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

[Going Rogue]

As far as I’m concerned you and I have been vindicated. We are right.

The state doesn’t have enough evidence to take Wendi to trial. There isn’t enough evidence to prove up that Wendi conspired and furthered Danny’s murder. Period!

But,


Stay tuned, I guess.

Yes… and what surprises me is that there still seems to be a reluctance on social media to publicly state the obvious. I believe many more people have quietly come to terms with the reality that the case against her is a crapshoot. I’m sure plenty are hesitant to express that opinion in a public forum for a variety of reasons. In many spaces, you’re treated like the “enemy” or accused of being against justice for Dan Markel if you share this view. In the past, if you said anything like this, you were accused of being on the Adelson payroll or PR team, being in love with Wendi, not knowing the case details, or simply being naive.

I’m fully willing to change my opinion if someone can outline how the state can prove that Wendi either entered into a conspiratorial agreement or committed an act in furtherance of the crime without relying on speculation or some variant of the “it’s the whole of the parts…. too many coincidences” argument. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Zedzded]

I’m fully willing to change my opinion

No you're not. Even when people have pointed out WA lied about her trip down Trescott, you attempted to argue they weren't lies she was confused, mistaken, it was a long time ago etc etc Anything that might suggest WA was complicit gets argued by you and then you finish the sentence with a statement about how flexible you are in your thinking, you're 50/50, on the fence, completely objective, no confirmation bias whatsoever....

 

[apeXperience]

Why is Wendi Adelson scot free thus far?

If one thinks that endlessly arguing with diarrhea of words would compensate for one’s lack of knowledge, ability and skills, there is no limit to what one cannot comprehend

• Actor incumbit probatio, reus excipiendo fit actor. (Plaintiff must provide proof, presenting an exception suffice for the defendant.) Marcus Tullius Cicero: 3 January 106 BC – 7 December 43 BC
• One should stop ignorantly asking if “there is no this and no that in US laws”. Dan Markel’s murder case is in the Florida courts’ jurisdiction. Florida is not a province such as in some less developed worlds. Florida is a STATE, one of the 50 States of the USA.

Discussions must be focused on actual State of Florida laws

• The rule of evidence in Florida first degree murder case without direct evidence is to the effect that “plaintiff must mute / blunt all possible exculpatory explanations from the defense”
• All Florida first degree murder cases without direct evidence are automatically referred for the review of the DCA in case of conviction to ensure that “the plaintiff (the State attorneys’ office) have muted / blunted all possible exculpatory possible explanations from the defense”

The point of the Dostoyevsky quote is for those eager to discuss with intelligent people to enlarge their limited critical thinking ability before typing many words

• To be cognizant of the English proverb “[…] a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof […]”, one is encouraged to read a short passage in Part 6, Chapter 2, of Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1866) were knowledge, ability, and skills at interpreting laws are explained in simple terms
• Source: Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1866) Crime and Punishment (Преступление и наказание) Part 6, Chapter 2. Moscow, Russia: The Russian Messenger

 

[Going Rogue]

No you're not. Even when people have pointed out WA lied about her trip down Trescott, you attempted to argue they weren't lies she was confused, mistaken, it was a long time ago etc etc Anything that might suggest WA was complicit gets argued by you and then you finish the sentence with a statement about how flexible you are in your thinking, you're 50/50, on the fence, completely objective, no confirmation bias whatsoever....

The beauty of this forum is that after a short period of time, you cannot edit or delete posts. I stand by EVERYTHING I have ever posted here. If I ever misstated something, I cleared it up. I never claimed she didn’t lie about that – you are misrepresenting my POV. If you want to link my post where I made that allegation feel free… but you’d be wasting your time looking for such a claim by me.

Regarding the trip to Trescott, I have always been crystal clear that her statements across the trials are inconsistent. However, the inconsistencies are not provable lies nor are they grounds for perjury. I have always acknowledged its possible she may have purposely lied about the details of the turn or visit to the crime scene, OR she may have been confused / misremembered the details. We can’t definitively prove it either way other than to say her statements are inconsistent. I stand behind that POV 100%.

If you want to interpret that as me saying “they weren’t lies”, so be it. I have said NUMEROUS times that Wendi likely lied about MANY things. I can give you 125 reasons Wendi may have purposely lied but the problem is her lies are not provable.

 

[Zedzded]

Regarding the trip to Trescott, I have always been crystal clear that her statements across the trials are inconsistent.

She stated very clearly she never turned onto Trescott. She carried straight on Centreville. That is pretty much verbatim. That is a blatant lie. If you cannot bring yourself to accept she lied and want to refer to it as an "inconsistency" then go for it.

Actually your honour my client did not lie, she was merely being inconsistent!

 

[Weki]

Yes… and what surprises me is that there still seems to be a reluctance on social media to publicly state the obvious. I believe many more people have quietly come to terms with the reality that the case against her is a crapshoot. I’m sure plenty are hesitant to express that opinion in a public forum for a variety of reasons. In many spaces, you’re treated like the “enemy” or accused of being against justice for Dan Markel if you share this view. In the past, if you said anything like this, you were accused of being on the Adelson payroll or PR team, being in love with Wendi, not knowing the case details, or simply being naive.

I’m fully willing to change my opinion if someone can outline how the state can prove that Wendi either entered into a conspiratorial agreement or committed an act in furtherance of the crime without relying on speculation or some variant of the “it’s the whole of the parts…. too many coincidences” argument. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Well to be fair I think by now you know very well all the arguments that people believe proves Wendi entered a conspiratorial agreement or committed an act in furtherance of the crime.

There is nothing else other than what has been argued ad nauseum already. And you have ably demonstrated that it is not enough (for all the various reasons) to prove you wrong. So, again,







Stay tuned, I guess.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well to be fair I think by now you know very well all the arguments that people believe proves Wendi entered a conspiratorial agreement or committed an act in furtherance of the crime.

There is nothing else other than what has been argued ad nauseum already. And you have ably demonstrated that it is not enough (for all the various reasons) to prove you wrong. So, again,







Stay tuned, I guess.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think people completely misread the actual vibe when Cappleman followed “you can stay tuned” with that hesitant, lackluster “I guess?” ending. So many were convinced it meant Wendi’s arrest was a wrap.

I’m genuinely amazed that so many still don’t understand the hurdle that state will have meeting the burden of proof in a case against Wendi….