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

[Going Rogue]

Yes, in her interview with Isom. I’ll find it a bit later when I have more time,
Imo it’s the most incriminating evidence against her.
Why would she think Isom would think she was a suspect in a shooting she didn’t know about yet.?

Wendi saying “I couldn’t tell by the way you were talking to me on the ride over if I was a suspect” is not incriminating. It didn’t even make Carl’s list - LOL. There were statements made during Wendi’s police interview by both Wendi & Isom where it is very clear that PRIOR to the her arrival at the police station she was told that ‘something’ had happened and she was being brought in for questioning. Wendi even told Jane that she kept asking ‘what it was about’ but they wouldn’t tell her. You don’t think they told Wendi they are investigating a crime and needed to ask her some questions? Isom even said (not verbatim) ~ “now you know why on the car ride over here I didn’t want to give you too many details” – or something similar. He clearly told her something. It’s clear that they were being vague with Wendi about the details in their conversations with her on the ride over, but they told her something. I’d say that the odds are very low that it wasn’t made clear to her PRIOR to the start of the recording that she was needed for questioning in regard to a serious matter / crime.

 

[Going Rogue]

Did you read Epsteins book? Lots of information on his traveling.

I haven’t but I'm not surprised Dan’s frequent travel was mentioned in Epstein’s book. There were several references made about his constant travel - Wendi brought it up and I’m fairly certain the Greenbergs did. As I had said previously, I’m sure Donna was aware that he traveled often, and perhaps the ‘information’ given to the hit team that he was planning on traveling out of town was more of a safeguard based on the probability there was a high likelihood – 50/50 chance? I’m not even sure that Wendi actually had knowledge Dan was traveling to NY that weekend? She had already had received information (the famous incriminating text) that he wasn’t traveling that week.

 

[Knitpicker]

I haven’t but I'm not surprised Dan’s frequent travel was mentioned in Epstein’s book. There were several references made about his constant travel - Wendi brought it up and I’m fairly certain the Greenbergs did. As I had said previously, I’m sure Donna was aware that he traveled often, and perhaps the ‘information’ given to the hit team that he was planning on traveling out of town was more of a safeguard based on the probability there was a high likelihood – 50/50 chance? I’m not even sure that Wendi actually had knowledge Dan was traveling to NY that weekend? She had already had received information (the famous incriminating text) that he wasn’t traveling that week.

He has had the entire year off in 2011 I believe (From FSU) so he travelled even more that year. It took awhile to get through the book, but there is A LOT of things I had not heard before in the book.

 

[Knitpicker]

Wendi saying “I couldn’t tell by the way you were talking to me on the ride over if I was a suspect” is not incriminating. It didn’t even make Carl’s list - LOL. There were statements made during Wendi’s police interview by both Wendi & Isom where it is very clear that PRIOR to the her arrival at the police station she was told that ‘something’ had happened and she was being brought in for questioning. Wendi even told Jane that she kept asking ‘what it was about’ but they wouldn’t tell her. You don’t think they told Wendi they are investigating a crime and needed to ask her some questions? Isom even said (not verbatim) ~ “now you know why on the car ride over here I didn’t want to give you too many details” – or something similar. He clearly told her something. It’s clear that they were being vague with Wendi about the details in their conversations with her on the ride over, but they told her something. I’d say that the odds are very low that it wasn’t made clear to her PRIOR to the start of the recording that she was needed for questioning in regard to a serious matter / crime.

It’s not incriminating? To say she is a suspect of a crime she wasn’t told about yet?
Even if “something “ had happened, the comment of being a possible suspect makes no sense.
Even if they said they were investigating a crime, that comment would not make sense.
“We are investigating a crime”…”I though driving here, you would think I was a suspect”. Nope!
Being vague -OK. Saying she thought she may be suspect-it just doesn't fit.
I know you know where I am going.

