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

[Going Rogue]

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?

RSBMBFF - You ask, “what would she have been a suspect of?” You are correct, in the car ride over, she wasn’t yet told Dan was shot and during the police interview she reflects back at the moment in the car and expresses that she thought she was a suspect because of the way Isom was speaking to her.

I’ll restate what I said earlier so this will be a little redundant, but its important to restate because it seems to be getting past some that think her statement is either incriminating or odd. Isom obviously told Wendi something had happened and it seems implausible that he didn’t mention he was investigating a crime and she was being brought in for questioning about that crime. Isom even told her (after she mentioned she felt like a suspect because of the way he was speaking to her in the car) that he didn’t want to give her too many details (or something similar). Here is my point, without knowing what was said in the car, how can we draw any conclusions like its incriminating or odd? IMO, we cant.

The simple answer to your question – she thought she was a suspect to whatever crime Isom was investigating. As I said I’m sure Isom made it clear he was investigating a crime PRIOR their arrival at the police station.

 

[Knitpicker]

RSBMBFF - You ask, “what would she have been a suspect of?” You are correct, in the car ride over, she wasn’t yet told Dan was shot and during the police interview she reflects back at the moment in the car and expresses that she thought she was a suspect because of the way Isom was speaking to her.

I’ll restate what I said earlier so this will be a little redundant, but its important to restate because it seems to be getting past some that think her statement is either incriminating or odd. Isom obviously told Wendi something had happened and it seems implausible that he didn’t mention he was investigating a crime and she was being brought in for questioning about that crime. Isom even told her (after she mentioned she felt like a suspect because of the way he was speaking to her in the car) that he didn’t want to give her too many details (or something similar). Here is my point, without knowing what was said in the car, how can we draw any conclusions like its incriminating or odd? IMO, we cant.

The simple answer to your question – she thought she was a suspect to whatever crime Isom was investigating. As I said I’m sure Isom made it clear he was investigating a crime PRIOR their arrival at the police station.

She thought she was a suspect to whatever crime Isom was investigating??

 

[Going Rogue]

She thought she was a suspect to whatever crime Isom was investigating??

Not sure you are following the deductive reasoning I’m outlining. I guess I’m failing to get the point across. I’m not going to try to elaborate, because I don't think explain it better than I already have. I’m hoping someone else can weigh in.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

Thanks
I've done a 180, going from thinking the case against WA is undeniably strong and she should have been arrested yesterday, to now realising (at least IMO) how weak a lot of the evidence really is, which I think has been your stance all along.

I can't remember exactly, but there were a number of questions that GC asked that seemed to put WA in a difficult position as she attempted to put forward a good answer, squirming in her seat. GC had her on the ropes, but then would halt the questioning, tick her little list and move on. She could have really hammered WA about Trescott, for example, the TV repair i.e it being nonsensical repairing a cheap TV, that was never really pursued. WA's online dating was another one.

To me it seemed very strange that WA was messaging guys on a dating app the day after DanM was buried, completely at odds with WA's statements that she was so shocked and scared that she could not eat, sleep or leave the house for 3 weeks. Yet again GC didn't really pursue this. She could very easily have exposed WA and destroyed this fragile image WA is trying to portray of a broken woman, devastated by the death of her children's father as opposed to a woman hitting up guys for a date hours after her ex was buried...

 

[Going Rogue]

Thanks
I've done a 180, going from thinking the case against WA is undeniably strong and she should have been arrested yesterday, to now realising (at least IMO) how weak a lot of the evidence really is, which I think has been your stance all along.

I can't remember exactly, but there were a number of questions that GC asked that seemed to put WA in a difficult position as she attempted to put forward a good answer, squirming in her seat. GC had her on the ropes, but then would halt the questioning, tick her little list and move on. She could have really hammered WA about Trescott, for example, the TV repair i.e it being nonsensical repairing a cheap TV, that was never really pursued. WA's online dating was another one.

To me it seemed very strange that WA was messaging guys on a dating app the day after DanM was buried, completely at odds with WA's statements that she was so shocked and scared that she could not eat, sleep or leave the house for 3 weeks. Yet again GC didn't really pursue this. She could very easily have exposed WA and destroyed this fragile image WA is trying to portray of a broken woman, devastated by the death of her children's father as opposed to a woman hitting up guys for a date hours after her ex was buried...

Correct, my stance all along has been the case is weak. I personally have seen a major shift from many convinced the case against Wendi was weak a few years ago to a shift that the case is very strong. Lately I’m starting to see the shift back to its weak again. I firmly believe it has a lot to do with some very strong opinions that were being broadcasted (starting about 2 years ago) in social media (mainly UTube) on all the overwhelming evidence on the case against Wendi – that has recently died down.

