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

[Knitpicker]

I think she made three separate statements. Isom interview, KM trial and CA's trial. Not sure which order, but versions were:
- carried straight on Centreville as Trescott was blocked
- turned onto Trescott, but did a K turn as I could see it was blocked
- drove down Trescott and hit tape, thought it was a downed tree

Moot point I guess as I don't really see it as being that important or relevant to the case against WA other than perhaps damaging her credibility.

4 accounts. One to Isom, two seperate KM trials, and then Charlie’s trial. They alternated.

 

[Knitpicker]

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but the way Wendi described the Trescott ‘visit’ and how it’s analyzed in social media is yet another detail to this crazy case that is made out to be something big when it’s really not. Not to be confused with the argument of why was in the area in the first place – because I completely understand how that raises suspicion. There is no doubt that Wendi’s testimony was inconsistent regarding her ‘visit’ to the crime scene. I have pointed out before that in every statement she made, she said she ‘turned around’ when she approached the roadblock. EVEN when she said she saw the tape and ‘kept going’ she still followed that up with saying she made a K-turn at the roadblock. If you dissect the testimonies of every key witness that testified in all 3 trials, you can probably easily find inconsistencies in everyone’s testimony that went unnoticed. The issue with Wendi’s testimony is everyone was / is hanging on to every word she says looking for another reason to add to the 125 indicators of guilt.

Maybe I’m missing something here? I never understood how this became such a big deal? IMO, it all started because people interpreted Wendi’s initial statement (first trial) as denying her intention / attempt to take Trescott when it was (IMO) just a bad interpretation of the exchange between Wendi and Cappleman. I am convinced what started this mess was simply a bad word choice when Cappleman said to Wendi ~ “I was referring to your visit to the crime scene”. When Wendi responded ~ “I didn’t visit the crime scene”, that was interpreted (by many in social media) as her denying ‘attempting’ to travel on Trescott. “Visit” was a very poor choice of words by Cappleman in my opinion. Wendi never denied her ‘attempt’ to travel down Trescott that day in route to ABC liquors.

Well, twice she said she was on Dans street and twice she said she never turned onto Dan’s street and the road block was where she would make the right turn. She lied.

 

[Zedzded]

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but the way Wendi described the Trescott ‘visit’ and how it’s analyzed in social media is yet another detail to this crazy case that is made out to be something big when it’s really not. Not to be confused with the argument of why was in the area in the first place – because I completely understand how that raises suspicion. There is no doubt that Wendi’s testimony was inconsistent regarding her ‘visit’ to the crime scene. I have pointed out before that in every statement she made, she said she ‘turned around’ when she approached the roadblock. EVEN when she said she saw the tape and ‘kept going’ she still followed that up with saying she made a K-turn at the roadblock. If you dissect the testimonies of every key witness that testified in all 3 trials, you can probably easily find inconsistencies in everyone’s testimony that went unnoticed. The issue with Wendi’s testimony is everyone was / is hanging on to every word she says looking for another reason to add to the 125 indicators of guilt.

Maybe I’m missing something here? I never understood how this became such a big deal? IMO, it all started because people interpreted Wendi’s initial statement (first trial) as denying her intention / attempt to take Trescott when it was (IMO) just a bad interpretation of the exchange between Wendi and Cappleman. I am convinced what started this mess was simply a bad word choice when Cappleman said to Wendi ~ “I was referring to your visit to the crime scene”. When Wendi responded ~ “I didn’t visit the crime scene”, that was interpreted (by many in social media) as her denying ‘attempting’ to travel on Trescott. “Visit” was a very poor choice of words by Cappleman in my opinion. Wendi never denied her ‘attempt’ to travel down Trescott that day in route to ABC liquors.

I think on the stand in KM's trial she stated, and this is pretty much verbatim, "I went to turn on Trescott, but saw it was blocked and carried straight on Centreville."

That is a very different statement to driving down Trescott and turning when she hit tape.

But as I said earlier, I don't think this is something that can or will used to convict WA. Ultimately she can just claim she was stressed and confused.

 

[Zedzded]

Well, twice she said she was on Dans street and twice she said she never turned onto Dan’s street and the road block was where she would make the right turn. She lied.

Yup. Correct. Her biggest issue is credibility, same with CA, same with DA. And credibility is everything in a court of law.

