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

[Going Rogue]

HA and DA knew Jeff wasn't WA's secret boyfriend. They had met Jeff 6-7 times. If she wanted to keep him secret she would not have introduced them.

I don’t think is such a leap to suspect Wendi never actually disclosed to Donna and Harvey that Jeff was her "boyfriend." During his trial testimony, Jeff may have mentioned that he "met them 6 or 7 times" - which might be true, or it might be a slight exaggeration. I’m fairly certain he also clearly stated that he never really had a real conversation with Donna and Harvey other than a brief "hello" or "goodbye."

When Jeff brought up Donna and Harvey to Isom, a lot of what he offered was actually information he gathered from others who knew the family. It’s very clear that Jeff was deeply traumatized and spoke to anyone and everyone who would listen. In his police interview, there are multiple references to conversations he had with others about Wendi and the Adelsons – most notably was a husband and wife from FSU who knew the Adelsons very well that Jeff was close to… Jeff got a LOT of his background info on the Adelson’s from that couple.

If we look at the timeline, Jeff said they were fighting heavily in June 2014, and then all of a sudden Wendi "threw the world at him." She started telling him the kids would call him Dad, and that she was going to "talk to her parents about him." Jeff specifically noted to Isom - "I'm not Jewish," so that this was a BIG deal.

Based on all of the above, I don't believe it's a leap at all to say Wendi was hiding the true nature of her relationship with Jeff from her parents. Also, think of the human psychology factor.... what happened between Rob and his parents because of his engagement to a non-Jewish woman is well documented. That caused a MAJOR family crisis. Because of the trauma surrounding Rob, Wendi hiding her romantic relationship with a non-Jewish man from Donna and Harvey isn't just plausible – it's highly probable. Why wasn’t Jeff at Harvey’s BIG 70th birthday bash if Donna and Harvey knew they were a couple?

 

[Going Rogue]

HA and DA knew Jeff wasn't WA's secret boyfriend. They had met Jeff 6-7 times. If she wanted to keep him secret she would not have introduced them.

Another thought just came to mind after a cup of coffee. Forget the fact that Jeff didn’t attend Harvey’s Big 70th Birthday Bash – why wasn’t he on the evite invitation to Wendi that actually made it into evidence? If Donna and Harvey knew Jeff was Wendi’s ‘boyfriend’, wouldn’t he have been on the invitation?

Also, re Jeff’s testimony he “met them 6 or 7 times,” it’s important to give more context because my memory is that he made it clear that his interactions were limited to a quick “hello” or “goodbye” during kid exchanges and he said he never had a conversation with either of them. The way Jeff described his interactions with Donna and Harvey does not sound like type of interaction parents would have with their adult daughters significant other / boyfriend if they knew this person was more than an acquaintance...

 

[Zedzded]

Based on all of the above, I don't believe it's a leap at all to say Wendi was hiding the true nature of her relationship with Jeff from her parents. Also, think of the human psychology factor.... what happened between Rob and his parents because of his engagement to a non-Jewish woman is well documented. That caused a MAJOR family crisis. Because of the trauma surrounding Rob, Wendi hiding her romantic relationship with a non-Jewish man from Donna and Harvey isn't just plausible – it's highly probable. Why wasn’t Jeff at Harvey’s BIG 70th birthday bash if Donna and Harvey knew they were a couple?

Yeah that's a valid point.

 

[Fromeaster]

Wendi used Jeff like toilet paper. He wasn't some secret boyfriend like she told Rob. Everyone knew, even Dan, that he was dating Wendi.

 

[Going Rogue]

Wendi used Jeff like toilet paper. He wasn't some secret boyfriend like she told Rob. Everyone knew, even Dan, that he was dating Wendi.

Not sure how the term “secret boyfriend” came about. Rob’s testimony was clear. In June 2014, he had a text exchange with Wendi – she had asked him about Gainesville because she was planning to visit with Jeff, and Rob had previously lived there. He asked Wendi who Jeff was, and she replied that he was her boyfriend, adding that he shouldn’t tell their parents because they didn’t know they were dating. She didn’t say he was a “secret boyfriend” that no one in Tallahassee knew about. In Rob’s testimony, it was also made clear that he told the FBI (they reached out to him for an interview) about Jeff because, naturally, like Jane’s thought process, anyone tied to Wendi romantically should be considered a suspect – that’s 101 in my book. Although Rob didn’t spell it out in the manner I am, to me its very obvious… and I understand how that plays right into the fall guy narrative.

