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

[Going Rogue]

@Going Rogue

It is January 15 in the year of our lord 2026...Thanksgiving has passed, Christmas has passed...and yet no arrest of Wendi. It is safe to assume as some of us have predicted that Wendi will not be arrested/charged as there isn't enough evidence to convict her. It's over. What a fantastic job the state has done in bringing about justice for Dan Markel! May he rest in peace.

JMO

I still have my ear to the ground and I’m waiting the next ‘Wendi will be arrested by’ milestone date…. . My question is: When will reality set in for the avid case followers that the evidence is not nearly strong enough for the prosecution to meet the burden of proof? I say with confidence that the prosecution does not believe they have enough evidence to meet that burden against Wendi. I have maintained this position for the past four years, and that viewpoint hasn’t always been received well. Why do I believe this? In July of this year, it will have been 12 years since Dan was murdered. Unless the DA’s office is corrupt or incompetent, they surely would have moved forward by now if they felt they had a strong enough case to secure a conviction. Since I do not believe they are corrupt or incompetent, that conclusion is easy to draw.

I really think it’s that simple. However, over the years, I have seen all sorts of justifications for the prosecution not charging Wendi. To name a few: they need Wendi to testify against her family, they are a small office with limited resources – aka the ‘one-at-a-time strategy, or more recently, they are waiting for the decision on Sarah Dugan’s judgeship. The disconnect on social media has actually been as interesting to me as any of the legal proceedings. I have no issue with anyone who is adamant about getting justice for Dan, but I truly believe that people are analyzing the evidence with blind vengeance and a strong confirmation bias.

Just for the record, I’m not predicting she will never be arrested, just that based on what is publicly known, the case against her is nowhere near as strong as it's been expressed by some influential personalities with platforms. IMO, the disconnect on social media and the insistence that her arrest is imminent can easily be traced back to a few places, and it seems like those who have done the most to create this optimism amongst those in the J4DM community have gone into hiding.

Stay tuned

 

[LinasK]

I still have my ear to the ground and I’m waiting the next ‘Wendi will be arrested by’ milestone date…. . My question is: When will reality set in for the avid case followers that the evidence is not nearly strong enough for the prosecution to meet the burden of proof? I say with confidence that the prosecution does not believe they have enough evidence to meet that burden against Wendi. I have maintained this position for the past four years, and that viewpoint hasn’t always been received well. Why do I believe this? In July of this year, it will have been 12 years since Dan was murdered. Unless the DA’s office is corrupt or incompetent, they surely would have moved forward by now if they felt they had a strong enough case to secure a conviction. Since I do not believe they are corrupt or incompetent, that conclusion is easy to draw.

I really think it’s that simple. However, over the years, I have seen all sorts of justifications for the prosecution not charging Wendi. To name a few: they need Wendi to testify against her family, they are a small office with limited resources – aka the ‘one-at-a-time strategy, or more recently, they are waiting for the decision on Sarah Dugan’s judgeship. The disconnect on social media has actually been as interesting to me as any of the legal proceedings. I have no issue with anyone who is adamant about getting justice for Dan, but I truly believe that people are analyzing the evidence with blind vengeance and a strong confirmation bias.

Just for the record, I’m not predicting she will never be arrested, just that based on what is publicly known, the case against her is nowhere near as strong as it's been expressed by some influential personalities with platforms. IMO, the disconnect on social media and the insistence that her arrest is imminent can easily be traced back to a few places, and it seems like those who have done the most to create this optimism amongst those in the J4DM community have gone into hiding.

Stay tuned

Thank God, I thought I was a thread killer.

 

[Zedzded]

Why do I believe this? In July of this year, it will have been 12 years since Dan was murdered. Unless the DA’s office is corrupt or incompetent, they surely would have moved forward by now if they felt they had a strong enough case to secure a conviction. Since I do not believe they are corrupt or incompetent, that conclusion is easy to draw.


Stay tuned

This case is the opposite of a cold case. As time has gone on, the strength of the individual cases against the various co-conspirators has only gotten stronger. WhatsApp data that incriminated both DA and CA was only discovered in Nov 2023. Then there's the flee attempt, jailhouse calls, texts from WA and DA (now you're not guilty) all 2023. Rob and Sara's depositions were 2025, Sara has not even testified yet in a trial.

