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

[rescuemom]

The "wink, wink" theory is certainly possible. We will likely never know what, or even if, she was told about the plans prior to the day Dan was shot. Although it’s easy to point out all of Charlie’s mistakes from a hindsight perspective, in my view, he wasn’t a dumb guy. Ryan Fitzpatrick said Charlie was a genius, and he wasn’t being sarcastic when he made that comment. Despite the many mistakes he made, I do think Charlie was smart, but he also had an ego. I think he was smart enough to know that completely shielding Wendi was the best way to move forward. However, I don’t know if his ego might have gotten in the way. In a braggadocious way, he might have given the "wink, wink" to Wendi because he wanted her to know he was taking care of things. I can see it either way.

Yep he was the fixer and relished the idea of pleasing the family. I wonder how long this will last while in prison or if he will take whatever opportunity he is offered or any opprtunity that he can come up with to improve his life going forward

 

[Going Rogue]

Exactly. No on in their right mind. WA was/is unstable, disordered, dysfunctional. She's been treated for depression since her teens and was being prescribed prescription medication by her Dad, who is a dentist not a Psychiatrist. She was on ADs and also anyti-psychotic medication. She is most likely also suffering from a personality disorder as well as self medicating with alcohol. On top of that she was dealing with the stress of a highly acrimonious divorce, losing various court motions and also facing losing her law license as well as facing the possibility of having to give Dan $300'000 as part of their settlement which she hid.

It is fair to suggest that WA may not have been thinking clearly at the time of the murder or during her interview with law enforcement, and that this could explain much of her behaviour. A reasonable and rational person the objective standard applied by courts would not disclose involvement in an impending murder to a partner. However, if WA’s mental state significantly departed from that standard then you can't use it to interpret her actions. i.e no sane person would do this, therefore WA didn't do it.... caveated with (unless she was not sane....).

So why did she tell JL? Who knows. It doesn't matter. And don't forget there is a third person that can confirm JL told them WA said this before the murder. If that person testifies in court that will be two credible witnesses saying the same thing vs a proven pathological liar.

Although I do believe it's possible that Wendi was in the know and possibly directly involved and the theory that she cracked under pressure is also certainly possible. I also believe its possible this was all planned and plotted behind her back.

For the sake of friendly discussion, I'll play devil's advocate. We have seen Wendi’s hours-long police interview and watched her testify four times and there are a few other random videos on YouTube of Wendi being interviewed on issues outside of the Dan Markel case. From that relatively small sample size, she appears to be very intelligent, and we also know she was a high academic achiever. I’ll spare you the list of all her accolades because it seems to bother people (and it embarrasses Wendi ). If we are going to be objective and honest, based on what we know, Wendi is highly intelligent and did great job testifying in a very high pressure situation as states witness in multiple trials - most will disagree with that, but that's par for the course on everything Wendi on social media. I have always believe that regardless or whether or not Wendi was involved in the plans to murder Dan, by the time she testified in the first trial, she made a conscious decision to lie when she testified about what she knew and about her family's involvement. Once she made that decision, there was no unwinding what she had testified to without serious consequences.

Most of the personal issues and personality traits you outlined regarding Wendi come from a single source – Jeff Lacasse. I have been critical of Jeff's interpretation of certain things and have pointed out (on more than one occasion and with more than one example) Jeff's evolving testimony. Objectively speaking, it seemed to me he was trying to bury her in a vengeful way. I have always given Jeff the benefit of the doubt and truly believe it is done at a subconscious level. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of certain things Jeff said in his three police interviews and during his testimony. In the past, I have pointed out clear examples of Jeff’s evolving testimony – no one ever drills down those details? In a Wendi trial (if she has one), I do not believe those things will be missed by Wendi’s legal team. Many people are placing a lot of stock in things Lacasse said about Wendi. She was supposedly all these things, yet both Dan and Jeff begged and would have done anything to have her back?

