GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen 18 July 2014 - *5 Guilty* #28

[rescuemom]

April is just round the corner. I'm not au fait with the nuances of the US legal system and there could be good reason why WA has not yet been indicted. I just think it shouldn't be taking this long. This is not a new case. The State have interviewed, deposed all relevant actors, I would have thought the prep needed to prepare for an indictment would be minimal compared to a new case. So I now am of the opinion that unless new evidence surfaces or someone flips, she won't be arrested.

Sorry, what does April have to do with it?? I missed something.

 

[opt]

Sorry, what does April have to do with it??

Watch for news that Wendi has been indicted on April 1.

 

[Luna20]

View attachment 650582

It would seem that GC wouldn’t discuss a subject that wasn’t a done deal on a panel. This makes me think that she isn’t going to go after WA.

 

[Ferpo]

It would seem that GC wouldn’t discuss a subject that wasn’t a done deal on a panel. This makes me think that she isn’t going to go after WA.

I believe that GC and Newlin would have no problems talking about public facts of the case and that they'll do it again. I don't believe that they would have answered speculative questions about the future. Since this event has already happened, we would have heard about any fireworks if they occurred. In summary, I don't think this is any sort of indicator about the future of this case.

 

[Going Rogue]

I believe that GC and Newlin would have no problems talking about public facts of the case and that they'll do it again. I don't believe that they would have answered speculative questions about the future. Since this event has already happened, we would have heard about any fireworks if they occurred. In summary, I don't think this is any sort of indicator about the future of this case.

Exactly - it has no bearing on any future intentions. I’m sure the scope of the discussion was limited to what’s already in the public record, and they likely made it clear they weren’t addressing future strategy or any non‑public information about any of the unindicted. They would have had plenty of material to cover without getting into those details or fielding questions about why everyone’s favorite coconspirator hasn’t been arrested. On social media, the focus always seems to be about Wendi, but from the perspective of the State Attorney’s Office and the lead investigators, there is far more to this case that doesn’t revolve around her.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’m starting to see a shift regarding the case against Wendi on social media. It seems many more that follow the case are acknowledging that even if Wendi was involved in the plot, the evidence likely isn’t strong enough to meet the burden of proof.

For years, the dominant online narrative driven by many YouTube channels has been that the case against Wendi is “overwhelming.” I’ve always been critical of the one-sided YouTube coverage because I believe it shaped public perception far more than the actual evidentiary record ever did. While Carl Steinbeck wasn’t the only commentator contributing to that distortion, I think his commentary has had the biggest impact and likely because of his credentials.

My concern regarding Carl isn't about his sincerity because I believe he genuinely thinks his conclusions are correct. The issue is the effect his style has on the average follower’s understanding of what the State must actually prove. Carl speaks with the confidence of a prosecutor but without the constraints real prosecutors operate under. He doesn’t have to worry about admissibility, corroboration, appellate risk, double jeopardy, or whether a jury would accept a chain of inferences as proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

That freedom allows him to present speculation with the same tone and certainty a prosecutor uses to present evidence. The result is a false sense of the case's strength. Carl often stacks inferences – Wendi disliked Dan, her family disliked Dan, she benefited from the murder, she acted strangely afterward and treats the sum of those parts as proof of a conspiracy…. but that’s not how the law in the courtroom works. Motive and suspicion are relevant, but they are not substitutes for evidence of an actual agreement or an overt act. IMO, the fact that prosecutors haven’t indicted Wendi close to 12 years since the murder after multiple trials and thousands of hours of discovery, isn't because of corruption or protection rather the evidence simply doesn’t meet the legal threshold.

 

[Wishbone]

I’m starting to see a shift regarding the case against Wendi on social media. It seems many more that follow the case are acknowledging that even if Wendi was involved in the plot, the evidence likely isn’t strong enough to meet the burden of proof.

For years, the dominant online narrative driven by many YouTube channels has been that the case against Wendi is “overwhelming.” I’ve always been critical of the one-sided YouTube coverage because I believe it shaped public perception far more than the actual evidentiary record ever did. While Carl Steinbeck wasn’t the only commentator contributing to that distortion, I think his commentary has had the biggest impact and likely because of his credentials.

