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.

 

[Ferpo]

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.

IANAL but I've heard many of them say that all proceedings of CA trial #1 can be introduced by Prosecution if a trial #2 occurs. Even if he concocts a new defense, he has to answer to his elaborate "double extortion" tall tale, effectively admitting that he lied about the whole thing.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

Well if they had one small piece of physical evidence that would suffice. The case as it stands, IMO is strong enough, but it is circumstantial. And it's hard to put our minds in the minds of the jury and determine if the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It will require the State to expertly detail how the murder plot slowly evolved and introduce the circumstantial evidence that demonstrates WA's complicity.

I think Trescott can be used to demonstrate WA's involvement in the conspiracy, but I'm also cognisant of the fact this was a route she took and potentially a defendable piece of evidence. Most, if not all, of the evidence that implicates WA is defendable, but that's the nuance of circumstantial evidence. In solitude it means very little.

Unlike the case against CA. He gave the 2 hitmen $150k. That's like the cake. All the other stuff like TV hitmen jokes, various text messages etc are like the icing on the cake. WA has no cake which means the case against her is infinitely more complex. The State has to bundle all this circumstantial evidence together and hope it makes sense and proves WA was involved.

I think it's enough, but I also can see a scenario that the jury could have doubt especially if WA/Lauro adopt the strategy that I think they may go with. WA got wind of a plot to kill Dan. She was in denial that it was her family involved. "They would never do this." But over time she began to realise that they may actually have been involved (SY conversation - "What if my crazy brother Charlie hired hitmen?")

She spoke to CA on the morning of the murder as she was trying to figure out what was going on. Confused by this plan to repair a stupid TV she wanted to throw in the bin. She became suspicious that Dan was going to be killed and raced up there to check. Lied to the police as she was in shock/denial.

It is certainly not a slam dunk case.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

I think his testimony can be used in a new trial which means he literally has no defence and the jury will see he is a proven liar. I don't see any possible defence that be conjured up.

He was supposedly told by KM about the extortion attempt at 10.45pm, but his parents brought over the money at 9pm before he was extorted. Regardess in 2016 DA and CA spoke about a possibility that the police may follow the theory that it was drug dealers that killed Dan. Why would CA discuss this if he had been extorted and knew who the real killers were?

So his fundamental issue is he gave two hitmen who killed DanM $150k and no explanation for that. I can't for the life of me think of any possible defence hence the reason I think he will work to get a new trial and then offer up WA's head on a plate.

If CA has conjured up some "brilliant" new defence, I would hope his legal team would be giving him the cold hard truth. "The trial will cost you $1.5 million. You will lose and you will die in prison if this is the defence you want us to go with."

 

[Zedzded]

re additionally evidence. All of these clowns were beyond incompetent when planning and executing (pardon the pun) the plan. Reckless, careless, ill-disciplined. I just struggle to think LE have not found something on DA's devices (for example) that implicates WA. They have the drug dealers killed Dan text exchange which buries both CA and DA. What are the odds that over a period of 6+ years DA never once communicated anything to CA or DA regarding WA's involvement? It doesn't need to be much. Just a slight suggestion she knew would suffice.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well if they had one small piece of physical evidence that would suffice. The case as it stands, IMO is strong enough, but it is circumstantial. And it's hard to put our minds in the minds of the jury and determine if the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It will require the State to expertly detail how the murder plot slowly evolved and introduce the circumstantial evidence that demonstrates WA's complicity.

I think Trescott can be used to demonstrate WA's involvement in the conspiracy, but I'm also cognisant of the fact this was a route she took and potentially a defendable piece of evidence. Most, if not all, of the evidence that implicates WA is defendable, but that's the nuance of circumstantial evidence. In solitude it means very little.

Unlike the case against CA. He gave the 2 hitmen $150k. That's like the cake. All the other stuff like TV hitmen jokes, various text messages etc are like the icing on the cake. WA has no cake which means the case against her is infinitely more complex. The State has to bundle all this circumstantial evidence together and hope it makes sense and proves WA was involved.

I think it's enough, but I also can see a scenario that the jury could have doubt especially if WA/Lauro adopt the strategy that I think they may go with. WA got wind of a plot to kill Dan. She was in denial that it was her family involved. "They would never do this." But over time she began to realise that they may actually have been involved (SY conversation - "What if my crazy brother Charlie hired hitmen?")

She spoke to CA on the morning of the murder as she was trying to figure out what was going on. Confused by this plan to repair a stupid TV she wanted to throw in the bin. She became suspicious that Dan was going to be killed and raced up there to check. Lied to the police as she was in shock/denial.

It is certainly not a slam dunk case.

Last January, you sent me the link below to a post you wrote that doesn’t seem to support your current stance.

What is the evidence that shows Wendi is complicit in the conspiracy to kill Dan Markel?

