FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #25

[browneyes]

Yes, who needs the legal system, we've got Dateline!

I wouldn’t have known about the murder if not for Dateline…..as with many other murders. I don’t live near there. What does our justice system have to do with Dateline, 20/20, 48 Hours? They are shows to bring awareness.

 

[Cedars]

I wouldn’t have known about the murder if not for Dateline…..as with many other murders. I don’t live near there. What does our justice system have to do with Dateline, 20/20, 48 Hours? They are shows to bring awareness.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with true crime entertainment, as long as people understand, that's all it is: entertainment. Deciding someone is guilty and broadcasting that opinion in public, based on watching a TV interview, is pretty much the opposite of deciding someone's guilt in a court of law.

WS used to have a rule that people couldn't speculate about someone's guilt unless they've been charged by police, but that rule is increasingly being abandoned.

The irony to me is, Dan Markel was a legal scholar with a particular focus on the justice system. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been pleased with how he's become fodder for true crime entertainment and speculation.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

but I’m struggling to understand why so many dismiss the possibility that Donna and Charlie may have done this behind her back.

Nothing seems to suggest it was done behind her back. Everything puts to either her involvement or her knowledge e.g Your brother protected you for your years now you're not guilty..

When I say most of Steinbecks list of evidence that incriminates WA can be dismissed, I mean if we are looking at indicted her on murder charges then yes most of it can be dismissed. But it is relevant and adds context to the case especially if we're looking at accessory charges or just simply ascertaining her involvement and knowledge of the crime, before and after. All of the evidence points to her knowledge at the very least, as I said before the statement to JL is very damning.

 

[Zedzded]

I saw your other post that we can’t get inside the mind of a psychopath, and I agree 100% which is why the often argued point that there is no way they would do this without Wendi’s approval is a ridiculous argument. There is no protocol or book of ethics that psychopaths follow when they are planning a murder. Donna and Charlie did not need Wendi blessing and there are many events the that would suggest that they may have left her out of the loop.

I agree that I don't think they needed her approval. They weren't doing this for her, they were doing this for themselves. CA to please Mummy and DA because DanM had the temerity to file a motion to restrict DA's access to the Grandkids. That motion sealed his fate.

But they still would have told her IMO. And when I said I can't get inside the head of a psychopath. I guess I meant I don't understand how they could throw their lives away so easily. Sure they thought they would not get caught, but everyone, even psychopaths do some kind of basic risk analysis otherwise they'd all be robbing banks instead of working as accountants and dentists.. But I do understand a lot of their actions and behaviours.

Their murder of DanM was logical in that he was the problem preventing WA from moving, so they simply eliminated the problem. Zero empathy, so it allowed them to act so callously, like what we would do with a roach infestation. Eliminate the problem.

 

[opt]

I agree that I don't think they needed her approval. They weren't doing this for her, they were doing this for themselves.

I disagree. The boys were certain to be profoundly affected. Wendi would need to approve that.

 

[Zedzded]

I disagree. The boys were certain to be profoundly affected. Wendi would need to approve that.

Noone was showing the boys any consideration in all of this. The murder of DanM happening because of a desire to win, ego and trying to please people nothing to do with the boys.

 

[Going Rogue]

Nothing seems to suggest it was done behind her back. Everything puts to either her involvement or her knowledge e.g Your brother protected you for your years now you're not guilty..

When I say most of Steinbecks list of evidence that incriminates WA can be dismissed, I mean if we are looking at indicted her on murder charges then yes most of it can be dismissed. But it is relevant and adds context to the case especially if we're looking at accessory charges or just simply ascertaining her involvement and knowledge of the crime, before and after. All of the evidence points to her knowledge at the very least, as I said before the statement to JL is very damning.

