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

[Fromeaster]

My hope in this matter and continued justice for the victim DM, with respect to the state of Florida and prosecutors….: ‘If they can, they will’.

And I am pleased to patiently wait. No rush needed or required. MOO

Is respect enough for 11 years or not?

 

[Zedzded]

There is a significant amount of evidence that incriminates WA, but it is largely circumstantial and thus, potentially, more defendable. So the case against her is complex and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how that evidence will hold up in court.

CA and DA had evidence such as the various text exchanges, CA giving money to KM, DA and HA doing the money drop, DA's flee attempt etc That strength of evidence does not exist for WA. Playing the devils advocate, WA's 18 min phone call to CA on the morning of the murder could have been about anything. Her drive up Trescott was a regular route she took. JL confirmed this.

The State's challenge will be to show how this regular route was suspicious. Bring in the lies, the fact it was not a shortcut, it was timed shortly after the murder, liquor store was out of the way etc Trescott is an important piece of evidence, but I can see how Lauro could easily put doubt in the juries minds.

Based on what we know, I could understand why the State might choose not to indict WA. It's certainly not a slam dunk case. But I think there is more evidence that we are not privy to. I think CA has an axe to grind and will cooperate )if the opportunity presents itself). Ultimately, I think GC can present a narrative that establishes WA's guilt by carefully stepping through the events from when WA first left Dan to the present day. Once presented to the jury, this narrative could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the very least, WA knew Dan was going to be killed.

There is simply too much circumstantial evidence to suggest that WA was not entirely ignorant of the crime. This does not mean she is necessarily guilty of an offence, but it brings her a step closer. Lauro can present a scenario in which WA was aware of the impending murder but was not a party to the crime, that is, she did not want Dan killed. However, if he attempts to argue that she was completely ignorant, he will be laughed out of court.

I've always maintained WA's best defence will be she somehow got wind of a plot to kill Dan, a plot that was carried out behind her back. She panicked in the LE interview/was in shock and could not bring herself to believe CA and DA had killed Dan. It was not until years later she finally had the strength of character to admit to herself her family had carried out this heinous act.

 

[Florida_marlin]

There is a significant amount of evidence that incriminates WA, but it is largely circumstantial and thus, potentially, more defendable. So the case against her is complex and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how that evidence will hold up in court.

CA and DA had evidence such as the various text exchanges, CA giving money to KM, DA and HA doing the money drop, DA's flee attempt etc That strength of evidence does not exist for WA. Playing the devils advocate, WA's 18 min phone call to CA on the morning of the murder could have been about anything. Her drive up Trescott was a regular route she took. JL confirmed this.

The State's challenge will be to show how this regular route was suspicious. Bring in the lies, the fact it was not a shortcut, it was timed shortly after the murder, liquor store was out of the way etc Trescott is an important piece of evidence, but I can see how Lauro could easily put doubt in the juries minds.

Based on what we know, I could understand why the State might choose not to indict WA. It's certainly not a slam dunk case. But I think there is more evidence that we are not privy to. I think CA has an axe to grind and will cooperate )if the opportunity presents itself). Ultimately, I think GC can present a narrative that establishes WA's guilt by carefully stepping through the events from when WA first left Dan to the present day. Once presented to the jury, this narrative could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the very least, WA knew Dan was going to be killed.

There is simply too much circumstantial evidence to suggest that WA was not entirely ignorant of the crime. This does not mean she is necessarily guilty of an offence, but it brings her a step closer. Lauro can present a scenario in which WA was aware of the impending murder but was not a party to the crime, that is, she did not want Dan killed. However, if he attempts to argue that she was completely ignorant, he will be laughed out of court.

I've always maintained WA's best defence will be she somehow got wind of a plot to kill Dan, a plot that was carried out behind her back. She panicked in the LE interview/was in shock and could not bring herself to believe CA and DA had killed Dan. It was not until years later she finally had the strength of character to admit to herself her family had carried out this heinous act.

I agree the case against WA is not like CA And DA. CA practically talked himself right into a conviction. The Dolce Tape, especially the enhanced audio, was powerful evidence. He procured the third party arranger (KM). He paid. DA wrote the checks. She did the money drop to CA. She also talked herself right into conviction on numerous wiretaps and “oops! Accidentally recorded” phone calls. Basically, CA and DA are a couple wannabe crime masterminds with mouths as wide as the Mississippi River. WA? No money drop. No blabbering on recorded phone calls dropping “code words”. None of the conspirators testifying to tell her role in the plot (yet). Absolutely nothing from the wire tickle that nailed KM, CA, and DA.

Is there lots of “coincidences” that suggest she likely was aware of a plot to kill Dan? Sure seems to be. Is there circumstantial evidence that hints at ways she may have been involved in the plot? I think so. However, based on what I know from the evidence against her, I think conviction in a court, following the statutes and instructions the jury will receive, I think it’s iffy for a conviction.(and I’ve followed this case since the day Dan was shot. I lived in Southwood Subdivision at the time and was near the end of a 32 year residence in the Tallahassee area).

I’m fully aware that the State may have evidence about which I know nothing. If that evidence is compelling and makes conviction probable, then what’s the hold up? Justice delayed is Justice denied.

I still think that the State believes they need something more, and likely that something more will come from someone’s mouth. No SOL for murder, so hope for a flip or a slip while LE is listening.

MOO. Regards! F_M

 

[Zedzded]

I agree the case against WA is not like CA And DA. CA practically talked himself right into a conviction. The Dolce Tape, especially the enhanced audio, was powerful evidence. He procured the third party arranger (KM). He paid. DA wrote the checks. She did the money drop to CA. She also talked herself right into conviction on numerous wiretaps and “oops! Accidentally recorded” phone calls. Basically, CA and DA are a couple wannabe crime masterminds with mouths as wide as the Mississippi River. WA? No money drop. No blabbering on recorded phone calls dropping “code words”. None of the conspirators testifying to tell her role in the plot (yet). Absolutely nothing from the wire tickle that nailed KM, CA, and DA.

Is there lots of “coincidences” that suggest she likely was aware of a plot to kill Dan? Sure seems to be. Is there circumstantial evidence that hints at ways she may have been involved in the plot? I think so. However, based on what I know from the evidence against her, I think conviction in a court, following the statutes and instructions the jury will receive, I think it’s iffy for a conviction.(and I’ve followed this case since the day Dan was shot. I lived in Southwood Subdivision at the time and was near the end of a 32 year residence in the Tallahassee area).

I’m fully aware that the State may have evidence about which I know nothing. If that evidence is compelling and makes conviction probable, then what’s the hold up? Justice delayed is Justice denied.

I still think that the State believes they need something more, and likely that something more will come from someone’s mouth. No SOL for murder, so hope for a flip or a slip while LE is listening.

MOO. Regards! F_M

Yup pretty much agree with all of that.

I will say that there have been plenty of prior convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence e.g Scott Peterson

"lacking direct evidence to link Scott to the crime, prosecutors chiefly relied on circumstantial evidence pointing, in particular to Scott's behavior before, during, and after Laci's disappearance."

"Prosecutors have put together a detailed web of circumstantial evidence to cast suspicion on Peterson. The prosecution couldn't point to a murder weapon, a crime scene or even a cause of death, but legal experts said a detailed narrative from Modesto Detective Craig Grogan helped improve the prospects for their case."

"The strongest evidence the prosecution has is what Scott Peterson said and what Scott Peterson did," she said."

His behaviour and what he said was a contributory factor in convicting him. This is something that echoes the case against WA. She has said many incriminating things.