GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #17

[amicuscurie]

same question for why Donna didn't get her way on the $1M offer or the conversion to Catholicism stunts?
Maybe Wendi had the final say?

Yes, there’s a second email indicating Wendi won’t agree to these ideas. Donna is very angry. She says Charlie is too. The anger and frustration was building, it comes through in the emails. They had to do something, and she wouldn’t listen.

ETA Epstein’s website has all of Donna’s emails. If you haven’t read them, I suggest you do. They are eye opening and paint a picture of the dynamic that may have led to this.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Right now, lots of channels/platforms are discussing trying to get jurors to comment on their experience.

Does anybody here worry about that, like I do?
( I think Donna will be next and I don't want her defence team to be able to watch or analyse their comments for tips for Donna's future defence. Am i being too OTT? I'd prefer it if jurors only gave comments to state in private)

1000% worry about this. If you truly care about justice, in this case, or really any of these high profile cases, they should not go after the jury. I cannot believe that their last names were given instead of their juror numbers. I have never seen that in any case. Awful.

But it absolutely will give the defense a chance to pick anything they can to make it an issue to toss out this verdict and get a new trial. If people hosting these shows really care about justice over clicks, they should not have any juror interviewed.

 

[Missyrocks5]

What a day. I'm uploading my comments from being in the courtroom today.

JUSTICE FOR DAN MARKEL WAS MADE TODAY.

Now let's bring on Donna.

Thank you for all yiur timr and effort. Your observations were on pooint. Thsnk good rss. Noe lets hope none of the jurors talk so CA's attorneys dont find something to try to appeal this verdict

 

[Missyrocks5]

Yes, there’s a second email indicating Wendi won’t agree to these ideas. Donna is very angry. She says Charlie is too. The anger and frustration was building, it comes through in the emails. They had to do something, and she wouldn’t listen.

ETA Epstein’s website has all of Donna’s emails. If you haven’t read them, I suggest you do. They are eye opening and paint a picture of the dynamic that may have led to this.

I'd like to read those emails. Who is Epstein and do you have a link please? Do you mean the guy who wrote a book and said no way Wendi was involved? I looked on his site, but didnt see where he had emails. Thank you.

 

[GordonX]

“He’s going to have to do a lot of soul searching. His hubris and his ego is what got him here. Like he’s the first one in the world to think his brother-in-law is an a-hole? Like this is some new thing? Like come on! I mean if that was the case we’d be killing everybody! Who does that?! That was pure ego! That was pure hubris!” - Monica Jordan - Charlie Adelson Found Guilty of First Degree Murder, STS Analysis - Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime

 

[Weki]

I just saw the clip on Twitter where Rashbaum tells Charlie “you need to stop” as he tries to pass him another note before his closing argument and whisper something in his ear. Lol. Charlie has been wrecked throughout this whole process! It’s so rare to see a defendant so scared and showing it. We yearn to see it in other trials and we rarely get that satisfaction.

 

[amicuscurie]

I'd like to read those emails. Who is Epstein and do you have a link please? Do you mean the guy who wrote a book and said no way Wendi was involved? I looked on his site, but didnt see where he had emails. Thank you.

Donna's EmailsSteven B. Epstein Author

www.stevenbepstein.com

The third email is really telling.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Glad to see Charlie forced to face the judgement Here on Earth. To all else who conspired to do this evil deed, I hope your Raskolnikov dreams are eating away at your souls.

 

[mdwannabejd]

Wendi was not given immunity as I think you are understanding it. Her testimony simply cannot be used against her in a future proceeding as substantive evidence since she testified under State subpoena.

Thats not a problem. There is nothing to use. She lied to every answer on the stand.

 

[amicuscurie]

Thats not a problem. There is nothing to use. She lied to every answer on the stand.

I think they intentionally limited their questioning of her knowing that they wouldn’t be able to use whatever she said. They asked more in this trial than before, but it may not be all they have. So much more came out this time that I think there must be more still. I was one of those people who believed that it was possible they did this behind her back (see Donna’s emails where she’s mad Wendi won’t cooperate with their crazy ideas, and also those phone calls where they talk about Dave behind her back and how they can get her to keep dating him). After this trial I no longer believe that. The email from her to Dan asking if he will be home on July 18 did it for me. The timing of it, and the fact that she was in Miami with her family at the time. And LaCasse’s testimony about the circumstances surrounding the broken TV. None of that came out before. So I would imagine there’s more.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Donna's EmailsSteven B. Epstein Author

www.stevenbepstein.com

The third email is really telling.

