daughter, she loves her etc etc and my point is if she loved her that much why would she allow her to commit murder? Hence the reason I think DA would throw her under the bus. She sold her kids down the river and then she's suddenly going to become Super Mum and do everything to save her kids from prison when she could have actually prevented this whole mess in the first place!

I think the State will negotiate with DA in the next few weeks and arrest WA with or without DA's cooperation.

 

[Sustained]

No, not to do with responsibility. A lot of people state that DA would never flip on WA, it's her daughter, she loves her etc etc and my point is if she loved her that much why would she allow her to commit murder? Hence the reason I think DA would throw her under the bus. She sold her kids down the river and then she's suddenly going to become Super Mum and do everything to save her kids from prison when she could have actually prevented this whole mess in the first place!

I think the State will negotiate with DA in the next few weeks and arrest WA with or without DA's cooperation.

Domestic coordinator = murder coordinator.

 

[Wishbone]

So secure in her smugness that she will never be prosecuted for being involved in DM's murder sits WA. Who hated DM and was in competition with him and was so resentful over his fighting for custody causing her to stay in Tallahassee, a place she hated, and prevented her from moving near her family. Add to that DM also seemed to have the goods on her about stolen joint money. His court motions were about to reveal that theft and damage her standing as an attorney. Who would benefit the most from his death? None other than WA, who ends up with sole custody of the children living near her family, free to even change their names and completely erase the hated DM and reap the financial benefits from his demise? That WA was fully on board with the conspiracy to eliminate DM and was involved every step of the way, from the outset, seems clear to me. Precious WA influenced the rest of the evil crew to put an end to DM. Circumstances and means fell into place when CA ran across KM and her connections to those that would carry out WA's desire to be free of DM and in total control of her own life. JMOO

 

[Going Rogue]

No, not to do with responsibility. A lot of people state that DA would never flip on WA, it's her daughter, she loves her etc etc and my point is if she loved her that much why would she allow her to commit murder? Hence the reason I think DA would throw her under the bus. She sold her kids down the river and then she's suddenly going to become Super Mum and do everything to save her kids from prison when she could have actually prevented this whole mess in the first place!

I think the State will negotiate with DA in the next few weeks and arrest WA with or without DA's cooperation.

I don’t believe Donna will ever turn on Wendi, she has accepted her fate. I believe it’s very possible that Donna did everything in her power to isolate Wendi from any level of involvement. I also believe it’s very possible Donna and Charlie did this behind her back. I know I’m one of the few (at least willing to share my opinion publicly) that can see a scenario where Wendi was completely left out of any of the planning. I believe she was at a minimum aware but not sure how she became aware. Might have been directly told or she simply pieced it together. We know she had knowledge that Charlie had explored options in the past so it wasn’t much of a leap for Wendi to figure things out ‘IF’ she was purposely isolated from any and all plans. As far as all those predicting Charlie will flip, if Wendi was directly involved, I would agree it’s possible after Donna’s conviction. BUT if they did this behind Wendi’s back, it’s never going to happen.

 

[amicuscurie]

I never picked up on the grammatical errors in the email of switching from ‘your’ father and ‘my’ father and from ‘me’ and ‘my’. The only comment is it somewhat supports the theory I suggested that maybe Charlie helped write the emails. Perhaps he sent an email to Donna with ideas on what to say to Wendi and Donna merged her and Charlie’s thoughts - copied and pasted some of Charlie’s thoughts / ideas into her emails. I don’t see Donna referring to Harvey as ‘my’ father in an email to Wendi unless is was something she copied and pasted from something Charlie wrote to her.

Maybe, but as I recall, at least once, she makes the switch mid-sentence, which jumped out to me when I read it. Error or cut and paste doesn’t explain why some of the reasons she gives for relocation, such as the health of her husband’s business, appear to me to be her interests rather than the children’s. (It’s possible these could be Charlie’s contributions, but even that, to me, suggests some unhealthy enmeshment for this family, because to me it is odd that Charlie would think that his business or his father’s was somehow relevant to his sister’s divorce.)

To me it all suggests that it’s possible Donna did not view her own interests as separate from her children’s, and it’s possible she viewed the divorce as her divorce, just as it’s possible she viewed the marriage as her marriage (we know she helped select the husband). It’s certainly possible some or all of this was not conscious on her part. This is just my personal opinion.

 

[nodamselindistress]

I think the way Donna treated the oldest son and influenced who he married the first time tells us all we need to know about her.

 

[IQuestion]

I can read, watch and listen... for hours and hours and hours (painfully so.) I thought it ironic WA was on the witness stand and said wtte, "I think it is abusive to suggest someone has mental illness." And yet, when I went back to WA's police interview (her one and only, btw) she had no problem suggesting her actions could have driven JLaC to the brink of insanity and murder.
"Like what if it's Jeff? Like, and I did this by asking for time away from him I made him crazy."
I think WA is one mean chica...DA's clone with blue contacts lenses.
Also, after watching Over My Dead Body 20/20 (love the writer Shaer!) I heard these words: unhinged, obsessive, fairly depressed, fear, anxiety etc. (suggestions or observations?) Imagine how easy it must be to keep stoking the flames of hate by constantly sending/forwarding every detail of divorce & settlement issues to elderly parents who are footing the bills?
I get it...divorce can be tough. really tough. But, millions of couples manage the process without murder. Murder is not the action of a prudent mind.

