GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen #19

[Missyrocks5]

My own impression is that Tim Jansen is a career lawyer but not a true crime hobbyist and has not spent the 500 or so hours watching and re-watching all the previous trials or dissecting Wendi's interviews, the wiretaps and the podcasts. His knowledge comes, not from his own deep dive analysis and conviction about each player's actions, the evidence against them and their guilt and innocence but rather from the periphery - being a local and a member of the Tally legal community with very real contacts inside TPD, the SAO and FBI. He is friends with Pat Sanford, Craig Isom, Judge Wheeler and probably 20 or 30 other LE people working the case.

He's providing free color commentary and relies on his own experience and provides some insider information. He was the first to say that Katie's proffer was an absolute gong show and provided zero evidence or corroboration. I was so shocked when he said that, that I was SURE he was on the take. How could that even be possible? She was quarterbacking both murder trips, renting cars, paying the killers, managing SG and CA during the murder and the bump. Impossible! But lo and behold, her proffers may go down as the worst and least believable interviews ever conducted by LE. Its mind-boggling how bad they were and Jansen obviously knew that.

The State ended up using Katie at trial, which is now being used as proof that Jansen was "wrong" all along. But Jansen himself - after he heard the Defense opening statement said that she may have to testify given their insane strategy - and Jansen said that a couple days before she testified.

Tim does get tripped up on some details, for sure. And like most people reporting a news story when they have sources and "news" like Donna's arrest - he definitely wants to be "first" to report it. His coverage on this case has him appearing regularly on Court TV and now Good Morning America. This is a big deal for him (which is probably a good argument for why Tim absolutely should go back and do a deep dive and make a complete assessement of all the evidence and each person's invovlement/credibility/legal exposure. Thats my biggest issue with Tim).

I suspect his deference to Wendi's use and derivative-use immunity is because it was such a big deal in the Brian Winchester case. Winchester's derivative use immunity was the reason he could never be prosecuted. Obviously, this case is completely different but he believes that every bit of her testimony is immunized and the defense could raise Kastigar issues on anything she was asked about.

I don't agree with Tim at all on the derivative-use immunity. He has backed off this a bit. I think the biggest challenges to prosecuting Wendi are:

1. Her 6 hour police interview, where she is rambling off her own family. I know she is a pathological liar and a sociopath and that the entire thing is a performance, but have to admit she is a good actress and could very easily come across as believable to 1 or 2 or even 12 jurors the first time they watch it.

2. She is not involved in the bump. No on wires, not meeting in secret. This is the most damaging evidence against Charlie and Donna and she is not involved.

The prosecution is going to need to be able to completely demolish both of these issues for a jury to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.

Very thoughtful, cogent breakdown. The other thing is that John Singer said the same about KM & WA. He said do not call her as a witness, and he said they won't be able to prove W beyond a reasonable doubt because she's so insulated. Their point yesterday was well taken, which is, Tim hasn't said anything any differently than a lot of other people.

It is emotional that most everyone knows that she had to know, but that doesn't mean that you can prove it in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with you about the derivative use immunity, and when he heard several other attorneys disagreed with him, he has backed off. I think he was overly exuberant about being the first to break that lnfo. He has received national attention, and actually, they brought Carl on Vinnie Politan's show as well. He got national exposure as well because he was on with Joel.

I have said before that a lot of the case against W.A. would be inferential. I also said, I think that the CA jury was smart, but we have seen that is not always the case. To expect someone to convict an attractive, younger woman, with two kids of conspiring to off husband, I think it might be difficult for a jury to deduce her involvement rather than have it be more explicit like the emails and taps with DA and CA. Same with Harvey. Let's all hope that DA's phone yields a treasure trove. I still remind everyone to remember that WA dated, and I think is still friends with that guy, Dave, spoken about in the taps, who used to work in the NSA. I can't imagine she doesn't have a ton of helpful information from that relationship.

But overall, the whole thing is just ridiculous. Starting a war, creating a line in the sand with two camps, lining up your army to attack the other side, seemingly swearing folks to fealty for your side & prove it by attacks, all when everyone is on the same page & wants her to go down. It also is maddening that it has been a great community of people who are on the same side, but now some turning this into a circus sideshow. I have always really enjoyed Carl, but he has recently been over-the-top in his rhetoric and rants. I think several of the YT creators (& clearly Karen from yesterday) have, in their fervent opinion on WA, aligned themselves with him. It's just sad to see fighting & personal attacks.

 

[jennyjenny]

So aside from solving the case 2 days in, Jeff Lacasse basically correctly diagnosed Charlie Adelson as a sociopath with no empathy or conscience, a sexual sadist, antisocial personality, a borderline personality, etc. Pretty amazing given that he spent about 4 hours with Charlie total.