We agree that Carl’s list is not enough for a conviction if the charges are conspiracy to commit murder. IMO, Carl’s list is not proof she had knowledge of the plot either. I get the feeling you seem to think Carl’s list proves Wendi knew about the plot and it lays the groundwork for accessory charges. If they decide to go after her for accessory or perjury, they will need to prove that she was aware of the plot. Although I firmly believe with 100% conviction that at the time she first testified she knew her family was behind the murder and very possibly knew about it before it happened or the day of and she consciously lied to protect them. I also believe it's a possibility she knew and was directly involved. Regardless of if she knew or when she found out, there is not sufficient evidence (that is public) to prove she knew. All we can do is speculate based on our interpretation of certain events / data points that have been made public. You give an example of Donna’s message to Wendi about Charlie always protecting Wendi as proof to support the case that Wendi had knowledge of the plot – in my opinion that statement doesn’t prove anything. It can be interpreted multiple ways – she literally said, “now you’re not guilty”. I guess you interpret it to mean he protected you and at one time you were looked at as being guilty but now you’re not because Charlie protected you?

I can easily say that nothing seems to suggest it wasn't done behind her back and list out several data points to support that theory. I call it a theory because we don’t know what really happened we can only speculate. I believe it is very possible that Donna schemed this directly with Charlie and Donna never wanted Wendi to ever know she and Charlie were behind it. Per Rob Adelson, Donna always put her best interests first and before others – this murder would be a great example of that. Donna definitely seems like the type of person that would have a complete and total disregard for anyone else’s interests and planning to murder her grandchildren’s father and the long-term impact that would have on the boys never factored into her equation. Other than all of Wendi’s character flaws that we were conditioned to believe by Jeff Lacasse’s police interviews, is there anything we know about her to suggest she would sign off on a plan to murder Dan the father of her children? If you asked me if Charlie would sign off on it, I’d say ‘yes’ without hesitation. I can’t say the same for Wendi and I’d bet Donna knew that and it’s not too farfetched to believe Donna would take all measures to plan this behind Wendi’s back.

 

[Cedars]

We agree that Carl’s list is not enough for a conviction if the charges are conspiracy to commit murder. IMO, Carl’s list is not proof she had knowledge of the plot either. I get the feeling you seem to think Carl’s list proves Wendi knew about the plot and it lays the groundwork for accessory charges. If they decide to go after her for accessory or perjury, they will need to prove that she was aware of the plot. Although I firmly believe with 100% conviction that at the time she first testified she knew her family was behind the murder and very possibly knew about it before it happened or the day of and she consciously lied to protect them. I also believe it's a possibility she knew and was directly involved. Regardless of if she knew or when she found out, there is not sufficient evidence (that is public) to prove she knew. All we can do is speculate based on our interpretation of certain events / data points that have been made public. You give an example of Donna’s message to Wendi about Charlie always protecting Wendi as proof to support the case that Wendi had knowledge of the plot – in my opinion that statement doesn’t prove anything. It can be interpreted multiple ways – she literally said, “now you’re not guilty”. I guess you interpret it to mean he protected you and at one time you were looked at as being guilty but now you’re not because Charlie protected you?

I can easily say that nothing seems to suggest it wasn't done behind her back and list out several data points to support that theory. I call it a theory because we don’t know what really happened we can only speculate. I believe it is very possible that Donna schemed this directly with Charlie and Donna never wanted Wendi to ever know she and Charlie were behind it. Per Rob Adelson, Donna always put her best interests first and before others – this murder would be a great example of that. Donna definitely seems like the type of person that would have a complete and total disregard for anyone else’s interests and planning to murder her grandchildren’s father and the long-term impact that would have on the boys never factored into her equation. Other than all of Wendi’s character flaws that we were conditioned to believe by Jeff Lacasse’s police interviews, is there anything we know about her to suggest she would sign off on a plan to murder Dan the father of her children? If you asked me if Charlie would sign off on it, I’d say ‘yes’ without hesitation. I can’t say the same for Wendi and I’d bet Donna knew that and it’s not too farfetched to believe Donna would take all measures to plan this behind Wendi’s back.