 

[Zedzded]

I think on the stand in KM's trial she stated, and this is pretty much verbatim, "I went to turn on Trescott, but saw it was blocked and carried straight on Centreville."

That is a very different statement to driving down Trescott and turning when she hit tape.

But as I said earlier, I don't think this is something that can or will used to convict WA. Ultimately she can just claim she was stressed and confused.

I was actually a bit shocked when I heard her say that. She was very clear about not turning onto Trescott at all. The reality is she drove 1.3 niles down Trescott to a house she recognisd (Dans) saw police and turned around.

 

[Knitpicker]

I think on the stand in KM's trial she stated, and this is pretty much verbatim, "I went to turn on Trescott, but saw it was blocked and carried straight on Centreville."

That is a very different statement to driving down Trescott and turning when she hit tape.

But as I said earlier, I don't think this is something that can or will used to convict WA. Ultimately she can just claim she was stressed and confused.

With Isom-she was on Dans street.
1st KM trial- she never turned onto Trescott-roadblock at Centerville and Trescott.
2nd Km trial-she turned onto Trescott- same as what what she told Isom.
Charlies trial-shes back to saying she never turned and the roadblock was at the intersection of Centerville and Trescott.

I can imagine how hard it was from GC to control herself.

 

[Zedzded]

With Isom-she was on Dans street.
1st KM trial- she never turned onto Trescott-roadblock at Centerville and Trescott.
2nd Km trial-she turned onto Trescott- same as what what she told Isom.
Charlies trial-shes back to saying she never turned and the roadblock was at the intersection of Centerville and Trescott.

I can imagine how hard it was from GC to control herself.

I wonder what she'll say in DA's trial! The ironic thing is if she had been straight with investigators and in court she probably would have been fine. It was a route she frequently took, she didn't have to lie about driving down Trescott.

If you're a suspect in a murder investigation you need to make sure you are 100% honest and truthful. Any lie or even half truth is going to drop you in the , innocent or not.

WA has had legal representation for years. Surely they would have told her, tell us what you did that day, where you went, who you spoke to and we will coach you on your answers. And surely WA would have told them she drove to the crime scene did a U turn when she saw the police and tape. So how did she end up with 4 different versions. Her lawyers must be incompetent or livid or both.

 

[Going Rogue]

I wonder what she'll say in DA's trial! The ironic thing is if she had been straight with investigators and in court she probably would have been fine. It was a route she frequently took, she didn't have to lie about driving down Trescott.

If you're a suspect in a murder investigation you need to make sure you are 100% honest and truthful. Any lie or even half truth is going to drop you in the , innocent or not.

WA has had legal representation for years. Surely they would have told her, tell us what you did that day, where you went, who you spoke to and we will coach you on your answers. And surely WA would have told them she drove to the crime scene did a U turn when she saw the police and tape. So how did she end up with 4 different versions. Her lawyers must be incompetent or livid or both.

I guarantee she will be well coached on how to answer any question regarding the ‘attempted’ trip down Trescott. She will be anticipating any potential question regarding that ‘visit’ AND will be fully aware of how she answered in the previous three trials as well as what she said in the police interview. IMO, it really makes no difference which version she gives as long as she sticks to “I saw the police car and turned around at the police tape” – she literally said that in every trial as well as in her police interview. Yes, I realize in one of the trials she said ‘I saw the roadblock so I didn’t turn” BUT in the next sentence said I did a K-Turn at the roadblock. Her testimony was inconsistent and definitely confusing and Cappleman could have / should have done a better job in her line of questioning and should have asked Wendi if she wanted to refresh her memory with the police interview transcript. If she was asked to have he memory refreshed, Wendi would have been prepared to say ~ “I’m not sure how far down Trescott I traveled it was x years ago”. She was probably prepared to say that at Charlie’s trial, but Capplerman never pressed or asked Wendi if she needed to review the transcript. Lets not lose sight of the fact that the first time she testified several years had passed since the incident.

 

[Knitpicker]

I wonder what she'll say in DA's trial! The ironic thing is if she had been straight with investigators and in court she probably would have been fine. It was a route she frequently took, she didn't have to lie about driving down Trescott.

If you're a suspect in a murder investigation you need to make sure you are 100% honest and truthful. Any lie or even half truth is going to drop you in the , innocent or not.