Then there are a whole bunch of other witnesses either yet to be interviewed or deposed - Scott Radius, David Marcus (who was refusing to travel to Tallahassee) Francis Magbanua. I believe the latter party will have important information that could potentially incriminate Tara Kawass so she would need to be interviewed re her fee payment.

We are still waiting on CA's appeal and potentially a new trial. If there is a new trial even more evidence will be presented.

Cases go cold when there are no more witnesses to interview and no new evidence to examine. Investigators have nothing to do, so the case gets shelved pending new information. This is clearly not the case regarding the Markel murder. It's an ever evolving, dynamic case that is still being worked on.

Re the DA's office being corrupt or incompetent because of the time taken to arrest people. There are process to follow and numerous bureaucratic obstacles to overcome. Indictments take time, months, if not years. Even in simple cases they can take time. I've been following a high profile sexual assault case in Australia, fairly black and white, the perpetrator was quickly convicted. Yet it took 18 months from the crime being reported to his arrest. That's crazy.

Even if the State had been working on WA's indictment prior to DA's trial we'd be looking at 6-12 months, probably longer. If they are waiting on her to testify in CA's trial or only started working on DA's trial post conviction we could be looking at 2027 before she's arrested.

 

[Going Rogue]

This case is the opposite of a cold case. As time has gone on, the strength of the individual cases against the various co-conspirators has only gotten stronger. WhatsApp data that incriminated both DA and CA was only discovered in Nov 2023. Then there's the flee attempt, jailhouse calls, texts from WA and DA (now you're not guilty) all 2023. Rob and Sara's depositions were 2025, Sara has not even testified yet in a trial.

Then there are a whole bunch of other witnesses either yet to be interviewed or deposed - Scott Radius, David Marcus (who was refusing to travel to Tallahassee) Francis Magbanua. I believe the latter party will have important information that could potentially incriminate Tara Kawass so she would need to be interviewed re her fee payment.

We are still waiting on CA's appeal and potentially a new trial. If there is a new trial even more evidence will be presented.

Cases go cold when there are no more witnesses to interview and no new evidence to examine. Investigators have nothing to do, so the case gets shelved pending new information. This is clearly not the case regarding the Markel murder. It's an ever evolving, dynamic case that is still being worked on.

Re the DA's office being corrupt or incompetent because of the time taken to arrest people. There are process to follow and numerous bureaucratic obstacles to overcome. Indictments take time, months, if not years. Even in simple cases they can take time. I've been following a high profile sexual assault case in Australia, fairly black and white, the perpetrator was quickly convicted. Yet it took 18 months from the crime being reported to his arrest. That's crazy.

Even if the State had been working on WA's indictment prior to DA's trial we'd be looking at 6-12 months, probably longer. If they are waiting on her to testify in CA's trial or only started working on DA's trial post conviction we could be looking at 2027 before she's arrested.

As time has gone on, the case against Wendi as argued on all forms of social media has gotten stronger, but I don’t believe the Tally SAO feels the same way. We can only base our analysis on information that is public. I see many posts like yours that rely on assumptions (and a little wishful thinking) that bias the case against her. Regarding Wendi’s case, absent new evidence, the publicly available information simply does not meet the threshold for a competent prosecutor to meet the burden of proof. Do you really believe that, more than 11 years after the murder, 'new' information will surface in future depositions that finally seals Wendi's fate? Bear in mind, the prosecution might have a decent amount of exculpatory evidence in a Wendi case – you rarely, if ever, hear anyone make that point. Simply put, the fact that Wendi hasn’t been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder is all the proof I need that the State does not view the evidence the same way it is presented on social media and they are the keeper of ‘all’ information and evidence.

 

[tricia]

TODAY, JANUARY 17TH = GUARDIAN ZOOM MADNESS
It’s EPIC.
It’s 8 HOURS.
It’s our MONTHLY GUARDIAN ZOOM CALL — and you’re invited!
Saturday, January 17
12 NOON – 8 PM Eastern
(Yes, really. No, you don’t have to stay the whole time )

YOU MUST REGISTER FIRST — CLICK HERE to register
Pro tip: You do NOT have to use your real name. Your Websleuths username is perfect.
WHAT WILL WE TALK ABOUT?

