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

[Going Rogue]

Do we have JL’s exact words? Did he say ‘cheap tv, like for a dorm’…. Or specifically say dorm ROOM tv? I ask because he is a university professor and the dorms probably have cheap tvs in the common areas… he might have been referencing an inexpensive brand of TV…
Did he specifically say it was SMALL?
While I can understand JL using exaggerated descriptions - getting caught up in realizing he was in love with a looney tune whose family murdered his colleague.
But I can also believe that CA bragged to his parents about the nice tv he bought for his sister - exaggerating so he doesn’t look like a cheapskate. I can believe that HA got the size wrong, if asked when he made the repair appointment.
I can also believe that the BB employee who took the phone appointment made a mistake -
More ramblings..
JMO

I know he said “it was like something you’d see in a dorm-room". Not certain he called it ‘small’ or ‘cheap’… but that definitely was the picture that was painted. As I said previously, in fairness to Jeff, everything is over-analyzed on social media and the adjectives ‘small’ and ‘cheap’ may be how social media interpreted the framing of ‘dorm room TV’… Back to what I’ve been saying all along, if it was a 55-inch display, Jeff saying it was like something you’d see in a dorm room seems purposefully misleading when its obvious he knew how important the theory that it was Wendi’s alibi is to the case.

 

[DustysMom]

I know he said “it was like something you’d see in a dorm-room". Not certain he called it ‘small’ or ‘cheap’… but that definitely was the picture that was painted. As I said previously, in fairness to Jeff, everything is over-analyzed on social media and the adjectives ‘small’ and ‘cheap’ may be how social media interpreted the framing of ‘dorm room TV’… Back to what I’ve been saying all along, if it was a 55-inch display, Jeff saying it was like something you’d see in a dorm room seems purposefully misleading when its obvious he knew how important the theory that it was Wendi’s alibi is to the case.

Ok - interesting. So, you think JL was deliberately exaggerating the value of the tv to throw Wendi under the bus?
I remember him as a sincere, if somewhat intense witness…and emotionally rambling after feeling like a fool…but not until this TV discussion did I consider that he would deliberately mislead the jury. It’s certainly possible.

 

[Going Rogue]

You need to re-read my post. They absolutely do have a duty to ensure the witnesses opinions do not mislead the jury. The witness can opine on anything they want. But (this is important) if their opinions mislead the jury and the State understand this, they have a duty to rectify this. The jury cannot leave that courtroom thinking the TV WA had was just a "regular TV, the kind you'd find in a dorm room" when in fact it was a relatively expensive 55" TV.

I read your post, but what you are describing is not a legal standard. You are confusing the State's duty to correct perjury with a non-existent duty to police a witness's subjective description. The State is legally required to hand over the objective facts / evidence (the receipt or any other doc / info that had the TV spec's) before trial… after that, ensuring the jury doesn't leave with a misleading impression of the TV's size is 100% the defense attorney's job.

 

[Going Rogue]

Ok - interesting. So, you think JL was deliberately exaggerating the value of the tv to throw Wendi under the bus?
I remember him as a sincere, if somewhat intense witness…and emotionally rambling after feeling like a fool…but not until this TV discussion did I consider that he would deliberately mislead the jury. It’s certainly possible.

If we find out the TV was actually 55-inches… is very easy to draw the conclusion he was deliberately exaggerating by minimizing the size for obvious reasons. We can only go by information that’s public… I have asked others to give their interpretation of what Wendi read out loud on cross examination – I think its a real possibility the TV was 55-inches… and as I said, that is not good for Jeff.

 

[Zedzded]

I read your post, but what you are describing is not a legal standard. You are confusing the State's duty to correct perjury with a non-existent duty to police a witness's subjective description. The State is legally required to hand over the objective facts / evidence (the receipt or any other doc / info that had the TV spec's) before trial… after that, ensuring the jury doesn't leave with a misleading impression of the TV's size is 100% the defense attorney's job.

No you're on the wrong track. I'll break it down.

JL can describe the TV however he likes. He can say that in his opinion the TV was amazing. The best he'd ever seen. Most likely expensive,the kind a wealthy person would buy.

There is nothing wrong with that.

The jury now think that this TV was a little bit fancy.

There is something wrong with that.

The State now have an obligation to stop the jury thinking that otherwise they have allowed the jury to be misled.

 

[Elisaa444]

As far as tv pricing goes what I think is expensive and what someone else thinks is expensive can be very different. In MY opinion not all 55 inch TV's were expensive back in 2014. When it comes to money the perception of what is expensive is all relative to who you are talking to. For example, today several co-workers were in a discussion about gas prices - some thought the prices were outrageous whereas others said, 'It's not expensive. It only went up a tad." When it comes to the cost of things - it is extremely subjective. It can depend on the context and one's personal financial situation rather than just a number on price tag.