Thank you so much.

 

[Missyrocks5]

Donna's EmailsSteven B. Epstein Author

www.stevenbepstein.com

The third email is really telling.

You weren't kidding about that third one! They all are telling, and I actually wonder why this email was not introduced into evidence as well. I guess they are saving it for Donna's trial!

I think that Donna was complaining and complaining and complaining to everyone, and I am willing to bet it was CA who thought of a more permanent solution. To help rescue his mom, and then in tur, help his sister. It would please his mom to end this fighting. I agree with the dynamic being that he is a mama's boy, and she absolutely is the one person in the world I think he loves. He wanted to do something for her, and I think the two of them worked on Wendi to convince her.

These emails helped to further paint the picture that I think we all have believed. I think W.A. relented for a lot of the reasons that are in that email. By the way, let me also say, DA is very intelligent as well. But I think that WA decided that she didn't want to deal with these things for 15 more years fighting it out with DM. I think she didn't want her children to be orthodox Jewish and wanted them to be reformed like her and her family. I think over time she started coming to the conclusion that between the pressure she was getting from DA, and then probably CA, and thinking of long-term controlling how her boys would turn out, she relented, and decided to go with the solution. I absolutely believe she gave them Molly information to help plan this.

 

[Missyrocks5]

What a day. I'm uploading my comments from being in the courtroom today.

JUSTICE FOR DAN MARKEL WAS MADE TODAY.

Now let's bring on Donna.

I am re-– writing my post, because there are so many typos in there, it looks like Jabberwocky! Lol. I didn't realize it and now I can't edit it. I want to say thank you again for all your time and effort, and providing us so much information and insight from the courtroom. You were on point. I have said before that you were the one who said if the hitman had decided on their own to go kill, why would they do it in broad daylight in that neighborhood?

Let's hope now that they get Donna. I don't think we will ever see WA & HA being indicted, but I would be happy to see with CA and DA. Thank goodness the jury was wise. I also hope that they do not give interviews to anyone because I fear the defense will watch and find something on which to appeal and get this thrown out.

 

[Sustained]

My heart goes out to Dan's boys. Don't be surprised if DA/HA/WA pack up shop in SFla and relo out of the country to
escape future potential prosecution. Can't imagine the taunting and bullying they might endure in school here due to CA's conviction.

 

[MartinDupuis]

Everything you need to know about Wendi Adelson indicators of involvement

 

[amicuscurie]

You weren't kidding about that third one! They all are telling, and I actually wonder why this email was not introduced into evidence as well. I guess they are saving it for Donna's trial!

I think that Donna was complaining and complaining and complaining to everyone, and I am willing to bet it was CA who thought of a more permanent solution. To help rescue his mom, and then in tur, help his sister. It would please his mom to end this fighting. I agree with the dynamic being that he is a mama's boy, and she absolutely is the one person in the world I think he loves. He wanted to do something for her, and I think the two of them worked on Wendi to convince her.

These emails helped to further paint the picture that I think we all have believed. I think W.A. relented for a lot of the reasons that are in that email. By the way, let me also say, DA is very intelligent as well. But I think that WA decided that she didn't want to deal with these things for 15 more years fighting it out with DM. I think she didn't want her children to be orthodox Jewish and wanted them to be reformed like her and her family. I think over time she started coming to the conclusion that between the pressure she was getting from DA, and then probably CA, and thinking of long-term controlling how her boys would turn out, she relented, and decided to go with the solution. I absolutely believe she gave them Molly information to help plan this.

Exactly! I think this is a good summary of how it could’ve gone down. I still think, unfortunately, that there is not a lot of hard evidence against Wendi, perhaps because of the dynamic and how they wanted to protect her. They probably knew that merely knowing about a crime and not doing anything is not itself a crime, (she’s a lawyer), and so they purposely did not ask her to do any of the planning, payment, etc.

EXCEPT — that one email to Dan, asking if he would be home July 18. Cell tower data shows that email was sent when they were all near the family’s apartment in Miami Beach. I believe testimony was that it was the weekend of Harvey’s birthday, after the first attempt had failed. The text itself is not a crime; after all, they shared custody and probably sent a lot of texts like this. That’s what A’s might have thought at least. (“You’ll just say you were texting him about custody, that’s not a crime.”). But coupled with the timing, and the cell tower data, it may be enough to implicate her.

