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

[Zedzded]

Unless Charlie can deliver new, independently verifiable evidence tying Wendi to the conspiracy, flipping on Wendi gets him nothing. If he has actual receipts, which I think is VERY unlikely, it's a different story.

WA flipped out the day SG was arrested and phoned SY as well as CA. According to KM, CA had said to her on the day of the arrest that he had been messaging his sister on WhatsApp all morning. There is incriminating evidence out there that inculpates WA, its whether it's retrievable that is the question. If CA was using a burner phone and WhatsApp on the burner phone and gave the number to LE, then the relevant data could be retrieved.

 

[Going Rogue]

WA flipped out the day SG was arrested and phoned SY as well as CA. According to KM, CA had said to her on the day of the arrest that he had been messaging his sister on WhatsApp all morning. There is incriminating evidence out there that inculpates WA, its whether it's retrievable that is the question. If CA was using a burner phone and WhatsApp on the burner phone and gave the number to LE, then the relevant data could be retrieved.

I think you’re mixing up details. When did KM say this? I know there is a recorded call between June and Charlie where June called him out because she caught him messaging an ex-girlfriend. After she confronted him, he said he’d been on WhatsApp all day with several people, including Wendi. The context was that he was caught flirting, which prompted that response. What is the source of your claim that he was messaging Wendi on WhatsApp all morning on the day Sigfredo was arrested?

 

[Zedzded]

I think you’re mixing up details. When did KM say this? I know there is a recorded call between June and Charlie where June called him out because she caught him messaging an ex-girlfriend. After she confronted him, he said he’d been on WhatsApp all day with several people, including Wendi. The context was that he was caught flirting, which prompted that response. What is the source of your claim that he was messaging Wendi on WhatsApp all morning on the day Sigfredo was arrested?

I don't remember, I could have it wrong, but the point is still pertinent. CA used WhatsApp as did DA, WA and HA. CA would have messaged WA about the murder either on WhatsApp or on a burner phone or both. LE, at this stage, don't have access to CA's Whatsapp data (only DA's I believe) or WA's WhatsApp data or any burner phones. If they get that WA is in trouble.

 

[Going Rogue]

I don't remember, I could have it wrong, but the point is still pertinent. CA used WhatsApp as did DA, WA and HA. CA would have messaged WA about the murder either on WhatsApp or on a burner phone or both. LE, at this stage, don't have access to CA's Whatsapp data (only DA's I believe) or WA's WhatsApp data or any burner phones. If they get that WA is in trouble.

I may buy that they were dumb enough to have slipped with an incriminating WhatsApp message leading up to or on or around the day of the hit…. but at the time of Sigfredo’s arrest, I don’t believe they were dumb enough to communicate about anything incriminating via WhatsApp or any other encrypted service. Also, again, to think Charlie is going to be able to produce a burner phone with digital evidence proving Wendi was part of the conspiracy 12 years after the murder is very wishful thinking. The odds of that are VERY slim.

 

[Zedzded]

I may buy that they were dumb enough to have slipped with an incriminating WhatsApp message leading up to or on or around the day of the hit…. but at the time of Sigfredo’s arrest, I don’t believe they were dumb enough to communicate about anything incriminating via WhatsApp or any other encrypted service. Also, again, to think Charlie is going to be able to produce a burner phone with digital evidence proving Wendi was part of the conspiracy 12 years after the murder is very wishful thinking. The odds of that are VERY slim.

If they were using burner phones and WhatsApp, it would be difficult for LE to retrieve any of that data without knowing the number/provider of the burner phones. And as I said KM said her SG and LR were all using burner phones, so I'm assuming CA and WA were too. In fact I think thats why WA deleted that one innocuous text message "this is so sweet." She meant to send it on her burner phone, and/or WhatsApp. There was no rational reason for her to delete that text.

 

[Zedzded]

Just to add to that, without the actual burner phones, LE would most likely not have access to various data such as SMS and WhatsApp content, but they will get access to call logs. Plus the fact a person has a burner phone in the first place is often used as evidence. Especially if they lie about it.

If, for example, CA cooperates and gives them his, WA's and DA's burner phone details, LE can subpoena call history for those phones from cell tower companies. If they can show that WA was using a burner phone and manically calling/texting other co-conspirators around the time of the murder, then this would be regarding as damning evidence.

