FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #22

[GordonX]

email is not cheap! i love how they dubiously compare the price favorably to a snail mail stamp (which is now 68 cents)!

Secure Mail is available to inmates at a cost of $0.39/stamp, with one stamp purchasing one email. This is $0.19 cheaper than the cost of a first-class postage stamp, currently at $0.58. The cost of Secure Mail covers the cost of the infrastructure to support it and monitoring of the messages for safety and security purposes.

Contacting an Inmate

 

[ch_13]

IMO, this may be the most damning piece of evidence against Wendi. A graphic showing the various calls between Charlie, Katie, Donna and Wendi that morning immediately prior to Dan's killing.

According to Wendi the calls to her were about her broken tv (including an 18 minute long call with Charlie). So the other three were planning a murder while at the same time they were trying to work out how to replace Wendi's television set? That takes multi-tasking to a whole new level!

 

[IQuestion]

Since I am able to READ articles/posts/transcript, and LISTEN to recordings, and WATCH the trials/proffers etc. I would not consider myself as easily lead or influenced by the comments of others.
Even Wendi's brother thinks her drive by is the same as a gangster boss showing up after a hit...go figure. And he believes her drive to Trescott is unexplainable to even one juror! (First 12 minutes, then goes off topic for 5 minutes then right back at blaming WA's driveby "showing up at the scene of the crime" (repeats, repeats, repeats) as the overriding factor in his conviction.
And here is the link:

*** Advisory: CA curses often

 

[Tanager]

Why would Wendi agree to an unnecessary and very protracted TV repair orchestrated by the now-indicted family members on the day/time of the murder, which is also the code word for the murder? The TV could not be repaired, and she insisted on waiting for the absurd melodrama with the repair guy which took place a long time after the TV broke. I've said it before- the TV is either important and urgent enough to fix with the involvement of 2 people far away, or it is utterly unimportant and would be thrown away. Donna's "this TV is 5" completely implicates Wendi when you consider the very unnatural way the TV repair and associated communication play out. For me, that is enough to convict WA. I just don't see how DA and CA could talk her into delaying the repair to time it with Dan's limited availability and the murder, otherwise. Of course, there is also other circumstantial evidence. The TV repair is just the part that absolutely defies all logic to me. "This is sweet" further seals the deal. Is that how you would say thank you for a TV repair that could not and did not happen, and then delete the message and calendar item?

I know Websleuths has tenacious "hard evidence" folks, and I truly appreciate the meticulous work done by these minds. I also know, though, that in almost every trial, the prosecuting attorney will say to the jury, "Don't check your common sense at the door."

As humans we know when someone is horribly off, and it is a huge problem for WA that she was needlessly cruel to the Markel family in the days and years following Dan's death. It indicates to me that she is a person capable of tremendous cruelty in other ways. Murdering-level cruelty. That might not be evidence of the crime, just evidence of her capacity for it. Aren't we all just exclaiming, "Who does that?" about her behavior toward these devastated and grieving parents?

You can't really square up this behavior with the persona WA is trying to sell publicly. I would not find her credible due to the contrast. That is one of the primary responsibilities of a juror; to determine the credibility of witnesses, and factor that into determining the value of evidence. It is the problem of every involved Adelson that they are so surface-oriented that hideous behavior has been normalized within the confines of the family, and they don't realize how apalling it appears to others. I've been calling it, "Folie A Quatre."

 

[amicuscurie]

The whole point of my post was to highlight the route was only 3.2 miles or 5 minutes longer. Why she chose ABC is a different argument. I’ll still answer your questions because they are good. If your question or argument is ‘why did she go out of her way?’, I’ll play devils advocate and say is the total distance is almost negligible AND if ABC was the liquor store she ‘planned’ on visiting before lunch, then it wasn’t ‘out of her way’ - rather it was her intended ‘first stop’... it’s a matter of perspective. Also, yes, she did say she ‘was running late’ and skipped her shower, do you think if she went to Market Square Liquors instead and saved the 5 minutes that would have made a difference? I say no, and she still would have had to stop for gas regardless. Do you think the additional 3.2 miles was reason she needed gas? As far as the conversation about bourbon, I recall she just said she asked the guy where the bourbon was, I don’t recall any detailed conversation about bourbon?