 

[amicuscurie]

I think the way Donna treated the oldest son and influenced who he married the first time tells us all we need to know about her.

It always amazes me that he appears to have divorced her almost immediately. To me, this suggests Donna’s influence must have been huge for him to have gone through with the whole wedding in the first place. It’s possible he just didn’t know how to say no to her.

 

[amicuscurie]

I can read, watch and listen... for hours and hours and hours (painfully so.) I thought it ironic WA was on the witness stand and said wtte, "I think it is abusive to suggest someone has mental illness." And yet, when I went back to WA's police interview (her one and only, btw) she had no problem suggesting her actions could have driven JLaC to the brink of insanity and murder.
"Like what if it's Jeff? Like, and I did this by asking for time away from him I made him crazy."
I think WA is one mean chica...DA's clone with blue contacts lenses.
Also, after watching Over My Dead Body 20/20 (love the writer Shaer!) I heard these words: unhinged, obsessive, fairly depressed, fear, anxiety etc. (suggestions or observations?) Imagine how easy it must be to keep stoking the flames of hate by constantly sending/forwarding every detail of divorce & settlement issues to elderly parents who are footing the bills?
I get it...divorce can be tough. really tough. But, millions of couples manage the process without murder. Murder is not the action of a prudent mind.

I always think that with time, they could have worked something out. From what I understand, she filed the relocation petition early on, before the divorce was even final, and in the aftermath of her sudden “Pearl Harbor” departure. If I recall correctly, she didn’t tell him where she had gone initially when she left the marital home, so it’s possible that when she then asked for relocation, he was less inclined to let her take them far away. In my experience, nothing lasts forever, and people change with time. He might have found another job, or happiness with Amy, and with time he might have permitted her to move.

In my opinion, the relocation petition should not have been filed when it was, but it also seems to me like it was very important to Donna that Wendi move to South Florida as soon as possible. I believe it is possible that this desire was present long before the divorce.

 

[vislaw]

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.

 

[Sustained]

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.

BBM -

While I would agree that Donna might not implicate her, I'm not so sure about Charlie. At some point, his appeals will be exhausted leaving him doomed to rot in some prison. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe he'll turn on Wendi thinking why should she be living her best life while I'm in here. If Charlie has any dirt on Wendi, he may be willing to try and curry favor with the State for some future privileges.

Wonder if Wendi has had any contact with Charlie in either the Florida or South Dakota prison system ?

 

[jbc]

I can read, watch and listen... for hours and hours and hours (painfully so.) I thought it ironic WA was on the witness stand and said wtte, "I think it is abusive to suggest someone has mental illness." And yet, when I went back to WA's police interview (her one and only, btw) she had no problem suggesting her actions could have driven JLaC to the brink of insanity and murder.
"Like what if it's Jeff? Like, and I did this by asking for time away from him I made him crazy."
I think WA is one mean chica...DA's clone with blue contacts lenses.
Also, after watching Over My Dead Body 20/20 (love the writer Shaer!) I heard these words: unhinged, obsessive, fairly depressed, fear, anxiety etc. (suggestions or observations?) Imagine how easy it must be to keep stoking the flames of hate by constantly sending/forwarding every detail of divorce & settlement issues to elderly parents who are footing the bills?
I get it...divorce can be tough. really tough. But, millions of couples manage the process without murder. Murder is not the action of a prudent mind.

That's a good point, that got my radar up. Wendi seems to be the type of achievement-seeker that views everything through the lens of abuse. That's a very dangerous person, and I know such a person too well. Their lives become an accumulation of grievances against men, especially, for every internally perceived failure. Add to that her need to out-compete her husband, who she can scapegoat for things she may never verbalize. It's a ticking time bomb, a cop-out, and way never to accept personal responsibility.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

Well stated! Your first paragraph can be easily summarized by two words I have used often when expressing my personal views on how the ‘case’ against Wendi is argued in social media - ‘confirmation bias’. Simply stating that does not mean I believe she is innocent, but it’s often interpreted that way. Expressing any opinion on her case as a whole or any singular detail where you aren’t nailing Wendi to a cross has a tendency to trigger some people. I have said for more than 3 years that case against Wendi is not strong and based on the details we know (that are public) the state will have a difficult time meeting the burden of proof. IMO, that is precisely why she has not been charged and why she was offered use & derivative use case immunity. I don’t believe the commonly expressed viewpoint that the state is using the one-by-one approach to prosecution and I don’t believe they need Wendi to testify in Donna case. There are some very strong opinions shared by a select few that have platforms, basically an audience and a microphone, that express a very one-sided and strongly biased and emotionally charged perspective on the case against Wendi. I’m not saying all points made are wrong by ‘some’ of these people with platforms, but a very unrealistic ‘case’ is presented to their viewers because of their failure to objectively present the case details. To be clear, I’m not saying they are doing it to deceive or that they have an agenda – confirmation bias is done at a subconscious level and its real and even though it’s not tangible, I liken it to an immovable object. Usually these type of observations by me do not go over well, but it’s my honest take.