It also seems to me, if police had any serious evidence to prosecute Wendi, they'd have used it by now during this 10 year odyssey. They wouldn't have just been sitting on it for a decade, prosecutor's don't do that.

They could have done with her what they did with Rivera: threaten or arrest her, and push for a deal in exchange for testimony against the more directly involved killers.

Or, if they really believed she was the mastermind, they'd have launched the 2016 bump against her and her brother, or her and DA - not CA and DA, with no attempt to communicate at all with W.

IMO, they closed the Tallahassee police investigation back in 2016, when they started arresting people, and turned to trying to get deals for testimony.

IMO, DA arrest was not because they had launched a new police investigation of her and Wendi. IMO they'll just use the same old evidence from the 2016 bump, along with her recorded prison phone calls to CA, and evidence of her guilty concience, implied by her attempt to escape potential prosecution.

I don't believe they're going to restart a police investigation to try to go after Wendi, the crime is over 10 years old, the main players are all in jail, police have current crimes to investigate.

If people enjoy endlessly speculating about something that will never be resolved one way or another (as some clearly do), go ahead. But IMO, don't hold your breathe waiting for confirmation.

JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

It also seems to me, if police had any serious evidence to prosecute Wendi, they'd have used it by now during this 10 year odyssey. They wouldn't have just been sitting on it for a decade, prosecutor's don't do that.

They could have done with her what they did with Rivera: threaten or arrest her, and push for a deal in exchange for testimony against the more directly involved killers.

Or, if they really believed she was the mastermind, they'd have launched the 2016 bump against her and her brother, or her and DA - not CA and DA, with no attempt to communicate at all with W.

IMO, they closed the Tallahassee police investigation back in 2016, when they started arresting people, and turned to trying to get deals for testimony.

IMO, DA arrest was not because they had launched a new police investigation of her and Wendi. IMO they'll just use the same old evidence from the 2016 bump, along with her recorded prison phone calls to CA, and evidence of her guilty concience, implied by her attempt to escape potential prosecution.

I don't believe they're going to restart a police investigation to try to go after Wendi, the crime is over 10 years old, the main players are all in jail, police have current crimes to investigate.

If people enjoy endlessly speculating about something that will never be resolved one way or another (as some clearly do), go ahead. But IMO, don't hold your breathe waiting for confirmation.

JMO

I agree. To me this is simple and boils down to one of two things as it relates to Wendi and the prosecution’s non action. I should add that both could be true:

1) They do not think the evidence is strong enough to meet the burden of proof
2) They are incompetent

I believe it’s the fist option – number 1. As you said, you don’t wait more than 10 years ‘IF’ you have a strong enough case to prosecute and are confident you can meet the burden of proof. To all those that continue to say they need Wendi’s testimony to convict Donna and will arrest her after Donna is convicted, I strongly disagree with that being their strategy – also referred to ‘the one at a time strategy’. If they do arrest Wendi after Donna is convicted and there were no ‘new’ discoveries and they were sitting on evidence (not made public) that can convincingly prove Wendi was in on the plot, I will be the first to say the Tally DA’s Office mishandled things. If that happens, in my opinion that would be a serious miscarriage of justice and incompetence.

 

[Zedzded]

I can easily say that nothing seems to suggest it wasn't done behind her back and list out several data points to support that theory.

What about the drive down Trescott? Why did she drive down Trescott shortly after the murder to get to a liquor store that was miles away from her house, driving past multiple liquor stores on the way? And then lying about it? We can spend all day discussing the pieces of evidence that might not incriminate WA per se and might not hold up in court, but would surely suggest she had knowledge. Her behaviour and actions the week of the murder was bizarre and erratic. Even after the murder where she's messaging guys in Miami on OK Cupid the day she arrives in Miami and the day after DanM's funeral. Now that does not prove she had knowledge, but it shows the kind of person we are dealing with. Who does that? And once we accept we are dealing with someone with a serious personality disorder a lot of her previous behaviour starts to make sense.

