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

[Going Rogue]

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

I absolutely agree. Normal, rational humans have a conscience and don’t commit premeditated murder. Their behavior and thought processes are completely unpredictable. I’ve made this point several times whenever someone argues that Donna and Charlie never would have done this without Wendi’s blessing. Most people can’t understand how a decision as drastic as murdering Dan, the father of their grandchildren / nephews could have be made without consulting Wendi… but I can easily see them plotting this without consulting her, simply because they do not think, act or reason like normal, rational people.

 

[Wishbone]

they do not think, act or reason like normal, rational people.

neither does WA, IMO

 

[Going Rogue]

neither does WA, IMO

If we take even half of what Jeff Lacasse said at face value, then sure, Wendi comes across as an unusual or idiosyncratic person if we’re judging her by “normal” standards…. but we have far more direct, documented data about Charlie and Donna that allows us to responsibly label their thinking patterns. There’s no shortage of material. Being convicted murderers is just the tip of the iceberg. We have the hours of wiretaps, the jail calls, and Donna’s unhinged emails. There is a mountain of primary‑source data showing that Donna and Charlie do not think, act, or reason like normal, rational people.

With Wendi, most of what people rely on is second‑hand - Lacasse’s account, social‑media interpretations (no shortage of opinions there ), and a lot of hindsight. I’m not saying she is perfectly “normal,” but it’s not the same as having a documented pattern of behavior like we do with Donna and Charlie. IMO, there’s a big difference between evidence and impressions. I realize the predominant opinion of Wendi on social media is very consistent with your feelings but, IMO, the record / data just isn’t equal across the three of them.

 

[Zedzded]

I’m not saying she is perfectly “normal,”

So what are you saying she is? There are a bunch of potential witnesses that could detail WA's behaviour that demonstrates a person who is not of sound mind. Obviously you've got JL and SY, but you've got the work colleague who stated that WA was laughing that "Dan got his face blown off" for example. And many other people that can detail odd behaviour. Plus she was on some serious medication. She'd been treated for depression since a teenager, but was also being treated for psychosis and psychosis is "characterized by a loss of contact with reality." This is not a woman that had all her faculties...

 

[Fromeaster]

Wendi's lawyer recently wrote letters to some YouTube creators, saying they are violating Wendi's privacy rights. Her lawyer is demanding the video be removed.

 

[Going Rogue]

So what are you saying she is? There are a bunch of potential witnesses that could detail WA's behaviour that demonstrates a person who is not of sound mind. Obviously you've got JL and SY, but you've got the work colleague who stated that WA was laughing that "Dan got his face blown off" for example. And many other people that can detail odd behaviour. Plus she was on some serious medication. She'd been treated for depression since a teenager, but was also being treated for psychosis and psychosis is "characterized by a loss of contact with reality." This is not a woman that had all her faculties...

I’m not trying to label Wendi as anything – that’s actually the whole point I’m making. With Charlie and Donna, we have hours of their own words on wiretaps, jail calls, and emails showing clear, documented patterns of how they think and behave. With Wendi, most of what people cite is second‑hand interpretation filtered through hindsight. That’s just not the same level of evidence.

On the “laughing about Dan” example you gave, the only version I’m aware of is Jeff telling Isom what someone else supposedly told him. That’s double hearsay, and Jeff immediately walked it back by saying he might be misremembering and said something to the effect of ~ “maybe he didn’t say she was laughing (or joking?) about it”. That’s exactly why I’m cautious about treating these kinds of stories as established fact. If you have a more direct source for that claim, I’d genuinely be interested in hearing it.

If people want to base their views on what potential witnesses might say someday, that’s their choice. I’m basing mine on what’s actually in the record right now - and the record is nowhere near symmetrical across the three of them.

 

[Ferpo]

Wendi's lawyer recently wrote letters to some YouTube creators, saying they are violating Wendi's privacy rights. Her lawyer is demanding the video be removed.

