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

[rescuemom]

April is just round the corner. I'm not au fait with the nuances of the US legal system and there could be good reason why WA has not yet been indicted. I just think it shouldn't be taking this long. This is not a new case. The State have interviewed, deposed all relevant actors, I would have thought the prep needed to prepare for an indictment would be minimal compared to a new case. So I now am of the opinion that unless new evidence surfaces or someone flips, she won't be arrested.

Sorry, what does April have to do with it?? I missed something.

 

[opt]

Sorry, what does April have to do with it??

Watch for news that Wendi has been indicted on April 1.

 

[Luna20]

View attachment 650582

It would seem that GC wouldn’t discuss a subject that wasn’t a done deal on a panel. This makes me think that she isn’t going to go after WA.

 

[Ferpo]

It would seem that GC wouldn’t discuss a subject that wasn’t a done deal on a panel. This makes me think that she isn’t going to go after WA.

I believe that GC and Newlin would have no problems talking about public facts of the case and that they'll do it again. I don't believe that they would have answered speculative questions about the future. Since this event has already happened, we would have heard about any fireworks if they occurred. In summary, I don't think this is any sort of indicator about the future of this case.

 

[Going Rogue]

I believe that GC and Newlin would have no problems talking about public facts of the case and that they'll do it again. I don't believe that they would have answered speculative questions about the future. Since this event has already happened, we would have heard about any fireworks if they occurred. In summary, I don't think this is any sort of indicator about the future of this case.

Exactly - it has no bearing on any future intentions. I’m sure the scope of the discussion was limited to what’s already in the public record, and they likely made it clear they weren’t addressing future strategy or any non‑public information about any of the unindicted. They would have had plenty of material to cover without getting into those details or fielding questions about why everyone’s favorite coconspirator hasn’t been arrested. On social media, the focus always seems to be about Wendi, but from the perspective of the State Attorney’s Office and the lead investigators, there is far more to this case that doesn’t revolve around her.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’m starting to see a shift regarding the case against Wendi on social media. It seems many more that follow the case are acknowledging that even if Wendi was involved in the plot, the evidence likely isn’t strong enough to meet the burden of proof.

For years, the dominant online narrative driven by many YouTube channels has been that the case against Wendi is “overwhelming.” I’ve always been critical of the one-sided YouTube coverage because I believe it shaped public perception far more than the actual evidentiary record ever did. While Carl Steinbeck wasn’t the only commentator contributing to that distortion, I think his commentary has had the biggest impact and likely because of his credentials.

My concern regarding Carl isn't about his sincerity because I believe he genuinely thinks his conclusions are correct. The issue is the effect his style has on the average follower’s understanding of what the State must actually prove. Carl speaks with the confidence of a prosecutor but without the constraints real prosecutors operate under. He doesn’t have to worry about admissibility, corroboration, appellate risk, double jeopardy, or whether a jury would accept a chain of inferences as proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

That freedom allows him to present speculation with the same tone and certainty a prosecutor uses to present evidence. The result is a false sense of the case's strength. Carl often stacks inferences – Wendi disliked Dan, her family disliked Dan, she benefited from the murder, she acted strangely afterward and treats the sum of those parts as proof of a conspiracy…. but that’s not how the law in the courtroom works. Motive and suspicion are relevant, but they are not substitutes for evidence of an actual agreement or an overt act. IMO, the fact that prosecutors haven’t indicted Wendi close to 12 years since the murder after multiple trials and thousands of hours of discovery, isn't because of corruption or protection rather the evidence simply doesn’t meet the legal threshold.

 

[Wishbone]

I’m starting to see a shift regarding the case against Wendi on social media. It seems many more that follow the case are acknowledging that even if Wendi was involved in the plot, the evidence likely isn’t strong enough to meet the burden of proof.

For years, the dominant online narrative driven by many YouTube channels has been that the case against Wendi is “overwhelming.” I’ve always been critical of the one-sided YouTube coverage because I believe it shaped public perception far more than the actual evidentiary record ever did. While Carl Steinbeck wasn’t the only commentator contributing to that distortion, I think his commentary has had the biggest impact and likely because of his credentials.