I agree with you that Wendi did a lot of things that are hard to ignore and she clearly lied about a lot of things. I don’t think any of the things she lied about advance that case against her unless they eventually go after her for accessory after the fact charges and try to prove she somehow aided the cover-up of her family. It seems like that would be an easier path to a conviction based on the evidence in the public domain.

 

[Zedzded]

Correct, my stance all along has been the case is weak. I personally have seen a major shift from many convinced the case against Wendi was weak a few years ago to a shift that the case is very strong.

It's probably somewhere in between. There are depositions that have been made that we are unaware of e.g Rob Adelson, TV guy, lunch girls. Plus other info such as SY's email, potential incriminating OK Cupid data and if we consider that she might be charged only as an accessory then suddenly the case against her seems relatively strong. Potentially. If the unknown information is as incriminating as we hope it is. Like you pointed out with SY's email, it could be insignificant.

I also think if all the stars align CA may flip on WA. But a few things have to happen in order for him to do that. I don't think he would have any kind of moral dilemma in regards to flipping on WA, but other aspects would prevent him from doing so e.g would it draw the ire of his parents? There might be no guarantees of a lesser sentence. He could offered 30 years if he flips, which puts him at 80 by the time he gets out. He's not going to take that.

I just don't think WA is smart enough to have covered all her tracks. Perhaps to ensure she is not charged with murder, but I do see her being charged as an accessory.

 

[poppyquiche]

I'd love to see WA go down for this because I feel like anyone with a few brain cells to rub together knows she knew, BUT I also respect that sometimes the justice system cannot prove it to the standard that they need to, and if that is the case then I'll just have to live with that.

I AM very much looking forward to Grandma Gotti going down for this, though.

 

[Knitpicker]

Correct, my stance all along has been the case is weak. I personally have seen a major shift from many convinced the case against Wendi was weak a few years ago to a shift that the case is very strong. Lately I’m starting to see the shift back to its weak again. I firmly believe it has a lot to do with some very strong opinions that were being broadcasted (starting about 2 years ago) in social media (mainly UTube) on all the overwhelming evidence on the case against Wendi – that has recently died down.

I agree with you that Wendi did a lot of things that are hard to ignore and she clearly lied about a lot of things. I don’t think any of the things she lied about advance that case against her unless they eventually go after her for accessory after the fact charges and try to prove she somehow aided the cover-up of her family. It seems like that would be an easier path to a conviction based on the evidence in the public domain.

If I remember correctly, your argument was never that the case was weak, it was that she didn’t know until after the murder, what her mother and brother planned. That she was out of the loop. If I remember , you used the expression “she only knew after the fact” a lot. Am I right?
So it wasn’t really about the evidence, it was that she just happened to be driving by Trescott because she was used to that route , etc. You believed she was innocent of any involvement in the murder. She just sort of put the pieces together afterwards.

 

[Mrspratcher]

Thanks
I've done a 180, going from thinking the case against WA is undeniably strong and she should have been arrested yesterday, to now realising (at least IMO) how weak a lot of the evidence really is, which I think has been your stance all along.

I can't remember exactly, but there were a number of questions that GC asked that seemed to put WA in a difficult position as she attempted to put forward a good answer, squirming in her seat. GC had her on the ropes, but then would halt the questioning, tick her little list and move on. She could have really hammered WA about Trescott, for example, the TV repair i.e it being nonsensical repairing a cheap TV, that was never really pursued. WA's online dating was another one.

To me it seemed very strange that WA was messaging guys on a dating app the day after DanM was buried, completely at odds with WA's statements that she was so shocked and scared that she could not eat, sleep or leave the house for 3 weeks. Yet again GC didn't really pursue this. She could very easily have exposed WA and destroyed this fragile image WA is trying to portray of a broken woman, devastated by the death of her children's father as opposed to a woman hitting up guys for a date hours after her ex was buried...

The reason GC didn’t pursue this line of questioning is likely because WA has derivative use and use immunity. Meaning her statements can’t be used against her in a future prosecution.

 

[Going Rogue]

If I remember correctly, your argument was never that the case was weak, it was that she didn’t know until after the murder, what her mother and brother planned. That she was out of the loop. If I remember , you used the expression “she only knew after the fact” a lot. Am I right?
So it wasn’t really about the evidence, it was that she just happened to be driving by Trescott because she was used to that route , etc. You believed she was innocent of any involvement in the murder. She just sort of put the pieces together afterwards.