But he also said that Charlie was "a special ed kid" and I wondered what that meant. Did Charlie have ADHD or have a learning disability? Why was he in special ed? Then I found it. He said in different interview that Charlie had "conduct disorder" as a child. He obviously got that from Wendi...

Conduct disorder is a clinical diagnosis after interviews with a patient, parents and teachers. Symptoms are in four basic categories: aggression towards people or animals, serious and repeated rule violations, deceitfulness or theft, destruction of property.

I think this probably explains the lowered expectations from Donna/Harvey for Charlie and him being "equal parts black sheep and momma's boy".

Thanks for the explanation ... caught the same references and was going to lookup terms. Agree with the lowered expectations of CA!!

 

[Missyrocks5]

I want to say i can't edit my post any longer, but it came out reign it in, not rein. Lol.

 

[Weki]

So aside from solving the case 2 days in, Jeff Lacasse basically correctly diagnosed Charlie Adelson as a sociopath with no empathy or conscience, a sexual sadist, antisocial personality, a borderline personality, etc. Pretty amazing given that he spent about 4 hours with Charlie total.

But he also said that Charlie was "a special ed kid" and I wondered what that meant. Did Charlie have ADHD or have a learning disability? Why was he in special ed? Then I found it. He said in different interview that Charlie had "conduct disorder" as a child. He obviously got that from Wendi...

Conduct disorder is a clinical diagnosis after interviews with a patient, parents and teachers. Symptoms are in four basic categories: aggression towards people or animals, serious and repeated rule violations, deceitfulness or theft, destruction of property.

I think this probably explains the lowered expectations from Donna/Harvey for Charlie and him being "equal parts black sheep and momma's boy".

Wow. I totally missed this! Excellent catch! And this really gives us a lot of insight into the family dynamic!

 

[turaj]

Whoa -- Donna's arraignment has been set for December 12 at 8:45am before Judge Everett-- same day as Charlie's sentencing (set for 2:30pm). Dates can be seen in the on-line docket. Tagging @Niner.

might as well make it a family event!!! Wonder if HA will show up?

 

[Knitpicker]

I've only just finished watching the entirety of it.
So while it's still fresh in my mind, really making headway on what point?

ETA I hadn't ready @Missyrocks5 post when I posted mine

I don’t have the time right now with company arriving soon to go back and find the timestamp but I will perhaps tonight

 

[BUF]

Regarding Wendi, not sure if it was tonight's show, but Tim made an interesting point that the State thought it needed Wendi's testimony in the last 3 trials -- primarily for motive. Maybe the State will call Wendi again in Donna's trial. If/when they no longer need her as a witness, maybe she'll be charged. JMO.

If she is called in her mother’s trial (which I believe she will be)…I wonder how evasive she will be in answering questions….it is her mother, so I expect she will be.

 

[Knitpicker]

Very thoughtful, cogent breakdown. The other thing is that John Singer said the same about KM & WA. He said do not call her as a witness, and he said they won't be able to prove W beyond a reasonable doubt because she's so insulated. Their point yesterday was well taken, which is, Tim hasn't said anything any differently than a lot of other people.

It is emotional that most everyone knows that she had to know, but that doesn't mean that you can prove it in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with you about the derivative use immunity, and when he heard several other attorneys disagreed with him, he has backed off. I think he was overly exuberant about being the first to break that lnfo. He has received national attention, and actually, they brought Carl on Vinnie Politan's show as well. He got national exposure as well because he was on with Joel.

I have said before that a lot of the case against W.A. would be inferential. I also said, I think that the CA jury was smart, but we have seen that is not always the case. To expect someone to convict an attractive, younger woman, with two kids of conspiring to off husband, I think it might be difficult for a jury to deduce her involvement rather than have it be more explicit like the emails and taps with DA and CA. Same with Harvey. Let's all hope that DA's phone yields a treasure trove. I still remind everyone to remember that WA dated, and I think is still friends with that guy, Dave, spoken about in the taps, who used to work in the NSA. I can't imagine she doesn't have a ton of helpful information from that relationship.

But overall, the whole thing is just ridiculous. Starting a war, creating a line in the sand with two camps, lining up your army to attack the other side, seemingly swearing folks to fealty for your side & prove it by attacks, all when everyone is on the same page & wants her to go down. It also is maddening that it has been a great community of people who are on the same side, but now some turning this into a circus sideshow. I have always really enjoyed Carl, but he has recently been over-the-top in his rhetoric and rants. I think several of the YT creators (& clearly Karen from yesterday) have, in their fervent opinion on WA, aligned themselves with him. It's just sad to see fighting & personal attacks.