Also, regarding your claim that “everyone knew,” unless you knew the people in their social circle (which is possible), I’m not sure how you could know that “everyone knew.” Did you ever see Tamara Demko’s police interview? She was very close to both Dan and Wendi. In her interview, she mentions Wendi telling her about her relationship with Jeff – she found out about Jeff just weeks before Dan was murdered, and it’s very likely that she, as someone in the same social circle in Tallahassee, found out after Wendi’s text exchange with Rob. That’s just one example of someone other than Jeff Lacasse who has spoken about the relationship between Jeff and Wendi. Perhaps the relationship wasn’t as ‘public’ as everyone believes by the way Jeff described it?

Another interesting point – on July 18th, the day Dan was shot, Wendi was invited to the “stock-the-bar” party. Why wasn’t Jeff either aware of or invited to this party? Perhaps he was invited, but there’s no indication he knew about it. If “everyone knew” about Jeff, how did Wendi manage to keep that from Jeff? You rarely see anyone bring up that detail, but it’s important because Jeff’s intuition was correct - “there was something strange about that date.” Perhaps that’s why Wendi needed to be back in Tallahassee that Friday??…. she had a party to attend and didn’t tell her “secret” boyfriend about it .

 

[Going Rogue]

Yeah that's a valid point.

Did we just agree on something? LOL.... I think the prosecution has done a decent job levering certain data points to support the Lacasse fall guy narrative. They did it by leveraging Lacasse’s own statements from his police interview in all of the trials and using Rob’s own statements about Wendi text re Jeff in Donna’s trial. In Donna’s trial, Donna’s defense team had no incentive to challenge this narrative – it actually played to their benefit. In my honest opinion, if we ever see a Wendi trial, where Wendi will finally be represented by counsel, the Lacasse fall guy narrative will be easily dismantled and a good attorney will use that accusation and spin it so hard back on the prosecution that it will be a net positive for Wendi.

 

[Zedzded]

Did we just agree on something? LOL.... I think the prosecution has done a decent job levering certain data points to support the Lacasse fall guy narrative. They did it by leveraging Lacasse’s own statements from his police interview in all of the trials and using Rob’s own statements about Wendi text re Jeff in Donna’s trial. In Donna’s trial, Donna’s defense team had no incentive to challenge this narrative – it actually played to their benefit. In my honest opinion, if we ever see a Wendi trial, where Wendi will finally be represented by counsel, the Lacasse fall guy narrative will be easily dismantled and a good attorney will use that accusation and spin it so hard back on the prosecution that it will be a net positive for Wendi.

Yeah so the text exchange with Rob was just a nothing burger I guess. She was genuinely trying to hide JL from her parents.

 

[Going Rogue]

Is a 55-inch TV considered ‘a cheap dorm sized TV’?

I just received a private chat from someone on another forum, and I am in complete disbelief. I'm not sure how I missed this – probably because I found most of Donna’s trial boring and wasn’t really focused.

During Wendi’s cross-examination, Fulford had Wendi read the BestBuy report that Harvey called in. It states that Harvey called in a repair for a “55-inch screen” that was having some problems!!!!

Sorry, but I have a 55-inch screen in my house, and that is not a screen that I’d categorize as a ‘dorm-sized’ or throwaway screen. For YEARS I have seen MULTIPLE references to the cheap, ‘dorm-sized’ TV that no one would have repaired – they’d just go out and buy a new one! The fact that it was physically damaged and not covered as part of a warranty is a different argument. If you want to argue it was disingenuous to attempt to leverage the warranty for physical damage – that’s a different (and valid) argument.

What other misinformation or misleading data is out there? If this screen was, in fact, a 55-inch screen, Jeff loses a LOT of credibility in my book, and it supports what I have said many times - Jeff was trying to subconsciously bury Wendi.

Love to hear other the opinions on this.

Wendi Adelson, Daughter, Full Testimony: Donna Adelson Murder Trial

go to - 2:38:30 mark

 

[Zedzded]

Is a 55-inch TV considered ‘a cheap dorm sized TV’?

I just received a private chat from someone on another forum, and I am in complete disbelief. I'm not sure how I missed this – probably because I found most of Donna’s trial boring and wasn’t really focused.

During Wendi’s cross-examination, Fulford had Wendi read the BestBuy report that Harvey called in. It states that Harvey called in a repair for a “55-inch screen” that was having some problems!!!!