At trial the officer testified it was a 20 minute trip the way she took it vs. a 10 minute trip if she had gone the other way, if I recall correctly. That’s not nothing.

 

[amicuscurie]

My opinion is based on what’s ‘publicly’ known. ‘IF’ new evidence is found that implicates Wendi when the digital forensics of the IOS devices is concluded, then of course that could change things. In my opinion, with the absence of ‘new’ evidence, the conclusion of Donna's trial does not make the case against Wendi stronger. I have heard people say that, but I don’t understand the basis of that argument? Also, we don’t know what ‘other’ evidence the state has on Wendi, and I fully acknowledge that, but I’d be VERY surprised if they have anything that they feel gets them over the hump or Wendi would not be walking the beaches of Miami.

I am of the opinion that the state didn’t even think it had enough on Donna to arrest her, but the flight to Vietnam forced their hand. Though I do understand a grand jury did indict after that. But I believe the flight itself might have been part of the reason for the grand jury’s decision.

 

[amicuscurie]

Not sure if you watched Rivera’s proffer? It’s clear that they were tracking his movement on both trips. They didn’t necessary ‘know’ that morning he was traveling from his home to the gym and then back home – or at least there is no evidence to support that. Had Dan gone on a circuitous route they would have followed him on that route. They were simply looking for the right opportunity to execute him. Obviously the ‘TV will cost 5’ was code, there is no debating that, the TV repair was likely an alibi – but the appointment was set up by Donna so was Wendi part of the alibi? RE all the other details, I think you are giving them way too much credit.... Per Rivera they had Dan’s name, a photo, address, type of car he drove and info that he was leaving town Friday evening.

Yes, the whole ”Wendi knew his schedule“ argument that Wendi was somehow involved has never made sense to me given that Rivera testified that they followed him. In my opinion, they did not need her to tell them his schedule. At most, it is possible they may have been told what time he generally left the house in the morning.

 

[amicuscurie]

The killers knew they had to act that day (July 18) because DM would be leaving town the next day. Someone had to have told them and it's hard to believe that Charlie, Donna or Katie would know about Dan's comings and goings.

Plus we know that Wendy was at her parents' apartment in South Florida at on the morning of July 6 when she texted Dan to ask whether he would be in Tallahassee from July 14-18.

Just another coincidence for your list.

In my opinion that text, and where and when it was sent, is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Wendi, though it is certainly possible that should she ever be tried, her attorney would have a defense for that. Also, Rivera I believe testified that Katie told them Dan was going out of town the next day. If Katie did tell them that, the question is how she would have known that. Certainly it is possible Wendi told Charlie this, and that she had knowledge of the plot. But- is also possible that Wendi talked to Donna often enough for Donna to know when Dan was traveling.

 

[Going Rogue]

I am of the opinion that the state didn’t even think it had enough on Donna to arrest her, but the flight to Vietnam forced their hand. Though I do understand a grand jury did indict after that. But I believe the flight itself might have been part of the reason for the grand jury’s decision.

I agree, not a bone in my body believes Donna is innocent.... Getting an indictment is easy. I served on GJ 5 years ago for a month... we voted in favor to indict EVERY case. You are given presentation by the prosecution and simply the ‘subject’ has no representation – hence the old saying you can indict a ham sandwich. The case against Donna is strong, but the state wanted more evidence and I agree the attempt to flee forced their hand.

 

[amicuscurie]

I agree, not a bone in my body believes Donna is innocent.... Getting an indictment is easy. I served on GJ 5 years ago for a month... we voted in favor to indict EVERY case. You are given presentation by the prosecution and simply the ‘subject’ has no representation – hence the old saying you can indict a ham sandwich. The case against Donna is strong, but the state wanted more evidence and I agree the attempt to flee forced their hand.