(Here are a few ideas but we can talk about almost anything you want)​

What case drives you absolutely crazy — and why
What changes you’d like to see on Websleuths
Your brush with fame (we KNOW you have one)
And lots more laughs, surprises, and great conversation

FREE STUFF!​

We’ll be giving away FREE Guardian memberships
You can nominate Websleuths members you think deserve one — because kindness matters.

REGISTER HERE for the call
Want to become a Guardian? CLICK HERE — it’s easy and only $3/month

Come and go as you please.
Pop in. Pop out. Stay 10 minutes or all day — it’s totally up to you.
Hope to see you today
Tricia

 

[Going Rogue]

Thank God, I thought I was a thread killer.

LOL, ironically, it was I that was responsible (or accused ) of derailing the thread several weeks ago….

 

[SaraSmile]

Right because if there wasn’t something in the works, Georgia would have thrown everything at her with a vengeance.

Agree! Georgia held back so many good witnesses and questions, saved up for Wendi’s
(upcoming ) trial.

 

[opt]

Right because if there wasn’t something in the works, Georgia would have thrown everything at her with a vengeance.

I disagree. Even if Georgia had no plans to charge Wendi, the State needed to preserve its option to charge Wendi if new evidence appears. Venting on Wendi in the trial of another person would have been irresponsible.

 

[Zedzded]

As time has gone on, the case against Wendi as argued on all forms of social media has gotten stronger, but I don’t believe the Tally SAO feels the same way. We can only base our analysis on information that is public. I see many posts like yours that rely on assumptions (and a little wishful thinking) that bias the case against her. Regarding Wendi’s case, absent new evidence, the publicly available information simply does not meet the threshold for a competent prosecutor to meet the burden of proof. Do you really believe that, more than 11 years after the murder, 'new' information will surface in future depositions that finally seals Wendi's fate? Bear in mind, the prosecution might have a decent amount of exculpatory evidence in a Wendi case – you rarely, if ever, hear anyone make that point. Simply put, the fact that Wendi hasn’t been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder is all the proof I need that the State does not view the evidence the same way it is presented on social media and they are the keeper of ‘all’ information and evidence.

The case has gotten stronger. SY's deposition was in 2025. Now it may not be enough to indict WA, but SY's deposition means the case against WA was stronger than in 2024.

Re new evidence surfacing after 11 years. As I've said previously new evidence surfaced in 2025. There are still witnesses to be interviewed. None of her boyfriends have been questioned. She blurted out to her friend she will be going to prison for the reso of her life and that her brother may have hired hitmen to kill Dan. Imagine what she has said to boyfriends. What did she tell them when CA was convicted? What did she tell then Mum was arrested? Her kids could be interviewed one day "Mum told us Dad was buried under a pile of dirt...."

If CA gets a new trial, WA will be required to testify again. So perhaps the State are waiting to see the outcome of his appeal. But then do they wait for DA's appeal? WA could potentially be out free for years whilst appeals and new trials are potentials. That does not seem like justice to me. They don't need her for CA or DA's trials. I would say if she's not arrested by mid 2026 she probably will never be. If she is arrested 2027, 2028 that to me represents a failure in the US legal system. If it's procedural or bureaucracy or policy, it needs to change.

 

[Going Rogue]

The case has gotten stronger. SY's deposition was in 2025. Now it may not be enough to indict WA, but SY's deposition means the case against WA was stronger than in 2024.

Re new evidence surfacing after 11 years. As I've said previously new evidence surfaced in 2025. There are still witnesses to be interviewed. None of her boyfriends have been questioned. She blurted out to her friend she will be going to prison for the reso of her life and that her brother may have hired hitmen to kill Dan. Imagine what she has said to boyfriends. What did she tell them when CA was convicted? What did she tell then Mum was arrested? Her kids could be interviewed one day "Mum told us Dad was buried under a pile of dirt...."

If CA gets a new trial, WA will be required to testify again. So perhaps the State are waiting to see the outcome of his appeal. But then do they wait for DA's appeal? WA could potentially be out free for years whilst appeals and new trials are potentials. That does not seem like justice to me. They don't need her for CA or DA's trials. I would say if she's not arrested by mid 2026 she probably will never be. If she is arrested 2027, 2028 that to me represents a failure in the US legal system. If it's procedural or bureaucracy or policy, it needs to change.