Sorry, but I have a 55-inch screen in my house, and that is not a screen that I’d categorize as a ‘dorm-sized’ or throwaway screen. For YEARS I have seen MULTIPLE references to the cheap, ‘dorm-sized’ TV that no one would have repaired – they’d just go out and buy a new one! The fact that it was physically damaged and not covered as part of a warranty is a different argument. If you want to argue it was disingenuous to attempt to leverage the warranty for physical damage – that’s a different (and valid) argument.

What other misinformation or misleading data is out there? If this screen was, in fact, a 55-inch screen, Jeff loses a LOT of credibility in my book, and it supports what I have said many times - Jeff was trying to subconsciously bury Wendi.

Love to hear other the opinions on this.

Wendi Adelson, Daughter, Full Testimony: Donna Adelson Murder Trial

go to - 2:38:30 mark

I'd like to see more information regarding the TV size. JL stated it was a cheap dorm TV, HA and WA both stated it was a 55" TV. The latter two are pathological liars. People have argued that JL has exaggerated and embellished certain facts. Perhaps he has, but if he perjures himself in a murder trial, that's serious prison time.

Additionally HA does mention that they are flexible with the time, inferring that it was never meant to be an alibi. But this could be a ruse. They state they're flexible, BestBuy phone them up and they state the only day they can do is July 19. So it looks good on their part. The expensive TV was a genuine repair.

Now if we can get clarification on the TV size, that would set the cat amongst the pigeons. Why would HA and WA lie about the TV size? You don't mistake a 55" TV (costing $3k+ in 2014) for a cheap dorm TV.

 

[Going Rogue]

I'd like to see more information regarding the TV size. JL stated it was a cheap dorm TV, HA and WA both stated it was a 55" TV. The latter two are pathological liars. People have argued that JL has exaggerated and embellished certain facts. Perhaps he has, but if he perjures himself in a murder trial, that's serious prison time.

Additionally HA does mention that they are flexible with the time, inferring that it was never meant to be an alibi. But this could be a ruse. They state they're flexible, BestBuy phone them up and they state the only day they can do is July 19. So it looks good on their part. The expensive TV was a genuine repair.

Now if we can get clarification on the TV size, that would set the cat amongst the pigeons. Why would HA and WA lie about the TV size? You don't mistake a 55" TV (costing $3k+ in 2014) for a cheap dorm TV.

It seemed that what Wendi was reading during her testimony was the actual ‘BestBuy’ repair confirmation that Harvey forwarded to her for the upcoming repair and the reference to the ‘55-inch’ screen was from the ‘BestBuy’ ticket confirmation. There were also several questions on site specific details and display size – so it seemed pretty clear to me this was a BestBuy report.

Also, they would never charge Lacasse for perjury for saying it was a ‘dorm sized’ TV – even if it was a 55-inch screen. His description as a ‘dorm sized’ is a subjective…. I think we all would agree that’s misleading if it was 55-inches, but he’d never be charged for perjury for saying the ‘TV was like something you’d see in a college dorm room’ – that his opinion.. again, misleading, but still his opinion.

I have pointed out a few other things Jeff has said that are similar to this where its clear to me he is either exaggerating details, being a little misleading or where his testimony has evolved. If that TV was 55-inches, I’d put this in the category as being misleading and that will be a problem on cross-examination - that will not go over well with a jury.

I'm sorry to point this out, but if that TV is in fact 55-inches, it's not a good look for Jeff. if we are going to be objective.

 

[Zedzded]

It seemed that what Wendi was reading during her testimony was the actual ‘BestBuy’ repair confirmation that Harvey forwarded to her for the upcoming repair and the reference to the ‘55-inch’ screen was from the ‘BestBuy’ ticket confirmation. There were also several questions on site specific details and display size – so it seemed pretty clear to me this was a BestBuy report.

Also, they would never charge Lacasse for perjury for saying it was a ‘dorm sized’ TV – even if it was a 55-inch screen. His description as a ‘dorm sized’ is a subjective…. I think we all would agree that’s misleading if it was 55-inches, but he’d never be charged for perjury for saying the ‘TV was like something you’d see in a college dorm room’ – that his opinion.. again, misleading, but still his opinion.

Not saying he would be charged over lying about a TV, but he's taking a huge risk if his MO is get on the stand and start making stuff up.

 

[Zedzded]

I'm sorry to point this out, but if that TV is in fact 55-inches, it's not a good look for Jeff. if we are going to be objective.

He seemed adamant it was a cheap easily replaceable TV, so if he did lie about it, then yeah not a good look for him.

