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

[Zedzded]

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.

It doesn't trigger people, but it is irksome, because people that are questioning WA's complicity are either trolling or simply have not dissected all the available evidence that incriminates her. Carl Steinbeck produced a list of all the evidence that implicates WA and it was well over 100. Admittedly some pieces were flimsy, but a lot of it is strong circumstantial evidence. It has never been about whether she is innocent or not, it has been about whether the State has enough evidence to indict her.

You just can't have that amount of incriminating, circumstantial evidence and be innocent. Even if you want to pick apart every piece of evidence, you are still left with the fact she lied, multiple times and big lies. She's educated, she's a lawyer, she understands how the law works, she out of anyone would know you do not lie to the police in a murder investigation unless you have something to hide. That's a surefire way to get a target on your back. Why lie about her trip down Trescott?

And I disagree re confirmation bias re WA's guilt. A lot of us have looked at the evidence with a high degree of objectivity. That's why I have said that although I think she was involved, she may not be indicted. If anyone is showing confirmation bias its you. The facts all point to WA's complicity. It's what an ordinary, reasonable person would conclude. This isn't people making assumptions, jumping to conclusions and allowing their emotions to dictate their opinions. It's facts. The default prime suspect in a murder is the ex wife/ex-husband. Add the strong motive, add the fact they turned up at the crime scene and then add all the lies they told. The reasonable conclusion is she was complicit. Can that be proven in a court of law? Dunno.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

Interesting, thanks for that. What was he doing for 45mins I wonder? He would have figured out in 5 minutes the TV couldn't be repaired. They wouldn't even carry spare parts for those cheap TVs. They break, bin them and get a new one.

 

[Going Rogue]

It doesn't trigger people, but it is irksome, because people that are questioning WA's complicity are either trolling or simply have not dissected all the available evidence that incriminates her. Carl Steinbeck produced a list of all the evidence that implicates WA and it was well over 100. Admittedly some pieces were flimsy, but a lot of it is strong circumstantial evidence. It has never been about whether she is innocent or not, it has been about whether the State has enough evidence to indict her.

You just can't have that amount of incriminating, circumstantial evidence and be innocent. Even if you want to pick apart every piece of evidence, you are still left with the fact she lied, multiple times and big lies. She's educated, she's a lawyer, she understands how the law works, she out of anyone would know you do not lie to the police in a murder investigation unless you have something to hide. That's a surefire way to get a target on your back. Why lie about her trip down Trescott?

And I disagree re confirmation bias re WA's guilt. A lot of us have looked at the evidence with a high degree of objectivity. That's why I have said that although I think she was involved, she may not be indicted. If anyone is showing confirmation bias its you. The facts all point to WA's complicity. It's what an ordinary, reasonable person would conclude. This isn't people making assumptions, jumping to conclusions and allowing their emotions to dictate their opinions. It's facts. The default prime suspect in a murder is the ex wife/ex-husband. Add the strong motive, add the fact they turned up at the crime scene and then add all the lies they told. The reasonable conclusion is she was complicit. Can that be proven in a court of law? Dunno.

I don’t think you can speak for everyone when you say it doesn’t trigger people. I have consciously refrained from expressing certain case relevant observations based on how triggering it can be to some people and some of the backlash I’ve gotten in the past. I will add that it’s generally in other platforms where people are more sensitive or triggered. Just to be clear, the confirmation bias I am referring to is the way people evaluate the details of the case. I am not saying if you believe Wendi is guilty it’s because of confirmation bias - although both can be true. You can believe she is guilty and base that opinion on sound objective and logical reasoning. I have said this before and I seriously have nothing against Carl, but in my opinion he grossly oversimplifies the strength of the case against Wendi. That’s my personal opinion.

 

[Zedzded]

and I seriously have nothing against Carl, but in my opinion he grossly oversimplifies the strength of the case against Wendi. That’s my personal opinion.

I do like his channel, but yes he seems to think the case against WA is stronger than it is. I think there is sufficient evidence to arrest her, but I'm also basing that on the speculation that evidence exists that we are not privy to that will help the case against her e.g SY's deposition. I could be completely wrong.

Also if you compare the case against DA and WA, the case against DA is not that much stronger than WAs. Take away the bump and there's not a lot else.

 

[Going Rogue]

I do like his channel, but yes he seems to think the case against WA is stronger than it is. I think there is sufficient evidence to arrest her, but I'm also basing that on the speculation that evidence exists that we are not privy to that will help the case against her e.g SY's deposition. I could be completely wrong.

Also if you compare the case against DA and WA, the case against DA is not that much stronger than WAs. Take away the bump and there's not a lot else.