Using a burner phone without a solid reason is seen as an attempt to avoid detection, conceal identity, or evade law enforcement or surveillance. People can't just dismiss this as "oh that's just another phone I used." There needs to a be a robust, plausible reason. Case law supports my statement. Prosecution teams have often used the fact a defendant used a burner phone as evidence in itself regardless of whom they called. i

Ultimately although these clowns made lots of mistakes, I still don't think they're that stupid to only use their own phones to plan and execute this crime. And Wendi, Wendi, Wendi.. I don't for a second believe she saw LE outside of Dan's house and had the discipline to not call/text CA/DA etc she would have been completely adrenalised, off the charts.

 

[Going Rogue]

Just to add to that, without the actual burner phones, LE would most likely not have access to various data such as SMS and WhatsApp content, but they will get access to call logs. Plus the fact a person has a burner phone in the first place is often used as evidence. Especially if they lie about it.

If, for example, CA cooperates and gives them his, WA's and DA's burner phone details, LE can subpoena call history for those phones from cell tower companies. If they can show that WA was using a burner phone and manically calling/texting other co-conspirators around the time of the murder, then this would be regarding as damning evidence.

Using a burner phone without a solid reason is seen as an attempt to avoid detection, conceal identity, or evade law enforcement or surveillance. People can't just dismiss this as "oh that's just another phone I used." There needs to a be a robust, plausible reason. Case law supports my statement. Prosecution teams have often used the fact a defendant used a burner phone as evidence in itself regardless of whom they called. i

Ultimately although these clowns made lots of mistakes, I still don't think they're that stupid to only use their own phones to plan and execute this crime. And Wendi, Wendi, Wendi.. I don't for a second believe she saw LE outside of Dan's house and had the discipline to not call/text CA/DA etc she would have been completely adrenalised, off the charts.

On a personal note, I have no issues with your theories, and I understand why people in this community gravitate toward any theory that ties Wendi to the crime. It’s also been my experience that pointing out what I see as evidentiary or logical problems often gets misread as “defending” her - probably more so in the past, but maybe I have a complex . Respectfully, though, the scenario you’re outlining is technologically impossible without a physical device. As I said before, Charlie’s word alone gets him nothing, and this hypothetical is built entirely on unprovable speculation.

First, there is zero evidence that Charlie, Wendi, or Donna ever possessed burner phones. Assuming they did, or guessing that Wendi was “manically calling” people on one, doesn’t make it true. To use a burner phone as evidence against her, the State would need proof the device existed, proof she used it, and proof of the communications. None of that exists.

Second, even if Charlie handed LE a burner number today, it wouldn’t magically produce WhatsApp or SMS content. WhatsApp is end‑to‑end encrypted and doesn’t store messages on servers, and carriers do not store SMS content. Without the physical devices, the content simply does not exist.

Finally, a subpoena for a decade‑old burner number will yield nothing. Telecom carriers purge call logs and tower metadata after a short retention period – especially for unregistered prepaid phones. There is no decade‑old metadata sitting on a server waiting to be retrieved. If burner phones were ever used, they were destroyed years ago, taking any messages, backups, logs, or tower data with them. A decade old phone number gets the State nothing.

 

[rescuemom]

On a personal note, I have no issues with your theories, and I understand why people in this community gravitate toward any theory that ties Wendi to the crime. It’s also been my experience that pointing out what I see as evidentiary or logical problems often gets misread as “defending” her - probably more so in the past, but maybe I have a complex . Respectfully, though, the scenario you’re outlining is technologically impossible without a physical device. As I said before, Charlie’s word alone gets him nothing, and this hypothetical is built entirely on unprovable speculation.

First, there is zero evidence that Charlie, Wendi, or Donna ever possessed burner phones. Assuming they did, or guessing that Wendi was “manically calling” people on one, doesn’t make it true. To use a burner phone as evidence against her, the State would need proof the device existed, proof she used it, and proof of the communications. None of that exists.

Second, even if Charlie handed LE a burner number today, it wouldn’t magically produce WhatsApp or SMS content. WhatsApp is end‑to‑end encrypted and doesn’t store messages on servers, and carriers do not store SMS content. Without the physical devices, the content simply does not exist.