 

[Zedzded]

It can be interpreted multiple ways – she literally said, “now you’re not guilty”. I guess you interpret it to mean he protected you and at one time you were looked at as being guilty but now you’re not because Charlie protected you?

The way I interpreted it was DA was very upset, this was sent 18 minutes after CA's guilty verdict and I don't think WA's testimony in his trial helped him much, drawing the ire of DA. The State detailed her previous statements, police interview and actions around the time of the murder, where she acting with impulsivity, putting them all at risk, she essentially threw CA under the bus in the police interview and showed a degree of calloussness and indifference towards her brother. She was also very vocal in her innocence and I think the whole act angered DA.

Charlie protected you, yet you throw him under the bus and now you're acting like you're not guilty... last comment was written dripping in sarcasm.

 

[Zedzded]

I believe it is very possible that Donna schemed this directly with Charlie and Donna never wanted Wendi to ever know she and Charlie were behind it. Per Rob Adelson, Donna always put her best interests first and before others – this murder would be a great example of that. Donna definitely seems like the type of person that would have a complete and total disregard for anyone else’s interests and planning to murder her grandchildren’s father and the long-term impact that would have on the boys never factored into her equation.

It's the first time I've actually considered it and I think you're right in that if CA had mooted the idea of killing DanM to DA they could have decided to not tell WA. She did not need to know and could find the idea abhorrent. If they tell her, she says know, they can't go ahead with it. So kill him and let her think it was some random shooting...

And perhaps thats how it started out. But I think at some stage she was told. The week of the murder suddenly WA acts even more strangely and erratic. You cannot ignore and dismiss someone's behaviours and actions around the time of the murder, it is critical in determining one's involvement. Which is why the TV repair is often flagged. Not because it shows evidence of complicity in the murder, but because it serves as an example of bizarre, illogical and just crazy behaviour right before a murder is about to take place.

Fine if we are talking about a longterm inpatient at an institute for the criminally insane. But we are talking about an intelligent, articulate woman, lawyer, mother, advocate for the rights of immigrants and children. Someone that is wealthy. Yet everything that happened with that TV repair is incongruent with the person that I have described. Sure we can go back and forth and debate the minutiae of the TV repair, but none of it makes sense and when things don't make sense, it usually infers guilt.

 

[Zedzded]

It also seems to me, if police had any serious evidence to prosecute Wendi, they'd have used it by now during this 10 year odyssey. They wouldn't have just been sitting on it for a decade, prosecutor's don't do that.

They could have done with her what they did with Rivera: threaten or arrest her, and push for a deal in exchange for testimony against the more directly involved killers.

Or, if they really believed she was the mastermind, they'd have launched the 2016 bump against her and her brother, or her and DA - not CA and DA, with no attempt to communicate at all with W.

IMO, they closed the Tallahassee police investigation back in 2016, when they started arresting people, and turned to trying to get deals for testimony.

IMO, DA arrest was not because they had launched a new police investigation of her and Wendi. IMO they'll just use the same old evidence from the 2016 bump, along with her recorded prison phone calls to CA, and evidence of her guilty concience, implied by her attempt to escape potential prosecution.

I don't believe they're going to restart a police investigation to try to go after Wendi, the crime is over 10 years old, the main players are all in jail, police have current crimes to investigate.

If people enjoy endlessly speculating about something that will never be resolved one way or another (as some clearly do), go ahead. But IMO, don't hold your breathe waiting for confirmation.

JMO

Yup I generally agree. There is a lot of evidence that incriminates DA yet she was not arrested until 2023. There is much less evidence that incriminates WA.

I do think that more evidence will surface between now and during DA's trial that incriminates WA. Not for complicity or solicitation, but for accessory. They are all way too reckless, impulsive and just generally sloppy to have covered up this crime to the point they cannot find anything to arrest WA on. I also think someone will cooperate. DA and CA are bitter towards WA, you can hear it in the jailhouse tapes. It might now be enough for them to flip, but as CA has shown he can "accidently" flip. Dropping WA in it "forgetting he was being recorded" oopsie.