My concern regarding Carl isn't about his sincerity because I believe he genuinely thinks his conclusions are correct. The issue is the effect his style has on the average follower’s understanding of what the State must actually prove. Carl speaks with the confidence of a prosecutor but without the constraints real prosecutors operate under. He doesn’t have to worry about admissibility, corroboration, appellate risk, double jeopardy, or whether a jury would accept a chain of inferences as proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

That freedom allows him to present speculation with the same tone and certainty a prosecutor uses to present evidence. The result is a false sense of the case's strength. Carl often stacks inferences – Wendi disliked Dan, her family disliked Dan, she benefited from the murder, she acted strangely afterward and treats the sum of those parts as proof of a conspiracy…. but that’s not how the law in the courtroom works. Motive and suspicion are relevant, but they are not substitutes for evidence of an actual agreement or an overt act. IMO, the fact that prosecutors haven’t indicted Wendi close to 12 years since the murder after multiple trials and thousands of hours of discovery, isn't because of corruption or protection rather the evidence simply doesn’t meet the legal threshold.

Just an observation......From the tone of your post it seems this “shift in social media” hasn't affected Carl S in any way. I don't know as I don't follow social media(other than WB) or CS much at all.....I form my own opinions.JMOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Just an observation......From the tone of your post it seems this “shift in social media” hasn't affected Carl S in any way. I don't know as I don't follow social media(other than WB) or CS much at all.....I form my own opinions.JMOO

I have no idea whether Carl is aware of this shift. It’s also largely a matter of perspective, depending on what you or I have been exposed to. From my observations, there now seem to be far more people publicly acknowledging that the case against Wendi isn’t as straightforward as Carl has always portrayed it. Since you don’t follow Carl, you might not be aware that for years he has repeatedly said the case against Wendi is “overwhelming” and has often criticized the State Attorney’s Office for not indicting her. I’ve always disagreed with Carl’s view on the strength of the case and in my opinion he has influenced many people into believing the evidence is stronger than it actually is.

 

[Wishbone]

I have no idea whether Carl is aware of this shift. It’s also largely a matter of perspective, depending on what you or I have been exposed to. From my observations, there now seem to be far more people publicly acknowledging that the case against Wendi isn’t as straightforward as Carl has always portrayed it. Since you don’t follow Carl, you might not be aware that for years he has repeatedly said the case against Wendi is “overwhelming” and has often criticized the State Attorney’s Office for not indicting her. I’ve always disagreed with Carl’s view on the strength of the case and in my opinion he has influenced many people into believing the evidence is stronger than it actually is.

Reasonable doubt has been erased from my thinking due to all the conflicting stories WA has told(nocredibility) and the abundance of coincidences appearing. Adding to that, it is she who knew DM's itinerary at all times and was able to inform the rest of that vile family. She also was facing an alleged fraud motion of concealing assets that was due to be filed the very day DM was shot. Another coincidence, I think not. Added to that she had much to gain from his demise. But this is old ground we covered repeatedly and it comes down to what different individuals determine in their own mind and hearts. I have no way of knowing just how strong the State's case would be as to others. For me it is just a wait and see game that has taken too long since DM was murdered. Why would it speed up now....... JMOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Reasonable doubt has been erased from my thinking due to all the conflicting stories WA has told(nocredibility) and the abundance of coincidences appearing. Adding to that, it is she who knew DM's itinerary at all times and was able to inform the rest of that vile family. She also was facing an alleged fraud motion of concealing assets that was due to be filed the very day DM was shot. Another coincidence, I think not. Added to that she had much to gain from his demise. But this is old ground we covered repeatedly and it comes down to what different individuals determine in their own mind and hearts. I have no way of knowing just how strong the State's case would be as to others. For me it is just a wait and see game that has taken too long since DM was murdered. Why would it speed up now....... JMOO

Yes, she had a lot to gain, and I agree that the “fraud motion” timing may not have been some random coincidence - it likely factored into the family’s decision to have Dan killed. However, that overlap in motive still isn’t the same as proof that Wendi herself was part of the conspiracy. For the State to convict her, they would need direct evidence showing she participated in the planning or knowingly passed along critical information with the intent it be used for the murder. Simply saying that she knew Dan’s itinerary and could have informed her family isn’t evidence… the State needs proof she actually did so to further the crime.