Fighting amongst them all makes for more views. Wanting to hear what each has to say. Its almost like a marketing strategy.
Theres a bunch of other issues with Wendi.
the podcast where she states a “professional” killed her ex (how would she know 6 months after the murder before any arrests.
the birthday gift of Machu Pichu she was to take Harvey on (seems it was for his birthday) that she said had to be cancelled.(she said she didnt remember any birthday gifts)
the mention of the 15-50K hit she told jeffrey about narrowing it down to ”last summer” (other hitmen bc CA didnt meet KM till November.
Her lies about Trescott. And where she was and there the tape was.
Lies about the motions not being a big deal.
Lying about being happy in Tallahassee when her book says otherwise.
Only dedicating her book to her kids..”WA lives with her boys”..where is her husband ?
Changing the boys names.
Never calling Isom back and avoiding Ruth at the memorial and avoiding the Markels at the memorial.
Her setting up Jeffrey and her avoidance of Dan the day of. (His voice mails)
A lot more..
Nothing in itself but all put together weaves a story.
I think thats where Carl has confidence he could prosecute her.

 

[amicuscurie]

Wow. I totally missed this! Excellent catch! And this really gives us a lot of insight into the family dynamic!

May explain why he is alleged to have needed help graduating from dental school.

 

[B4igo2it]

Whoa -- Donna's arraignment has been set for December 12 at 8:45am before Judge Everett-- same day as Charlie's sentencing (set for 2:30pm). Dates can be seen in the on-line docket. Tagging @Niner.

well, you gotta admit, this makes it convenient for out of town guests to attend. GC prev stated DM parents will Zoom

 

[Missyrocks5]

Fighting amongst them all makes for more views. Wanting to hear what each has to say. Its almost like a marketing strategy.
Theres a bunch of other issues with Wendi.
the podcast where she states a “professional” killed her ex (how would she know 6 months after the murder before any arrests.
the birthday gift of Machu Pichu she was to take Harvey on (seems it was for his birthday) that she said had to be cancelled.(she said she didnt remember any birthday gifts)
the mention of the 15-50K hit she told jeffrey about narrowing it down to ”last summer” (other hitmen bc CA didnt meet KM till November.
Her lies about Trescott. And where she was and there the tape was.
Lies about the motions not being a big deal.
Lying about being happy in Tallahassee when her book says otherwise.
Only dedicating her book to her kids..”WA lives with her boys”..where is her husband ?
Changing the boys names.
Never calling Isom back and avoiding Ruth at the memorial and avoiding the Markels at the memorial.
Her setting up Jeffrey and her avoidance of Dan the day of. (His voice mails)
A lot more..
Nothing in itself but all put together weaves a story.
I think thats where Carl has confidence he could prosecute her.

That is sad as a marketing thing. I know those are points that show why we all think she knew and there are a lot more. The biggest reason I always say is that there is no way they would make a decision to take her children's father out forever without her OK. As close as those people are, there is no way they would do that without her blessing. However, her defense attorney will argue the benign side of all those and/or say JL is lying or she never said a,b,c. It requires a unanimous verdict of 12 people.

It's easy to play devil's advocate to say C & D planned this without her knowledge. No taps, no emails, no texts show Wendi's involvement- that we know of. Again, it's all by inference, and her lawyers will be disputing all of those bullet points. I pray they can find those What's App messages & maybe Donna's phone has texts. WA was much smarter to cover her trail. And yes, Carl said he would take her to trial no matter to basically to get his turn at bat. I hope they find more to combat her sitting there with her head tilt, doe eyes batting how innocent she is.

Folks have said she has the same affect as Jodi Arias. It really is uncanny.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don’t have the time right now with company arriving soon to go back and find the timestamp but I will perhaps tonight

No problem, it will certainly keep, I keep forgetting thanksgiving is imminent over there.
The cocktail chat on the thread just reminded me

 

[IQuestion]

Fighting amongst them all makes for more views. Wanting to hear what each has to say. Its almost like a marketing strategy.
Theres a bunch of other issues with Wendi.
the podcast where she states a “professional” killed her ex (how would she know 6 months after the murder before any arrests.
the birthday gift of Machu Pichu she was to take Harvey on (seems it was for his birthday) that she said had to be cancelled.(she said she didnt remember any birthday gifts)
the mention of the 15-50K hit she told jeffrey about narrowing it down to ”last summer” (other hitmen bc CA didnt meet KM till November.
Her lies about Trescott. And where she was and there the tape was.
Lies about the motions not being a big deal.
Lying about being happy in Tallahassee when her book says otherwise.
Only dedicating her book to her kids..”WA lives with her boys”..where is her husband ?
Changing the boys names.
Never calling Isom back and avoiding Ruth at the memorial and avoiding the Markels at the memorial.
Her setting up Jeffrey and her avoidance of Dan the day of. (His voice mails)
A lot more..
Nothing in itself but all put together weaves a story.
I think thats where Carl has confidence he could prosecute her.