In trial one, Jeff was asked by Sigfredo's attorney if he had told anyone about the chilling "hitman" story before Dan was murdered. He said something to the effect of, "I'm sure I did… after the murder, I certainly did." In Charlie’s trial, he testified more definitively that he told someone BEFORE the murder and was way more specific – it was Lisa Schelbe. Why wasn't Jeff specific in the first trial, and why haven't we heard from Lisa Schelbe? If Jeff's statement is true, that would have been very critical evidence in Charlie's and Donna's trials. In my opinion, something is not adding up. If I were to bet, I'd wager that Jeff did not tell Lisa before the murder, or her story doesn’t quite line up with Jeff’s version and the state is afraid this will destroy Jeff's credibility – just a guess and pure speculation based on certain data points.

 

[Weki]

I think Jeff saying ‘I’m sure I did’ and then at the next trial remembering who he told before the murder is understandable. He may not have expected that question at the first trial and didn’t recall. He seems the type to study his testimony and the questions he was asked at previous trials in preparation for his next testimony and fill in any gaps if he can.

But generally I agree that Jeff has added details in each subsequent trial (one could argue, they are embellishments) and I think in a Wendi trial he would get PRESSED like iron by her lawyer.

I also agree that the image Jeff painted of Wendi is incongruent with the poised woman we saw on the stand who lied expertly under pressure and took cheap shots at the Markels. She’s also been smart about not talking on the phone or saying anything about the case to her parents. She has kept her cool through this. Perhaps Jeff’s perception of Wendi is self-serving?

 

[Zedzded]

Although I do believe it's possible that Wendi was in the know and possibly directly involved and the theory that she cracked under pressure is also certainly possible. I also believe its possible this was all planned and plotted behind her back.

For the sake of friendly discussion, I'll play devil's advocate. We have seen Wendi’s hours-long police interview and watched her testify four times and there are a few other random videos on YouTube of Wendi being interviewed on issues outside of the Dan Markel case. From that relatively small sample size, she appears to be very intelligent, and we also know she was a high academic achiever. I’ll spare you the list of all her accolades because it seems to bother people (and it embarrasses Wendi ). If we are going to be objective and honest, based on what we know, Wendi is highly intelligent and did great job testifying in a very high pressure situation as states witness in multiple trials - most will disagree with that, but that's par for the course on everything Wendi on social media. I have always believe that regardless or whether or not Wendi was involved in the plans to murder Dan, by the time she testified in the first trial, she made a conscious decision to lie when she testified about what she knew and about her family's involvement. Once she made that decision, there was no unwinding what she had testified to without serious consequences.

Most of the personal issues and personality traits you outlined regarding Wendi come from a single source – Jeff Lacasse. I have been critical of Jeff's interpretation of certain things and have pointed out (on more than one occasion and with more than one example) Jeff's evolving testimony. Objectively speaking, it seemed to me he was trying to bury her in a vengeful way. I have always given Jeff the benefit of the doubt and truly believe it is done at a subconscious level. Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of certain things Jeff said in his three police interviews and during his testimony. In the past, I have pointed out clear examples of Jeff’s evolving testimony – no one ever drills down those details? In a Wendi trial (if she has one), I do not believe those things will be missed by Wendi’s legal team. Many people are placing a lot of stock in things Lacasse said about Wendi. She was supposedly all these things, yet both Dan and Jeff begged and would have done anything to have her back?

In trial one, Jeff was asked by Sigfredo's attorney if he had told anyone about the chilling "hitman" story before Dan was murdered. He said something to the effect of, "I'm sure I did… after the murder, I certainly did." In Charlie’s trial, he testified more definitively that he told someone BEFORE the murder and was way more specific – it was Lisa Schelbe. Why wasn't Jeff specific in the first trial, and why haven't we heard from Lisa Schelbe? If Jeff's statement is true, that would have been very critical evidence in Charlie's and Donna's trials. In my opinion, something is not adding up. If I were to bet, I'd wager that Jeff did not tell Lisa before the murder, or her story doesn’t quite line up with Jeff’s version and the state is afraid this will destroy Jeff's credibility – just a guess and pure speculation based on certain data points.

No Jeff stated that he felt so concerned about WA telling him that CA had considered hiring hitmen that he told a colleague about it. This was before the murder.