Nope, not sure if you’re confusing me with someone else, but I have never wavered from my position. My position has always been that the case against her is weak. As far as her direct involvement, I have always said that I am not convinced she was in on the plot. There is a big difference between someone that isn’t convinced and someone that is claiming she wasn’t involved. Most completely dismiss the possibility that Donna and Charlie may have planned this behind her back - I don’t. I have also always said that I believe at a minimum she had knowledge it was happening and it may have been that she figured it out on the day of (or leading up to) the murder or may have been told on the morning of or shortly prior to. There are many logical reasons to support the case that Donna and Charlie may have planned this behind her back and many ‘narratives’ are discussed in social media and argued with a very strong bias. I have always tried to bring light to what I consider a fair analysis of many of the common narratives and that usually is not received well as many seem to take it personally as if an objective analysis is somehow against the pursuit of justice. I firmly believe that by the time she first testified she was completely aware that her family was 100% responsible and lied during her testimony in all and every line of questioning regarding her knowledge of her families involvement. I got the feeling of deja vu when I read your comment

 

[Going Rogue]

The reason GC didn’t pursue this line of questioning is likely because WA has derivative use and use immunity. Meaning her statements can’t be used against her in a future prosecution.

Her immunity only protects her if she provided truthful testimony. That is why I’m asking the question, what should / could have Cappleman asked that wasn’t covered in any of the three trials that could have exposed her? The objective of compelling Wendi to testify in all three trials was to help establish the families collective motive for the murder to support / prove the states theory that the family plotted Dan’s murder. Their goal was not to prove Wendi was guilty as she was never on trial. That said, the fact that they had her testify three times under use and derivative use case immunity, there was an opportunity to expose Wendi if they believe she was in on the plot. What possible questions do you think they avoided that would have potentially protected Wendi under her immunity deal?

 

[Knitpicker]

Nope, not sure if you’re confusing me with someone else, but I have never wavered from my position. My position has always been that the case against her is weak. As far as her direct involvement, I have always said that I am not convinced she was in on the plot. There is a big difference between someone that isn’t convinced and someone that is claiming she wasn’t involved. Most completely dismiss the possibility that Donna and Charlie may have planned this behind her back - I don’t. I have also always said that I believe at a minimum she had knowledge it was happening and it may have been that she figured it out on the day of (or leading up to) the murder or may have been told on the morning of or shortly prior to. There are many logical reasons to support the case that Donna and Charlie may have planned this behind her back and many ‘narratives’ are discussed in social media and argued with a very strong bias. I have always tried to bring light to what I consider a fair analysis of many of the common narratives and that usually is not received well as many seem to take it personally as if an objective analysis is somehow against the pursuit of justice. I firmly believe that by the time she first testified she was completely aware that her family was 100% responsible and lied during her testimony in all and every line of questioning regarding her knowledge of her families involvement. I got the feeling of deja vu when I read your comment

You are pretty much confirming what I said
Lol you’re Deja vu reminds me of the Dionne Warwick song..
Deja Vu
Could you be the dream that I once knew….lol
In all seriousness, we are just gonna have to wait it out with Wendi.
I’m no legal scholar- We both have invested a lot of time on this case. Too bad it’s taking so long. It is what it is..

 

[Knitpicker]

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

Exactly. Some have said she was just testing the waters-but I don’t think so.

 

[Going Rogue]

You are pretty much confirming what I said
Lol you’re Deja vu reminds me of the Dionne Warwick song..
Deja Vu
Could you be the dream that I once knew….lol
In all seriousness, we are just gonna have to wait it out with Wendi.
I’m no legal scholar- We both have invested a lot of time on this case. Too bad it’s taking so long. It is what it is..

I’m no legal scholar either, but you don’t need to be one to evaluate the evidence and analyze the case. The legal scholars can us help understand the process and how the courts operate and help identify any potential issues and challenges based on the many complexities surrounding this case. The ‘legal scholars’ are (hopefully) experts on the law and process, they are not any better than you or I as it relates to providing an ‘opinion’ on someone’s innocent or guilt. That’s a general comment that is true with any case.

Not sure what I confirmed? I read your comment to mean you thought I was previously taking the position Wendi was innocent and you thought I was stating she found out after as a matter of fact. That was never my position. I never definitively took a position either way because I was always clear I was 50 / 50 on her involvement - that never changed and I always thought the case against her was weak.

 

[Knitpicker]

I’m no legal scholar either, but you don’t need to be one to evaluate the evidence and analyze the case. The legal scholars can us help understand the process and how the courts operate and help identify any potential issues and challenges based on the many complexities surrounding this case. The ‘legal scholars’ are (hopefully) experts on the law and process, they are not any better than you or I as it relates to providing an ‘opinion’ on someone’s innocent or guilt. That’s a general comment that is true with any case.

Not sure what I confirmed? I read your comment to mean you thought I was previously taking the position Wendi was innocent and you thought I was stating she found out after as a matter of fact. That was never my position. I never definitively took a position either way because I was always clear I was 50 / 50 on her involvement - that never changed and I always thought the case against her was weak.