If they were posting an address, phone number(s), or photos/videos from following her around, yes, that's out of bounds. Creators on this case are desperate right now for hits after seeing their revenue stream dry up post DA-conviction.

 

[Zedzded]

On the “laughing about Dan” example you gave, the only version I’m aware of is Jeff telling Isom what someone else supposedly told him. That’s double hearsay, and Jeff immediately walked it back by saying he might be misremembering and said something to the effect of ~ “maybe he didn’t say she was laughing (or joking?) about it”. That’s exactly why I’m cautious about treating these kinds of stories as established fact.

WA started yelling hysterically that she was going to prison for the rest of her life in front of SY (a qualified defence lawyer) and SY's boyfriend. You've tried to defend WA's response trying to pass it off as normal behaviour with WA only saying this because the default suspect is always the ex.

She's a lawyer. She knows how the law works. Irrespectively word are evidence. Someone saying "I'm glad he's dead" might simply mean that person didn't like the victim, but it could be used as evidence to incriminate that person. Innocent people don't tend to yell they're going to die in prison when they've done nothing wrong.

When WA goes to trial she will have a an abundance of excuses for her words and behaviours and most will not be accepted by the jury, like CA's double extortion theory. They need to be plausible. Yelling you're going to prison for the rest of your life and trying to suggest its simply because you're the ex will not meet the standard of plasuible excuses.

 

[Going Rogue]

WA started yelling hysterically that she was going to prison for the rest of her life in front of SY (a qualified defence lawyer) and SY's boyfriend. You've tried to defend WA's response trying to pass it off as normal behaviour with WA only saying this because the default suspect is always the ex.

She's a lawyer. She knows how the law works. Irrespectively word are evidence. Someone saying "I'm glad he's dead" might simply mean that person didn't like the victim, but it could be used as evidence to incriminate that person. Innocent people don't tend to yell they're going to die in prison when they've done nothing wrong.

When WA goes to trial she will have a an abundance of excuses for her words and behaviours and most will not be accepted by the jury, like CA's double extortion theory. They need to be plausible. Yelling you're going to prison for the rest of your life and trying to suggest its simply because you're the ex will not meet the standard of plasuible excuses.

I thought we were discussing the publicly available data that allows us to responsibly comment on the psychology of Donna, Charlie, and Wendi? Now you've shifted the conversation to what you believe is incriminating in a hypothetical Wendi trial with the Sara Yousuf reference. How a jury interprets any of Wendi’s very subjective behavior or any potential witness testimony is a totally different conversation and a deep rabbit hole.

Getting back on topic, as far as objective insight into her psychology, as I previously said, the data we have on Wendi simply doesn't compare to the mountain of primary‑source data we have on her brother and mother.

 

[rescuemom]

We really don't know what or how much data/evidence the state now has on WA if any. CA after every avenue is exhausted will turn on WA. He has no respect for women including his sister. All JMO.

 

[Wishbone]

If we take even half of what Jeff Lacasse said at face value, then sure, Wendi comes across as an unusual or idiosyncratic person if we’re judging her by “normal” standards…. but we have far more direct, documented data about Charlie and Donna that allows us to responsibly label their thinking patterns. There’s no shortage of material. Being convicted murderers is just the tip of the iceberg. We have the hours of wiretaps, the jail calls, and Donna’s unhinged emails. There is a mountain of primary‑source data showing that Donna and Charlie do not think, act, or reason like normal, rational people.

With Wendi, most of what people rely on is second‑hand - Lacasse’s account, social‑media interpretations (no shortage of opinions there ), and a lot of hindsight. I’m not saying she is perfectly “normal,” but it’s not the same as having a documented pattern of behavior like we do with Donna and Charlie. IMO, there’s a big difference between evidence and impressions. I realize the predominant opinion of Wendi on social media is very consistent with your feelings but, IMO, the record / data just isn’t equal across the three of them.