You could buy a 55 inch TV in 2014 that was not expensive (IMO Only) because I bought one. I remember it because my roommate at the time - we split the cost. It was $750. It was the basic led model. Yes, there were more expensive Tv's in 2014 like the Sony or LG Ultra HD 4k technology that did run upwards of $4,000 or more.

I just rewatched Jeff's testimony in both Charlie's and Donna's trials regarding the TV and he doesn't specifically say the TV is cheap nor does he say anything to what the size was of the TV except to say "it wasn't like an 80 inch TV that was really that luxurious. It was something like you'd find in a dorm room." (**He gives more testimony about the TV in Charlie's trial vs. Donna's.)

Because neither side pressed him for a more detailed answer about what he Thought the make/size/price of tv was - he is simply telling in general terms what he thought of the TV (imo). Everyone may interpret it differently.

Since he offered to go replace her tv for her at Best Buy - I am getting from him that he didn't think it was too expensive for him to replace. He said he offered many times to replace the tv for her because she was (' a busy, single mom'). I think his comment about the Tv being 'like you'd find in a dorm room' could mean it was inexpensive at least to him. I don't think he was referring to its size at all. But that is only what I think. Since it wasn't followed up on by either side we can only guess as to what he meant by the "like a dorm room" comment.


If the defense thought it was important enough to highlight the cost of Wendi's TV or any other details about the TV to the jury - they certainly could have. On cross-examination they could have asked Jeff: "Do you know the make/model of this TV? Do you know its actual size? Do you know how much this TV cost when it was purchased?" I think he may guess at those questions, but I'm going to assume Jeff wouldn't know the answers for sure. During Charlie's trial - while on the TV discussion he does point out that - at the time of the broken TV he did not investigate the Tv further because he couldn't have known how important it would later become - in a murder trial.

JMO^^^

 

[Going Rogue]

As far as tv pricing goes what I think is expensive and what someone else thinks is expensive can be very different. In MY opinion not all 55 inch TV's were expensive back in 2014. When it comes to money the perception of what is expensive is all relative to who you are talking to. For example, today several co-workers were in a discussion about gas prices - some thought the prices were outrageous whereas others said, 'It's not expensive. It only went up a tad." When it comes to the cost of things - it is extremely subjective. It can depend on the context and one's personal financial situation rather than just a number on price tag.

You could buy a 55 inch TV in 2014 that was not expensive (IMO Only) because I bought one. I remember it because my roommate at the time - we split the cost. It was $750. It was the basic led model. Yes, there were more expensive Tv's in 2014 like the Sony or LG Ultra HD 4k technology that did run upwards of $4,000 or more.

I just rewatched Jeff's testimony in both Charlie's and Donna's trials regarding the TV and he doesn't specifically say the TV is cheap nor does he say anything to what the size was of the TV except to say "it wasn't like an 80 inch TV that was really that luxurious. It was something like you'd find in a dorm room." (**He gives more testimony about the TV in Charlie's trial vs. Donna's.)

Because neither side pressed him for a more detailed answer about what he Thought the make/size/price of tv was - he is simply telling in general terms what he thought of the TV (imo). Everyone may interpret it differently.

Since he offered to go replace her tv for her at Best Buy - I am getting from him that he didn't think it was too expensive for him to replace. He said he offered many times to replace the tv for her because she was (' a busy, single mom'). I think his comment about the Tv being 'like you'd find in a dorm room' could mean it was inexpensive at least to him. I don't think he was referring to its size at all. But that is only what I think. Since it wasn't followed up on by either side we can only guess as to what he meant by the "like a dorm room" comment.


If the defense thought it was important enough to highlight the cost of Wendi's TV or any other details about the TV to the jury - they certainly could have. On cross-examination they could have asked Jeff: "Do you know the make/model of this TV? Do you know its actual size? Do you know how much this TV cost when it was purchased?" I think he may guess at those questions, but I'm going to assume Jeff wouldn't know the answers for sure. During Charlie's trial - while on the TV discussion he does point out that - at the time of the broken TV he did not investigate the Tv further because he couldn't have known how important it would later become - in a murder trial.

JMO^^^

Excellent breakdown and I agree with everything you said. My personal opinion is that Jeff likely purposely downplayed the size of the display. That opinion was shaped this week after after hearing Wendi’s cross-examination where she read off the size of the display from the BestBuy repair service call details. I am open to other interpretations.