OK

 

[Cedars]

If I remember correctly, your argument was never that the case was weak, it was that she didn’t know until after the murder, what her mother and brother planned. That she was out of the loop. If I remember , you used the expression “she only knew after the fact” a lot. Am I right?
So it wasn’t really about the evidence, it was that she just happened to be driving by Trescott because she was used to that route , etc. You believed she was innocent of any involvement in the murder. She just sort of put the pieces together afterwards.

Is this some kind of "purity of belief" test for whether someone can post their opinion about Wendi's guilt or innocence?

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition"...

 

[Zedzded]

As far as her direct involvement, I have always said that I am not convinced she was in on the plot.

I have also always said that I believe at a minimum she had knowledge it was happening.

It's kind of a moot point. If she was not in on the plot, but knew it was happening then she could be charged with accessory or even misprison. All they need to do is prove she lied to police or other investigators before, during, or after the commission of a crime to help any of the conspirators avoid detection or arrest. Or show that she provided them with any kind of information that would have helped, even just knowledge that a murder was going to take place would be sufficient to charge WA.

Whenever she is mentioned and people speculate on whether she will charged or not, it's always based on her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder which draws a lot of dissension. Proving conspiracy to commit murder will be difficult, but accessory won't be. And that's what I believe GC will get WA on.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

It's kind of a moot point. If she was not in on the plot, but knew it was happening then she could be charged with accessory. All they need to do is prove she lied to police or other investigators before, during, or after the commission of a crime to help any of the conspirators avoid detection or arrest. Or show that she provided them with any kind of information that would have helped, even just knowledge that a murder was going to take place would be sufficient to charge WA.

Whenever she is mentioned and people speculate on whether she will charged or not, it's always based on her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder which draws a lot of dissension. Proving conspiracy to commit murder will be difficult, but accessory won't be. And that's what I believe GC will get WA on.

Have to concur fully @Zedzded …. and this case has been going IMO for quite some time, so hard to recall all. On that last point about proving conspiracy to commit murder being difficult……… vs. accessory. Agree there too. IANAL….. but it seems the one game changer would be if someone talks or provides direct evidence of possible involvement. MOO

 

[Zedzded]

Have to concur fully @Zedzded …. and this case has been going IMO for quite some time, so hard to recall all. On that last point about proving conspiracy to commit murder being difficult……… vs. accessory. Agree there too. IANAL….. but it seems the one game changer would be if someone talks or provides direct evidence of possible involvement. MOO

Yeah, I'm not overly concerned if they can't get her on conspiracy to commit murder as I think if she's convicted on accessory for a capital offence she would be facing up to 30 years. This also opens up the possibility of CA throwing her under the bus, whilst not appearing to do so.

He might claim she knew about the murder, but was not involved. Looking like he's saving her, but "accidently" dropping her in it, as knowledge of the crime means she can be charged. And he's already done that, repeatedly stating on a recorded line that he couldn't believe she drove down Trescott, conveniently forgetting he was being recorded.

It also opens up the possibility of WA cooperating. The State might accept a guilty plea of accessory if she cooperates and will guarantee they won't go after her from murder. So instead of LWOP she would be facing a max of 30 years with the chance of parole.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's kind of a moot point. If she was not in on the plot, but knew it was happening then she could be charged with accessory or even misprison. All they need to do is prove she lied to police or other investigators before, during, or after the commission of a crime to help any of the conspirators avoid detection or arrest. Or show that she provided them with any kind of information that would have helped, even just knowledge that a murder was going to take place would be sufficient to charge WA.

Whenever she is mentioned and people speculate on whether she will charged or not, it's always based on her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder which draws a lot of dissension. Proving conspiracy to commit murder will be difficult, but accessory won't be. And that's what I believe GC will get WA on.

In the state of FL, if you have knowledge a crime is going to happen, you are under no legal obligation to report it. Wendi having either direct knowledge or a very strong suspicion that her family was plotting to murder Dan is not a crime. Without someone flipping or a new discovery (and only based on the information that’s public), I agree that ‘accessory after the fact’ seems like a much easier path to an eventual conviction, but they still need to prove she aided her family in some way to help with the cover-up. As I previously said, I’m convinced she lied during her testimony when she said she never discussed the crime with her family and wasn’t aware they were directly involved, but proving she was lying about that is going to be very difficult without someone flipping. The state released very little to no information / evidence of substance on Wendi after her police interview and prior to her first testimony where we can reasonably prove she lied or aided her family. All we have is our gut feelings and my gut feeling is that she lied but I am not convinced she was in on the plot. If they can somehow prove she lied to something material to the case, they have a lot of ‘legal’ leverage. I’m not talking about the immaterial lies or ones that can be interpreted either way and have been discussed ad nauseam in social media like she lied when she said she loved Tallahassee or the inconsistent / differing testimony about the turn on Trescott. Lying during her testimony about not knowing about her family’s involvement and never discussing the case with them is material to the case and you can build an accessory case on that or perjury charges / obstruction of justice charges.