 

[Going Rogue]

Not saying he would be charged over lying about a TV, but he's taking a huge risk if his MO is get on the stand and start making stuff up.

I don’t disagree…there can be a fine line between exaggerating and making stuff up. I have pointed out things in the past about Jeff’s testimony that didn’t add up to me… most people look past it though. The best way I can put it is that I always got the vibe that he is so bitter and angry with her for what she put him through and he genuinely believes she is guilty… so slight exaggerations to help the state are fair game and I’m honestly not sure if he is consciously aware or its done at a subconscious level.

 

[Florida_marlin]

On a TV being cheap and big at the same time, I present the following “cheap dorm room TV”, from nearby Best Buy. This circa 2026. This would be a good contextual exhibit for my defense of the JL TV comment indictment.

 

[Going Rogue]

On a TV being cheap and big at the same time, I present the following “cheap dorm room TV”, from nearby Best Buy. This circa 2026. This would be a good contextual exhibit for my defense of the JL TV comment indictment.

The real issue is a pattern of embellishing details to fit the prosecution’s narrative. The fact that you can find an affordable 55-inch display in 2026 is not really relevant. To testify that the 55-inch display (if it was truly 55-inches) was “like the type of TV you’d see in a college dorm room’” is very misleading and I don’t think its even debatable. If a witness is willing to stretch objective physical details to make the States case stronger, how can we trust his subjective memory of conversations from over a decade ago?

I’ll just give two examples in an effort to keep this post short:

1. The "Fall Guy" narrative: To support the theory that he was being framed, Jeff initially testified that the killers' rented 2008 Prius "looked similar" to his 2004 Nissan Sentra. As years passed and he learned more details, he adopted his testimony in the last trial and shifted his testimony to something to the effect of ~‘I later learned one of the rental cars was a Nissan Altima, which is the closest type of car you could rent that is similar to mine.” The implication that the killers rented a car resembling his fed directly into the idea that Jeff was being set up as a fall guy.

2. The 55-Inch "Dorm" TV: Calling a 55-inch display a "dorm-sized TV" is not a harmless mistake. It deliberately created a false mental image for the jury and the public that the TV was a small, cheap screen that no rational person would ever bother repairing. The revelation (if true) that it was actually a 55-inch living room display completely changes the context and I think this is a major problem for the prosecution and Jeff’s credibility – again, if true.

I don’t think Jeff is a bad person, but trauma, hindsight and confirmation bias may have clouded his objectivity. If he’s willing (whether consciously or subconsciously) to stretch the truth on small, objective details like car similarity and TV size to bolster the States case, it’s fair to question the weight we give his subjective impressions about far more consequential issues.

 

[Florida_marlin]

The real issue is a pattern of embellishing details to fit the prosecution’s narrative. The fact that you can find an affordable 55-inch display in 2026 is not really relevant. To testify that the 55-inch display (if it was truly 55-inches) was “like the type of TV you’d see in a college dorm room’” is very misleading and I don’t think its even debatable. If a witness is willing to stretch objective physical details to make the States case stronger, how can we trust his subjective memory of conversations from over a decade ago?

I’ll just give two examples in an effort to keep this post short:

1. The "Fall Guy" narrative: To support the theory that he was being framed, Jeff initially testified that the killers' rented 2008 Prius "looked similar" to his 2004 Nissan Sentra. As years passed and he learned more details, he adopted his testimony in the last trial and shifted his testimony to something to the effect of ~‘I later learned one of the rental cars was a Nissan Altima, which is the closest type of car you could rent that is similar to mine.” The implication that the killers rented a car resembling his fed directly into the idea that Jeff was being set up as a fall guy.

2. The 55-Inch "Dorm" TV: Calling a 55-inch display a "dorm-sized TV" is not a harmless mistake. It deliberately created a false mental image for the jury and the public that the TV was a small, cheap screen that no rational person would ever bother repairing. The revelation (if true) that it was actually a 55-inch living room display completely changes the context and I think this is a major problem for the prosecution and Jeff’s credibility – again, if true.

I don’t think Jeff is a bad person, but trauma, hindsight and confirmation bias may have clouded his objectivity. If he’s willing (whether consciously or subconsciously) to stretch the truth on small, objective details like car similarity and TV size to bolster the States case, it’s fair to question the weight we give his subjective impressions about far more consequential issues.