WA has had legal representation for years. Surely they would have told her, tell us what you did that day, where you went, who you spoke to and we will coach you on your answers. And surely WA would have told them she drove to the crime scene did a U turn when she saw the police and tape. So how did she end up with 4 different versions. Her lawyers must be incompetent or livid or both.

Of course, the jurors wouldn’t know that she keeps alternating the account. (Unless they follow the case).
My guess, based on the “pattern” (reminds me of those math problems), she will be back to being on Dans street.
GC never asked her if she saw the 9 police cars-several on the driveway and around and in front of the house. If she goes back to being on Dans street, I hope she asks her this time.

 

[Zedzded]

Of course, the jurors wouldn’t know that she keeps alternating the account. (Unless they follow the case).
My guess, based on the “pattern” (reminds me of those math problems), she will be back to being on Dans street.
GC never asked her if she saw the 9 police cars-several on the driveway and around and in front of the house. If she goes back to being on Dans street, I hope she asks her this time.

Yeah I think she tried to flippantly claim there may have been a police car. It was a homicide, there would have been a plethora of LE cars, a hive of activity. If she wants to carry on playing this game it will end the same way it has for all the other co-conspirators who have failed to grasp the basic concept that testimony has to be plausible.

DA will get up on the stand and spout a whole bunch of garbage and will get convicted. Then WA will be charged, spout the same rubbish, followed by HA. Once they're all rotting in prison, I wonder if any of them will reflect on their behaviour, actions and strategy surrounding their arrests and trials.

At this stage, the only thing that can save them from doing less than 30 years is co-operation. Are their lawyers telling them this? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

 

[61Montcalm]

I wonder if Georgia C reads here? In the Tammy Moorer trial some members were IMHO passing hints to the prosecutor, Nancy Livesay, to point out inconsistencies that Websleuthers had noticed.

 

[BearWatcher]

I have no doubt that Georgia, Sarah, and the rest of the team know the information collected and shared during the previous trials well along with and more that we have not seen and don’t need our speculations to aide them.

 

[LinasK]

I wonder what she'll say in DA's trial! The ironic thing is if she had been straight with investigators and in court she probably would have been fine. It was a route she frequently took, she didn't have to lie about driving down Trescott.

If you're a suspect in a murder investigation you need to make sure you are 100% honest and truthful. Any lie or even half truth is going to drop you in the , innocent or not.

WA has had legal representation for years. Surely they would have told her, tell us what you did that day, where you went, who you spoke to and we will coach you on your answers. And surely WA would have told them she drove to the crime scene did a U turn when she saw the police and tape. So how did she end up with 4 different versions. Her lawyers must be incompetent or livid or both.

Changing your story usually-probably always makes police focus more on you, not less.

 

[Montrealaise]

100%. I hope she never gets out of a locked facility unless she turns on her daughter in a truthful way, if she was actually involved in planning the murder.

Charlie never turned on Wendi and I really don't think Donna will, either, not even to try to save her own skin. Wendi is still the golden child, the baby of the family who must always be protected at all costs. I wonder how Wendi can live with herself, knowing that her brother and lost likely her mother will spend the rest of their lives in prison just because Wendi didn't want to share custody of her kids with her ex-husband. I also wonder how much the kids know about what's going on. They're teenagers now and, if they inherited Dan's brains, they'll be very bright.

 

[Knitpicker]

I know I’m beating a dead horse, but the way Wendi described the Trescott ‘visit’ and how it’s analyzed in social media is yet another detail to this crazy case that is made out to be something big when it’s really not. Not to be confused with the argument of why was in the area in the first place – because I completely understand how that raises suspicion. There is no doubt that Wendi’s testimony was inconsistent regarding her ‘visit’ to the crime scene. I have pointed out before that in every statement she made, she said she ‘turned around’ when she approached the roadblock. EVEN when she said she saw the tape and ‘kept going’ she still followed that up with saying she made a K-turn at the roadblock. If you dissect the testimonies of every key witness that testified in all 3 trials, you can probably easily find inconsistencies in everyone’s testimony that went unnoticed. The issue with Wendi’s testimony is everyone was / is hanging on to every word she says looking for another reason to add to the 125 indicators of guilt.