You characterize a potential lack of arrest by 2027/2028 as a 'failure in the US legal system,' but I argue it is the system working exactly as designed. The US justice system is built on the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it is not built to satisfy public sentiment or social media theories.

If the State Prosecutor, who has access to terabytes of data, wiretaps, and interviews, cannot find a way to meet the burden of proof after 11 years, then arresting her simply to satisfy a timeline would be the actual failure. A premature arrest leading to an acquittal would mean double jeopardy attaches, and she walks free forever. The State knows this, which is precisely why they haven't moved.

Regarding the comment about her 'blurting out' that she would go to prison: while suspicious to the public, in a courtroom a defense attorney would easily dismantle that as the anxiety of an innocent woman. Further, you cannot indict someone based on what they might have told a boyfriend or what they could have said to their kids. If the State believed these ex-boyfriends held smoking-gun confessions, they would have been subpoenaed and interviewed years ago. The fact that they seemingly haven't been suggests the State knows these are dead ends.

Finally, regarding the theory that they are waiting on appeals: prosecutors do not let a prime murder suspect walk free for years simply to see how a co-conspirator's appeal plays out. If they had the evidence to convict Wendi independent of her immunized testimony, they would arrest her now to prevent flight risk, memory degradation of witnesses, or further obstruction. The delay isn't a 4D-chess strategy; it is a sign that the prosecution believes the independent evidence required to secure a conviction simply isn't there yet.

 

[Zedzded]

Regarding the comment about her 'blurting out' that she would go to prison: while suspicious to the public, in a courtroom a defense attorney would easily dismantle that as the anxiety of an innocent woman.

She's a lawyer! You don't run around telling people that you're going to prison for the rest of your life shortly after your ex husband has been killed! Her lawyer would try to explain that (as WA stated) as the ex wife she was naturally the prime suspect. The courts look at the standard of how a reasonable and rational person would behave and WA's response is inconsistent with how an innocent person would ordinarily behave.

Innocent people don't go running around telling people they are going to prison for the rest of the lives. Firstly because they know they didn't do anything, secondly because it is incredibly suspicious. Just because someone is emotional or stressed it does not mean that incriminating behaviours and statements can be disregarded. This is why it is advisable that innocent or guilty people being interviewed by the police have their lawyer present. Statements can be used against you. What WA said is highly incriminating.

 

[Going Rogue]

She's a lawyer! You don't run around telling people that you're going to prison for the rest of your life shortly after your ex husband has been killed! Her lawyer would try to explain that (as WA stated) as the ex wife she was naturally the prime suspect. The courts look at the standard of how a reasonable and rational person would behave and WA's response is inconsistent with how an innocent person would ordinarily behave.

Innocent people don't go running around telling people they are going to prison for the rest of the lives. Firstly because they know they didn't do anything, secondly because it is incredibly suspicious. Just because someone is emotional or stressed it does not mean that incriminating behaviours and statements can be disregarded. This is why it is advisable that innocent or guilty people being interviewed by the police have their lawyer present. Statements can be used against you. What WA said is highly incriminating.

You mention the 'reasonable person' standard, but you are conflating the standard for civil liability with criminal guilt. In a murder trial, the State cannot convict simply because someone behaved 'irrationally' or 'suspiciously' during a traumatic event.

Being a lawyer does not immunize a person from shock. We can argue her legal training made her acutely aware of how the justice system works and how easily an innocent person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Her statement is easily explained as the panic of an innocent woman realizing she was the prime suspect in Dan’s murder. In fact, that is exactly how Sara interpreted the comment at the time….. she didn't view it as suspicious then, only in hindsight. To convict on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must disprove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. If the 'panicked innocence' interpretation is even plausibly true, reasonable doubt exists.

Sara Yousef was deposed in the summer of 2024. The State has had this information for nearly 18 months. If that statement were as 'highly incriminating' as you claim it is, why hasn't the State acted on it? There are only two possibilities here:

1. The SAO is incompetent and is letting a murderer walk free despite holding highly incriminating evidence.
2. The State knows that this statement is ambiguous and insufficient to sustain a conviction.

I don't believe the prosecutors are incompetent, so in my opinion, option 2 is the only logical explanation. IMO, their inaction proves that they view this evidence very differently than the public does. They know that being emotional, erratic, or 'acting weird' is not a crime, and they aren't going to risk a double jeopardy acquittal just to satisfy a timeline or to satisfy all the social media justice warriors.