In my opinion, Donna is facing a sure conviction and I don’t agree that her case it’s not much stronger than Wendi’s case. I agree they have enough probable cause to indict Wendi. Indictments are easy, meeting the burden of proof is a different story. My opinions are only based on information that is public and subject to change if more evidence is released. You seem to be very optimistic more incriminating evidence is on the horizon - time will tell.

 

[Zedzded]

You seem to be very optimistic more incriminating evidence is on the horizon - time will tell.

Cautiously optimistic. SY was WA's very good friend and supported her for 4+ years post murder. WA said something that prompted SY to sever the friendship and later on contacted LE. Her deposition was then requested by the State. So she has something and for me I don't think the State needs much for WA to be indicted. A text to KM on the day of the murder, for example, would effectively bury her.

I think the email from WA said something along the lines that she thinks her family were involved, but she wasn't.

 

[Going Rogue]

Cautiously optimistic. SY was WA's very good friend and supported her for 4+ years post murder. WA said something that prompted SY to sever the friendship and later on contacted LE. Her deposition was then requested by the State. So she has something and for me I don't think the State needs much for WA to be indicted. A text to KM on the day of the murder, for example, would effectively bury her.

I think the email from WA said something along the lines that she thinks her family were involved, but she wasn't.

You also need to be realistic. Of course a text between Wendi and Katie on the day of the murder would bury her and a text from Donna to Charlie on the day of the murder saying ~ “we can never tell Wendi” would exonerate her. Again, I am only basing my opinions on what’s public. I don’t have an issue with speculation, but unless new information is released, I believe the state will have a difficult time meeting the burden of proof in the case against Wendi with the information that is public today. I am aware of all the things you previously listed that make you feel ‘cautiously optimistic’, but until we know what those things are we can’t assume its anything that will move the needle.

 

[amicuscurie]

I do like his channel, but yes he seems to think the case against WA is stronger than it is. I think there is sufficient evidence to arrest her, but I'm also basing that on the speculation that evidence exists that we are not privy to that will help the case against her e.g SY's deposition. I could be completely wrong.

Also if you compare the case against DA and WA, the case against DA is not that much stronger than WAs. Take away the bump and there's not a lot else.

Take away the bump? That’s like saying that other than the delicious taste, chocolate isn’t that good.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

I found the police report (the typed one) online by accident awhile ago, and the TV guy said he thought she was texting her brother. Then theres the hand written one that I don’t believe says that.
It would be great if someone can find both of them.
Yes it doesn't say anything about the hitman joke.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

She said on the stand that she thinks one of the boys threw a toy at it.
Charlie said “You have to Ask L—- —-“ suggesting that the younger boy threw a remote control at it.

 

[Tortoise]

I found the police report (the typed one) online by accident awhile ago, and the TV guy said he thought she was texting her brother. Then theres the hand written one that I don’t believe says that.
It would be great if someone can find both of them.
Yes it doesn't say anything about the hitman joke.

What time was the TV repairman there?

You probably already know this but the PCA states that 20 minutes after DM dropped off the children, CA contacted WA at 9.12am for less than one minute, WA contacted him back at 9.19am for over 18 minutes, immediately after which CA contacted DA, and then KM.

 

[amicuscurie]

What time was the TV repairman there?

You probably already know this but the PCA states that 20 minutes after DM dropped off the children, CA contacted WA at 9.12am for less than one minute, WA contacted him back at 9.18am for over 18 minutes, immediately after which CA contacted DA, and then KM.

From what I recall, the TV repair guy said he left at 9:15. I also recall that she said in her police interview that she was texting with Dan at some point that morning, and the repair guy reported that he saw her texting someone (per the report I saw).

To me, the sequence seems to be that she was texting Dan while he was there (consistent with his report that she was texting someone), and that she called Charlie pretty soon after he left.

In my opinion, it’s possible she did not want to discuss anything with Charlie in front of the repairman, especially if, hypothetically, it was about Dan’s plans to take the kids swimming that afternoon.

9:12 is interesting to me, because I believe that in her police interview she goes through her phone and says that she was texting with Dan at around that time. It’s possible, in my opinion, that the sequence is that Charlie called her, and then she was texting with Dan right after that, and then she called Charlie back after the repairman left.

ETA- I also recall video footage showing Dan entering the gym at…9:12

ETA- checked the PCA again, it says he swipes into the gym at 9:17

 

[Knitpicker]

What time was the TV repairman there?

You probably already know this but the PCA states that 20 minutes after DM dropped off the children, CA contacted WA at 9.12am for less than one minute, WA contacted him back at 9.18am for over 18 minutes, immediately after which CA contacted DA, and then KM.

Right- and it took WA 2.5 hours to contact DM back

 

[Knitpicker]

From what I recall, the TV repair guy said he left at 9:15. I also recall that she said in her police interview that she was texting with Dan at some point that morning, and the repair guy reported that he saw her texting someone (per the report I saw).