Re WA's state of mind. Yes, JL does provide insight into this and he may be biased for obvious reasons, tempted to embellish and exaggerate. But he is credible and there are other sources that have alluded to the fact that WA was unstable and struggling with mental health issues and alcohol/medication abuses. For example it is widely known she was treated for depression as a teen and post natal depression.

I'll have to dig up the source, but it was stated on Reddit that she was on ADs and anti-psychotic medication which is pretty heavy duty. SY's various statements certainly paint a picture of a woman losing control/unstable. It would be interesting to hear more from her and other friends/colleagues. I think Dan had stated to multiple colleagues that WA was struggling with her mental health.

A lot of this is hearsay and speculation, but it fits the narrative. I'm assuming when she is arrested if the State needed witneeses to confirm WA's state of mind, drinking habits etc, there would be a plethora of them coming out of the woodwork.

 

[Zedzded]

I also agree that the image Jeff painted of Wendi is incongruent with the poised woman we saw on the stand who lied expertly under pressure and took cheap shots at the Markels. She’s also been smart about not talking on the phone or saying anything about the case to her parents. She has kept her cool through this. Perhaps Jeff’s perception of Wendi is self-serving?

She's not going to hook in to a bottle of bourbon and swallow a bunch of pills right before testifying is she? Being composed on the stand is not in any way indicative of how she conducts herself through her daily life. In fact people have speculated the reason she was so composed on the stand was because she was medicated!

 

[Going Rogue]

I think Jeff saying ‘I’m sure I did’ and then at the next trial remembering who he told before the murder is understandable. He may not have expected that question at the first trial and didn’t recall. He seems the type to study his testimony and the questions he was asked at previous trials in preparation for his next testimony and fill in any gaps if he can.

But generally I agree that Jeff has added details in each subsequent trial (one could argue, they are embellishments) and I think in a Wendi trial he would get PRESSED like iron by her lawyer.

I also agree that the image Jeff painted of Wendi is incongruent with the poised woman we saw on the stand who lied expertly under pressure and took cheap shots at the Markels. She’s also been smart about not talking on the phone or saying anything about the case to her parents. She has kept her cool through this. Perhaps Jeff’s perception of Wendi is self-serving?

I can’t imagine why Lisa Schelbe wasn’t called as a witness by the state to corroborate Jeff’s claim. My intuition tells me something isn’t adding up.

 

[Going Rogue]

No Jeff stated that he felt so concerned about WA telling him that CA had considered hiring hitmen that he told a colleague about it. This was before the murder.

Re WA's state of mind. Yes, JL does provide insight into this and he may be biased for obvious reasons, tempted to embellish and exaggerate. But he is credible and there are other sources that have alluded to the fact that WA was unstable and struggling with mental health issues and alcohol/medication abuses. For example it is widely known she was treated for depression as a teen and post natal depression.

I'll have to dig up the source, but it was stated on Reddit that she was on ADs and anti-psychotic medication which is pretty heavy duty. SY's various statements certainly paint a picture of a woman losing control/unstable. It would be interesting to hear more from her and other friends/colleagues. I think Dan had stated to multiple colleagues that WA was struggling with her mental health.

A lot of this is hearsay and speculation, but it fits the narrative. I'm assuming when she is arrested if the State needed witneeses to confirm WA's state of mind, drinking habits etc, there would be a plethora of them coming out of the woodwork.

I was referring to what Jeff said in the first trial during his cross examination by Sigfredo’s attorney Saam Z.

 

[Going Rogue]

A few of you are drifting into dangerous territory. It’s one thing to argue that WA might be innocent, but posting sycophantic praise or admiration crosses a line. Even setting aside questions of involvement, her conduct has been widely viewed as callous and troubling, and not something that invites admiration or compliments; for example, denying the Markels access to their grandchildren. Refusing to return the holocaust ring, telling the kids "Dad was buried under some dirt", not taking them to see their Dads grave. I could go on and on... regardless, we can debate culpability without turning the discussion into personal glorification.

Dangerous territory? What comments are you specifically referring to? I haven’t seen anything posted on this forum even close to “crossing a line” regarding comments about Wendi.