 

[Going Rogue]

It’s not incriminating? To say she is a suspect of a crime she wasn’t told about yet?
Even if “something “ had happened, the comment of being a possible suspect makes no sense.
Even if they said they were investigating a crime, that comment would not make sense.
“We are investigating a crime”…”I though driving here, you would think I was a suspect”. Nope!
Being vague -OK. Saying she thought she may be suspect-it just doesn't fit.
I know you know where I am going.

She wasn’t told Dan was shot until they sat her down at the station and started the recording. If she said “I thought you suspected me of shooting Dan on the car ride over” it would be very different and yes, very incriminating, but all she said was “I wasn’t sure if you thought I was a suspect”. Yes, it does fit based on what happened and using a little common sense. Wendi and Isom spoke during the ride over and at the restaurant. Its obvious he had to make it clear he was investigating a serious matter and likely told her it was a serious crime. If you at a restaurant having lunch with friends and are approached by police and told you are being brought in for questioning about a crime and they tow your vehicle and personally transport you, I think it very natural to speculate that they may suspect you of something. Especially since we know they where being vague and not answering her questions when she asked for details other than to tell her it had to do with her ex husband. She is an intelligent woman, and assuming she wasn’t in on the plot, it didn’t take a lot of brain cells for her to piece together that she may have been a potential suspect / person of interest to something.

 

[Mrspratcher]

Wendi saying “I couldn’t tell by the way you were talking to me on the ride over if I was a suspect” is not incriminating. It didn’t even make Carl’s list - LOL. There were statements made during Wendi’s police interview by both Wendi & Isom where it is very clear that PRIOR to the her arrival at the police station she was told that ‘something’ had happened and she was being brought in for questioning. Wendi even told Jane that she kept asking ‘what it was about’ but they wouldn’t tell her. You don’t think they told Wendi they are investigating a crime and needed to ask her some questions? Isom even said (not verbatim) ~ “now you know why on the car ride over here I didn’t want to give you too many details” – or something similar. He clearly told her something. It’s clear that they were being vague with Wendi about the details in their conversations with her on the ride over, but they told her something. I’d say that the odds are very low that it wasn’t made clear to her PRIOR to the start of the recording that she was needed for questioning in regard to a serious matter / crime.

IMO it's very odd that she would think she was a suspect in any kind of crime.

 

[Going Rogue]

IMO it's very odd that she would think she was a suspect in any kind of crime.

Her quote was something close to ~ “I couldn’t tell by the way you were speaking to me in the car if you thought I was a suspect”.... We can’t say its very odd without knowing what Isom said to her to make her feel that way.

What if said I’m the lead investigator assigned to serious crime that occurred this morning and I need to eliminate all persons of interest and I’ll tell you more at the station. If he said that, would you still think its odd? Obviously we don’t know what he said, but it’s probably something in that ballpark.

 

[Mrspratcher]

Her quote was something close to ~ “I couldn’t tell by the way you were speaking to me in the car if you thought I was a suspect”.... We can’t say its very odd without knowing what Isom said to her to make her feel that way.

What if said I’m the lead investigator assigned to serious crime that occurred this morning and I need to eliminate all persons of interest and I’ll tell you more at the station. If he said that, would you still think it’s odd? Obviously we don’t know what he said, but it’s probably something in that ballpark.

Yes, IMO I would 100% think it was odd.

 

[nodamselindistress]

Does not really seem that odd to me, insofar as she knew it involved it her ex-husband. Spouses and ex-spouses, especially those involved in contentious child custody litigation, are usually the first person they suspect.

 

[Zedzded]

Her quote was something close to ~ “I couldn’t tell by the way you were speaking to me in the car if you thought I was a suspect”.... We can’t say its very odd without knowing what Isom said to her to make her feel that way.

She's an intelligent, articulate woman and a lawyer, a professional, who obviously understands the law. That statement, whilst not necessarily incriminating, is a very odd thing for a woman of her status quo to say. Even if you felt they thought you were a suspect, you'd never say it. And that set the tone for WA's police interview, she was just all over the place. Completely unprofessional considering she's a lawyer and epitomising her impulsive, chaotic, mal-adjusted personality. Emotions all over the place, saying and doing completely inappropriate things and really just looking like she's on some kind of high as opposed to deal with the death of her children's father.