The challenge is that while we can attempt to connect the dots and identify a motive, the law requires proof that Wendi entered into an agreement or performed an overt act in furtherance of it. That’s a much higher bar than saying there are too many coincidences or simply showing she lied, behaved oddly, and benefited afterward. I completely understand why people find her behavior deeply suspicious - but suspicion, even strong suspicion, doesn’t equate to admissible proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she directly conspired with her family.

 

[opt]

If Wendi were on trial today with nothing but the information already publicly known, I would bet on a quick conviction. Even if you would call it reverse jury nullification.

 

[LinasK]

Watch for news that Wendi has been indicted on April 1.

Why April 1st? April Fool's joke??

 

[LinasK]

It would seem that GC wouldn’t discuss a subject that wasn’t a done deal on a panel. This makes me think that she isn’t going to go after WA.

See, I think the opposite. They aren't going to tip her off and announce her arrest at a forum. That'd be stupid.

 

[Luna20]

See, I think the opposite. They aren't going to tip her off and announce her arrest at a forum. That'd be stupid.

Not announcing anything from the panel. I was saying that since they did discuss it on the panel it may mean that they aren’t going to go after her. But I can also see the strategy of making her think that.

 

[Going Rogue]

Not announcing anything from the panel. I was saying that since they did discuss it on the panel it may mean that they aren’t going to go after her. But I can also see the strategy of making her think that.

Sounds like a strategy right out of Wendi’s playbook – reverse psychology

 

[opt]

Why April 1st? April Fool's joke??

I said "watch for news", not that it would actually happen!

 

[Zedzded]

Charlie has now been in prison for four years. His once thin and fragile ego has likely taken a significant hit. He may have realised that he is no longer the smartest person in the room. While he may remain a narcissist to the end, he may also now understand that he cannot win at trial. He has no real defence. Even if he does not fully recognise that himself, his lawyer certainly would.

I don't know if the opportunity will arise, but if he does get the chance to cooperate with the State, I believe he will. Certainly if he wins his appeal and gets a new trial he could negotiate a plea deal. I'm not sure why he would continue to defend WA or his Mum to be honest. They've both screwed him over. Even DA's friends are throwing his name out there as the architect of this crime.

CA, was nothing more than DA's patsy. She was the architect of the murder. She despised Dan and wanted him dead. CA was nonplussed by Dan's actions and had no real desire to kill him other than to please his Mum. WA, perhaps initially baluked at the idea of killing Dan, but I can imagine was easily persuaded by her vengeful mother.

So I can see the State being willing to offer CA some kind of deal for WA's fat, bloated head on a plate. 20 years perhaps. If he loses his appeal, I suppose there is still opportunity to try and make a deal, but it would be more complex.

 

[Going Rogue]

Charlie has now been in prison for four years. His once thin and fragile ego has likely taken a significant hit. He may have realised that he is no longer the smartest person in the room. While he may remain a narcissist to the end, he may also now understand that he cannot win at trial. He has no real defence. Even if he does not fully recognise that himself, his lawyer certainly would.

I don't know if the opportunity will arise, but if he does get the chance to cooperate with the State, I believe he will. Certainly if he wins his appeal and gets a new trial he could negotiate a plea deal. I'm not sure why he would continue to defend WA or his Mum to be honest. They've both screwed him over. Even DA's friends are throwing his name out there as the architect of this crime.

CA, was nothing more than DA's patsy. She was the architect of the murder. She despised Dan and wanted him dead. CA was nonplussed by Dan's actions and had no real desire to kill him other than to please his Mum. WA, perhaps initially baluked at the idea of killing Dan, but I can imagine was easily persuaded by her vengeful mother.

So I can see the State being willing to offer CA some kind of deal for WA's fat, bloated head on a plate. 20 years perhaps. If he loses his appeal, I suppose there is still opportunity to try and make a deal, but it would be more complex.

Even if Charlie wins his appeal, him 'flipping' is a fantasy without hard evidence. Assuming he’d even be willing to admit his guilt, his mother’s guilt, and confess to committing massive perjury at his trial, his word alone is practically worthless. Prosecutors aren't going to offer a plea deal just for a story. He would need to have actual, verifiable proof tying Wendi directly to the planning – like a hidden recording or a financial paper trail.

