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

[Going Rogue]

As I said, it’s one piece of information that, when combined with other suspicious factors, supports the narrative that the TV repair was used as a cover. A whole bunch of circumstantial evidence is easily dismissed in isolation which is why its called circumstantial. The TV repairman waiting 45 mins is meaningless. Sometimes people do take a long time. It needs to be viewed with all the other related suspicious factors. Like Trescott.

In your previous post, you argued that a 45-minute call was 'disproportionate' and 'not objectively reasonable’ but you are acknowledging it’s meaningless in isolation. I disagree with the logic that you can take a benign event and suddenly label it 'incriminating' just by stacking it next to other events you deem suspicious.

I agree with you that the drive down Trescott is suspicious, but that has zero bearing on the way I view the 45-minute service call. This is my main issue with the speculative analysis someone like Carl Steinbeck has fed the J4DM community – you are essentially making the same type of argument he makes. Carl has been very vocal that the State’s case against Wendi is overwhelmingly strong, and I believe that's because he gives way too much weight to benign 'events' by retroactively viewing them as incriminating – just like you are doing by citing the 45-minute service call as incriminating.

I understand the point you are trying to make about circumstantial evidence, I just don’t agree with how it's being applied here. JMOO

 

[opt]

I disagree with the logic that you can take a benign event and suddenly label it 'incriminating' just by stacking it next to other events you deem suspicious.

Here's how you stack improbable events. Assign a probability, between zero and 1, that each is innocent if considered in isolation. The probability that all of the events are innocent is then the product of these probabilities.

A definitely benign event has a probability 1 of being innocent. This will have no effect on the product of probabilities. A 50/50 event will cut the product in half. Five unrelated events each 80% likely to be innocent makes the innocence probability 1/3.

 

[Zedzded]

In your previous post, you argued that a 45-minute call was 'disproportionate' and 'not objectively reasonable’ but you are acknowledging it’s meaningless in isolation. I disagree with the logic that you can take a benign event and suddenly label it 'incriminating' just by stacking it next to other events you deem suspicious.

Because sometimes odd/unusual things happen. What if he had a call from his wife during the repair visit, what if he had to go to the toilet or check something with his supervisor. There are a million reasons why he could have been stuck there 45 mins. That's the point. On its own its meaningless, it has no legal. It needs supporting evidence to strengthen it.

45min visit - not necessarily odd
18 min call to CA not necessarily odd
DA's strange texts re TV - not necessarily odd
entire families involvement - not necessarily odd

You need to add all those things together and once combined they all look odd, unusual and therefore incriminating because of their association with one another. You keep on trying to seperate them out, point out that it is a normal behaviour or action and dismiss it.