My concern regarding Carl isn't about his sincerity because I believe he genuinely thinks his conclusions are correct. The issue is the effect his style has on the average follower’s understanding of what the State must actually prove. Carl speaks with the confidence of a prosecutor but without the constraints real prosecutors operate under. He doesn’t have to worry about admissibility, corroboration, appellate risk, double jeopardy, or whether a jury would accept a chain of inferences as proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

That freedom allows him to present speculation with the same tone and certainty a prosecutor uses to present evidence. The result is a false sense of the case's strength. Carl often stacks inferences – Wendi disliked Dan, her family disliked Dan, she benefited from the murder, she acted strangely afterward and treats the sum of those parts as proof of a conspiracy…. but that’s not how the law in the courtroom works. Motive and suspicion are relevant, but they are not substitutes for evidence of an actual agreement or an overt act. IMO, the fact that prosecutors haven’t indicted Wendi close to 12 years since the murder after multiple trials and thousands of hours of discovery, isn't because of corruption or protection rather the evidence simply doesn’t meet the legal threshold.

Just an observation......From the tone of your post it seems this “shift in social media” hasn't affected Carl S in any way. I don't know as I don't follow social media(other than WB) or CS much at all.....I form my own opinions.JMOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Just an observation......From the tone of your post it seems this “shift in social media” hasn't affected Carl S in any way. I don't know as I don't follow social media(other than WB) or CS much at all.....I form my own opinions.JMOO

I have no idea whether Carl is aware of this shift. It’s also largely a matter of perspective, depending on what you or I have been exposed to. From my observations, there now seem to be far more people publicly acknowledging that the case against Wendi isn’t as straightforward as Carl has always portrayed it. Since you don’t follow Carl, you might not be aware that for years he has repeatedly said the case against Wendi is “overwhelming” and has often criticized the State Attorney’s Office for not indicting her. I’ve always disagreed with Carl’s view on the strength of the case and in my opinion he has influenced many people into believing the evidence is stronger than it actually is.

 

[Wishbone]

I have no idea whether Carl is aware of this shift. It’s also largely a matter of perspective, depending on what you or I have been exposed to. From my observations, there now seem to be far more people publicly acknowledging that the case against Wendi isn’t as straightforward as Carl has always portrayed it. Since you don’t follow Carl, you might not be aware that for years he has repeatedly said the case against Wendi is “overwhelming” and has often criticized the State Attorney’s Office for not indicting her. I’ve always disagreed with Carl’s view on the strength of the case and in my opinion he has influenced many people into believing the evidence is stronger than it actually is.

Reasonable doubt has been erased from my thinking due to all the conflicting stories WA has told(nocredibility) and the abundance of coincidences appearing. Adding to that, it is she who knew DM's itinerary at all times and was able to inform the rest of that vile family. She also was facing an alleged fraud motion of concealing assets that was due to be filed the very day DM was shot. Another coincidence, I think not. Added to that she had much to gain from his demise. But this is old ground we covered repeatedly and it comes down to what different individuals determine in their own mind and hearts. I have no way of knowing just how strong the State's case would be as to others. For me it is just a wait and see game that has taken too long since DM was murdered. Why would it speed up now....... JMOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Reasonable doubt has been erased from my thinking due to all the conflicting stories WA has told(nocredibility) and the abundance of coincidences appearing. Adding to that, it is she who knew DM's itinerary at all times and was able to inform the rest of that vile family. She also was facing an alleged fraud motion of concealing assets that was due to be filed the very day DM was shot. Another coincidence, I think not. Added to that she had much to gain from his demise. But this is old ground we covered repeatedly and it comes down to what different individuals determine in their own mind and hearts. I have no way of knowing just how strong the State's case would be as to others. For me it is just a wait and see game that has taken too long since DM was murdered. Why would it speed up now....... JMOO

Yes, she had a lot to gain, and I agree that the “fraud motion” timing may not have been some random coincidence - it likely factored into the family’s decision to have Dan killed. However, that overlap in motive still isn’t the same as proof that Wendi herself was part of the conspiracy. For the State to convict her, they would need direct evidence showing she participated in the planning or knowingly passed along critical information with the intent it be used for the murder. Simply saying that she knew Dan’s itinerary and could have informed her family isn’t evidence… the State needs proof she actually did so to further the crime.

The challenge is that while we can attempt to connect the dots and identify a motive, the law requires proof that Wendi entered into an agreement or performed an overt act in furtherance of it. That’s a much higher bar than saying there are too many coincidences or simply showing she lied, behaved oddly, and benefited afterward. I completely understand why people find her behavior deeply suspicious - but suspicion, even strong suspicion, doesn’t equate to admissible proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she directly conspired with her family.

 

[opt]

If Wendi were on trial today with nothing but the information already publicly known, I would bet on a quick conviction. Even if you would call it reverse jury nullification.