WA could also cooperate. If the State offers her 5 years with an accessory charge vs going to trial for complicity and risking 30 years plus costing up to $2 million (which she does not have) she might take it.

 

[Going Rogue]

What about the drive down Trescott? Why did she drive down Trescott shortly after the murder to get to a liquor store that was miles away from her house, driving past multiple liquor stores on the way? And then lying about it? We can spend all day discussing the pieces of evidence that might not incriminate WA per se and might not hold up in court, but would surely suggest she had knowledge. Her behaviour and actions the week of the murder was bizarre and erratic. Even after the murder where she's messaging guys in Miami on OK Cupid the day she arrives in Miami and the day after DanM's funeral. Now that does not prove she had knowledge, but it shows the kind of person we are dealing with. Who does that? And once we accept we are dealing with someone with a serious personality disorder a lot of her previous behaviour starts to make sense.

I’ll give you two possible answers to the drive down Trescott:

1) She was aware of the plot (involved or not) and got nervous and was checking up on things
2) The reason she actually gave the day of the murder. She was in route to ABC Liquor and uses Trescott as a cut through.

As you know Lacasse confirmed she often used Trescott a cut through when going to points south. So all those people that continue to say ‘its not a shortcut’ and no one would ever cut through Trescott are not looking at the ‘real’ data and facts. It was also confirmed that she bought the liquor at ABC for the party she was attending that evening.

When you say ‘miles’ out of her way, you are repeating the same narratives that I have been seeing for years. ABC liquors was an extra 4 miles (TOTAL) to her route than had she gone to the closest liquor store (Market Square Liquors) near the restaurant she had lunch. The way its often discussed in social media is she went some crazy distance to ABC – is four (4) TOTAL miles.... is that “miles our of her way”? I guess its subjective, but in my opinion I don’t think going 4 total miles is excessive. When I say ‘total’ its not 4 each way or 8 additional miles, that would border excessive – it was 4 TOTAL miles.

Why did she lie abort it? She didn’t. She literally told Isom day one that she attempted to travel down Trescott but hit the roadblock and turned around and made it clear her reason she was attempting to go that way was because she was in route to ABC. I think yon mean why did she say she was on Trescott and testify that she never turned. I have brought this up multiple times. Its clear she had slightly differing testimonies about turning or not turning BUT she NEVER denied driving up to and seeing the roadblock and NEVER denied her intent was to cut through Trescott. Although I believe she lied about many things, that was not one of them and in my opinion that was likely a memory issue or she got tripped up when testifying. She had no reason to lie about that she clearly knew she had originally told Isom she approached the roadblock and that she attempted to go through Trescott.

Her varying testimony about the ‘attempt’ to down Treccott is a nothing burger and I’m surprised it gets the attention it gets – its been discussed ad nauseam and in my opinion doesn’t mean much. As far as her bizarre behavior the week of the murder it’s possible she knew or had a suspicion and was nervous or its just consistent with normal behavior. Lets not forget the only evidence her behavior was ‘bizarre’ is Jeff’s 360 review of every detail that had occurred during his time with her. His opinion may be skewed based on everything he went through.

 

[Cedars]

But we are talking about an intelligent, articulate woman, lawyer, mother, advocate for the rights of immigrants and children. Someone that is wealthy. Yet everything that happened with that TV repair is incongruent with the person that I have described. Sure we can go back and forth and debate the minutiae of the TV repair, but none of it makes sense and when things don't make sense, it usually infers guilt.

Sure, but it's not proveable.

As suggested long ago, the calls with CA/TV repair could have been an effort on his end to ensure she wasn't anywhere around when the shooting happened.

Maybe she was routinely stalking Dan and the house by driving by whenever she could.