In my opinion, the question you asked in the last paragraph of that post is one no one can answer – at least not to my satisfaction. New information was introduced during Donna’s trial, but nothing that definitively ties Wendi to the conspiracy. I agree that certain data points and actions raise suspicion that Wendi knew about the plans, but the state needs to show she agreed to the conspiracy or committed an act in furtherance of it.

With another year of knowledge, how would you answer your own question today?

 

[Zedzded]

Last January, you sent me the link below to a post you wrote that doesn’t seem to support your current stance.

What is the evidence that shows Wendi is complicit in the conspiracy to kill Dan Markel?

In my opinion, the question you asked in the last paragraph of that post is one no one can answer – at least not to my satisfaction. New information was introduced during Donna’s trial, but nothing that definitively ties Wendi to the conspiracy. I agree that certain data points and actions raise suspicion that Wendi knew about the plans, but the state needs to show she agreed to the conspiracy or committed an act in furtherance of it.

With another year of knowledge, how would you answer your own question today?

I think the State can demonstrate that WA was part of the conspiracy, but the evidence is subtle and nuanced. The second element of conspiracy is:


The defendant agreed / conspired / combined with one or more persons to have that offense carried out.

And

• The agreement can be express or implied
• It can be inferred from conduct and circumstances
• No formal words or written plan required

In Arguelles v SOF

• The defendant was charged in connection with a planned violent offense (robbery/home-invasion–type setup) along with others.
• The prosecution didn’t have a recorded agreement or explicit statement like “we agreed to do this.” Instead, they relied on surrounding conduct, association with co-participants, coordinated actions, and circumstances indicating a common plan.
• The defense argued there was no proof of an actual agreement just presence/association so the conspiracy conviction shouldn’t stand.

So if we now look at WA's actions before the murder, on the day of the murder and after the murder, we can see a significant spike in communications between her and CA and DA both of whom have been convicted of murder and conspiracy. This means something. It can't just be dismissed with a banal excuse such as repairing a TV.

The 20 minute phone call between WA and CA 1 hour before the murder, for example, is significant and incriminating. We don't need to know the content of the phone call to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. We now have a prime suspect communicating with someone she has been accused of conspiring with.

The drive past the crime scene, like the phone call to CA, does not need an explanation. She can have any number of valid excuses, it does not detract from the fact a prime suspect drove past the crime scene shortly after her ex, whom she hated, was shot dead.

This is circumstantial evidence 101, there's always an "out." I was repairing my TV, I was talking to my brother about the TV, I was driving past my ex's house to get bourbon etc etc the excuses/reasons are irrelevant when there's so much circumstantial evidence.

 

[Zedzded]

But it really comes down to how well the State thinks Lauro can defend the circumstantial evidence. The evidence is defendable unlike CA and DA's evidence that was direct. "It involves the two of us" is not defendable. Fleeing the country on a one way ticket is not defendable. I certianly think there is a possibility that if WA goes to trial she could be found not guilty. Unlikely, but possible. Whereas CA and DA were slam dunks, no question about it.

 

[Going Rogue]

I think the State can demonstrate that WA was part of the conspiracy, but the evidence is subtle and nuanced. The second element of conspiracy is:


The defendant agreed / conspired / combined with one or more persons to have that offense carried out.

And

• The agreement can be express or implied
• It can be inferred from conduct and circumstances
• No formal words or written plan required

In Arguelles v SOF

• The defendant was charged in connection with a planned violent offense (robbery/home-invasion–type setup) along with others.
• The prosecution didn’t have a recorded agreement or explicit statement like “we agreed to do this.” Instead, they relied on surrounding conduct, association with co-participants, coordinated actions, and circumstances indicating a common plan.
• The defense argued there was no proof of an actual agreement just presence/association so the conspiracy conviction shouldn’t stand.

So if we now look at WA's actions before the murder, on the day of the murder and after the murder, we can see a significant spike in communications between her and CA and DA both of whom have been convicted of murder and conspiracy. This means something. It can't just be dismissed with a banal excuse such as repairing a TV.

The 20 minute phone call between WA and CA 1 hour before the murder, for example, is significant and incriminating. We don't need to know the content of the phone call to prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. We now have a prime suspect communicating with someone she has been accused of conspiring with.

The drive past the crime scene, like the phone call to CA, does not need an explanation. She can have any number of valid excuses, it does not detract from the fact a prime suspect drove past the crime scene shortly after her ex, whom she hated, was shot dead.

This is circumstantial evidence 101, there's always an "out." I was repairing my TV, I was talking to my brother about the TV, I was driving past my ex's house to get bourbon etc etc the excuses/reasons are irrelevant when there's so much circumstantial evidence.

A spike in communication on the day of the murder between her and CA and DA? Do you have any information on Wendi’s call history other than the data that has been made public? Unless you do, you can’t make that statement. Also, Charlie initiated the call to Wendi that morning and the communication she had with Donna that AM was regarding the TV repair and was initiated from Donna. Had Wendi initiated the calls, maybe it’s a stronger point. It’s very possible Charlie proactively reached out to Wendi as part of the plan between Donna and him. I’m sure Donna was a nervous wreck. I can easily picture a conversation where Charlie tells Mom, 'Don’t worry, I’ll call Wendi to keep tabs on her.' The drive doesn’t need an explanation? It may be suspicious, but it's not proof she was part of the plan.