I, for one, hope Georgia’s “Don’t let the way they thought they would get away with this be the way they get away with this” isn’t what happens, to the extent any of the parties who may have been involved escape prosecution because they have kept themselves insulated from the actual killers and/or main plotters which, in my opinion, may have been part of the plan.

 

[dotr]

Possible re post.

Woman convicted in murder-for-hire plot is looking for pen pals

Katherine Magbanua, who is serving life in prison for her role in the 2014 murder of Dan Markel is described on her profile as a ‘foodie’ who is up for ‘lots of laughter’

www.independent.co.uk

Katherine Magbanua, who was convicted in the 2014 murder-for-hire of Florida State University law professor Dan Markel, has a profile on Meet-An-Inmate.com that describes her as a “foodie” who is up for “some type of entertainment and lots of laughter.”

“Hey y’all! My name is Katherine but everyone calls me ‘special k’ or ‘kay’ for short in here. I’m originally from the Philippines but grew up in the beautiful city of MIAMI! I love the beach, a big FOODIE, and watching movies (gotta love those action packed and chick flick comedies) it can get very hard in here physically and mentally so I’m ready for some type of entertainment and lots of laughter. Hit me up if you have something interesting to talk about… until then ‘live it up like it’s your last!’ Stay blessed <3… xoxo.”

 

[mdwannabejd]

Dan Markel was a lawyer who was murdered. It makes other attorneys want to see justice served for one of their own. Wendi Adelson is a lawyer whom may have been involved in a murder. This makes other attorneys want to hold her accountable if she was involved.
I can’t remember which trial but by far my favorite moment of this whole disaster was while describing to wendy her immunity. Wendi says. “The state isn’t going to decide to arrest me.” She seemed to be chuckling and smirking. I swear at that moment Georgia Cappleman vowed to take that smirk off her face.
Georgia only gets one shot at Wendi. So she’s patiently waiting to make that shot the best. She’s waiting until all the available evidence is out there. I do believe more will come out in Donna’s trial. It takes a strong person to patiently wait for anything.
Also by patiently waiting, it may be best for Lincoln and Benjamin. They get their mom for a bit longer before the boys are left without their whole Adelson family. This is catastrophic for the boys so any minimizing of the effect to them is what Dan would want. Even if it meant waiting for justice to be served.
Georgia will not be satisfied with just Charlie and Donna in jail.

I dont believe Georgia will go after Harvey. While he may have known about this he was the least involved. Hes elderly and his entire family would be in jail. Living like that is punishment enough for your ending years.

This is all just a feeling I have and not evidenced based.

 

[amicuscurie]

Dan Markel was a lawyer who was murdered. It makes other attorneys want to see justice served for one of their own. Wendi Adelson is a lawyer whom may have been involved in a murder. This makes other attorneys want to hold her accountable if she was involved.
I can’t remember which trial but by far my favorite moment of this whole disaster was while describing to wendy her immunity. Wendi says. “The state isn’t going to decide to arrest me.” She seemed to be chuckling and smirking. I swear at that moment Georgia Cappleman vowed to take that smirk off her face.
Georgia only gets one shot at Wendi. So she’s patiently waiting to make that shot the best. She’s waiting until all the available evidence is out there. I do believe more will come out in Donna’s trial. It takes a strong person to patiently wait for anything.
Also by patiently waiting, it may be best for Lincoln and Benjamin. They get their mom for a bit longer before the boys are left without their whole Adelson family. This is catastrophic for the boys so any minimizing of the effect to them is what Dan would want. Even if it meant waiting for justice to be served.
Georgia will not be satisfied with just Charlie and Donna in jail.

I dont believe Georgia will go after Harvey. While he may have known about this he was the least involved. Hes elderly and his entire family would be in jail. Living like that is punishment enough for your ending years.

