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.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

She said that over 6-months ago. In your opinion, how much time must elapse without an arrest before you acknowledge that the comment didn’t necessarily mean 'action or information is forthcoming'? When she said it immediately following Charlie’s trial, it was a very clear message that something was coming, and sure enough, Donna was arrested just days later. Even Donna knew what 'stay tuned' meant, which is exactly why she tried to flee the country.

 

[Zedzded]

She said that over 6-months ago. In your opinion, how much time must elapse without an arrest before you acknowledge that the comment didn’t necessarily mean 'action or information is forthcoming'? When she said it immediately following Charlie’s trial, it was a very clear message that something was coming, and sure enough, Donna was arrested just days later. Even Donna knew what 'stay tuned' meant, which is exactly why she tried to flee the country.

That statement means that at that moment in time WA was very much in the crosshairs of the State. But it does not mean that the State are definitely going to indict WA. The case against her, unlike most cold cases, continues to grow and evolve. For example in DA's trial Rob's testimony further incriminated WA. The State are not in a rush. We are in a rush. We are impatient and for most of us time is an important variable. For the State, time is of little relevance; the wheels of justice turn slow, but grind exceedingly fine.

So trying to say WA won't be arrested because its been 12 years is nonsensical. It has no bearing on the strength of the States case against her. If you feel it does, thats OK. Its good to think for yourself and have your own opinions.

 

[Going Rogue]

That statement means that at that moment in time WA was very much in the crosshairs of the State. But it does not mean that the State are definitely going to indict WA. The case against her, unlike most cold cases, continues to grow and evolve. For example in DA's trial Rob's testimony further incriminated WA. The State are not in a rush. We are in a rush. We are impatient and for most of us time is an important variable. For the State, time is of little relevance; the wheels of justice turn slow, but grind exceedingly fine.

So trying to say WA won't be arrested because its been 12 years is nonsensical. It has no bearing on the strength of the States case against her. If you feel it does, thats OK. Its good to think for yourself and have your own opinions.

Once again, you are misrepresenting my POV. I never said Wendi "won't be arrested because it's been 12 years." I have consistently delivered the same message for years – based on all publicly available information, the state cannot reasonably meet the burden of proof and a case against Wendi is VERY risky to take on. I firmly believe that is how the state feels, too.

The fact that it’s been 12 years and that Donna was convicted six months ago, reaffirms my belief that the state does not agree with the likes of Carl S…. who, in my opinion, has done more than anyone to convince this community that the case against her is ‘so overwhelming’, which has turned many people against the State Attorney's office.

Regarding the "stay tuned" comment following Donna’s conviction, you are missing the point. What I’m saying is the community thought that statement was a clear indicator, as it was after Charlie conviction, that another arrest was imminent in the NEAR future. Many had predicted Wendi 'arrest by dates' have come and gone. Six months later, she is still scot-free…. "125 rabbits do not make a horse."

Thank you for acknowledging I am allowed to have my own opinion. It wasn’t always viewed that way in many J4DM forums. I ask you, do you believe the case against Wendi is 'so ovwewhelmingly' strong?

 

[Zedzded]

The fact that it’s been 12 years and that Donna was convicted six months ago, reaffirms my belief that the state does not agree with the likes of Carl S…. who, in my opinion, has done more than anyone to convince this community that the case against her is ‘so overwhelming’, which has turned many people against the State Attorney's office.

Regarding the "stay tuned" comment following Donna’s conviction, you are missing the point. What I’m saying is the community thought that statement was a clear indicator, as it was after Charlie conviction, that another arrest was imminent in the NEAR future. Many had predicted Wendi 'arrest by dates' have come and gone. Six months later, she is still scot-free…. "125 rabbits do not make a horse."

I do agree re CS, he has created this narrative that the case against WA is overwhelmingly strong, the proverbial slam dunk. And this has given rise to this feeling of perplexion amongst people, why the hell hasn't she been arrest, with all this damning evidence??!

The reality is the case against her is circumstantial and complex. I feel that if she went to trial that she would be convicted, but certainly not a slam dunk. A lot of the evidence is defensible. WA also has the rabbit up her sleeve where she can throw CA and DA under the bus, claiming they were the architects of the crime. That clears up a lot of the evidence that potentially incriminates her. e.g TV repair. That was done to keep her busy and not interfering with the murder plot.

GC's statement did convince people that further arrests were imminent especially after DA's arrest so quickly after CA's conviction. Perhaps on reflection she regrets it or perhaps she's not concerned what people think and is entirely focused on seeing justice served. She had me thinking an arrest was just round the corner.