But like a lot of the evidence that potentially incriminates WA, it just adds context and adds to the pile of evidence that makes her look guilty as opposed to evidence that can prove she's guilty. It's something that could be used to reinforce a stronger piece of evidence which the State seem to lack (that we know of).

That said, GC's reluctance, almost apathy, when it came to asking WA probing difficult questions really does suggest she was holding back, saving those questions for a rainy day....

 

[Knitpicker]

She's an intelligent, articulate woman and a lawyer, a professional, who obviously understands the law. That statement, whilst not necessarily incriminating, is a very odd thing for a woman of her status quo to say. Even if you felt they thought you were a suspect, you'd never say it. And that set the tone for WA's police interview, she was just all over the place. Completely unprofessional considering she's a lawyer and epitomising her impulsive, chaotic, mal-adjusted personality. Emotions all over the place, saying and doing completely inappropriate things and really just looking like she's on some kind of high as opposed to deal with the death of her children's father.

But like a lot of the evidence that potentially incriminates WA, it just adds context and adds to the pile of evidence that makes her look guilty as opposed to evidence that can prove she's guilty. It's something that could be used to reinforce a stronger piece of evidence which the State seem to lack (that we know of).

That said, GC's reluctance, almost apathy, when it came to asking WA probing difficult questions really does suggest she was holding back, saving those questions for a rainy day....

Yes almost as if she could hardly contain herself at CA’s trial. Clearly had enough of the Trescott drive.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, IMO I would 100% think it was odd.

…And thats suggesting Isom was acting as if she was a suspect in the car ride.

On what basis would he have thought this having just picked her up?
Was she suggesting he knew she drove by the crime scene?
Guilty conscience knowing officer Brannon saw her?
Not expecting anyone to see her?

 

[Knitpicker]

Ok Here is the excerpt from Wendi Adelson interview with Isom- I wanted to get the exact words she said so as not to misrepresent her. Just prior to this she tells Isom she drove down Trescott and thought there was a tree down.

Isom: Let me go get the form for the cell phone (he asked for her phone and she agreed)
Wendi: Do I need to have my Miranda rights or something if you’re gonna look at my phone?
Isom: I can read you Miranda if you want to hear that.
W : I don’t know , I’m just trying to make sure..
I: I have no reason at this point to suspect you in this incident, OK?
W: *I couldn’t tell by the way you were talking to me in the car if I was a suspect*

The point is that during the ride over to the station, she was concerned that she was seen as a suspect.At that point, what would she have been a suspect of? She was not even told that Dan Markel was shot. She did say elsewhere in the interview that she knew as the wife she would be a suspect and I believe she said again that she knows why she would be considered a suspect,(I do think thats after she found out what happened so not as important as when the interview just started), but I’d have to re-listen to all 6 hours and I don’t have the time nor fortitude to listen to all that again.

 

[Mrspratcher]

Ok Here is the excerpt from Wendi Adelson interview with Isom- I wanted to get the exact words she said so as not to misrepresent her. Just prior to this she tells Isom she drove down Trescott and thought there was a tree down.

Isom: Let me go get the form for the cell phone (he asked for her phone and she agreed)
Wendi: Do I need to have my Miranda rights or something if you’re gonna look at my phone?
Isom: I can read you Miranda if you want to hear that.
W : I don’t know , I’m just trying to make sure..
I: I have no reason at this point to suspect you in this incident, OK?
W: *I couldn’t tell by the way you were talking to me in the car if I was a suspect*

The point is that during the ride over to the station, she was concerned that she was seen as a suspect.At that point, what would she have been a suspect of? She was not even told that Dan Markel was shot. She did say elsewhere in the interview that she knew as the wife she would be a suspect and I believe she said again that she knows why she would be considered a suspect,(I do think thats after she found out what happened so not as important as when the interview just started), but I’d have to re-listen to all 6 hours and I don’t have the time nor fortitude to listen to all that again.