This is all just a feeling I have and not evidenced based.I

I look at it a slightly different way. Unfortunately the delay in arresting and prosecuting Charlie and possibly other members of the A family who may have been involved, allowed those two boys to be raised by their grandmother for the majority of their lives to date, which is exactly what she wanted. They have gone from toddlers to teenagers under her care and influence. I cannot know what Dan would have wanted, but in my opinion that wouldn’t have been it. If Wendi was involved, then this is even more tragic, as she has succeeded in obtaining complete custody of the boys and in separating them from their Markel relatives. The whole thing is a tragedy, in my opinion. We will never know why the state did not move on anyone in the family until Charlie’s arrest in 2022. We know that some in the police department wanted to, and released a probable cause affidavit naming Charlie and Donna. This was rejected by the state attorney. Admittedly, evidence required for probable cause is less than evidence required for a conviction, but there is not much that the state had in 2022 that it didn’t have in 2016, other than the enhanced Dolce Vita recording and, for Donna, the flight attempt. In my opinion the state could have proceeded without those. The enhancement of the tape makes a nice excuse, in hindsight, for why it actually made sense to wait on Charlie. But of course, that could not have been the reason WHY they waited; it was not known that this tape could ever BE enhanced. And if it couldn’t? Is the state implying that Charlie would still be a free man In that case, because it was the tape, and only the tape, that made his arrest possible? That is disturbing. I don’t know what happened. I do feel sorry for the boys. Each year that passed without an arrest of a family member was one more year the family got with them. They may have felt that any time they could get with the boys was a gift, and possibly that it was worth it, despite their current circumstances. And it is by no means certain that Wendi will ever be arrested or tried, and so in that sense, if they were trying (however unsuccessfully) to shield her from prosecution or at least give her plausible deniability (again, I don’t know), they may have felt they succeeded in doing this for her, and that it was worth it for that reason as well.

 

[IQuestion]

The whole point of my post was to highlight the route was only 3.2 miles or 5 minutes longer. Why she chose ABC is a different argument. I’ll still answer your questions because they are good. If your question or argument is ‘why did she go out of her way?’, I’ll play devils advocate and say is the total distance is almost negligible AND if ABC was the liquor store she ‘planned’ on visiting before lunch, then it wasn’t ‘out of her way’ - rather it was her intended ‘first stop’... it’s a matter of perspective. Also, yes, she did say she ‘was running late’ and skipped her shower, do you think if she went to Market Square Liquors instead and saved the 5 minutes that would have made a difference? I say no, and she still would have had to stop for gas regardless. Do you think the additional 3.2 miles was reason she needed gas? As far as the conversation about bourbon, I recall she just said she asked the guy where the bourbon was, I don’t recall any detailed conversation about bourbon?

BBMA (ie Bolded By Me Above) Sorry to get back to this so late, but I read slowly and type slowly for the purpose of conveying accurate information and links. It was so early in the interview and easy to miss. Perhaps this will help recall from the interview I have attempted to transcribe as accurately as possible. Her exact words:
"And I talked to a guy there because I really don't buy much alcohol and so they wanted bourbon and I asked the guy. We had a whole conversation about bourbon and my eyes. Like uhm."
WA's one and only police interview (of which I am aware) on July 18, 2014 beginning at 2:50:00 timestamp and continuing till 2:56:00
Specifically this part of her lengthy interview:
WA: ABC liquors yah Beton
Det Isom: Did you make a purchase there? and that was sometime after 12
WA: Yah. Probably 12:30
Det Isom: Alright
WA: And I talked to a guy there because I really don't buy much alcohol and so they wanted bourbon and I
asked the guy. We had a whole conversation about bourbon and my eyes. Like uhm.
Det Isom: Your eyes?
WA: He just said your eyes are really blue and
Det Isom: You have contacts?
WA: I do. Uhm, but I just remembered it. uhm. So I bought the bourbon and got some gas on Thomasville and met my friends at Mosaic.

 

[Knitpicker]

The answer is both are true. A shortcut can be the shorter distance or the faster route. It can also be someone’s ‘perception’ the route is faster or shorter. In my view, the Trescott ‘shortcut’ is a very important detail in the ‘court of public opinion’. I’ve seen many YouTube ‘experts’ explain how it’s NOT a shortcut and they have convinced the masses . From my perspective, whether Trescott or Centerville is the ‘faster’ route or a ‘shortcut’ is an irrelevant detail. The reason I say it’s irrelevant is because of the point I made in an earlier post - per Lacasse’s direct testimony, he said when he traveled with Wendi she took the Trescott route when they traveled together. So it seems that Wendi preferred to go that way and she specifically said it was the ‘cut through’ during her police interview. Please don’t confuse me saying its an irrelevant detail with the other and different argument of why she was in the area - I’m strictly talking about the ‘debate’ of whether or not Trescott is a shortcut. In my opinion, it’s silly argument that has been obsessively discussed on many YouTube channels.

