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

[Zedzded]

The dorm TV reference most likely meant it was small and cheap. Not a cheap 55" TV which probably didn't exist in 2014.

 

[Zedzded]

Why would JL lie when he didn't even know the TV was planned on being repaired. He had no idea it might have been used as an alibi so had to reason to lie and pretend it was a crappy TV that you would never repair.

 

[Going Rogue]

Why would JL lie when he didn't even know the TV was planned on being repaired. He had no idea it might have been used as an alibi so had to reason to lie and pretend it was a crappy TV that you would never repair.

I do not believe Jeff ever mentioned the TV in any of his police interviews, which tells you it wasn’t meaningful to him in 2014 or 2015 in his third interview. The “TV alibi” theory likely didn’t even exist yet (or wasn’t public)… but by the time he testified, years later, he had gone through prosecution trial‑prep. Those meetings aren’t recorded or discoverable, and that’s where witnesses are walked through timelines, evidence, and the State’s theory.

If the prosecution believed the Best Buy appointment was suspicious (and they clearly did), then Jeff would have learned that before he ever took the stand in a trial‑prep meeting with the prosecutors. They would have asked pointed questions about the TV, and he would have given them all the details he later testified to. IMO, once Jeff understood the importance of the TV alibi, hindsight bias kicked in. People naturally reinterpret old memories through the lens of what they now believe matters.

The result is we got the story about watching the movie on the broken screen to establish the timeline, Wendi’s refusal of Jeff’s offer to purchase a TV, and Jeff’s interpretation that her refusal didn’t make sense because it was a “small dorm‑room” type display and wasn’t a big deal to him etc. He created a mental image for the jury that it was a cheap, small, disposable TV that he could have easily replaced for her, and that it made no sense she would refuse his offer. We got a lot of subjective framing to support the alibi theory... and her refusal to have Jeff replace it meant she needed it there for the ‘planned’ alibi.

During the trial, when Cappleman says something like “tell us when you first learned the TV was broken,” this is information they gathered in trial‑prep. His testimony conveniently supported the alibi narrative. To be fair to Jeff, rather than saying he lied, it’s possible his hindsight recollections were shaped by the narrative he came to believe… and if his description of a 55‑inch TV (assuming it was in fact 55-inches) was that far off, IMO, it’s fair to question how much of his other testimony was influenced the same way. It’s also fair to question whether his embellishments were purposeful or done subconsciously.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

Exactly… can’t compare today’s 55-inch display prices to what they were in 2012 when is was purchased. If it was 55-inches, it likely cost in the 1k neighborhood or possibly more. However that wasn’t @Florida marlins point… I believe he / she was trying to make the point that its ‘possible’ a 55-inch display could be in a dorm room and its possible you can find an inexpensive one. Yes, its possible, but my main issue is how Jeff framed it. If the display was in fact a 55-inch display, I stand with my opinion that Jeff’s description that it was a ’dorm room’ type display was / is VERY misleading and helped support and shape all the social media theories around the TV alibi.

 

[LinasK]

Exactly… can’t compare today’s 55-inch display prices to what they were in 2012 when is was purchased. If it was 55-inches, it likely cost in the 1k neighborhood or possibly more. However that wasn’t @Florida marlins point… I believe he / she was trying to make the point that its ‘possible’ a 55-inch display could be in a dorm room and its possible you can find an inexpensive one. Yes, its possible, but my main issue is how Jeff framed it. If the display was in fact a 55-inch display, I stand with my opinion that Jeff’s description that it was a ’dorm room’ type display was / is VERY misleading and helped support and shape all the social media theories around the TV alibi.

Point taken, but I have a 55" TV and I still maintain that you aren't getting one of those in any dorm room. They are just way too big. Mine barely fits on it's TV stand.

 

[Going Rogue]

Point taken, but I have a 55" TV and I still maintain that you aren't getting one of those in any dorm room. They are just way too big. Mine barely fits on it's TV stand.

I agree 100%, which is why I say that if it truly was a 55-inch display, it definitely brings into question whether Jeff can be trusted as a “reliable” witness. I know that sounds harsh, but it’s my honest opinion. If we are going to be fair, I think we should call out how damaging exaggerating facts, misrepresenting data, or giving misleading information can be to due process.

I’m surprised more people who contribute here aren’t chiming in on this topic.

 

[opt]

I’m surprised more people who contribute here aren’t chiming in on this topic.

Because it's a stupid topic?

FWIW, I don't believe that it was a 55 inch TV way back then. And I don't care.

 

[Zedzded]

I want to know the size of the TV now. If HA lied about it being 55" TV that could be used to demonstrate the TV was an alibi attempt.

 

[Zedzded]

So LE have a burner phone listed as evidence. I wonder whose that is?

 

[Going Rogue]

Because it's a stupid topic?

FWIW, I don't believe that it was a 55 inch TV way back then. And I don't care.

If you watched the video I linked, Wendi read what certainly appeared to be the official BestBuy call ticket report. It specified the size of the display – this is in evidence and I would guarantee the state knows with certainty what the actual size of the display was and the fact that they never mentioned the size leads me to believe that it didn’t fit Jeff s description. Other than what Wendi read under cross-examination, the only other reference to size is Lacasee’s testimony – ‘it was like a TV you’d see in a dorm room’.

Respectfully, I don’t think this is ‘stupid’ – as I stated previously if this display was 55-inches, it’s not good for the states key witness Jeff Lacasse in a potential Wendi trial. This brings his reliability as a witness into question and plays right into the ‘jilted lover’ with an ax to grind angle that Wendi’s defense will undoubtbly leverage. I believe that is a fair and unbiased perspective based on the facts ‘IF” it tums out that the display is 55-inches.

I’m happy to hear counterarguments and will respectfully welcome any friendly rebuttal on how my thinking is off here.

 

[Going Rogue]

So LE have a burner phone listed as evidence. I wonder whose that is?

Any phone numbers in evidence came from FBI/Leon County data from 2014. Every unidentified number got a full workup - CDRs, tower pings, subscriber traces. Although you aren’t say it here in this post, I know you are holding on to the Wendi burner phone theory and I know the Wendi burner phone theory is big on social media, but if it was hers, tower pings alone would've tagged it to her residence. Based on all the testimony of Det, Chris Corbitt, I have full confidence that they thoroughly and competently investigated any suspicious/prepaid numbers.