Maybe I’m missing something here? I never understood how this became such a big deal? IMO, it all started because people interpreted Wendi’s initial statement (first trial) as denying her intention / attempt to take Trescott when it was (IMO) just a bad interpretation of the exchange between Wendi and Cappleman. I am convinced what started this mess was simply a bad word choice when Cappleman said to Wendi ~ “I was referring to your visit to the crime scene”. When Wendi responded ~ “I didn’t visit the crime scene”, that was interpreted (by many in social media) as her denying ‘attempting’ to travel on Trescott. “Visit” was a very poor choice of words by Cappleman in my opinion. Wendi never denied her ‘attempt’ to travel down Trescott that day in route to ABC liquors.

This is all about her lying and purposely changing her testimony. I have watched all of her testimonies several times. Not sure if your comment was directed towards me.

In this case with Trescott, it’s not hard to figure out that she has given two completely different accounts of where she turned.

I see in your comment, that in favoring and defending her testimony you are being critical of anyone’s opinion that conflicts with yours, and also a sort of put down to G. Cappelman , as if her choice of wording is incorrect.
Georgia knows exactly what Wendi is up to.

 

[Going Rogue]

This is all about her lying and purposely changing her testimony. I have watched all of her testimonies several times. Not sure if your comment was directed towards me.

In this case with Trescott, it’s not hard to figure out that she has given two completely different accounts of where she turned.

I see in your comment, that in favoring and defending her testimony you are being critical of anyone’s opinion that conflicts with yours, and also a sort of put down to G. Cappelman , as if her choice of wording is incorrect.
Georgia knows exactly what Wendi is up to.

Wasn’t directed at you personally – I was referring to ‘social media’ where you can find multiple YouTube videos analyzing her testimony and the differences in the way she described the ‘visit’ and drawing all sorts of conclusions from it. I have said repeatedly there are differences and it’s ‘inconsistent’ but she ALWAYS said she turned around at the roadblock. I didn’t criticize anyone. I’m giving my opinion and perspective and even said - “maybe I’m missing something”. Also, yes, I think Georgia contributed to the mix-up in the way she initially asked the question and then failed to ‘clear up the confusion’. That could have simply been done at anytime by referring Wendi to the transcript or asking follow up questions once there appeared to be either confusion or a vague response. That’s my opinion. ML suggested in one of his videos that Cappleman purposely didn’t refer Wendi to the transcript because she knew it made Wendi look bad and she was relishing in that – he also said it was a nothing burger and I agree 100%. I really have no issue with anyone that disagrees and I’m really not sure how you took anything I said to be critical of another opinion?

 

[Zedzded]

Wasn’t directed at you personally – I was referring to ‘social media’ where you can find multiple YouTube videos analyzing her testimony and the differences in the way she described the ‘visit’ and drawing all sorts of conclusions from it. I have said repeatedly there are differences and it’s ‘inconsistent’ but she ALWAYS said she turned around at the roadblock.

"

"she ALWAYS said she turned around at the roadblock."

That implies she's been consistent and truthful to a point. Which is not true. yes in the 3 or 4 versions of her trip she stated that she turned round at the roadblock, but the position of that roadblock changed drastically in each version. And she had to say she turned at a roadblock, what else could she say. It was her intention to drive down Trescott as it was a shortcut, Trescott was blocked off, it was impossible for her to drive all the way through Trescott so she had no choice but to say she turned around at a roadblock.

The tape was at the crime scene, so she drove 1 mile down Trescott to DanM's house and turned where the tape was. In one version she told 2 lies, she saw tape at the junction of Trescott and Centreville (there was no tape there) and that she did not and could not turn onto Trescott.

This becomes problematic for WA in a trial because credibility is key. If you look at DA now after her farcical testimony during her bond hearing, she has zero credibility and her trial has not even started. That is why many legal experts have stated the motion to suppress and bond hearing was such a terrible idea. She's in a much worse spot.

 

[minusfour]

I think that Wendi failing to ask any questions about what was going on at her former family home-taped off and surrounded by emergency crews-whatever her reason for being on Trescott is chilling. If she ever ends up having to face a jury, I think that would be a real problem.

 

[Going Rogue]

"


That implies she's been consistent and truthful to a point. Which is not true. yes in the 3 or 4 versions of her trip she stated that she turned round at the roadblock, but the position of that roadblock changed drastically in each version. And she had to say she turned at a roadblock, what else could she say. It was her intention to drive down Trescott as it was a shortcut, Trescott was blocked off, it was impossible for her to drive all the way through Trescott so she had no choice but to say she turned around at a roadblock.

