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.

 

[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]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

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….

 

[LinasK]

Why is Wendi Adelson scot free thus far?

• “From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof, as the English proverb says, but that’s only from the rational point of view—you can’t help being partial, for after all a lawyer is only human”
• Source: Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1866) Crime and Punishment (Преступление и наказание) Part 6, Chapter 2. Moscow, Russia: The Russian Messenger
• This is not of the type of your ordinary reading but it might elevate the critical thinking of the contrarian. Before enlarging knowledge, ability, and skills from reading it, you may find more about it here: Crime and Punishment - Wikipedia

I've actually read Crime and Punishment. My copy is sitting on the shelf. And it's fiction.

 

[LinasK]

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.

You forgot to add yet... Just because this may be how the prosecutors feel right now and haven't charged her doesn't mean that the situation won't change in the future. We don't know what that bar is or what evidence they actually have.

 

[Going Rogue]

You forgot to add yet... Just because this may be how the prosecutors feel right now and haven't charged her doesn't mean that the situation won't change in the future. We don't know what that bar is or what evidence they actually have.

I believe Weki is addressing the failed predictions from various YouTube pundits who claimed Wendi’s arrest was imminent based on specific milestone dates – dates that have long passed. We both attempted to manage community expectations by pointing out that based on public information, the necessary evidence for a conviction just isn't there.

As far as the ‘yet’, I do agree with you but neither of us ever claimed she is immune or will never be arrested. If someone flips or new digital forensics emerge, the situation changes instantly…. looking strictly at the evidence currently in the public domain, the SAO does not yet have enough to overcome the burden of proof.

 

[Zedzded]

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….

What else can people expect to infer from that statement? Stay tuned, means there will be some kind of action or information forthcoming. It can easily be argued that it was simply a flippant comment, but GC is an intelligent woman. She understands the importance of that phrase, contextually and the relevance it has to this case. It would be quite callous and unprofessional to insulate further arrests were likely when in her mind she either knew the case was closed or there was little chance of any more arrests. Just say no comment when asked if we should stay tuned.

 

[opt]

I interpreted "Well I guess you can stay tuned" as a way to nudge her superiors toward approving the next step. I'm pretty sure that if this were solely up to Georgia, someone else would have already been charged.