Finally, a subpoena for a decade‑old burner number will yield nothing. Telecom carriers purge call logs and tower metadata after a short retention period – especially for unregistered prepaid phones. There is no decade‑old metadata sitting on a server waiting to be retrieved. If burner phones were ever used, they were destroyed years ago, taking any messages, backups, logs, or tower data with them. A decade old phone number gets the State nothing.

Likely this could be true of any evidence still available to go after WA and HA. What does it say that WA has likely not visited DA and CA??? Can she look them in the face?????

 

[Going Rogue]

Likely this could be true of any evidence still available to go after WA and HA. What does it say that WA has likely not visited DA and CA??? Can she look them in the face?????

Yes, it could be true about most speculative claims – and there are many. IMO, one of the biggest problems in the social‑media discourse around this case is the way speculation and assumptions are treated as if it were evidence or proof of her involvement. People routinely take ambiguous behavior or make assumptions and retrofit it into a narrative of guilt. I can give so many examples.

I doubt she could face either one of them whether she was involved or not. Also, she’s smart enough to understand the optics of visiting Donna or Charlie in prison. After they were both convicted, any visit she made to either would instantly be interpreted as incriminating. Avoiding that isn’t evidence of guilt or innocence – it’s simply the smart and rational choice for someone who knows she’s under a microscope and knows that everyone is now aware that Donna and Charlie are guilty. IMO, the fact that she hasn’t visited them (assuming that’s true) would just be another data point with multiple plausible explanations and it doesn’t tell me anything.

 

[Ferpo]

Likely this could be true of any evidence still available to go after WA and HA. What does it say that WA has likely not visited DA and CA??? Can she look them in the face?????

One could easily make the counter-argument to someone not familiar with this case that WA has disowned DA and CA because they conspired to murder the father of her children and therefore will never be visiting them.

 

[Zedzded]

On a personal note, I have no issues with your theories, and I understand why people in this community gravitate toward any theory that ties Wendi to the crime. It’s also been my experience that pointing out what I see as evidentiary or logical problems often gets misread as “defending” her - probably more so in the past, but maybe I have a complex . Respectfully, though, the scenario you’re outlining is technologically impossible without a physical device. As I said before, Charlie’s word alone gets him nothing, and this hypothetical is built entirely on unprovable speculation.

First, there is zero evidence that Charlie, Wendi, or Donna ever possessed burner phones. Assuming they did, or guessing that Wendi was “manically calling” people on one, doesn’t make it true. To use a burner phone as evidence against her, the State would need proof the device existed, proof she used it, and proof of the communications. None of that exists.

Second, even if Charlie handed LE a burner number today, it wouldn’t magically produce WhatsApp or SMS content. WhatsApp is end‑to‑end encrypted and doesn’t store messages on servers, and carriers do not store SMS content. Without the physical devices, the content simply does not exist.

Finally, a subpoena for a decade‑old burner number will yield nothing. Telecom carriers purge call logs and tower metadata after a short retention period – especially for unregistered prepaid phones. There is no decade‑old metadata sitting on a server waiting to be retrieved. If burner phones were ever used, they were destroyed years ago, taking any messages, backups, logs, or tower data with them. A decade old phone number gets the State nothing.

If law enforcement were doing their job, they should have subpoenaed the cell tower records for that area years ago. All they would need is a number from CA for either his or WA’s burner phone. Using cell tower data, and tower dumps they could triangulate the location of WA’s regular phone and the burner phone. If the records show that WA was carrying two phones at the same times and places, that would be strong evidence. They could then examine the call logs to see who the burner phone was communicating with.

 

[Zedzded]

To use a burner phone as evidence against her, the State would need proof the device existed, proof she used it, and proof of the communications.

Nope, again based on case law, they just need a phone number. As I said using triangulation/cell tower dumps they can determine if a person had two phones on them. If WA was driving up Trescott and had her phone and a burner phone with her, LE have the technology to determine that.

 

[submarine7]

If law enforcement were doing their job, they should have subpoenaed the cell tower records for that area years ago. All they would need is a number from CA for either his or WA’s burner phone. Using cell tower data, and tower dumps they could triangulate the location of WA’s regular phone and the burner phone. If the records show that WA was carrying two phones at the same times and places, that would be strong evidence. They could then examine the call logs to see who the burner phone was communicating with.