Also, LaCasse’s story about how the TV was broken is suspicious, particularly the timing, but even he does not say he really knows how it was broken, only that it didn’t appear to be damage inflicted by a child’s toy. Maybe there is more.

Driving by the scene after the fact is not a crime, unless perhaps it could be show that it was done somehow in furtherance of the conspiracy, like for the purpose of confirming it had been done so that payment could be made. Not sure that is the case.

This brings up something I’ve noticed throughout this case. Charlie seems to think that as long as they’re talking in code, or “only sitting in a car”, or “only rented a car,“ etc., that there’s no evidence of a crime that can be traced to them. He only looks at each action and concludes it’s “technically” not a crime. You can hear him rationalize like this on the Dolce Vita tape. I don’t think he realized how it looked, taken all together. I don’t think he knew as much about how evidence works, or how police work, as he thought he did on those tapes. I don’t think he understands the concept of circumstantial evidence. A lot of people think circumstantial evidence is not enough. You always hear “that’s just circumstantial“ as if it’s not enough. But you learn in law school that circumstantial evidence IS evidence. In fact, there’s usually not a lot of direct evidence, such as fingerprints, the gun, a videotape of the person doing the crime, etc. Many cases are made on circumstantial evidence. If you’re not familiar with trials and police work, you don’t know this.

 

[Hiller]

I think they intentionally limited their questioning of her knowing that they wouldn’t be able to use whatever she said. They asked more in this trial than before, but it may not be all they have. So much more came out this time that I think there must be more still. I was one of those people who believed that it was possible they did this behind her back (see Donna’s emails where she’s mad Wendi won’t cooperate with their crazy ideas, and also those phone calls where they talk about Dave behind her back and how they can get her to keep dating him). After this trial I no longer believe that. The email from her to Dan asking if he will be home on July 18 did it for me. The timing of it, and the fact that she was in Miami with her family at the time. And LaCasse’s testimony about the circumstances surrounding the broken TV. None of that came out before. So I would imagine there’s more.

Agreed. As you know, in order to charge WA with FDM, in addition to the murder itself (of which the prosecution has already demonstrated ample evidence), they only have to prove one act by her in furtherance of the conspiracy to kill DM. I am willing to bet that the prosecution already has ample evidence of an act or acts by WA that they have not yet made public. For example, I contend that she had to give the final "go" decision. Do they have evidence of a phone call bet. 9 am and 11 am to the boys' school? Did they interview people at the school about communication with WA that morning? What about WA's friends and scheduling of the lunch? etc. While it is likely that she was insulated from early planning where CA and DA were heavily involved, she was very involved in the final timing and execution of the plot (sorry for use of that word).

 

[Missyrocks5]

Exactly! I think this is a good summary of how it could’ve gone down. I still think, unfortunately, that there is not a lot of hard evidence against Wendi, perhaps because of the dynamic and how they wanted to protect her. They probably knew that merely knowing about a crime and not doing anything is not itself a crime, (she’s a lawyer), and so they purposely did not ask her to do any of the planning, payment, etc.

EXCEPT — that one email to Dan, asking if he would be home July 18. Cell tower data shows that email was sent when they were all near the family’s apartment in Miami Beach. I believe testimony was that it was the weekend of Harvey’s birthday, after the first attempt had failed. The text itself is not a crime; after all, they shared custody and probably sent a lot of texts like this. That’s what A’s might have thought at least. (“You’ll just say you were texting him about custody, that’s not a crime.”). But coupled with the timing, and the cell tower data, it may be enough to implicate her.

Also, LaCasse’s story about how the TV was broken is suspicious, particularly the timing, but even he does not say he really knows how it was broken, only that it didn’t appear to be damage inflicted by a child’s toy. Maybe there is more.

Driving by the scene after the fact is not a crime, unless perhaps it could be show that it was done somehow in furtherance of the conspiracy, like for the purpose of confirming it had been done so that payment could be made. Not sure that is the case.