Precisely. It is also odd IMO that she was inquiring into whether she should be mirandized. She was not in custody/arrested and free to leave.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Ok Here is the excerpt from Wendi Adelson interview with Isom- I wanted to get the exact words she said so as not to misrepresent her. Just prior to this she tells Isom she drove down Trescott and thought there was a tree down.

Isom: Let me go get the form for the cell phone (he asked for her phone and she agreed)
Wendi: Do I need to have my Miranda rights or something if you’re gonna look at my phone?
Isom: I can read you Miranda if you want to hear that.
W : I don’t know , I’m just trying to make sure..
I: I have no reason at this point to suspect you in this incident, OK?
W: *I couldn’t tell by the way you were talking to me in the car if I was a suspect*

The point is that during the ride over to the station, she was concerned that she was seen as a suspect.At that point, what would she have been a suspect of? She was not even told that Dan Markel was shot. She did say elsewhere in the interview that she knew as the wife she would be a suspect and I believe she said again that she knows why she would be considered a suspect,(I do think thats after she found out what happened so not as important as when the interview just started), but I’d have to re-listen to all 6 hours and I don’t have the time nor fortitude to listen to all that again.

Thank you for this assessment and input @Knitpicker …. RSBMBFF:

And this one part of that: ‘she tells Isom she drove down Trescott and thought there was a tree down’.

Ok….. SMH. Insert eye roll wide right. I know, not evidence. Still SMH. MOO

 

[Knitpicker]

Precisely. It is also odd IMO that she was inquiring into whether she should be mirandized. She was not in custody/arrested and free to leave.

Right she was fishing around and appears imo to have a guilty conscience. And she mentioned the drive by Trescott right before. So she knows her car was seen.(Brannon was right there)

 

[Knitpicker]

Thank you for this assessment and input @Knitpicker …. RSBMBFF:

And this one part of that: ‘she tells Isom she drove down Trescott and thought there was a tree down’.

Ok….. SMH. Insert eye roll wide right. I know, not evidence. Still SMH. MOO

Timing is everything. First the drive by comment-then the suspect comment.

 

[Knitpicker]

Thank you for this assessment and input @Knitpicker …. RSBMBFF:

And this one part of that: ‘she tells Isom she drove down Trescott and thought there was a tree down’.

Ok….. SMH. Insert eye roll wide right. I know, not evidence. Still SMH. MOO

RSBMBFF: What does this mean?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

RSBMBFF: What does this mean?

Respectfully snipped by me and bolded for focus.

Sorry, as I was just using similar convention of others. And thanks for that prior post!

 

[Going Rogue]

She's an intelligent, articulate woman and a lawyer, a professional, who obviously understands the law. That statement, whilst not necessarily incriminating, is a very odd thing for a woman of her status quo to say. Even if you felt they thought you were a suspect, you'd never say it. And that set the tone for WA's police interview, she was just all over the place. Completely unprofessional considering she's a lawyer and epitomising her impulsive, chaotic, mal-adjusted personality. Emotions all over the place, saying and doing completely inappropriate things and really just looking like she's on some kind of high as opposed to deal with the death of her children's father.

But like a lot of the evidence that potentially incriminates WA, it just adds context and adds to the pile of evidence that makes her look guilty as opposed to evidence that can prove she's guilty. It's something that could be used to reinforce a stronger piece of evidence which the State seem to lack (that we know of).

That said, GC's reluctance, almost apathy, when it came to asking WA probing difficult questions really does suggest she was holding back, saving those questions for a rainy day....

I know you follow the case closely and appreciate a lot of perspectives you bring and find you to be fair when analyzing a lot of the main narratives. I wish more people would argue both sides – we get very little of that. There are many moving parts to this case and in my opinion many that follow the case seem to be reluctant to share their opinion on any singular data point if that opinion even provides a glimmer of reasonable doubt on the case against Wendi. I can give many examples, which is a larger discussion and probably would be a great for as a separate discussion / thread.

With the above said, I’m curious what you think Georgia could / should have asked Wendi under direct examination that she didn’t cover in any of the 3 trials? I never got the vibe that Georgia was holding back.