If they had burner phones why didn't they use them? There phone calls on their normal phones was their downfall. I don't think they had burner phones or we wouldn't have all the phone evidence.

If evidence to indicate WA exists, she will be indicted. She was smart about her role and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence but they need more.

 

[Zedzded]

If they had burner phones why didn't they use them? There phone calls on their normal phones was their downfall. I don't think they had burner phones or we wouldn't have all the phone evidence.

If evidence to indicate WA exists, she will be indicted. She was smart about her role and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence but they need more.

i think they got lazy and over confident. There should have been a flurry of communication between the 7 co-conspirators. There wasn't much recorded. So I'd speculate burner phones as well as their own phones were being used.

 

[Going Rogue]

i think they got lazy and over confident. There should have been a flurry of communication between the 7 co-conspirators. There wasn't much recorded. So I'd speculate burner phones as well as their own phones were being used.

If Wendi had a burner and was part of the plot, she wouldn’t have spent 18-minutes on her regular phone with Charlie the morning of the murder. That completely contradicts the idea that she was strategic enough to plant the “hitman story” with Lacasse and the “hitman joke” with Isom to distance herself. You can’t call her both strategically calculating and simultaneously too sloppy to use her burner during the most incriminating call of her life.

The FBI also conducted full tower‑dump analysis in 2014. They flagged all unknown numbers that pinged towers in the area and cross‑referenced every number that contacted any Adelson phone - that’s literally how they identified the hitmen. If a burner had pinged near the crime scene during Wendi’s drive‑by, it would have been thoroughly investigated. The scope of their data analysis was far wider and deeper than you’re giving credit for… the FBI has been doing this for more than a minute.

I agree that in the unlikely event that Charlie somehow produced a number today and it appeared in those 2014 logs, it would be a statistical lightning strike…. but that scenario assumes the phone existed, that it pinged in Tallahassee, that it was somehow overlooked in the original analysis, and that Charlie can recall the number without the device. That’s a long chain of assumptions.

 

[Zedzded]

If Wendi had a burner and was part of the plot, she wouldn’t have spent 18-minutes on her regular phone with Charlie the morning of the murder. That completely contradicts the idea that she was strategic enough to plant the “hitman story” with Lacasse and the “hitman joke” with Isom to distance herself.

She spoke on her actual phone and told JL and SY about CA hiring hitmen because she is/was a complete and utter trainwreck. There was no well thought out strategy to try and distance herself from the crime, period. She has not been arrested because of luck (on her part) not due to some skill or cunning plan to confuse LE.

Some people seem to think WA is this evil genius that has gotten away with murder through her sheer genius. She is an inept, incompetent failure that is incapable of performing the simplest of tasks without help. So in her defence, she certainly was not the mastermind of Dan's murder. She probably gave CA Dan's address or something similar and probably even got that wrong.

I could imagine her lawyer stating up in court stating that his client could not have plotted to kill Dan because she was simply too stupid! Its a defence that has been used before.

 

[Going Rogue]

She spoke on her actual phone and told JL and SY about CA hiring hitmen because she is/was a complete and utter trainwreck. There was no well thought out strategy to try and distance herself from the crime, period. She has not been arrested because of luck (on her part) not due to some skill or cunning plan to confuse LE.

Some people seem to think WA is this evil genius that has gotten away with murder through her sheer genius. She is an inept, incompetent failure that is incapable of performing the simplest of tasks without help. So in her defence, she certainly was not the mastermind of Dan's murder. She probably gave CA Dan's address or something similar and probably even got that wrong.

I could imagine her lawyer stating up in court stating that his client could not have plotted to kill Dan because she was simply too stupid! Its a defence that has been used before.

I agree 100% that there was “no well-thought-out strategy to distance herself from the crime.”…. but that’s actually the predominant theory on social media used to explain why she told the hitman story to Lacasse and the “joke” to Isom. You may believe she’s a trainwreck, but many people credit her with being the mastermind who deliberately manipulated her family and intentionally threw Charlie under the bus as part of some planned strategy to distance herself – that’s not my theory.

