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

[Going Rogue]

Do we have JL’s exact words? Did he say ‘cheap tv, like for a dorm’…. Or specifically say dorm ROOM tv? I ask because he is a university professor and the dorms probably have cheap tvs in the common areas… he might have been referencing an inexpensive brand of TV…
Did he specifically say it was SMALL?
While I can understand JL using exaggerated descriptions - getting caught up in realizing he was in love with a looney tune whose family murdered his colleague.
But I can also believe that CA bragged to his parents about the nice tv he bought for his sister - exaggerating so he doesn’t look like a cheapskate. I can believe that HA got the size wrong, if asked when he made the repair appointment.
I can also believe that the BB employee who took the phone appointment made a mistake -
More ramblings..
JMO

I know he said “it was like something you’d see in a dorm-room". Not certain he called it ‘small’ or ‘cheap’… but that definitely was the picture that was painted. As I said previously, in fairness to Jeff, everything is over-analyzed on social media and the adjectives ‘small’ and ‘cheap’ may be how social media interpreted the framing of ‘dorm room TV’… Back to what I’ve been saying all along, if it was a 55-inch display, Jeff saying it was like something you’d see in a dorm room seems purposefully misleading when its obvious he knew how important the theory that it was Wendi’s alibi is to the case.

 

[DustysMom]

I know he said “it was like something you’d see in a dorm-room". Not certain he called it ‘small’ or ‘cheap’… but that definitely was the picture that was painted. As I said previously, in fairness to Jeff, everything is over-analyzed on social media and the adjectives ‘small’ and ‘cheap’ may be how social media interpreted the framing of ‘dorm room TV’… Back to what I’ve been saying all along, if it was a 55-inch display, Jeff saying it was like something you’d see in a dorm room seems purposefully misleading when its obvious he knew how important the theory that it was Wendi’s alibi is to the case.

Ok - interesting. So, you think JL was deliberately exaggerating the value of the tv to throw Wendi under the bus?
I remember him as a sincere, if somewhat intense witness…and emotionally rambling after feeling like a fool…but not until this TV discussion did I consider that he would deliberately mislead the jury. It’s certainly possible.

 

[Going Rogue]

You need to re-read my post. They absolutely do have a duty to ensure the witnesses opinions do not mislead the jury. The witness can opine on anything they want. But (this is important) if their opinions mislead the jury and the State understand this, they have a duty to rectify this. The jury cannot leave that courtroom thinking the TV WA had was just a "regular TV, the kind you'd find in a dorm room" when in fact it was a relatively expensive 55" TV.

I read your post, but what you are describing is not a legal standard. You are confusing the State's duty to correct perjury with a non-existent duty to police a witness's subjective description. The State is legally required to hand over the objective facts / evidence (the receipt or any other doc / info that had the TV spec's) before trial… after that, ensuring the jury doesn't leave with a misleading impression of the TV's size is 100% the defense attorney's job.

 

[Going Rogue]

Ok - interesting. So, you think JL was deliberately exaggerating the value of the tv to throw Wendi under the bus?
I remember him as a sincere, if somewhat intense witness…and emotionally rambling after feeling like a fool…but not until this TV discussion did I consider that he would deliberately mislead the jury. It’s certainly possible.

If we find out the TV was actually 55-inches… is very easy to draw the conclusion he was deliberately exaggerating by minimizing the size for obvious reasons. We can only go by information that’s public… I have asked others to give their interpretation of what Wendi read out loud on cross examination – I think its a real possibility the TV was 55-inches… and as I said, that is not good for Jeff.

 

[Zedzded]

I read your post, but what you are describing is not a legal standard. You are confusing the State's duty to correct perjury with a non-existent duty to police a witness's subjective description. The State is legally required to hand over the objective facts / evidence (the receipt or any other doc / info that had the TV spec's) before trial… after that, ensuring the jury doesn't leave with a misleading impression of the TV's size is 100% the defense attorney's job.

No you're on the wrong track. I'll break it down.

JL can describe the TV however he likes. He can say that in his opinion the TV was amazing. The best he'd ever seen. Most likely expensive,the kind a wealthy person would buy.

There is nothing wrong with that.

The jury now think that this TV was a little bit fancy.

There is something wrong with that.

The State now have an obligation to stop the jury thinking that otherwise they have allowed the jury to be misled.

 

[Elisaa444]

As far as tv pricing goes what I think is expensive and what someone else thinks is expensive can be very different. In MY opinion not all 55 inch TV's were expensive back in 2014. When it comes to money the perception of what is expensive is all relative to who you are talking to. For example, today several co-workers were in a discussion about gas prices - some thought the prices were outrageous whereas others said, 'It's not expensive. It only went up a tad." When it comes to the cost of things - it is extremely subjective. It can depend on the context and one's personal financial situation rather than just a number on price tag.

You could buy a 55 inch TV in 2014 that was not expensive (IMO Only) because I bought one. I remember it because my roommate at the time - we split the cost. It was $750. It was the basic led model. Yes, there were more expensive Tv's in 2014 like the Sony or LG Ultra HD 4k technology that did run upwards of $4,000 or more.

I just rewatched Jeff's testimony in both Charlie's and Donna's trials regarding the TV and he doesn't specifically say the TV is cheap nor does he say anything to what the size was of the TV except to say "it wasn't like an 80 inch TV that was really that luxurious. It was something like you'd find in a dorm room." (**He gives more testimony about the TV in Charlie's trial vs. Donna's.)

Because neither side pressed him for a more detailed answer about what he Thought the make/size/price of tv was - he is simply telling in general terms what he thought of the TV (imo). Everyone may interpret it differently.

Since he offered to go replace her tv for her at Best Buy - I am getting from him that he didn't think it was too expensive for him to replace. He said he offered many times to replace the tv for her because she was (' a busy, single mom'). I think his comment about the Tv being 'like you'd find in a dorm room' could mean it was inexpensive at least to him. I don't think he was referring to its size at all. But that is only what I think. Since it wasn't followed up on by either side we can only guess as to what he meant by the "like a dorm room" comment.


If the defense thought it was important enough to highlight the cost of Wendi's TV or any other details about the TV to the jury - they certainly could have. On cross-examination they could have asked Jeff: "Do you know the make/model of this TV? Do you know its actual size? Do you know how much this TV cost when it was purchased?" I think he may guess at those questions, but I'm going to assume Jeff wouldn't know the answers for sure. During Charlie's trial - while on the TV discussion he does point out that - at the time of the broken TV he did not investigate the Tv further because he couldn't have known how important it would later become - in a murder trial.

JMO^^^