When she was pressed by Isom on this issue, she said “Its a shortcut to Monroe”. When Isom asked “Monroe”?? (and Im not quoting exactly), she then said “I mean Mozaik”(The restaurant). Now, taking Centerville South, to Trescott, and then having to go back North to get to Mozaik, is definitely not a shortcut.

It would have been great if Georgia was able to bring that up.
She never said that Trescott was a shortcut to ABC initially.
I have wondered why she said “Monroe”.

It seems she may have been talking about going to her job at FSU.

 

[Knitpicker]

BBMA (ie Bolded By Me Above) Sorry to get back to this so late, but I read slowly and type slowly for the purpose of conveying accurate information and links. It was so early in the interview and easy to miss. Perhaps this will help recall from the interview I have attempted to transcribe as accurately as possible. Her exact words:
"And I talked to a guy there because I really don't buy much alcohol and so they wanted bourbon and I asked the guy. We had a whole conversation about bourbon and my eyes. Like uhm."
WA's one and only police interview (of which I am aware) on July 18, 2014 beginning at 2:50:00 timestamp and continuing till 2:56:00
Specifically this part of her lengthy interview:
WA: ABC liquors yah Beton
Det Isom: Did you make a purchase there? and that was sometime after 12
WA: Yah. Probably 12:30
Det Isom: Alright
WA: And I talked to a guy there because I really don't buy much alcohol and so they wanted bourbon and I
asked the guy. We had a whole conversation about bourbon and my eyes. Like uhm.
Det Isom: Your eyes?
WA: He just said your eyes are really blue and
Det Isom: You have contacts?
WA: I do. Uhm, but I just remembered it. uhm. So I bought the bourbon and got some gas on Thomasville and met my friends at Mosaic.

Plus I remember clearly she asked (because I’ve seen it so many times), that Trescott was a shortcut to “Monroe”. Isom says “Monroe”? And Wendi says “Oh I mean Mozaik. (the restuarant)

How could taking Trescott be a shortcut to Mozaik when its North where she lives and she was driving South?

 

[cottonweaver]

Really good news

Pretty Lies & Alibis is fulfilling the request to upload all the old wiretaps ( also says on her Community page, that she's cleaning up audio and adding subtitles. Says she will have it done by the weekend )

Whilst I have listened to them all before - over the years where FF had uploaded them - there is still stuff in those calls which was hard to catch first time around ( It's good for newbies too)

Typically PL&A has just done these summary episodes - a lot of work to put together - but it's not the same as listening to full, original audio.
Anyway, even in the summary episode below there's still stuff I didn't pick up on first listening to the original uploads .

ETA - the total number of wiretaps originally made available to the public ( FF, Mentour Lawyer, Tally Democrat or whoever) is not the same as the number which we've previously had access to as case followers. This is germane, for example, re the prosecution of Donna

 

[Gardenista]

Sigfredo's appeal. It might be old, but I hadn't seen it. He attached some really interesting letters from his appellate attorney.

https://acis-api.flcourts.gov/courts/b82b30d5-bd3c-46d7-9451-1cb05e470873/cms/case/8d2c7483-6a33-4913-a8df-dc929c344490/docketentrydocuments/64fe19d9-764b-468a-a9b0-16956a940612

 

[amicuscurie]

Plus I remember clearly she asked (because I’ve seen it so many times), that Trescott was a shortcut to “Monroe”. Isom says “Monroe”? And Wendi says “Oh I mean Mozaik. (the restuarant)

How could taking Trescott be a shortcut to Mozaik when its North where she lives and she was driving South?