Considering investigators have had the family's devices for years, and imaged Wendi’s cell phone and PC on day one, the odds Charlie has secret 'receipts' on Wendi seem VERY low. Without corroboration, no prosecutor is risking a high-profile trial on his word. They know Wendi’s defense would dismantle him on the stand as a desperate admitted perjurer trying to claw back years of his sentence. Without receipts, he will not get an offer.

 

[Zedzded]

Even if Charlie wins his appeal, him 'flipping' is a fantasy without hard evidence. Assuming he’d even be willing to admit his guilt, his mother’s guilt, and confess to committing massive perjury at his trial, his word alone is practically worthless. Prosecutors aren't going to offer a plea deal just for a story. He would need to have actual, verifiable proof tying Wendi directly to the planning – like a hidden recording or a financial paper trail.

Considering investigators have had the family's devices for years, and imaged Wendi’s cell phone and PC on day one, the odds Charlie has secret 'receipts' on Wendi seem VERY low. Without corroboration, no prosecutor is risking a high-profile trial on his word. They know Wendi’s defense would dismantle him on the stand as a desperate admitted perjurer trying to claw back years of his sentence. Without receipts, he will not get an offer.

If WA did conspire with CA and DA to kill Dan, there should be evidence that CA can produce, emails, texts, Whatsapp messages. KM stated that her and SG used burner phones and alluded to the fact that CA also used a burner phone and most likely WA too.

I think when WA sent that one message to CA she deleted ("This is so sweet") that was meant to have been sent either on WhatsApp or a burner phone. So if CA has any information pertaining to his and/or WA's burner phones then that is solid evidence.

And they haven't had the families devices for years. DA was arrested in 2023 and it was only then that LE were able to obtain certain electronic devices that proved to be important in her trial. e.g the text exchange between her and CA re drug dealers killed Dan was on her mobile phone that was confiscated at the airport.

If WA was involved in the plot there should be something on DA's devices that implicates her. Why hasn't she been arrested then? See above post. The State are awaiting the outcome of CA's trial.

 

[Going Rogue]

If WA did conspire with CA and DA to kill Dan, there should be evidence that CA can produce, emails, texts, Whatsapp messages. KM stated that her and SG used burner phones and alluded to the fact that CA also used a burner phone and most likely WA too.

I think when WA sent that one message to CA she deleted ("This is so sweet") that was meant to have been sent either on WhatsApp or a burner phone. So if CA has any information pertaining to his and/or WA's burner phones then that is solid evidence.

And they haven't had the families devices for years. DA was arrested in 2023 and it was only then that LE were able to obtain certain electronic devices that proved to be important in her trial. e.g the text exchange between her and CA re drug dealers killed Dan was on her mobile phone that was confiscated at the airport.

If WA was involved in the plot there should be something on DA's devices that implicates her. Why hasn't she been arrested then? See above post. The State are awaiting the outcome of CA's trial.

Twelve years after Dan’s murder, the idea that Charlie is suddenly going to produce some long‑hidden physical or digital record tying Wendi to the conspiracy is fantasy. The odds of that are lower than him winning his appeal, getting a new trial, and then being acquitted on every count.

If Charlie had real, independent “receipts” on Wendi – messages, burner records, a money trail, anything – law enforcement would almost certainly already know. This case has been investigated for over a decade with subpoenas, device imaging, wiretaps, forensic extractions, and multiple trials. The Adelson family’s digital footprint has been extensively mined. Investigators had years of their electronic data well before Donna’s 2023 arrest, and they expanded that with the devices seized after her arrest. The Donna / Charlie “drug dealers killed Dan” texts you often reference are a perfect example of how deep that mining went.

Charlie’s word alone, especially after testifying one way at trial and then admitting he lied, has almost zero value. Prosecutors are not going to build a Wendi case on the uncorroborated story of a convicted murderer who has every incentive to lie again. At most, a cooperator like Charlie can support an already‑strong case, the way Katie was used in Charlie’s and Donna’s trials. The State is not trading a life sentence for a story.

Unless Charlie can deliver new, independently verifiable evidence tying Wendi to the conspiracy, flipping on Wendi gets him nothing. If he has actual receipts, which I think is VERY unlikely, it's a different story.