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

[Going Rogue]

I think if you believe she knew, then it’s hard to understand how she happened to drive by there minutes after he’s murdered out of pure coincidence. But yeah, by itself it’s not nearly enough.

Also, I take familiar routes all the time regardless of distance. We’re all creatures of habit. Lauro will easily dismantle this theory and Lacasse will help.

Many things are hard to understand about this case. I don’t think Sigfredo and Rivera specifically planned to murder Dan in his garage or at his home – according to Rivera, they were just waiting for the right opportunity. So, whether Wendi was involved or not or aware or not, I don’t think she would have expected Dan to be murdered at his house. It’s hard to understand why she would travel anywhere near Trescott if she knew it was happening there, especially if she was in on the TV repair alibi. It’s also hard to understand why she would tell Jeff that Charlie looked into a hitman the previous summer, or tell Isom that Charlie always joked about a TV being cheaper than a hitman.

 

[Zedzded]

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.'

You're doing exactly what I previously mentioned, attacking circumstantial evidence individually, which is easy to do. Viewed in isolation each strand can be easily argued away.

-JL lied
- hitman comment was a joke
- TV needed to be repaired
- spoke to CA just before the murder about repairing the TV
- was sick at dinner because I don't drink
- comments to SY were made out of fear
- I went up Trescott as it was a shortcut

Courts repeatedly say it must be evaluated as a whole; the cumulative effect. Trescott probably was a regular route she took. So what? What's important and relevant is she took this regular route shortly after she spoke to someone on the phone who arranged to kill Dan and shortly after Dan was killed. Then lied multiple times about it.

People who commit crimes do this all the time. They do things that are part of the crime that can be dismissed as their regular, daily routine and therefore it can't be used as evidence. But it can, the cumulative effect. Trescott on its own doesn't mean much, but then WA lied about it. It's importance becomes magnified.

 

[Going Rogue]

You're doing exactly what I previously mentioned, attacking circumstantial evidence individually, which is easy to do. Viewed in isolation each strand can be easily argued away.

-JL lied
- hitman comment was a joke
- TV needed to be repaired
- spoke to CA just before the murder about repairing the TV
- was sick at dinner because I don't drink
- comments to SY were made out of fear
- I went up Trescott as it was a shortcut

Courts repeatedly say it must be evaluated as a whole; the cumulative effect. Trescott probably was a regular route she took. So what? What's important and relevant is she took this regular route shortly after she spoke to someone on the phone who arranged to kill Dan and shortly after Dan was killed. Then lied multiple times about it.

People who commit crimes do this all the time. They do things that are part of the crime that can be dismissed as their regular, daily routine and therefore it can't be used as evidence. But it can, the cumulative effect. Trescott on its own doesn't mean much, but then WA lied about it. It's importance becomes magnified.

You listed seven bullet points. Can you, or anyone else, explain how anything you listed, or any other evidence, proves that Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement with the others or committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy? The state needs to prove one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Can anyone explain how they meet that burden?

 

[Zedzded]

You listed seven bullet points. Can you, or anyone else, explain how anything you listed, or any other evidence, proves that Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement with the others or committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy? The state needs to prove one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Can anyone explain how they meet that burden?

Circumstantial evidence is proof. She drove past the crime scene to confirm Dan had been shot. She could have been on her way to a previously booked in hair appointment that took her past Trescott, it does not matter.

 

[opt]

It's the jury's job to decide when the number of unusual but individually explainable circumstances and coincidences makes it unreasonable to deny involvement. It's the prosecution's job to accurately predict the jury's evaluation.

 

[Weki]

Many things are hard to understand about this case. I don’t think Sigfredo and Rivera specifically planned to murder Dan in his garage or at his home – according to Rivera, they were just waiting for the right opportunity. So, whether Wendi was involved or not or aware or not, I don’t think she would have expected Dan to be murdered at his house. It’s hard to understand why she would travel anywhere near Trescott if she knew it was happening there, especially if she was in on the TV repair alibi. It’s also hard to understand why she would tell Jeff that Charlie looked into a hitman the previous summer, or tell Isom that Charlie always joked about a TV being cheaper than a hitman.

It’s funny how a first impression sticks. Even for me the impression that she knew and drove by there is hard to dislodge in my mind even though after further reflection/discussion in here it now makes no sense to me that she drove there to see/confirm that Danny was murdered. Esp when you consider the famous tv repair alibi. And as you note, she couldn’t have known the timing and place.

 

[Going Rogue]

It’s funny how a first impression sticks. Even for me the impression that she knew and drove by there is hard to dislodge in my mind even though after further reflection/discussion in here it now makes no sense to me that she drove there to see/confirm that Danny was murdered. Esp when you consider the famous tv repair alibi. And as you note, she couldn’t have known the timing and place.

Agreed. My first impression was that no one in their right mind would implicate one of their co-conspirators in a police interview immediately after a murder they were in on. Nor would they tell their boyfriend days before the murder that a co-conspirator looked into hiring a hitman to kill Dan, knowing it was about to happen – it defies logic. I have always believed it's possible Charlie and Donna plotted this behind her back and that she suspected her family’s involvement the day of or the days leading up to the murder. I evaluate everything through this lens.