You are just giving me known data points and weaving in a story to fit your theory or the mainstream narrative, but you didn’t answer your own question: 'What evidence shows that WA was complicit in the conspiracy?'

As I said, the the state needs to show she agreed to the conspiracy or committed an act in furtherance of it. Personally, I think that's a tall order based on information that's been made public.

 

[Cedars]

A spike in communication on the day of the murder between her and CA and DA? Do you have any information on Wendi’s call history other than the data that has been made public? Unless you do, you can’t make that statement. Also, Charlie initiated the call to Wendi that morning and the communication she had with Donna that AM was regarding the TV repair and was initiated from Donna. Had Wendi initiated the calls, maybe it’s a stronger point. It’s very possible Charlie proactively reached out to Wendi as part of the plan between Donna and him. I’m sure Donna was a nervous wreck. I can easily picture a conversation where Charlie tells Mom, 'Don’t worry, I’ll call Wendi to keep tabs on her.' The drive doesn’t need an explanation? It may be suspicious, but it's not proof she was part of the plan.

You are just giving me known data points and weaving in a story to fit your theory or the mainstream narrative, but you didn’t answer your own question: 'What evidence shows that WA was complicit in the conspiracy?'

As I said, the the state needs to show she agreed to the conspiracy or committed an act in furtherance of it. Personally, I think that's a tall order based on information that's been made public.

Also, I think a key issue is, if the only evidence the state has is W's communications with her brother and mother, those people are her closest family members, there are innumerable reasons why she would be in constant contact with them. It's not like they were people she wouldn't otherwise associate with, and so the interactions are 'evidence' of conspiracy.

In no cases are family members convicted of murder solely on the basis that they had frequent contact with a close relative who committed murder.

 

[Zedzded]

Also, I think a key issue is, if the only evidence the state has is W's communications with her brother and mother, those people are her closest family members, there are innumerable reasons why she would be in constant contact with them. It's not like they were people she wouldn't otherwise associate with, and so the interactions are 'evidence' of conspiracy.

In no cases are family members convicted of murder solely on the basis that they had frequent contact with a close relative who committed murder.

It's the patter nothing to do with the recipients of the calls. CA talks to Muym once a week, suddenly around the time of the murder it's 3-4 times a day. You're not understanding circumstantial evidence "Oh it's his Mum, people speak to their parents all the time..."

 

[Going Rogue]

Also, I think a key issue is, if the only evidence the state has is W's communications with her brother and mother, those people are her closest family members, there are innumerable reasons why she would be in constant contact with them. It's not like they were people she wouldn't otherwise associate with, and so the interactions are 'evidence' of conspiracy.

In no cases are family members convicted of murder solely on the basis that they had frequent contact with a close relative who committed murder.

Had there been no communication between Wendi and her family that morning, it would likely still be argued as evidence of guilt. Given how enmeshed the family is, failing to mention the TV appointment would appear to be a calculated deviation from the norm – an obvious tactic to keep Wendi's phone records 'clean.' This aligns with the theory that Wendi feared Charlie would get caught and to distance herself, she pre-emptively planted seeds by telling Jeff about Charlie’s past hitman inquiries and telling Detective Isom about Charlie's hitman joke.

 

[Going Rogue]

Trescott.

If that’s the best evidence showing Wendi’s complicity, the odds just dropped to 90/10 ‘at best’.

 

[Weki]

If that’s the best evidence showing Wendi’s complicity, the odds just dropped to 90/10 ‘at best’.

All Lauro has to do is show all the other days leading up to the murder day Wendi took Trescott to get anywhere.

 

[Going Rogue]

All Lauro has to do is show all the other days leading up to the murder day Wendi took Trescott to get anywhere.

In Jeff’s police interview, he said they passed Dan’s house hundreds of times because cutting through Trescott is a shortcut. He literally said 'hundreds' of times and called it a 'shortcut.' In a potential trial for Wendi, that will definitely be highlighted during Lacasse’s cross-examination. Yet, for years, folks who follow this case have insisted no one would ever take the Trescott cut-through when traveling south on Centerville. The facts are, Trescott was Wendi’s preferred route according to both Wendi and Jeff. I find it absolutely hilarious that people who follow this case ignore any facts that support the other side of the legal debate.

Further, I never found it odd that she decided to make her purchase at ABC Liquors, but I find it funny how people exaggerate the extra distance she traveled to go there. It was only about four miles further (7 to 8 minutes) than if she had chosen the liquor store near the restaurant. It’s a valid argument to say being in the area is suspicious based on the timing, but it is in no way evidence of her direct involvement.