What Jeff Lacasse had to say didn't even enter into my opinion of WA and I didn't mention him or rely on social media to mold my view of her despicable behavior. AIMOO

 

[Luna20]

We really don't know what or how much data/evidence the state now has on WA if any. CA after every avenue is exhausted will turn on WA. He has no respect for women including his sister. All JMO.

I’m so curious about who would turn on who. The Hunger Games…

 

[opt]

I’m so curious about who would turn on who. The Hunger Games…

It doesn't matter if nobody has hard evidence on anyone else. Personal belief alone won't get a conviction. Rob's belief was helpful, but it would have been sufficient without the rest of the evidence.

 

[Zedzded]

It doesn't matter if nobody has hard evidence on anyone else. Personal belief alone won't get a conviction. Rob's belief was helpful, but it would have been sufficient without the rest of the evidence.

Well I don't think hard evidence is necessary. CA might be able to produce call logs, for example, that show he and WA were texting back and forth with great frequency as she drove up Trescott. That is good circumstantial evidence.

 

[rescuemom]

WHO can believe that WA had 0 knowledge or inclination of the actions of her family. She in her first interview when told that DM was shot and likely would not make it she uttered something like her family...or she hoped her family....or her brother.... yada yada. Lesser charges, that is enough...lesser charges....something to wrinkle her world

 

[Going Rogue]

WHO can believe that WA had 0 knowledge or inclination of the actions of her family. She in her first interview when told that DM was shot and likely would not make it she uttered something like her family...or she hoped her family....or her brother.... yada yada. Lesser charges, that is enough...lesser charges....something to wrinkle her world

At a bare minimum, Wendi had an inclination that her family was potentially involved. Days before the murder, she allegedly told Jeff that Charlie had looked into all options, including hiring a hitman the previous summer. Although I have been critical of certain parts of Jeff’s testimony in the past and the way he processes and relays information, I can’t imagine how he could have possibly misinterpreted what Wendi told him.

Based on her disclosing the hitman story to Jeff, as well a few things she said during her police interview, it’s hard not to conclude that, at a bare minimum, she suspected her family’s involvement. During her interview, she specifically brought up Charlie after Isom asked if she thought someone would do this for her benefit. She responded to that question by bringing up Charlie’s 'hitman joke.' Perhaps she was processing in real time that Charlie might actually be responsible, and, realizing how incriminating her statement sounded, she quickly backtracked by saying, 'but he would never do anything like this.'

Much later in the interview, after her phone call with Donna, Wendi commented that she was relieved her mother seemed shocked, and insinuated that Donna’s reaction meant the family wasn’t involved. Obviously, during the police interview, the thought that her family might have been behind it was at the forefront of her mind. To me, that really isn’t debatable.

 

[opt]

I can see one way that Charlie could tip the balance without tangible evidence. Wendi backed out of her Tallahassee house purchase at about the same time the murder plot began. Wendi claimed she didn't have the money, but she did.

Suppose Charlie were to give a complete description of how he persuaded Wendi to cancel her home purchase plan. A jury would find that compelling.

This major financial decision was more than a hint that Wendi expected not to be remaining in Tallahassee. And the only way she would be able to leave was over Dan's dead body. I believe that Wendi knew about the murder plans on the day she canceled her home purchase.

 

[Fromeaster]

I can see one way that Charlie could tip the balance without tangible evidence. Wendi backed out of her Tallahassee house purchase at about the same time the murder plot began. Wendi claimed she didn't have the money, but she did.

Suppose Charlie were to give a complete description of how he persuaded Wendi to cancel her home purchase plan. A jury would find that compelling.

This major financial decision was more than a hint that Wendi expected not to be remaining in Tallahassee. And the only way she would be able to leave was over Dan's dead body. I believe that Wendi knew about the murder plans on the day she canceled her home purchase.