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

I agree that there is not much evidence that I’ve seen which points to Wendi’s involvement, and I believe that Occam’s razor dictates this is a likely reason the state has not indicted her. I also believe it was the plan from the beginning to wall her off from participation, and to a great extent they seem to me have been successful.

However, that does not mean she did not know about the plan and/or agree to it. I find it difficult to believe that a family would have their sister/daughter’s husband killed without her agreeing to it, or, at the very least, without her having indicated she wanted this to happen. I believe a jury might also find this incredible.

I also note that at Charlie’s trial, evidence came out that we had not seen before, in particular the text from Wendi to Dan asking whether he would be home the week of the murder, which the state showed was sent during Harvey’s birthday weekend from a cell site consistent with the parents’ condo. It is possible there is more of this type of evidence that the state has not released. I believe as a general matter that the state is in possession of more evidence than we have seen.

Each time I have watched the police interview (yes, I have watched it probably too many times, the first step is admitting you have a problem), I spot additional inconsistencies in her responses. Many seem to me to be clustered around the areas of the drive-by and her communications with Dan that morning. Isom, in my opinion, is good at asking the same question several times, and in these areas in particular her answers are inconsistent, at least to me.

In my opinion, it would be unfortunate if the way they planned to get away with this turns out to be the way they get away with this, to quote Georgia. But, I believe there is no such thing as the perfect crime.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

Based on what we know the State have. They potentially have a lot more that we don't know about:
SY's testimony
TV guy's testimony
Lunch dates testimony
OK Cupid data
Whats app data
Internet searches from her computer
Phone info with improved forensic software

I believe we are just missing one little piece to the puzzle. All we need is for her OK Cupid data matches the week of the murder to be in Miami and she's toast. Or SY's deposition stating that WA thought her family were involved or one little text or email or internet search. She might be intelligent, but she's a trainwreck.

And I believe the circumstantial case against her is pretty strong. She had a strong motive, she was extremely emotional prior to the murder, which has been unexplained and then ta da she rocks up at the crime scene shortly after the murder and then lies about it. Multiple times. We're not needing the proverbial smoking gun here. If the case against isn't strong enough to indict her, it's not far off. People have been convicted on much less evidence.

Also the State have DA and HA's various devices, 3 x iphones 1 x ipad and 2 x macbooks. If WA is a trainwreck these two are 10x worse. They'll be something on there.

I also believe that either CA or DA will make a deal or accidentally on purpose drop WA in it.

 

[amicuscurie]

Based on what we know the State have. They potentially have a lot more that we don't know about:
SY's testimony
TV guy's testimony
Lunch dates testimony
OK Cupid data
Whats app data
Internet searches from her computer
Phone info with improved forensic software

I believe we are just missing one little piece to the puzzle. All we need is for her OK Cupid data matches the week of the murder to be in Miami and she's toast. Or SY's deposition stating that WA thought her family were involved or one little text or email or internet search. She might be intelligent, but she's a trainwreck.

And I believe the circumstantial case against her is pretty strong. She had a strong motive, she was extremely emotional prior to the murder, which has been unexplained and then ta da she rocks up at the crime scene shortly after the murder and then lies about it. Multiple times. We're not needing the proverbial smoking gun here. If the case against isn't strong enough to indict her, it's not far off. People have been convicted on much less evidence.

Also the State have DA and HA's various devices, 3 x iphones 1 x ipad and 2 x macbooks. If WA is a trainwreck these two are 10x worse. They'll be something on there.

I also believe that either CA or DA will make a deal or accidentally on purpose drop WA in it.

Speaking of the Tv guy, I recall that I read a copy of the statement he gave to the police (I believe one of the YouTubers got it as part of a FOIA request). As I recall, the statement does NOT say that she told him the hitman joke. In my opinion, that would be something someone might remember and write down. I recall that he does say she seemed sad, that she was texting someone, and that she said the boys were being cared for by her father at the time the Tv was damaged, and she did not see it happen.

If she did not tell him the hitman joke, (it’s possible he just didn’t write that part down), it is interesting to me that in her police interview she said she did.

Also, it is interesting to me that he said she told him the boys were with Harvey when the TV was broken, and she didn’t see it happen. As I recall, she said on the stand that one of the boys broke it (I believe Charlie said that as well). As I recall, LaCasse testified that in his opinion, the damage could not have been done by a child. I recall his testimony was that it looked like an adult had smashed an object into it.