 

[Zedzded]

Thank you for acknowledging I am allowed to have my own opinion. It wasn’t always viewed that way in many J4DM forums. I ask you, do you believe the case against Wendi is 'so ovwewhelmingly' strong?

No I don't. If you bundle all the evidence together it's a case that is winnable. If WA throws her family under the bus, that becomes problematic. She feared CA was planning on killing Dan, drove up Trescott in desperation to see if it was true, panicked when interviewed by police and lied.

She was in shock and subsequent denial about her families involvement for years. She couldn't bring herself to accept they had committed this heinous act. But slowly over time she realised that they had indeed been involved. That explains away statements to JL and SY.

Suddenly the case against her is weaker. Best case scenario would be she had awareness of the murder plot, but was not involved in the conspiracy.

But, if that's the defence she would go with, it opens up the door for other potential charges e.f Accessory after. I also struggle to believe that there is no more evidence e.g texts on DA and HA's devices that are inculpatory.

 

[Going Rogue]

I do agree re CS, he has created this narrative that the case against WA is overwhelmingly strong, the proverbial slam dunk. And this has given rise to this feeling of perplexion amongst people, why the hell hasn't she been arrest, with all this damning evidence??!

The reality is the case against her is circumstantial and complex. I feel that if she went to trial that she would be convicted, but certainly not a slam dunk. A lot of the evidence is defensible. WA also has the rabbit up her sleeve where she can throw CA and DA under the bus, claiming they were the architects of the crime. That clears up a lot of the evidence that potentially incriminates her. e.g TV repair. That was done to keep her busy and not interfering with the murder plot.

GC's statement did convince people that further arrests were imminent especially after DA's arrest so quickly after CA's conviction. Perhaps on reflection she regrets it or perhaps she's not concerned what people think and is entirely focused on seeing justice served. She had me thinking an arrest was just round the corner.

Many people interpreted the last “stay tuned” comment the same way you did. That’s exactly why I said I believe the public got the wrong vibe…. and I’m not just saying that in hindsight, that was my initial reaction. I know I’m beating a dead horse, but if Wendi receives a fair trial, based on the publicly available evidence, I don’t believe the state can meet the burden of proof. A hung jury or even an outright acquittal seems more likely to me than a conviction.

I don’t see how the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she entered into a conspiratorial agreement or that she committed an act in furtherance of the crime. They must prove at least one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. I know you took issue with my statement that I’d change my opinion if someone could explain how the state meets one of those elements, but no one has ever convincingly bridged that gap. I’ve heard many argue that she gave Dan’s schedule, that she set up Jeff Lacasse, or that the family “wouldn’t have done it without her approval”… but those are all speculative claims.... and there is a lot of speculation in the case against Wendi. The state can’t convict her by saying, “Trust us, members of the jury – we all know she did it.”

If she ever goes to trial, I don’t believe her legal team would ever align themselves with either defense strategy used by Charlie or Donna and distancing themselves from those two idiots doesn’t require throwing them under the bus. Her defense doesn’t need to explain their theory of the murder. Not sure if you followed the Karen Read case, but the defense acknowledged their tactical error in the first trial by offering an alternate theory to the state, which contributed to a hung jury instead of an acquittal. In the second trial, they wisely avoided proposing any theory at all and secured the acquittal.

I bring this up because I think you’re overthinking it. Wendi’s defense will need not need to explain the things you’re outlining – such as her “slowly realizing they were involved.” The state has the burden of proving that Wendi directly conspired with her family, and the defense doesn't need to provide any explanation. I don’t see how the state meets the burden of proof based on what we know today and I am sincerely open to hearing someone explain how they do.

 

[Weki]

People on social media who keep asking why Wendi has not been arrested yet remind me of this gif:

The Dan Markel Justice train has come to a stop. The State of Florida has done a remarkable job. It's over. But stay tuned, I guess.

JMO, MOO, IMO

 

[Going Rogue]

People on social media who keep asking why Wendi has not been arrested yet remind me of this gif:

The Dan Markel Justice train has come to a stop. The State of Florida has done a remarkable job. It's over. But stay tuned, I guess.

JMO, MOO, IMO

Then again, Jack Campbell just took a 50-year-old cold case to trial, which resulted in an acquittal after less than an hour of deliberation. While that’s not the outcome people want for a Wendi trial, a 50-year-old case pales in comparison to a 12-year-old case – I guess?