 

[LinasK]

As far as tv pricing goes what I think is expensive and what someone else thinks is expensive can be very different. In MY opinion not all 55 inch TV's were expensive back in 2014. When it comes to money the perception of what is expensive is all relative to who you are talking to. For example, today several co-workers were in a discussion about gas prices - some thought the prices were outrageous whereas others said, 'It's not expensive. It only went up a tad." When it comes to the cost of things - it is extremely subjective. It can depend on the context and one's personal financial situation rather than just a number on price tag.

You could buy a 55 inch TV in 2014 that was not expensive (IMO Only) because I bought one. I remember it because my roommate at the time - we split the cost. It was $750. It was the basic led model. Yes, there were more expensive Tv's in 2014 like the Sony or LG Ultra HD 4k technology that did run upwards of $4,000 or more.

I just rewatched Jeff's testimony in both Charlie's and Donna's trials regarding the TV and he doesn't specifically say the TV is cheap nor does he say anything to what the size was of the TV except to say "it wasn't like an 80 inch TV that was really that luxurious. It was something like you'd find in a dorm room." (**He gives more testimony about the TV in Charlie's trial vs. Donna's.)

Because neither side pressed him for a more detailed answer about what he Thought the make/size/price of tv was - he is simply telling in general terms what he thought of the TV (imo). Everyone may interpret it differently.

Since he offered to go replace her tv for her at Best Buy - I am getting from him that he didn't think it was too expensive for him to replace. He said he offered many times to replace the tv for her because she was (' a busy, single mom'). I think his comment about the Tv being 'like you'd find in a dorm room' could mean it was inexpensive at least to him. I don't think he was referring to its size at all. But that is only what I think. Since it wasn't followed up on by either side we can only guess as to what he meant by the "like a dorm room" comment.


If the defense thought it was important enough to highlight the cost of Wendi's TV or any other details about the TV to the jury - they certainly could have. On cross-examination they could have asked Jeff: "Do you know the make/model of this TV? Do you know its actual size? Do you know how much this TV cost when it was purchased?" I think he may guess at those questions, but I'm going to assume Jeff wouldn't know the answers for sure. During Charlie's trial - while on the TV discussion he does point out that - at the time of the broken TV he did not investigate the Tv further because he couldn't have known how important it would later become - in a murder trial.

JMO^^^

Or for that matter the price of pens and markers. Whether something costs $5 or less or $1.000/item for example.

 

[Zedzded]

• • It was objectively false or created a clearly false impression,​
  • ​

Which it has. We are all convinced the TV was a cheap, small TV that was not worth repairing. That's the same impression the jury would have. This then bolsters the States argument that the TV repair was a sham and a cover to alibi WA. No-one would bother repairing a cheap "dorm" TV.

 

[Zedzded]

If the defense thought it was important enough to highlight the cost of Wendi's TV or any other details about the TV to the jury - they certainly could have. On cross-examination they could have asked Jeff: "Do you know the make/model of this TV? Do you know its actual size? Do you know how much this TV cost when it was purchased?" I think he may guess at those questions, but I'm going to assume Jeff wouldn't know the answers for sure. During Charlie's trial - while on the TV discussion he does point out that - at the time of the broken TV he did not investigate the Tv further because he couldn't have known how important it would later become - in a murder trial.

JMO^^^

Why didn't they clarify the TV make and model? There was no attempt by the defence teams in CA and DA's trials to destroy this narrative that tve TV repair was an alibi. The main point was that it was a cheap TV, not worth repairing. A 55" TV in 2014 would have been worth repairing. Additionally HA had stated he was flexible with when the TV could be repaired. This completely destroys the albi narrative. If it was to be an alibi, then it had to be that specific day. Yet HA was flexible? Why was this never raised by the defence? It would completely negate the States assertions it was an alibi.

 

[Going Rogue]

Why didn't they clarify the TV make and model? There was no attempt by the defence teams in CA and DA's trials to destroy this narrative that tve TV repair was an alibi. The main point was that it was a cheap TV, not worth repairing. A 55" TV in 2014 would have been worth repairing. Additionally HA had stated he was flexible with when the TV could be repaired. This completely destroys the albi narrative. If it was to be an alibi, then it had to be that specific day. Yet HA was flexible? Why was this never raised by the defence? It would completely negate the States assertions it was an alibi.