Why do people believe this? In my opinion, it’s because they realize that her statements to Lacasse about Charlie’s past plans to hire a hitman, and her disclosure to Isom about the hitman “joke,” are the last things a co-conspirator would ever voluntarily say. If she were actually part of the plot, drawing attention to a hitman concept connected to her own family (and her alleged co-conspirators) both before and immediately after the murder would make no logical sense. The fact that she did this defies logic if she was involved in the conspiracy. As I’ve pointed out many times before, those statements are more consistent with the theory that the plan was carried out behind her back.

People don’t like that explanation because those two incidents are, by their nature, exculpatory. So instead, they resolve the contradiction by portraying Wendi as some kind of Keyser Soze type character – a mastermind who manipulated everyone around her and planted clues in advance as part of a grand strategy. Again, that’s not my theory, but you don’t have to look very hard to find plenty of posts on social media portraying Wendi as this manipulative mastermind.

 

[Zedzded]

a mastermind who manipulated everyone around her and planted clues in advance as part of a grand strategy. Again, that’s not my theory, but you don’t have to look very hard to find plenty of posts on social media portraying Wendi as this manipulative mastermind.

Noone who knows and understands the case thinks WA was the mastermind. Most people that have a deep and objective knowledge of the case understand it to be something similar to this:

- DA is going bananas over her pathological hatred of Dan and enmeshment with WA's life
- to curry favour with Mummy, CA suggests to DA they "take care" of Dan
- she jumps at the chance
- the two of them approach WA and suggest it to her. I think she was possibly initially reluctant, but then came around to the idea

No-one that has any credibility has ever suggested the idea to kill Dan was initially WA. She doesn't have the intelligence to think up any kind of plot.

 

[Going Rogue]

Noone who knows and understands the case thinks WA was the mastermind. Most people that have a deep and objective knowledge of the case understand it to be something similar to this:

- DA is going bananas over her pathological hatred of Dan and enmeshment with WA's life
- to curry favour with Mummy, CA suggests to DA they "take care" of Dan
- she jumps at the chance
- the two of them approach WA and suggest it to her. I think she was possibly initially reluctant, but then came around to the idea

No-one that has any credibility has ever suggested the idea to kill Dan was initially WA. She doesn't have the intelligence to think up any kind of plot.

Let’s look specifically at the scenario you just outlined: Donna and Charlie concoct the plan, approach Wendi, and she ultimately agrees to it. Let’s agree that’s exactly how it transpired. If true, her hitman statements to Lacasse and Isom make absolutely no sense for a guilty person. That is exactly why (in my opinion) many people believe she was this evil, manipulative, and calculating mastermind.

Being a 'trainwreck' or lacking intelligence may explain making careless mistakes, like leaving a digital footprint, or getting your story crossed, but it does not explain voluntarily handing law enforcement the exact blueprint of the murder. If Wendi knew of the plans to have Dan killed and she was part of the plot, then why on earth would she tell Jeff Lacasse days before the hit that Charlie had looked into hiring a hitman while the plot she was part of was actively in motion?… and why did she voluntarily offer up Charlie’s 'hitman joke' to Isom on the very day of the murder? Isom didn't bring up Charlie, she did.

That isn't just being inept, that is shining a massive, unforced spotlight directly onto the actual plot and the actual perpetrators before the police even had a suspect. A 'trainwreck' co-conspirator might accidentally leak information if interrogated hard enough, but they don't freely volunteer the exact mechanism of the crime (a hitman) and the exact person organizing it (Charlie) unless they are completely oblivious to the fact that it's real OR they are a manipulative, evil, and calculating mastermind.

You argue she's too unintelligent to be the mastermind. I argue that her actions are not consistent with what you would expect from someone who was a co-conspirator in a murder plot with at least two other family members to have her ex-husband murdered. If she was in on the plot, even just as someone who reluctantly went along with it, self-preservation alone would dictate she avoid the word 'hitman' like the plague and would not have painted a giant bullseye on one of her co-conspirators backs. Unless, of course, she is an evil, master manipulator like Kyeser Soze.

 

[Zedzded]

Let’s look specifically at the scenario you just outlined: Donna and Charlie concoct the plan, approach Wendi, and she ultimately agrees to it. Let’s agree that’s exactly how it transpired. If true, her hitman statements to Lacasse and Isom make absolutely no sense for a guilty person. That is exactly why (in my opinion) many people believe she was this evil, manipulative, and calculating mastermind.

They make no sense as in a rational or resonable person would not do that. Do you agree?