No, you’re missing my point entirely. It’s about the evidence. It’s not about opinions. Your opinion, my opinion, some other person’s opinion. Some wish to indict JL, a witness to this criminal conspiracy, based on nitpicking his testimony about a TV. And, it’s based soley on one’s opinion of his testimony. When presented with cold hard facts about the existence of a cheap TV that is large and could easily be in the dorm room at FSU in 2014, instead of saying “yea, maybe my opinion of his testimony is wrong”, one doubles down on their opinion.

I don’t mean this as an indictment against you, personally. Very much to the contrary. And I posted this “evidence” on purpose to elicit this response. I think it goes a long way to support your ( and others’) more fundamental position regarding WA and the lack of her arrest and indictment. That being, it’s about the evidence, not opinions or feelings.

I find it rather compelling, and eye opening, that one such as you, who has consistently been a “devil’s advocate”, (if you will allow the phrase), regarding the circumstantial evidence against WA, that you would be doubling down on your indictment of JL in this TV circumstance. After presented with the evidence.

It’s human nature for us to develop our positions, based on many factors, and those opinions can and do influence how we view evidence in a case. I do it myself. All the time. And after I’ve argued my point(s), it can be hard for me to abandon my position, even after seeing evidence to the contrary. I see this as a small microcosm of the entire “why hasn’t WA been arrested” debate.

I meant no offense, and I hope none taken. This little exercise actually reinforced my opinion at this time.

FWIW, I believe the reason WA has not been arrested after all this time is the evidence. I’ll repeat my “opinion”. If they could, they would.

 

[Going Rogue]

No, you’re missing my point entirely. It’s about the evidence. It’s not about opinions. Your opinion, my opinion, some other person’s opinion. Some wish to indict JL, a witness to this criminal conspiracy, based on nitpicking his testimony about a TV. And, it’s based soley on one’s opinion of his testimony. When presented with cold hard facts about the existence of a cheap TV that is large and could easily be in the dorm room at FSU in 2014, instead of saying “yea, maybe my opinion of his testimony is wrong”, one doubles down on their opinion.

I don’t mean this as an indictment against you, personally. Very much to the contrary. And I posted this “evidence” on purpose to elicit this response. I think it goes a long way to support your ( and others’) more fundamental position regarding WA and the lack of her arrest and indictment. That being, it’s about the evidence, not opinions or feelings.

I find it rather compelling, and eye opening, that one such as you, who has consistently been a “devil’s advocate”, (if you will allow the phrase), regarding the circumstantial evidence against WA, that you would be doubling down on your indictment of JL in this TV circumstance. After presented with the evidence.

It’s human nature for us to develop our positions, based on many factors, and those opinions can and do influence how we view evidence in a case. I do it myself. All the time. And after I’ve argued my point(s), it can be hard for me to abandon my position, even after seeing evidence to the contrary. I see this as a small microcosm of the entire “why hasn’t WA been arrested” debate.

I meant no offense, and I hope none taken. This little exercise actually reinforced my opinion at this time.

FWIW, I believe the reason WA has not been arrested after all this time is the evidence. I’ll repeat my “opinion”. If they could, they would.

I’m not offended at all. My point isn’t about indicting Jeff – it’s about accuracy. If the TV was actually a 55-inch display, then Jeff’s description was misleading, because it created a mental image that was objectively inconsistent with the actual size and setup of the TV. To me, that matters because his description became part of the narrative used to support the “TV alibi” theory.

Respectfully, I don’t believe that showing examples of “large inexpensive dorm TVs” would be effective to a jury if the defense were arguing that Jeff’s description of a 55-inch wall‑mounted TV as “something you’d see in a dorm room” was misleading or inaccurate… but I’m not sure that was the point you were trying to make anyway based on your follow up response. The issue isn’t whether a 55-inch TV could be in a dorm – it’s whether Jeff’s phrasing created a false impression about the TV in this case.

If the TV really was 55 inches, then my view that his testimony was misleading is grounded in common sense… and yes, I agree that people’s interpretations of this detail often depend on the assumptions they bring into the case. I’ve pointed out examples of confirmation bias in this case more times than I can count, and I fully acknowledge it can cut both ways.

None of this means Jeff is a bad person or that he was lying. It simply means his testimony included embellishments and subjective framing, and that’s relevant when people treat his impressions as if they are hard evidence.

As for your final point…. yes, I agree completely – if they could charge Wendi, they would. That has been my position from day one. The evidence isn’t there, and ironically, the TV issue helps reinforce that point. When people rely on narratives instead of facts, they end up with conclusions that don’t match the evidentiary record.