The sheer volume of discovery passed on by the State in these trials is massively overwhelming, making it entirely possible for defense teams to miss specific details. We learned in one of the case management hearings for Donna’s trial that there were over 80,000 emails in discovery, plus there were more than 1,000 conversations captured via wiretap. Realistically, things will be missed with that amount of data in discovery. While we know the BestBuy repair ticket Wendi read from in court was in evidence during Donna’s trial, its origin is unclear. We simply don’t know if it was newly dug up by Donna’s defense during their review of those 80,000 emails, or if it was already buried in the State’s exhibits from previous trials.

Either way, it seems obvious that Rashbaum and his team were unaware the BestBuy repair ticket detailing the 55-inch display size existed. If they had known about it during Charlie’s trial, failing to use it to impeach Jeff’s characterization of the TV as ‘something you’d see in dorm room' was a massive missed opportunity. I keep making the point that exposing this 'exaggeration' (if we can call it that) would have severely damaged the 'strict alibi' narrative and would have sown real seeds of doubt in the jurors' minds about Jeff’s reliability and potentially painting him as a jilted ex-lover looking for revenge. As far as your point on Harvey's flexibility with the repair date, I know that point was raised – though I'm not sure if it was by Rashbaum, Wendi’s team, or both. Combining saying ‘yes’ to the appointment flexibility option with the actual size of the TV would completely undercut the State's alibi theory. BTW, I have already seem it argued on social media that Harvey purposely checked the box ‘willing to take an earlier apportionment if available’ to make it look less suspicious... par for the course on how people overthink things in true crime cases - and IMO, there are many examples of that in this case.

Many avid case followers will likely find a way to justify Jeff’s framing of a 55-inch TV as 'dorm sized', or simply shrug off the repair ticket as an Adelson fabrication…. but if the display was actually 55 inches, which was a significant size and expensive TV in 2014 that is not 'like something you'd see in a dorm room', it forces you to wonder what else Jeff might have 'embellished' in his effort to be a 'good' witness for the State. The reality is that Jeff’s behavior is just human nature. He seems 100% convinced of Wendi’s guilt, which I believe has led to his evolving testimony or embellishments designed to support the State's narrative (which I've provided foundational evidence for in the past to support that ‘opinion’). Unfortunately, questioning Jeff’s motive or reliability on certain parts of his testimony is rarely received well on social media. This reflects a much larger problem of confirmation bias in the 'true crime' community, and I find it especially true in this case.

 

[opt]

Why didn't they clarify the TV make and model? There was no attempt by the defence teams in CA and DA's trials to destroy this narrative that tve TV repair was an alibi. The main point was that it was a cheap TV, not worth repairing. A 55" TV in 2014 would have been worth repairing.

The fact remains that repairing a broken screen costs more than a new TV, and it's always been true.

JL offered to buy a new one. Either it was a cheap TV or he was being very generous. I can't tell which.

The TV appointment could have been a late improvement on the murder plan. HA would know.

 

[Zedzded]

Either way, it seems obvious that Rashbaum and his team were unaware the BestBuy repair ticket detailing the 55-inch display size existed.

The TV repair as an alibi is quite important though. DR should/would have asked CA why WA was wanting to repair a TV. Like pretty much everyone has said, no-one repairs TVs. This should have stood out to DR as being odd and something he would have to defend. He could have easily determined, for example, that HA had stated he was flexible with the repair date. That is huge. Again not raised in DAs trial either.

 

[Elisaa444]

The TV repair as an alibi is quite important though. DR should/would have asked CA why WA was wanting to repair a TV. Like pretty much everyone has said, no-one repairs TVs. This should have stood out to DR as being odd and something he would have to defend. He could have easily determined, for example, that HA had stated he was flexible with the repair date. That is huge. Again not raised in DAs trial either.

It was raised in Donna's trial. In Donna's trial - in the closing - defense attorney Jackie Fulford does go into the TV alibi. I rewatched it on Law and Crime Trials and she starts talking about it at 43:34. On the projection screen she brings up the Best Buy ticket highlighting that the customer agrees to a different date if they can't keep the original appointment and the customer puts: 'yes.' Jackie says: "a fake alibi - that is what they want you to believe."

I noticed on the form Jackie shared on the projection screen to the jury that where it ask the TV size (the customer either Harvey or Donna or whomever - I'm personally not sure who filled this out) put 41' - 55' in that section. I found that interesting. The Geek Squad form could have been a drop down box where they fill out a range for the size OR it could have been what the customer specifically decided to put in. Who knows.

I googled this question and google said The Geek Squad form does utilize drop down menus except in places where it asks the customer to fill out things like the serial numbers, geek squad plan number, etc, but that answer is now in 2026 - who knows back then what the form was like. The size section just caught my eye.

I have not rewatched Charlie's closing (I will), but I don't have a memory of Dan getting into this at all, but at least Donna's defense attorney disputed the TV alibi for her client to the jury.

