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

[LinasK]

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^^

Why would you put down a range of sizes for a TV? Makes no sense when it comes to repair. The size doesn't matter for that. The parts are going to be specific.

 

[LinasK]

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...

Bingo! And most likely it was Wendi who cracked it IIRC, threw a brick at it... Why make the boys watch a cracked TV?

 

[LinasK]

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

I think it was a convienient alibi- Wendi couldn't have killed him, she was home waiting for the TV repairman. I agree that having an appointment somewhere with video cameras to catch her on footage, even a fast food place or a bank, would have been a much better alibi.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

I push myself to be objective and question everything. I tried really hard to believe the TV repair was not an alibi as it didn't make sense. Why not send WA to a shopping centre with CCTV cameras? Why go to such elaborate lengths arranging this TV repair when it was completely unnecessary?

For me, with this case and other cases or situations, I analyse in way that runs counter to cognitive biase I suppose. I look at WA's drive up Trescott (for example) as a genuine trip to the liquor store, a shortcut she normally used, and then I unpick it. i.e she gets the benefit of the doubt by default, rather than me assuming out of the box the drive up Trescott was part of the plot.

But with the TV repair there was just too much that didn't make sense. I can have a degree of flexibility and discard some aspects of the TV repair as people do odd things sometimes, but the volume of unusual behaviours and actions connected to it is too much. Plus you then had DA stating "this TV is 5" on the phone.

Why was a TV being repaired in the first place?
Why were so many people involved in the process?
Happening on the day of the murder
The TV repair guy was there for 45mins+
WA had to speak to CA for 18 mins to decide whether to repair or replace. She had already been told it could not be repaired
WA was sad and upset the TV could not be repaired. She would already have known this
Odd phone calls and text messages from DA to WA about the TV
Inconsistencies with the TV size/cost

It's too much for it to be a case of a broken TV that someone wanted to have repaired. I think ultimately it wasn't an alibi as such it was an attempt by CA to keep WA out of the way to ensure she did not drive up Trescott before, during or after the murder. And lo and behold what happened? As soon as she was free off she went up Trescott.

And just going back to the "this TV is 5" comment. Its just too much of a coincidence.

 

[opt]

I think ultimately it wasn't an alibi as such it was an attempt by CA to keep WA out of the way to ensure she did not drive up Trescott before, during or after the murder.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Going Rogue]

I push myself to be objective and question everything. I tried really hard to believe the TV repair was not an alibi as it didn't make sense. Why not send WA to a shopping centre with CCTV cameras? Why go to such elaborate lengths arranging this TV repair when it was completely unnecessary?

For me, with this case and other cases or situations, I analyse in way that runs counter to cognitive biase I suppose. I look at WA's drive up Trescott (for example) as a genuine trip to the liquor store, a shortcut she normally used, and then I unpick it. i.e she gets the benefit of the doubt by default, rather than me assuming out of the box the drive up Trescott was part of the plot.

But with the TV repair there was just too much that didn't make sense. I can have a degree of flexibility and discard some aspects of the TV repair as people do odd things sometimes, but the volume of unusual behaviours and actions connected to it is too much. Plus you then had DA stating "this TV is 5" on the phone.

Why was a TV being repaired in the first place?
Why were so many people involved in the process?
Happening on the day of the murder
The TV repair guy was there for 45mins+
WA had to speak to CA for 18 mins to decide whether to repair or replace. She had already been told it could not be repaired
WA was sad and upset the TV could not be repaired. She would already have known this
Odd phone calls and text messages from DA to WA about the TV
Inconsistencies with the TV size/cost

It's too much for it to be a case of a broken TV that someone wanted to have repaired. I think ultimately it wasn't an alibi as such it was an attempt by CA to keep WA out of the way to ensure she did not drive up Trescott before, during or after the murder. And lo and behold what happened? As soon as she was free off she went up Trescott.

And just going back to the "this TV is 5" comment. Its just too much of a coincidence.

I agree the TV alibi was completely unnecessary. If she needed an alibi, a TV repair is an unnecessary and silly one. I think it likely had more to do with Donna crossing an item off the “to-do” list before Wendi’s move. Objective responses to every question - argued with the presumption of Wendi’s innocence (disclaimer: that does not mean I think she is innocent):

Why was a TV being repaired in the first place? - Wendi was about to move to S. FL – Donna knew this. Donna also knew the TV was broken and under warranty. The impending move made it necessary to call in the repair before the move. Jeff’s testimony that Wendi refused all his offers to “pick up a new TV” is the counterargument because people believe it sets the precedent that she needed the repair as part of an alibi. Personally, I think Jeff may have exaggerated. Did he offer to pick one up? Probably… I just don’t think it was multiple times, and I don’t think he offered to pay for it.

Why were so many people involved in the process? - Donna was involved in every detail of Wendi’s life. Per Jeff, Wendi wasn’t allowed to travel to S. FL alone. Donna literally created a dating profile for Wendi and was sending her prospects. Dating profiles and transporting her back and forth from Tally to Miami are just two examples – there are far too many documented examples of the family enmeshment for me to list that support why Donna and Harvey were directly involved in setting up the repair and micromanaging Wendi’s life. I’d be more inclined to believe it was an alibi and that Wendi was involved if Wendi had set up the TV repair herself. It’s also possible it was indeed an alibi for Wendi and that she was unaware… meaning it was Donna’s idea to keep her at home that morning, knowing what was going to happen.

Why did it happen on the day of the murder? - See the answer to question one above.

The TV repair technician was there for 45+ minutes – I know you don’t live in the U.S. and I might take heat for this answer, but people in Florida move very slowly. I’ve been there several times, and as a New Yorker, it feels like they’re moving in reverse. 45-minutes to an hour on a service call (even if nothing was repaired) in FL does not seem unusual at all.

Wendi had to speak to Charlie for 18 minutes to decide whether to repair or replace, even though she had already been told it couldn’t be repaired – Charlie called Wendi. I don’t believe it was ever stated that the entire 18-minute call was spent discussing “repair or replace.” I am aware she said they discussed that topic. We know for a fact Charlie was directly involved. Perhaps he wanted to probe a little as a ‘check in’ because Donna was a little nervous. In any case, Charlie being on the phone with anyone for 18-minutes is not unusual.

Wendi was sad and upset that the TV could not be repaired, even though she would have already known this – I’m not sure how that is relevant to the alibi.

Odd phone calls and text messages from Donna to Wendi about the TV – I’m not sure what was odd about them.

Inconsistencies with the TV size/cost – I don’t think cost was ever mentioned. As far as inconsistencies in size, to my knowledge, the size of the TV was never part of any argument neither in court nor on social media… until recently. It was brought to my attention by another case follower in a private chat on another platform. I raised the question here to solicit input and opinions after hearing Fulford’s cross-examination of Wendi where the 55-inch reference was mentioned. I’m surprised (or maybe not surprised) this discrepancy was never raised before do to the questions it raises about Jeff. Donna’s trial was in Aug / Sept of last year. In my opinion, if the display was 55-inches, it changes how we should view certain ‘things’. I won’t repeat why again, as I’ve already outlined that several times and I’ll spare the redundancy

The “TV is 5” reference – That was clearly code between two people who were clearly involved. I’m not sure how that relates to the TV alibi, and even if it does, it’s possible the alibi was coordinated without Wendi knowing it was being used as one.