 

[LinasK]

Is a 55-inch TV considered ‘a cheap dorm sized TV’?

I just received a private chat from someone on another forum, and I am in complete disbelief. I'm not sure how I missed this – probably because I found most of Donna’s trial boring and wasn’t really focused.

During Wendi’s cross-examination, Fulford had Wendi read the BestBuy report that Harvey called in. It states that Harvey called in a repair for a “55-inch screen” that was having some problems!!!!

Sorry, but I have a 55-inch screen in my house, and that is not a screen that I’d categorize as a ‘dorm-sized’ or throwaway screen. For YEARS I have seen MULTIPLE references to the cheap, ‘dorm-sized’ TV that no one would have repaired – they’d just go out and buy a new one! The fact that it was physically damaged and not covered as part of a warranty is a different argument. If you want to argue it was disingenuous to attempt to leverage the warranty for physical damage – that’s a different (and valid) argument.

What other misinformation or misleading data is out there? If this screen was, in fact, a 55-inch screen, Jeff loses a LOT of credibility in my book, and it supports what I have said many times - Jeff was trying to subconsciously bury Wendi.

Love to hear other the opinions on this.

Wendi Adelson, Daughter, Full Testimony: Donna Adelson Murder Trial

go to - 2:38:30 mark

No, a dorm-sized TV is the kind that my father had sitting on their kitchen table, less than 20". We just acquired our first 55" TV a couple of years ago (it's almost wall-sized), and although TV's have gotten cheaper, it's still at least $500 today. That's not what I consider throw-away money unless you're rich.

 

[LinasK]

It seemed that what Wendi was reading during her testimony was the actual ‘BestBuy’ repair confirmation that Harvey forwarded to her for the upcoming repair and the reference to the ‘55-inch’ screen was from the ‘BestBuy’ ticket confirmation. There were also several questions on site specific details and display size – so it seemed pretty clear to me this was a BestBuy report.

Also, they would never charge Lacasse for perjury for saying it was a ‘dorm sized’ TV – even if it was a 55-inch screen. His description as a ‘dorm sized’ is a subjective…. I think we all would agree that’s misleading if it was 55-inches, but he’d never be charged for perjury for saying the ‘TV was like something you’d see in a college dorm room’ – that his opinion.. again, misleading, but still his opinion.

I have pointed out a few other things Jeff has said that are similar to this where its clear to me he is either exaggerating details, being a little misleading or where his testimony has evolved. If that TV was 55-inches, I’d put this in the category as being misleading and that will be a problem on cross-examination - that will not go over well with a jury.

I'm sorry to point this out, but if that TV is in fact 55-inches, it's not a good look for Jeff. if we are going to be objective.

No dorm room is going to allow a 55 inch wall-sized TV. They just aren't that big! And I've looked at lots of dorm rooms when exploring colleges with my daughter.

 

[LinasK]

No, you’re missing my point entirely. It’s about the evidence. It’s not about opinions. Your opinion, my opinion, some other person’s opinion. Some wish to indict JL, a witness to this criminal conspiracy, based on nitpicking his testimony about a TV. And, it’s based soley on one’s opinion of his testimony. When presented with cold hard facts about the existence of a cheap TV that is large and could easily be in the dorm room at FSU in 2014, instead of saying “yea, maybe my opinion of his testimony is wrong”, one doubles down on their opinion.

I don’t mean this as an indictment against you, personally. Very much to the contrary. And I posted this “evidence” on purpose to elicit this response. I think it goes a long way to support your ( and others’) more fundamental position regarding WA and the lack of her arrest and indictment. That being, it’s about the evidence, not opinions or feelings.

I find it rather compelling, and eye opening, that one such as you, who has consistently been a “devil’s advocate”, (if you will allow the phrase), regarding the circumstantial evidence against WA, that you would be doubling down on your indictment of JL in this TV circumstance. After presented with the evidence.

It’s human nature for us to develop our positions, based on many factors, and those opinions can and do influence how we view evidence in a case. I do it myself. All the time. And after I’ve argued my point(s), it can be hard for me to abandon my position, even after seeing evidence to the contrary. I see this as a small microcosm of the entire “why hasn’t WA been arrested” debate.

I meant no offense, and I hope none taken. This little exercise actually reinforced my opinion at this time.

FWIW, I believe the reason WA has not been arrested after all this time is the evidence. I’ll repeat my “opinion”. If they could, they would.

They wouldn't have cost $180 for that size in 2014, and that was most likely a sale price. We've seen them for $500 a couple of months ago.