Except for "immunity issues" regarding WA. IMO WA is a lot like KM, but with a lot more money and seriously blue contact lenses. (Have you ever seen such a high profile case that involved 3 educated, adult women as principals in a murder for hire plot? ) WA is special, she has always been special and will continue to be special until she is taken down when more evidence is introduced by GC. Out of everyone who has testified, even the gang members...who has been granted limited immunity other than "special" WA. It amazed me how many times her mouth moved but she didn't answer direct questions. Example:GC, Have you spoken to your family about the murders? ( Hint, The answer should be Yes or No.)
But WA inserts, "I have been advised by my lawyer to not discuss the murder with my family members." Wendi, Wendi, Wendi...no one asked what your attorney advised...GC was asking if you did. I dont know if I can watch WA through another court session but expect a lot of similar.

 

[IQuestion]

DBM repeat

 

[IQuestion]

DBM REPEAT

 

[Knitpicker]

Except for "immunity issues" regarding WA. IMO WA is a lot like KM, but with a lot more money and seriously blue contact lenses. (Have you ever seen such a high profile case that involved 3 educated, adult women as principals in a murder for hire plot? ) WA is special, she has always been special and will continue to be special until she is taken down when more evidence is introduced by GC. Out of everyone who has testified, even the gang members...who has been granted limited immunity other than "special" WA. It amazed me how many times her mouth moved but she didn't answer direct questions. Example:GC, Have you spoken to your family about the murders? ( Hint, The answer should be Yes or No.)
But WA inserts, "I have been advised by my lawyer to not discuss the murder with my family members." Wendi, Wendi, Wendi...no one asked what your attorney advised...GC was asking if you did. I dont know if I can watch WA through another court session but expect a lot of similar.

She is really good..you have to hand it to her. Not the shrinking violet and damsel in distress shown at Isoms interview. She is really good!

 

[Knitpicker]

DBM REPEAT

GC explained her immunity on an interview over a year ago. In simple terms she said that she has immunity unless she lies.

 

[Knitpicker]

That is sad as a marketing thing. I know those are points that show why we all think she knew and there are a lot more. The biggest reason I always say is that there is no way they would make a decision to take her children's father out forever without her OK. As close as those people are, there is no way they would do that without her blessing. However, her defense attorney will argue the benign side of all those and/or say JL is lying or she never said a,b,c. It requires a unanimous verdict of 12 people.

It's easy to play devil's advocate to say C & D planned this without her knowledge. No taps, no emails, no texts show Wendi's involvement- that we know of. Again, it's all by inference, and her lawyers will be disputing all of those bullet points. I pray they can find those What's App messages & maybe Donna's phone has texts. WA was much smarter to cover her trail. And yes, Carl said he would take her to trial no matter to basically to get his turn at bat. I hope they find more to combat her sitting there with her head tilt, doe eyes batting how innocent she is.

Folks have said she has the same affect as Jodi Arias. It really is uncanny.

What kind of person can hold it together on the stand the way she did?
I was equally impressed with her Isom interview where he says something about her last minute lunch and she says “How do you KNOW it was last minute”?
and when he says “You have a lot of friends“..and she says “How do you know”? He says “well you went to lunch with friends”
she is always one step ahead. In between sobs.

 

[Missyrocks5]

What kind of person can hold it together on the stand the way she did?
I was equally impressed with her Isom interview where he says something about her last minute lunch and she says “How do you KNOW it was last minute”?
and when he says “You have a lot of friends“..and she says “How do you know”? He says “well you went to lunch with friends”
she is always one step ahead. In between sobs.

In between sobs. Hah. Exactly. And remember how she said, Dan said that only he knew what a horrible person she was. That everyone else thought she was so great, but only he knew the truth. Well, Jeff L figured it out too. He admitted that he was just so besotted with the woman that, despite his Spidey senses going off in four hours of meeting Charlie, he was under her spell. But he said she is a pathological liar.

Those are the folks who can pass lie detector tests, because they have no conscience, and would never raise a heartbeat or sweat or do anything when they're lying. Calm as a cucumber. Scary.

 

[Zedzded]

1. Her 6 hour police interview, where she is rambling off her own family. I know she is a pathological liar and a sociopath and that the entire thing is a performance, but have to admit she is a good actress and could very easily come across as believable to 1 or 2 or even 12 jurors the first time they watch it.


The prosecution is going to need to be able to completely demolish both of these issues for a jury to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.

All the prosecution need to do is discredit Wendi and discredit that police interview, which won't be hard to do. She lies throughout the interview. And there are multiple witnesses including Lacasse that can confirm her hatred for DM intensified after his death, which really exemplifies how fake those tears and emotions were.