The tape was at the crime scene, so she drove 1 mile down Trescott to DanM's house and turned where the tape was. In one version she told 2 lies, she saw tape at the junction of Trescott and Centreville (there was no tape there) and that she did not and could not turn onto Trescott.

This becomes problematic for WA in a trial because credibility is key. If you look at DA now after her farcical testimony during her bond hearing, she has zero credibility and her trial has not even started. That is why many legal experts have stated the motion to suppress and bond hearing was such a terrible idea. She's in a much worse spot.

I really didn’t intend on on resurrecting this old debate but based on how this is viewed by most, I guess it’s worth discussing again. First, I agree that her testimony was inconsistent and I will even agree that she may have been being purposely ambiguous when she explained ‘going straight or turning’ on Trescott. Her responses re the attempt to travel down Trescott were very inconsistent and I have always said that. The one fact that remains true is in her police interview and in every trial she did say she saw the police car and tape and turned around at the roadblock - even the time she said said ~ “I saw the road was blocked so I didn’t turn”. I’m not saying or implying she wasn’t lying, she may have been stretching the truth a bit because she knows what a bad look it is to be there and not inquire what was going on.

Here is why I think it’s a nothing burger. This can easily be ‘cleared up’ by Wendi in any future trial / testimony. It just depends on how she is questioned. If she testifies again and is asked if she turned on Trescott and where exactly she approached the roadblock when she ‘turned around’ she will just say ~ “it was x years ago I don’t recall how far I traveled down Trescott or the roadblock was at the beginning of the intersection” etc. As I said in a previous post, Cappleman should have forced Wendi to clarify her testimony re traveling down Trescott because I agree her responses were very ambiguous and confusing. I firmly believe the follow up questions by Cappleman were not on point based on the ambiguous responses Wendi gave regarding her ‘attempt’ to travel down Trescott. As I said Mentour Lawyer believes Cappleman didn’t drill down further because she knew it made Wendi look bad. Although I don’t necessarily agree with that take, I firmly believe Cappleman should have asked better follow up questions based on Wendi’s lack of clarity and detail in her responses.

 

[Knitpicker]

I really didn’t intend on on resurrecting this old debate but based on how this is viewed by most, I guess it’s worth discussing again. First, I agree that her testimony was inconsistent and I will even agree that she may have been being purposely ambiguous when she explained ‘going straight or turning’ on Trescott. Her responses re the attempt to travel down Trescott were very inconsistent and I have always said that. The one fact that remains true is in her police interview and in every trial she did say she saw the police car and tape and turned around at the roadblock - even the time she said said ~ “I saw the road was blocked so I didn’t turn”. I’m not saying or implying she wasn’t lying, she may have been stretching the truth a bit because she knows what a bad look it is to be there and not inquire what was going on.

Here is why I think it’s a nothing burger. This can easily be ‘cleared up’ by Wendi in any future trial / testimony. It just depends on how she is questioned. If she testifies again and is asked if she turned on Trescott and where exactly she approached the roadblock when she ‘turned around’ she will just say ~ “it was x years ago I don’t recall how far I traveled down Trescott or the roadblock was at the beginning of the intersection” etc. As I said in a previous post, Cappleman should have forced Wendi to clarify her testimony re traveling down Trescott because I agree her responses were very ambiguous and confusing. I firmly believe the follow up questions by Cappleman were not on point based on the ambiguous responses Wendi gave regarding her ‘attempt’ to travel down Trescott. As I said Mentour Lawyer believes Cappleman didn’t drill down further because she knew it made Wendi look bad. Although I don’t necessarily agree with that take, I firmly believe Cappleman should have asked better follow up questions based on Wendi’s lack of clarity and detail in her responses.

stretching the truth…is that a lie or a way to soften the severity of lying on the stand?
Her responses were not “inconsistencies” but lies. Plain and simple.

She said she saw the car because she knew someone saw her.
I personally believe she changed her story from what she told Isom because she found out that an officer saw her after that. Her alternating accounts was to confuse the issue, imo. If she stayed with being at DM’s house, she would be too close for comfort. So she distanced herself on her second account.