Defense Closing Argument for Donna Adelson

JMO^^

 

[Elisaa444]

I just tried rewatching Charlie's closing argument, but Wow having to listen to Dan go into the gymnastics of the extortion theory is starting to hurt my head. lol

With that said, he briefly talks about how ridiculous the TV alibi is at 10:37. He does not go into the Best Buy form. I watched both trials very closely and I have no memory of the Best Buy form coming up in his trial. Unlike Donna's trial. I did recall them getting into it in hers.

I listened to about 30 minutes in and I couldn't finish because the mental hoops one has to jump through to believe in Charlie's extortion theory is - mind numbing. Only in my opinion, of course.

JMO ^^^

 

[rescuemom]

Who thought of such a flimsy alibi for WA on that morning? A more believable one would have been if she had an exercise class or hair appointment.

 

[Going Rogue]

The TV repair as an alibi is quite important though. DR should/would have asked CA why WA was wanting to repair a TV. Like pretty much everyone has said, no-one repairs TVs. This should have stood out to DR as being odd and something he would have to defend. He could have easily determined, for example, that HA had stated he was flexible with the repair date. That is huge. Again not raised in DAs trial either.

The facts are that the Adelsons purchased the Geek Squad Warranty on the TV and it was still under contract. We know that physical damage is not covered, but why is anyone surprised that the Adelsons attempted to get a new TV by calling in a warranty repair on a cracked screen. I am sure they didn’t disclose that the screen was cracked when they called in for the warranty repair. The worse outcome would be BestBuy rejects the claim – which is exactly what happened. If the display wasn’t under contract, I seriously doubt they would have called in for the repair. Calling in a warranty repair for a cracked screen and trying to 'get over' is typical Adelson...

 

[Going Rogue]

It was raised in Donna's trial. In Donna's trial - in the closing - defense attorney Jackie Fulford does go into the TV alibi. I rewatched it on Law and Crime Trials and she starts talking about it at 43:34. On the projection screen she brings up the Best Buy ticket highlighting that the customer agrees to a different date if they can't keep the original appointment and the customer puts: 'yes.' Jackie says: "a fake alibi - that is what they want you to believe."

I noticed on the form Jackie shared on the projection screen to the jury that where it ask the TV size (the customer either Harvey or Donna or whomever - I'm personally not sure who filled this out) put 41' - 55' in that section. I found that interesting. The Geek Squad form could have been a drop down box where they fill out a range for the size OR it could have been what the customer specifically decided to put in. Who knows.

I googled this question and google said The Geek Squad form does utilize drop down menus except in places where it asks the customer to fill out things like the serial numbers, geek squad plan number, etc, but that answer is now in 2026 - who knows back then what the form was like. The size section just caught my eye.

I have not rewatched Charlie's closing (I will), but I don't have a memory of Dan getting into this at all, but at least Donna's defense attorney disputed the TV alibi for her client to the jury.

Defense Closing Argument for Donna Adelson

JMO^^

Thanks for posting. Fulford referred to the exhibit as the “State’s exhibit”….. so that clears up my question in an earlier posts wondering about origins of the repair ticket in evidence. I wonder where Fulford got the information ‘Harvey called in the 55-inch TV”… did she simply use the higher end of the scale on the drop down question (41–55”)?

 

[Going Rogue]

Who thought of such a flimsy alibi for WA on that morning? A more believable one would have been if she had an exercise class or hair appointment.

I’m not sure the TV repair was an alibi. Two things can be true – every Adelson (except Rob) is guilty and was involved, and the TV repair was not scheduled as an alibi… it was simply part of Donna’s obsessive / meticulous housekeeping. We know for a fact Donna was behind the murder, and we also know she is extremely controlling and a micromanager. She knew the TV was broken and under warranty. It’s not hard to believe that Donna was the main driver behind scheduling the repair knowing Wendi would be relocating soon and wanted to get it off to-do list before the big move. I’m not saying its not possible it was schedule as an alibi, but I think that the belief it was scheduled as an alibi might be overthinking things.

 

[opt]

I noticed on the form Jackie shared on the projection screen to the jury that where it ask the TV size (the customer either Harvey or Donna or whomever - I'm personally not sure who filled this out) put 41' - 55' in that section.

I bought a 42 inch TV for $400 at least 8 years ago. That size would make a lot more sense.

Adelsons trying to scam BestBuy also tracks.

As does attempting to schedule the TV repair appointment near the time of the murder so that it had the potential to keep Wendi away. They couldn't rely on the timing to work out, but why not give it a try. Like the warranty scam.