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

[Zedzded]

If CA is granted a new trial WA would still be required as a witness. If she is arrested now, there is no immunity and she can refuse to testify which means the State would have to proceed without her. I think she is a key witness. So it is logical for them to not arrest her whilst CA appeal is in process. This does mean she may not be arrested for years as the appeal process is so slow and laborious.

Ultimately, unlike us, the State have to be disciplined and take the emotion out of it. The likes of GC and Sarah are humans and desperate for justice to be served. But they need to be clinical. The end goal is 7/7 in prison and if that means WA walks this earth as a free woman for 2-3 more years that's a sacrifice they are willing to make.

It could transpire that they arrest WA now, CA gets a new trial and is found not-guilty. WA is also found not guilty and the Sate decide not to proceed against HA because of the trial outcomes. That's 4/7. WA could also be used as a witness in her Dad's trial. So she might not even be the next arrest. HA is picked up after CA's appeal fails.

 

[yazoost]

Prosecutors only go to trial on cases they can win. A Wendi prosecution is a 50-50 at best. No reasonable prosecutor should waste their time on those odds. As Georgia told us, there are other criminals, other cases in Tallahassee. In any case,

Stay tuned, I guess.

My point is that Jack Campbell himself just wasted his, the court's, the jury's, and the PD's time prosecuting an even worse case. I suspect it's because the defendant was a poor, old, black man, and not a rich, young, white woman.

 

[Weki]

My point is that Jack Campbell himself just wasted his, the court's, the jury's, and the PD's time prosecuting an even worse case. I suspect it's because the defendant was a poor, old, black man, and not a rich, young, white woman.

I don't know anything about that case so I can't say whether he had good reason to believe he could get a conviction or not.

 

[Zedzded]

I agree with your assessment; it’s 50-50 "at best".

You can't apply an arbitrary figure like that. The circumstantial evidence that implicates WA is enormous. The issue is it's largely circumstantial and therefore more opportunity for counsel to defend. All that is needed to cement the case against WA is one little tiny text or phone. One little tiny piece of physical evidence and she's done. That's not 50/50. If the State found a call log that showed WA phoned KM around the time she went down Trescott she's toast.

 

[Going Rogue]

You can't apply an arbitrary figure like that. The circumstantial evidence that implicates WA is enormous. The issue is it's largely circumstantial and therefore more opportunity for counsel to defend. All that is needed to cement the case against WA is one little tiny text or phone. One little tiny piece of physical evidence and she's done. That's not 50/50. If the State found a call log that showed WA phoned KM around the time she went down Trescott she's toast.

You snipped a portion of my comment, I made it clear that I am basing my analysis on information that has been made public. Of course if new evidence is uncovered like a call from Wendi to Katie the morning of the murder it’s no longer 50/50. Same thing if they uncover a WhatsApp message from Charlie to Donna that morning saying ~ “don’t worry, Wendi will never know we were behind this”.

We can only evaluate the case based on the evidence that actually exists, not hypothetical evidence we wish existed. Based on the public record, the State still can’t bridge the gap between “she benefited and acted suspiciously” and “she knowingly joined the conspiracy.” Until prosecutors can close that gap with something admissible and trial‑ready, I stand by my statement that a conviction appears to be 50 / 50 ‘at best’ (with a strong emphasis on ‘at best’) and it would be a VERY risky case for the prosecution.

 

[Zedzded]

A 50/50 case at best would suggest a lack of evidence, and imply the State had to do a lot more, obtaining much more evidence to have an indictable case. As i said, they only need one little tiny bit of physical evidence to put the final piece of the puzzle in place. 1 text to a co-conspirator, evidence of moving to Miami prior to the murder. As I said, they only need one small piece of physical evidence to put the final piece of the puzzle in place ; a single text to a co-conspirator, or proof of travel to Miami before the murder. On its own, something like that might seem minor or inconsequential. But when it’s connected to the circumstantial evidence, the dots all join up.

Not having enough evidence to indict someone does not make the case weak or 50/50. It means something more is needed to satisfy the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.