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

[Going Rogue]

Any inculpatory evidence that the state had against Wendi would have to be turned over to each of the defense teams in all the trials so far. Every single defendant would have a right to that evidence so they can frame their defense to point at Wendi if they chose. So unless new evidence comes in after Donna’s trial we’ve seen all the evidence against Wendi. Is it possible defense teams chose not to use any inculpatory evidence against Wendi? Sure…but doubtful.

Regarding YouTube personalities, yeah, it’s all about clicks. It’s all about creating drama and injustice narrative to keep viewers enraged and tense so they keep coming back, Even the established trial channels like Law and Crime are now shamelessly using clickbait à la “shocking twist in Florida case” etc. The shocking twist? Defendants will be tried separately. That’s it. It’s the attention economy. Viewer beware.

Yes, any exculpatory or inculpatory evidence for or against Wendi should have been turned over during discovery in the prior trials. There’s no secret stash of undisclosed evidence, as some on social media seem to believe. Where things may be murky is in how much of that material has actually been contextualized and understood by the public. Discovery doesn’t automatically mean the evidence has been aired or meaningfully examined beyond what was relevant to the defendants who were actually on trial – especially considering the sheer volume of discovery each defense team has had to review. Things can also have been missed.

It’s entirely possible the existing material has never been analyzed in full detail through the lens of a potential case against Wendi herself. The size of the TV is a good example. Until Fulford’s comment in Wendi’s cross‑examination about it being 55 inches, most people believed it was a small, cheap, throwaway TV that no one would have bothered repairing - a point that may now need to be revisited. I think Wendi would agree that ‘size matters’.

On the YouTube side, I completely agree… it’s driven by engagement and revenue. That financial incentive makes balanced, objective voices even more important. Sensational narratives might attract clicks, but they also risk distorting how the public interprets the available evidence and the realistic prospects of prosecution.