Maybe she had a suspicion that something was going on, but no evidence to back it up, like so many WS'ers have knowledge based on their spidey senses, their gut instincts, etc.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

When you say ‘miles’ out of her way, you are repeating the same narratives that I have been seeing for years. ABC liquors was an extra 4 miles (TOTAL) to her route than had she gone to the closest liquor store (Market Square Liquors) near the restaurant she had lunch. The way its often discussed in social media is she went some crazy distance to ABC – is four (4) TOTAL miles.... is that “miles our of her way”? I guess its subjective, but in my opinion I don’t think going 4 total miles is excessive. When I say ‘total’ its not 4 each way or 8 additional miles, that would border excessive – it was 4 TOTAL miles.

It's all the evidence and information connected together than adds suspicion to the narrative. She went 4 miles out of her way, a bit odd, but OK. But then you add to that:
- she was running late
- she drove past multiple liquor stores, CA mentioned this on a jailhouse call
- she blatantly lied stating she went to that store as she has poor sense of direction and gets lost easily. She had lived in the area for years. She had access to Google maps. She managed to get to work, the gym, the kids school, university, her lunch date with no problems. But she ended up going to this store as she got lost?

I'm not talking proof. That's something different. All her whacky behaviour needs a credible explanation not any explanation. It needs to make sense otherwise she looks guilty or crazy or both. She was too terrified to eat/sleep or leave the house but was messaging guys online to organise dates the day after DanM was buried. That needs a good, credible explanation, like many of the other bits of information that infer guilt. Coming up with a whacky explanation ain't going to cut the mustard. 4 miles is still 4 miles - she added 20 minutes to her journey when she was running late and was indeed late for her lunch date. So late she didnt have time for a shower but still drove 20mins out of her way to go to a liquor store. That needs an explanation your average Joe Blow is going to believe.

 

[Zedzded]

Sure, but it's not proveable.

Yeah I'm not talking whats proveable. Just what is obvious, at least to me, she had knowledge of the crime.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's all the evidence and information connected together than adds suspicion to the narrative. She went 4 miles out of her way, a bit odd, but OK. But then you add to that:
- she was running late
- she drove past multiple liquor stores, CA mentioned this on a jailhouse call
- she blatantly lied stating she went to that store as she has poor sense of direction and gets lost easily. She had lived in the area for years. She had access to Google maps. She managed to get to work, the gym, the kids school, university, her lunch date with no problems. But she ended up going to this store as she got lost?

I'm not talking proof. That's something different. All her whacky behaviour needs a credible explanation not any explanation. It needs to make sense otherwise she looks guilty or crazy or both. She was too terrified to eat/sleep or leave the house but was messaging guys online to organise dates the day after DanM was buried. That needs a good, credible explanation, like many of the other bits of information that infer guilt. Coming up with a whacky explanation ain't going to cut the mustard. 4 miles is still 4 miles - she added 20 minutes to her journey when she was running late and was indeed late for her lunch date. So late she didnt have time for a shower but still drove 20mins out of her way to go to a liquor store. That needs an explanation your average Joe Blow is going to believe.

It wasn’t 20 minutes out of the way. It was 4 miles and probably an extra 7 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. To my earlier point, the distance she traveled to ABC is grossly exaggerated, but your claim of 20 additional minutes is on the low end of the tales I’ve heard . The defense positioned Market Square Liquors as the most logical and an alternate option which was a liquor store near the restaurant to support the theory (that is widely believed) that the reason she dove down Trescott and used ABC as an excuse was a lie and it was the preverbal drive by the crime scene. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t? Charlie was wrong (surprise), she didn’t drive past multiple liquor stores on her way to ABC. Only she knows why she chose ABC, if you don’t buy her story, that’s fine - you are in the majority. Yes, we all know she said she was running late and didn’t have time to shower. If her plan was to go to ABC and then the restaurant she must have allotted in her head whatever time she needed to get to ABC than the restaurant to meet her friends on time. The comment she made that she was running was likely based on what was factored in her head as the time she need based on her intended stop at ABC, the gas station and the restaurant. If you want to make the argument she should have altered her plans and went to Market Square Liquors instead, would the extra 7 to 10 minutes really have mattered? Probably not, and a person like Wendi would think nothing of being a few minutes late. I think her comment about her running late is probably overanalyzed.