 

[SaraSmile]

I disagree. Even if Georgia had no plans to charge Wendi, the State needed to preserve its option to charge Wendi if new evidence appears. Venting on Wendi in the trial of another person would have been irresponsible.

Agree, no point for Georgia to show whole hand. She likely has lots more evidence, and like you mentioned, more in being revealed over time. I trust that Georgia knows best, how to handle evidence. MOO

 

[Zedzded]

Being a lawyer does not immunize a person from shock.

You can't run around yelling things that incriminate you and hope that it can be dismissed as shock. Words mean something in a court of law. A person may hate their ex and whilst they did not kill them, telling the police they hated them is highly incriminating and problematic. So sure you might be in shock, stressed and under pressure, but incriminating statements can and will be used against you; hence the reason many innocent people end up convicted.

 

[Luna20]

Agree, no point for Georgia to show whole hand. She likely has lots more evidence, and like you mentioned, more in being revealed over time. I trust that Georgia knows best, how to handle evidence. MOO

I believe that is why she went easy on Wendi. There was no reason for Georgia to dip into her toxicity during DA trial. No bits and pieces. Anything she has on Wendi will be presented methodically and concisely. To date, that has been her style.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Today marks 10 weeks since DA’s conviction, and no movement since. And yet, this thread is alive and well, courtesy of WA speculation.

My pragmatic self says if the State thought they could, they would. WA would be charged and the next case would be underway. Of course, I know it’s not that simple.

My thoughts on scenarios:

1. The State has decided that they do not have sufficient evidence, at this time, to charge WA and are just doing what is sensible in that case, i.e, saying nothing. Possibly hoping some party will flip or someone will trip over some new evidence. Certainly they could say something about the case hoping to “tickle the wires”, but low probability that would or could work at this time. A caveat is they can hope some of the blabbermouths will spill some beans on Jail phone. No shortage of yakkers in this case. Murder has no SOL, so no need to say anything.
2. The State thinks they’re really close and they think they might have a line on that last piece that takes it over that other line. If that doesn’t pan out, they go with what they have. I don’t know what that last piece could be. Just sheer speculation.
3. They have their case and are ripping and raring to go, just awaiting the right time. Although, even though it’s true that they have LOTS of other cases, I could not imagine they would be sitting on a sure thing after 10 weeks. That would be a travesty.

They say one bite of the apple. Yes, even if you bite that apple and put in back in the fridge, it still turns brown.

Personally, I think case 1. But in any case, no need to say or do anything publicly. So, we will just have to continue to cook in our slow simmering stew.

Since we’re back on the topic of when/if WA, I wanted to revisit my post from November to see if my personal opinion has changed since time has passed.

I still think scenario 1 with some caveats, namely:

While murder has no SOL, there are practical limitations if the case depends on testimony of others. Witnesses get unreliable with aging memories. Witnesses pass away. Witnesses get released from prison (Rivera) and go off the grid, for a variety of reasons. To that end, once Rivera nears his release, State may decide, it’s 50/50 but we’ll roll the dice.

Still a possibility ole Maestro may want to flip, eventually. Probably tied to appeals. If he were to get a new trial, he likely would want to get a better outcome for him. Who knows what he will do.

Overall, though my belief after all this time. “If they could, they would.”

Happy NY, Ya’ll!

 

[SaraSmile]

Since we’re back on the topic of when/if WA, I wanted to revisit my post from November to see if my personal opinion has changed since time has passed.

I still think scenario 1 with some caveats, namely:

While murder has no SOL, there are practical limitations if the case depends on testimony of others. Witnesses get unreliable with aging memories. Witnesses pass away. Witnesses get released from prison (Rivera) and go off the grid, for a variety of reasons. To that end, once Rivera nears his release, State may decide, it’s 50/50 but we’ll roll the dice.

Still a possibility ole Maestro may want to flip, eventually. Probably tied to appeals. If he were to get a new trial, he likely would want to get a better outcome for him. Who knows what he will do.

Overall, though my belief after all this time. “If they could, they would.”

Happy NY, Ya’ll!

MOO

Re#1, yes, I think the state is trying to get Charlie or Donna ( or even Harvey, deal with him?) to flip. Reinterview Katie, each time more info and truth.