I believe she says she meant to say Thomasville, but “I was thinking Mozaik-Monroe.” So she seems to me to be implying that she said Monroe because she was going to Mozaic, which also starts with M, so that was on her mind. To me that doesn‘t necessarily mean she thought Trescott was a shortcut to Mozaik, only that she was thinking for some reason about Mozaik, and so she said a different street with an M.

To me it appears she meant to say it was a shortcut to Thomasville and said Monroe instead. Why she made that mistake we don’t know. She claims she had Mozaik on the brain. But, it may possibly have been just a random slip up, because the idea of Trescott being a shortcut to Thomasville might have been a made-up excuse and not the actual reason she took that route. Speaking generally and not about this particular case, when one has a script, one might forget a line or two. Just my opinion, I don’t know. To me it seems to take her a minute to come up with the Mozaik/Monroe similarity as a reason she made the mistake, in response to Isom pointing out that Monroe makes no sense.

As for this whole debate, when you look at a map, at least to me it is clear that the length of Trescott is about the same as the remaining length of Centerville/Betton, and both routes take you to the corner of Betton/Thomasville. Trescott is not shorter, at least to my eye. It may even be a longer way to get there in terms of TIME, because of the speed bumps and reduced speed limit.

It IS, however, what could be called a “cut through,” from the main road. To me it could be conceivable hypothetically that someone who had once lived about half way down Trescott would be used to taking the rest of Trescott when going to Thomasville, and so perhaps, if one hypothetically had no sense of direction, the Trescott route to the corner of Betton/Thomasville might have been familiar. So one might, hypothetically, take Trescott as a “cut-through” even if one was on Centerville.

But, as someone else said, it is a little harder to believe, in my opinion, that one would decide to head South on Centerville to go to Mozaik at all from Aqua Ridge; or that one would choose that liquor store rather than one right near Mozaik; or that one would see a crime scene in front of one’s ex’s home and think it was a downed tree and not stop and ask what was going on. And that one would then tell several several different stories about why one did all of those things. Including possibly making a slip-up as to the name of a road. Hypothetically. As someone said, this is all circumstantial evidence, but it can add up for a jury.

 

[amicuscurie]

Sigfredo's appeal. It might be old, but I hadn't seen it. He attached some really interesting letters from his appellate attorney.

https://acis-api.flcourts.gov/courts/b82b30d5-bd3c-46d7-9451-1cb05e470873/cms/case/8d2c7483-6a33-4913-a8df-dc929c344490/docketentrydocuments/64fe19d9-764b-468a-a9b0-16956a940612

These letters are very interesting. It appears that the attorney thinks that Sig has information on Charlie and possibly other family members. To me that is interesting because at least at the beginning it always looked to me like Katie did not tell Charlie Sig was doing the hit, and Katie did not tell Sig the hit was for Charlie. This has always made sense to me because it appears Sig hated Charlie, and because Rivera said Sig told him they were doing for “a lady, Wendi.” It would appear from the attorney’s letters at some point either Katie told him the whole story or he figured it out.

Also interesting is the fact that the attorney notes that Sig seems to believe that his kids are being taken care of, and that he Is doing his time in order to make sure they will continue to be, if I read it correctly. Does this mean that he has been told that the A’s are taking care of the children? It was my impression that the state had looked into those possible financial arrangements and didn’t find anything. Could this be something Katie told him? Could Sig just be worried that Katie’s brother wouldn’t continue to care for the kids if Sig testified against Katie? All interesting questions.

Which brings me to my final point- the attorney says she has spoken to Georgia and that the state has offered to help BOTH Sig and Katie, and that Sig will not have to testify against Katie, only against Charlie. And, apparently, according to the letters and what we know, he did not take that deal.

Also notable is the attorney’s continued use of the phrase “living in a dream world,” and her asking “are you saying you were not in the Prius” and then acknowledging all of the evidence that he was, as well as Rivera’s eyewitness testimony he was the shooter. The attorney seems convinced the state has him dead to rights, that he knows exactly who was behind this, and that he is being played by all of them. The attorney even seems to say that his guilt is obvious to basically anyone with eyes or a brain (paraphrasing).