To me, the sequence seems to be that she was texting Dan while he was there (consistent with his report that she was texting someone), and that she called Charlie pretty soon after he left.

In my opinion, it’s possible she did not want to discuss anything with Charlie in front of the repairman, especially if, hypothetically, it was about Dan’s plans to take the kids swimming that afternoon.

9:12 is interesting to me, because I believe that in her police interview she goes through her phone and says that she was texting with Dan at around that time. It’s possible, in my opinion, that the sequence is that Charlie called her, and then she was texting with Dan right after that, and then she called Charlie back after the repairman left.

ETA- I also recall video footage showing Dan entering the gym at…9:12

ETA- checked the PCA again, it says he swipes into the gym at 9:17

8:09 DA contacts WA (35 seconds)
8:50 DM drops kids off at school
9:02 DM contacts WA (1 minute voice mail) ** there are 3 listing for this time- DM and in between an AT&T routing…people have thought WA texted DM back, but she didn’t. It may just be a posting for the routing of the voice mail. They are all at the same time of 9:02
9:12 CA calls WA (less than 1 minute)
9:17 DM swipes in at Premiere
9:19 WA calls CA (18 minutes)
9:38 CA to DA (30 seconds)
9:58 CA to KM (over 6 minutes)
10:07 KM to CA (over 1 min)
10:08 KM to CA (9 seconds)
10:09 CA to KM (6 minutes)
So it appears that by this call log, the TV guy had already left when she called Charlie.
So, possible that she texted with another phone?
Who did he see her texting?

Why is it that in the written police report, it mentions that the TV guy thinks she was texting her brother and n the handwritten one, no mention of that?
I found the typed up on by accident just doing some googling about the case.
It was only two paragraphs if I remember correctly and only took up half a page.
Wish I could find it again. I tried for an entire day last month….

I’ll try and find the chart with WA’s calls. For some reason I only have the slide after 11 Am. May have accidentally deleted it.

Also to note is that from 10:22 to 11:24 WA made calls to 4 friends and she only called DM after those calls were made. She knew they had to talk about the kids school and also the pick up for that day. (He wanted to get the boys early-maybe 3:30 if I remember correct)

After that call around 11:42, she then made other calls, went to ABC, then gas, then lunch (late after 1 PM), and sat with her friends eating until way over 2 PM when Isom picked her up.

So what was she thinking about the pick up?
Was she not concerned about who was getting the kids a bit over an hour from when she was picked up?
It had been almost 2.5 hours since she contacted DM.
Imo, this is the most incriminating evidence against her.

 

[amicuscurie]

8:09 DA contacts WA (35 seconds)
8:50 DM drops kids off at school
9:02 DM contacts WA (1 minute voice mail)
9:12 CA calls WA (less than 1 minute)
9:17 DM swipes in at Premiere
9:19 WA calls CA (18 minutes)
9:38 CA to DA (30 seconds)
9:58 CA to KM (over 6 minutes)
10:07 KM to CA (over 1 min)
10:08 KM to CA (9 seconds)
10:09 CA to KM (6 minutes)
So it appears that by this call log, the TV guy had already left when she called Charlie.
So, possible that she texted with another phone?
Who did he see her texting?

Why is it that in the written police report, it mentions that the TV guy thinks she was texting her brother and n the handwritten one, no mention of that?
I found the typed up on by accident just doing some googling about the case.
It was only two paragraphs if I remember correctly and only took up half a page.
Wish I could find it again. I tried for an entire day last month….

I’ll try and find the chart with WA’s calls. For some reason I only have the slide after 11 Am. May have accidentally deleted it.

He didn’t say he saw who she was texting, as I recall. I believe he may have said he THOUGHT it was her brother. He had left by the time she called Charlie. She said in her police interview, as I recall, that she only had one phone. She said in her police interview that she was texting with Dan that morning. I believe that this is who the repair guy saw her texting with, although he may have thought it was her brother.

I just looked at the PCA again and it says Dan arrived at the gym at 9:12.

I believe it is possible that the sequence is as follows- this is purely a hypothetical and these are not exact times:
1. Repair guy arrives. (Per my recollection of a statement I’ve seen)
2. Dan leaves a message for W. (Per the PCA)
3. Dan arrives at gym/Charlie calls W (Per the PCA)
4. W is texting with Dan (Per her police interview)
5. Repair guy leaves. (Per my recollection of the statement I’ve seen)
6. W calls Charlie and speaks for 18 minutes. (Per the PCA)
7. Charlie calls Donna (Per the PCA)
8. Charlie and Katie have several calls back and forth (Per the PCA)

 

[Knitpicker]

He didn’t say he saw who she was texting, as I recall. I believe he may have said he THOUGHT it was her brother. He had left by the time she called Charlie. She said in her police interview, as I recall, that she only had one phone. She said in her police interview that she was texting with Dan that morning. I believe that this is who the repair guy saw her texting with, although he may have thought it was her brother.