I’m Closest to your #2, they are getting their ducks in a row. Sorting out immunity, possible motions, possible Lauro motions. I think Georgia will act on her own schedule, as she always does.

In your #3, you mention it’s been 10 weeks since Donna’s trial. 10 weeks is not long! That’s not a travesty. It’s actually been over 10 years for Wendi to be free, have some patience, Georgia and Sarah already put away 5, I see that the cases are coming faster. ( remember Sigfredo was 2-3 years after crime ).

Trust that Georgia has a way of working that is very meticulous, careful, most situations accounted for before she chooses to arrest. She will not act until she is ready. It’s just her strategy.

I understand people wondering if Georgia will act. Just trust, Since there is an avalanche of evidence, I’m sure Wendi’s arrest will happen eventually. I’m not worried about that. Like others, I do wish Wendi was locked up, the sooner the better.

MOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Since we’re back on the topic of when/if WA, I wanted to revisit my post from November to see if my personal opinion has changed since time has passed.

I still think scenario 1 with some caveats, namely:

While murder has no SOL, there are practical limitations if the case depends on testimony of others. Witnesses get unreliable with aging memories. Witnesses pass away. Witnesses get released from prison (Rivera) and go off the grid, for a variety of reasons. To that end, once Rivera nears his release, State may decide, it’s 50/50 but we’ll roll the dice.

Still a possibility ole Maestro may want to flip, eventually. Probably tied to appeals. If he were to get a new trial, he likely would want to get a better outcome for him. Who knows what he will do.

Overall, though my belief after all this time. “If they could, they would.”

Happy NY, Ya’ll!

Exactly - “If they could, they would.” The gap between "probable cause" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is massive. IMO, most people that follow this case have a very poor understanding of what it takes for a prosecutor to meet the burden of proof in a murder trial and what "real" evidence actually is.

I can give so many examples of ‘evidence’ that is argued on social media as proof of Wendi’s involvement that is simply speculation presented as fact or evidence. My favorite example: "Wendi gave them Dan’s schedule!" Maybe she did, but there is currently no direct evidence (like a text, email, or witness) proving she gave that information to anyone involved in the plot. It’s speculation, NOT evidence. If the State had proof Wendi gave them Dan’s schedule as her part of the plot, Wendi would have already been arrested and convicted.

Unless one is arguing that the SAO is incompetent or corrupt, Option 1 is the most logical choice, though Option 2 is certainly possible. Regarding Option 3. if the State is highly confident they can meet the burden of proof and has felt that way for over a year, sitting on the case would be a miscarriage of justice and incompetence. However, that is only true if they are genuinely highly confident they can win the case.

What does 'highly confident' actually mean in this context? Like any prosecutor taking on a complex murder-for-hire case, they need to have a high degree of certainty they can meet the burden of proof. I have made this point for years - the SAO does not view the evidence the same way 'Joe Public' does, and that much is glaringly obvious to me. That doesn’t mean she is innocent or that they don’t believe she is guilty. it means they are not going to risk taking on a case they aren’t confident they can win. As you stated, there is no statute of limitations on murder and it’s always possible someone might flip or something new surfaces.

 

[Zedzded]

CA's situation:
1. He;s been in prison 4 years serving a life sentence.
2. More evidence has surfaced since his conviction which means a new trial will have the same outcome, another conviction.
3. Is guilt was inferred multiple times by the defence and defence witnesses in DA's trials.
4. His sister has not contacted him in 4 years.
5. He now would know his sister has tried to throw him under the bus multiple times (LE interview, SY etc).
6. She has shown a callous indifference to his plight; "I am not resposible for Charlie's situation."

If he doesn't know that a new trial will fail, his lawyer does and should be drilling this into his thick skull. Which means his only option is to cooperate. Why wouldn't he throw WA under the bus??

 

[Zedzded]

In your #3, you mention it’s been 10 weeks since Donna’s trial. 10 weeks is not long! That’s not a travesty. It’s actually been over 10 years for Wendi to be free, have some patience, Georgia and Sarah already put away 5, I see that the cases are coming faster. ( remember Sigfredo was 2-3 years after crime ).

Exactly. People are looking at this as a 12 year old cold case, whereas there is evidence that incriminates WA that has only surfaced in the last 2 years.