This brings up something I’ve noticed throughout this case. Charlie seems to think that as long as they’re talking in code, or “only sitting in a car”, or “only rented a car,“ etc., that there’s no evidence of a crime that can be traced to them. He only looks at each action and concludes it’s “technically” not a crime. You can hear him rationalize like this on the Dolce Vita tape. I don’t think he realized how it looked, taken all together. I don’t think he knew as much about how evidence works, or how police work, as he thought he did on those tapes. I don’t think he understands the concept of circumstantial evidence. A lot of people think circumstantial evidence is not enough. You always hear “that’s just circumstantial“ as if it’s not enough. But you learn in law school that circumstantial evidence IS evidence. In fact, there’s usually not a lot of direct evidence, such as fingerprints, the gun, a videotape of the person doing the crime, etc. Many cases are made on circumstantial evidence. If you’re not familiar with trials and police work, you don’t know this.

Excellent points. Agree. I just think that WA will be able to cast enough reasonable doubt to not get the conviction necessarily. Carl Steinbeck, jury trial, mentor, is excellent with all of this. He has like 150 reasons why she should be indicted. He's been on surviving the survivor and his own channel. I do have my doubts, though in terms of getting at minimum a hung jury on her. I still am not sure on HA knowing in advance. I believe he did, but I don't think the evidence will clear reasonable doubt.

DA is going down, but I am concerned that because she is older now, she will start showing up in a wheelchair and an oxygen mask lol. Anything to get out of it.

We see that some phone records cannot be discovered so many years later. That's the problem with waiting so long on this case. If they could have access to the ‎WhatsApp messages, that would be a treasure trove. That would really get the goods on Wendy. But I don't think it's possible almost 10 years later.

 

[Weki]

IA with the comments that Wendi just went along with it. I don’t think she actively conspired although she’s the only one who could’ve told them that Dan was gonna be out of town the following day. It sounds like she was ready to resign herself to live in Tally and move on “in peace.” I think she was manipulated by Donna to go a diff way. That 3rd email is indeed telling as others have noted. That woman has been doing this to her children their whole lives. She has an immense amount of control over them even though they are adults. It’s very hard to get out from under that type of narcissistic mothering. JMO

 

[FreddyG]

Excellent points. Agree. I just think that WA will be able to cast enough reasonable doubt to not get the conviction necessarily. Carl Steinbeck, jury trial, mentor, is excellent with all of this. He has like 150 reasons why she should be indicted. He's been on surviving the survivor and his own channel. I do have my doubts, though in terms of getting at minimum a hung jury on her. I still am not sure on HA knowing in advance. I believe he did, but I don't think the evidence will clear reasonable doubt.

I enjoy STS and basically agree with the topline that the Adelsons are morally culpable and (mostly) legally guilty. Unpopular slight dissent though: I think the podcast has gotten way too pro-prosecution. Steinbeck and others are clearly hardcore law and order folks, which is fine and a valid perspective, but the intensity of their views without any dissent tends to make the show an echo chamber that lacks nuance.

For example, the 100 odd reasons Steinbeck has that Wendi is guilty strikes me as dramatic overstatement. Many of the "reasons" are analytically poor or repetitive. Most of them are debatable inferences along the lines of "Wendi acted this way but an innocent person would have acted differently." This is the weakest kind of argument in favor of guilt because it wrongly assumes that there is a correct or categorically "innocent" way to behave, when in fact human reactions are idiosyncratic and often counterintuitive.

I wish the discussions were more tightly disciplined by the relevant legal standards. For Wendi, who did not pull the trigger, the question is whether she can be convicted on an abetting or conspiracy theory. Either way there has to be some concrete act that aided the commission of the crime. So all the evidence of her consciousness that the plot was afoot, however morally damning, is not relevant. There may be such an act (most likely IMO that she appeared to be confirming Lacasse's travel plans in the parking lot after the yoga breakup) but the question of her guilt turns on that issue, not on debatable inferences about her consciousness of the plot.

Keep in mind also that the "Best Guests" also agreed emphatically that Katie would not testify and that if she did she would get shredded on cross examination because of her prior inconsistent testimony. They were dead wrong on both counts. In fact, she did testify and stood up well to Rashbaum (helps to be telling the truth for a change). I was 100% convinced by STS's take on this issue given their expertise and intensity, but when the exact opposite happened it reminded me that being emphatic is not the same as being right.

Again, I like and often listen to STS and I appreciate their focus on this trial. This is more just in the manner of construcitive criticism--I'd like to see more balanced/measured takes.