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

[Zedzded]

There is a lack of evidence that Wendi joined the conspiracy

How do you think people involved in conspiracies are convicted? If the State needed a text stating "Hey Bob, do you want to come and help me kill Joe?" "Hey Sam, yes that sounds like a grand plan. Lets both go and kill Joe together."

The often have little to work with, so circumstantial evidence becomes key e.g driving past a crime scene shortly after a 20 minute phone call with one of the conspirators.

if we apply your extremely high burden of proof to every criminal case, no one would be in prison. Hence the reason it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Zedzded]

Re CA's appeal. I do think he can demonstrate a conflict of interest. But he needs to be able to demonstrate there was an alternate strategy that his lawyer did not pursue.

 

[opt]

Re CA's appeal. I do think he can demonstrate a conflict of interest. But he needs to be able to demonstrate there was an alternate strategy that his lawyer did not pursue.

An alternate strategy with the double extortion story, or a different lie? Because double extortion could not have been sold better.

 

[Going Rogue]

How do you think people involved in conspiracies are convicted? If the State needed a text stating "Hey Bob, do you want to come and help me kill Joe?" "Hey Sam, yes that sounds like a grand plan. Lets both go and kill Joe together."

The often have little to work with, so circumstantial evidence becomes key e.g driving past a crime scene shortly after a 20 minute phone call with one of the conspirators.

if we apply your extremely high burden of proof to every criminal case, no one would be in prison. Hence the reason it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’m honestly not sure I understand your position at this point. In one post you’re seemingly emphasizing that the state still needs the “final piece of the puzzle” in a case against Wendi, and in the next you’re accusing me of demanding an extremely high burden of proof.

In a murder‑conspiracy case, the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard doesn’t allow a jury to “fill in the blanks” with what seems likely – it requires the state to prove the actual connection. If, as you’ve said, they still need that final piece of evidence to bridge the gap, then the gap exists. And a gap in proving someone joined a conspiracy is exactly what defines a 50/50 case.

So help me understand your position. Based on everything that’s publicly known, do you believe the state currently has enough evidence to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Wendi was part of the conspiracy? Because from what you’ve written, it sounds like you’re acknowledging they still need that missing link while simultaneously arguing the case is already strong enough.

 

[Weki]

If Charlie is granted a new trial, does his previous testimony get striken from the record? Does it become fruit of a poisonous tree if his counsel is deemed conflicted? Because if he is able to come up with a whole new defense and the state is not able to impeach him with his previous testimony that could get realllly interesting.