Thats why I said “he thinks he saw her texting..”…Ok I see in my second comment :”who did he “.. its curious that he even said that he thought it was her brother…How would he know that?

There is no record of her texting DM. If you look at the call log (I edited my last one a few times adding more), at 9:02 there are 3 posts.
DM to WA (9:02)
Then theres an AT&T at the same time (looking like its WA)
Then theres another DM to WA (also at 9:02)
You may have commented this before I put that in.
As I said people think she texted him because of the AT&T posting.
I have a screenshot from the trial, but Im having trouble posting it here.
It could all be the text from DM bc it does not say its from WA but AT&T

As you can see from my above log, there are no texts that went out from WA on her cell int he time the BB guy was there

 

[amicuscurie]

Thats why I said “he thinks he saw her texting..” Never said he said he “saw”.
There is no record of her texting DM. If you look at the call log (I edited my last one a few times adding more), at 9:02 there are 3 posts.
DM to WA (9:02)
Then theres an AT&T at the same time (looking like its WA)
Then theres another DM to WA (also at 9:02)
You may have commented this before I put that in.
As I said people think she texted him because of the AT&T posting.
I have a screenshot from the trial, but Im having trouble posting it here.
It could all be the text from DM bc it does not say its from WA but AT&T

As you can see from my above log, there are no texts that went out from WA on her cell int he time the BB guy was there

There is no record of her texting him that we have seen.

However, she looks at her phone in the police interview, says “our last interaction wasn’t very nice,” and says they had been texting that morning. If I recall correctly she says it was around 9:12 or so.

She says, if I recall correctly, that she wanted to pick the kids up early, but he said he was going to take them swimming and she could have them at 4:30. At one point in the police interview, if I recall correctly, she reads portions of these texts.

I believe it’s reasonable to conclude that these texts exist, and I believe it is possible that the exhibits of phone logs that the state showed at trial may not include all calls/texts. This is why I believe the state has evidence we have not seen.

 

[Knitpicker]

There is no record of her texting him that we have seen.

However, she looks at her phone in the police interview, says “our last interaction wasn’t very nice,” and says they had been texting that morning. If I recall correctly she says it was around 9:12 or so.

She says, if I recall correctly, that she wanted to pick the kids up early, but he said he was going to take them swimming and she could have them at 4:30. At one point in the police interview, if I recall correctly, she reads portions of these texts.

I believe these texts exist, and I believe it is possible that the exhibits of phone logs that the state showed at trial do not include all calls/texts. This is why I believe the state has evidence we have not seen.

Oh so you think the list of calls have calls from WA omitted? I have screenshots of them. I just assumed they were ALL the calls made and received that day. I never considered that they would have purposely omitted any.
People have said that at 9:02, after DM texted WA, she texted him back.
I think it’s as I’ve said above-that there was a posting from AT&T they automatically assumed the text was from her.

 

[amicuscurie]

Oh so you think the list of calls have calls from WA omitted? I have screenshots of them. I just assumed they were ALL the calls made and received that day. I never considered that they would have purposely omitted any.
People have said that at 9:02, after DM texted WA, she texted him back.
I think it’s as I’ve said above-that there was a posting from AT&T that they automatically assumed was from her.

To me, the little AT&T things on the logs around the time Dan left his message look like some kind of internal message relay system AT&T does when Dan leaves the message, because the timing is so close.

Wendi, in her police interview, per my recollection, looks at her phone and says she was texting with Dan that morning about picking the kids up early and him wanting to take them swimming. She later, per my recollection, reads portions of these texts.

I don’t know why they’re not on the logs, or if the logs come directly from AT&T in their original form, or if they have been redacted or compiled into exhibits.

 

[Knitpicker]

There is no record of her texting him that we have seen.

However, she looks at her phone in the police interview, says “our last interaction wasn’t very nice,” and says they had been texting that morning. If I recall correctly she says it was around 9:12 or so.

She says, if I recall correctly, that she wanted to pick the kids up early, but he said he was going to take them swimming and she could have them at 4:30. At one point in the police interview, if I recall correctly, she reads portions of these texts.

I believe these texts exist, and I believe it is possible that the exhibits of phone logs that the state showed at trial may not include all calls/texts. This is why I believe the state has evidence we have not seen.

9:02:00 AM. 00.00.00. Incoming voice 202 276 829- Markel, Daniel
9:02:00 AM. 00:01:06. Outgoing. Voice 305 972 865- AT&T VM routing
9:02:00 AM. 00:01:06. Incoming voice 202 276 829- Markel, Daniel