She didn't buy a house, she gave away the kids' clothes, canceled the cable, took down the kids' drawings on the walls, wrote a letter to Robert saying Jeff was a secret boyfriend her parents didn't know about. And letters about TV repairs, which provided her with an alibi. And of course, she came to the scene. To me, she's the worst of the whole family for what she did to her kids. I don't believe she'll be prosecuted.

 

[Going Rogue]

I can see one way that Charlie could tip the balance without tangible evidence. Wendi backed out of her Tallahassee house purchase at about the same time the murder plot began. Wendi claimed she didn't have the money, but she did.

Suppose Charlie were to give a complete description of how he persuaded Wendi to cancel her home purchase plan. A jury would find that compelling.

This major financial decision was more than a hint that Wendi expected not to be remaining in Tallahassee. And the only way she would be able to leave was over Dan's dead body. I believe that Wendi knew about the murder plans on the day she canceled her home purchase.

It's already in the public record so he’d never be believed. Several months before Dan was murdered, there was a detailed text exchange between Charlie and Donna, regarding Wendi’s potential Tallahassee real estate purchase. In that exchange, Charlie explains to Donna how he convinced Wendi not to buy a home. Important to note, this was several months before the murder, so it's highly unlikely this was a purposeful text exchange to throw off investigators from suspecting Wendi in the event they were all eventually caught – I have seen many people make that leap of logic. If anything, this text exchange supports the theory that Donna and Charlie ‘may’ have been plotting the murder behind Wendi’s back.

Regarding Wendi claiming she didn’t have the money, during Donna’s trial, they brought in a witness (financial analyst) who testified that Wendi had the finances to purchase a home. The problem is that whether or not you feel you have the financial security to purchase a home is very subjective. Wendi made the point in her testimony that she didn’t buy the home because Dan never gave her the money he owed her – and that was a true statement. Dan had withheld a lump sum payment owed to Wendi (I forget the amount but it was more than 100k) because he was alleging she didn’t disclose all her financial assets in the divorce settlement.

I'm not sure how that would have played out in court had Dan not been murdered. On social media, you will only get a lopsided version of who would have won the ongoing legal battles between Dan and Wendi. Per Jeff Lacasse, in his police interview he said something to the effect of Wendi was kicking Dan’s ass in court and everyone knew she was going to win.

 

[Weki]

It's already in the public record so he’d never be believed. Several months before Dan was murdered, there was a detailed text exchange between Charlie and Donna, regarding Wendi’s potential Tallahassee real estate purchase. In that exchange, Charlie explains to Donna how he convinced Wendi not to buy a home. Important to note, this was several months before the murder, so it's highly unlikely this was a purposeful text exchange to throw off investigators from suspecting Wendi in the event they were all eventually caught – I have seen many people make that leap of logic. If anything, this text exchange supports the theory that Donna and Charlie ‘may’ have been plotting the murder behind Wendi’s back.

Regarding Wendi claiming she didn’t have the money, during Donna’s trial, they brought in a witness (financial analyst) who testified that Wendi had the finances to purchase a home. The problem is that whether or not you feel you have the financial security to purchase a home is very subjective. Wendi made the point in her testimony that she didn’t buy the home because Dan never gave her the money he owed her – and that was a true statement. Dan had withheld a lump sum payment owed to Wendi (I forget the amount but it was more than 100k) because he was alleging she didn’t disclose all her financial assets in the divorce settlement.

I'm not sure how that would have played out in court had Dan not been murdered. On social media, you will only get a lopsided version of who would have won the ongoing legal battles between Dan and Wendi. Per Jeff Lacasse, in his police interview he said something to the effect of Wendi was kicking Dan’s ass in court and everyone knew she was going to win.

I may have my timeline mixed up but I believe at the time that Charlie (in collusion with Donna behind Wendi's back) talked Wendi out of purchasing a home in Tally the family was still trying to bribe Danny with the 1 million, no?

I also think the fact that Wendi thought about buying a home in Tally and had resigned herself to staying put works in her favor. That she was conspired upon by Donna and Charlie out of going that route would be an important detail in a potential Wendi trial.