 

[Zedzded]

It wasn’t 20 minutes out of the way. It was 4 miles and probably an extra 7 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. To my earlier point, the distance she traveled to ABC is grossly exaggerated, but your claim of 20 additional minutes is on the low end of the tales I’ve heard . The defense positioned Market Square Liquors as the most logical and an alternate option which was a liquor store near the restaurant to support the theory (that is widely believed) that the reason she dove down Trescott and used ABC as an excuse was a lie and it was the preverbal drive by the crime scene. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t? Charlie was wrong (surprise), she didn’t drive past multiple liquor stores on her way to ABC. Only she knows why she chose ABC, if you don’t buy her story, that’s fine - you are in the majority. Yes, we all know she said she was running late and didn’t have time to shower. If her plan was to go to ABC and then the restaurant she must have allotted in her head whatever time she needed to get to ABC than the restaurant to meet her friends on time. The comment she made that she was running was likely based on what was factored in her head as the time she need based on her intended stop at ABC, the gas station and the restaurant. If you want to make the argument she should have altered her plans and went to Market Square Liquors instead, would the extra 7 to 10 minutes really have mattered? Probably not, and a person like Wendi would think nothing of being a few minutes late. I think her comment about her running late is probably overanalyzed.

It doesn't matter if it was 2 minutes! She lived in the area, she was running late and she made herself even later when she didn't have to. Like all the other bits of evidence, there needs to be a credible explanation. She can't have 40, 50+ explanations that don't make sense. Like with CA. Thinking any explanation is good enough as long as there is one. Well the law does not work like that. One minute he's stating that he did not like DanM the next minute he's stating he did not go to DanM's funeral because he was simply too upset. The voluminous communications about the present for HA's 70th that spanned month and seemingly was the gift of a lifetime turned out to be Paella.....

So if we are looking at WA's knowledge of the crime, she needs to provide sensible, logical explanations for her behaviour the week of and after the murder. If she can't then that will help build the case against her, like it did for CA.

 

[Knitpicker]

It wasn’t 20 minutes out of the way. It was 4 miles and probably an extra 7 to 10 minutes depending on traffic. To my earlier point, the distance she traveled to ABC is grossly exaggerated, but your claim of 20 additional minutes is on the low end of the tales I’ve heard . The defense positioned Market Square Liquors as the most logical and an alternate option which was a liquor store near the restaurant to support the theory (that is widely believed) that the reason she dove down Trescott and used ABC as an excuse was a lie and it was the preverbal drive by the crime scene. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn’t? Charlie was wrong (surprise), she didn’t drive past multiple liquor stores on her way to ABC. Only she knows why she chose ABC, if you don’t buy her story, that’s fine - you are in the majority. Yes, we all know she said she was running late and didn’t have time to shower. If her plan was to go to ABC and then the restaurant she must have allotted in her head whatever time she needed to get to ABC than the restaurant to meet her friends on time. The comment she made that she was running was likely based on what was factored in her head as the time she need based on her intended stop at ABC, the gas station and the restaurant. If you want to make the argument she should have altered her plans and went to Market Square Liquors instead, would the extra 7 to 10 minutes really have mattered? Probably not, and a person like Wendi would think nothing of being a few minutes late. I think her comment about her running late is probably overanalyzed.

I rewatched Jeffreys testimony at CA trial. Reminded me that he stated at that trial for the first time that the first attempt was June 6 and another day he was supposed to go out of town.So what are the chances that the two times he goes out of town, the hits are scheduled. Only Wendi could have told Donna and Charlie this. Of course you can always say that Wendi spoke to her mother about things like that, but GC let Jeffrey say that on the stand. So it seems GC wanted to get that point across that she didn’t bring up at either of KM’s trials.