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

[Zedzded]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that a lot of these points have been discussed before, so I'm not going to go over everything point-by-point.

However, I do want to address one thing.

The state does not need to prove that she passed on the information to her family. From Vasquez v. State:
“A conspiracy exists where there is an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense and an intention to commit the offense. The fact-finder may infer the agreement from the circumstances; direct proof is not necessary.”

In other words, the jury can look at the totality of the circumstances around Dan Markel's death and conclude that Wendi must have played a part. You may believe it's just 'conjecture' that can all be explained away as a series of unfortunate coincidences, but I suspect that a jury will be more skeptical.

By the way, I got that above quote from another case: Denise Williams v. State. She was convicted of murder and conspiracy after her husband was killed by her lover. The appeals court vacated the murder conviction but upheld the conspiracy charge. There are both similarities and differences from this case, but I found the ruling to be interesting reading.

Denise Williams vs State of Florida

Denise Williams vs State of Florida

law.justia.com

Personally I don't see there is much in the way of evidence, circumstantial or not that could demonstrate that there was an express or implied agreement between WA and the other co-conspirators. I think WA asking DanM his schedule is close to implying she was wanting to know his movements so she could pass this on to the killers.But possibly not quite enough.

Irregardless, I think it's a moot point. They can't get her on conspiracy they'll get her on Accessory after the fact. And that's 30 years. They can easily show she had knowledge the crime was going to be committed or knowledge that the crime had been committed.

I think WA may look to cooperate. Well her lawyers should be telling her to. Once DA is convicted she will be next. The State may accept 20-30 years for accessory rather than risk going to trial with Conspiracy.

 

[Zedzded]

In other words, the jury can look at the totality of the circumstances around Dan Markel's death and conclude that Wendi must have played a part.

There needs to be something that shows or implies she conspired i.e helped the co-conspirators in some way. Most/all of the circumstantial evidence put forward <modnip - not an approved source> implies WA had knowledge, it does not imply WA conspired. An example might be WA texting CA "I transferred you $50k to sort out the problem I have." That would imply she was conspiring.

 

[Going Rogue]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that a lot of these points have been discussed before, so I'm not going to go over everything point-by-point.

However, I do want to address one thing.

The state does not need to prove that she passed on the information to her family. From Vasquez v. State:
“A conspiracy exists where there is an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense and an intention to commit the offense. The fact-finder may infer the agreement from the circumstances; direct proof is not necessary.”

In other words, the jury can look at the totality of the circumstances around Dan Markel's death and conclude that Wendi must have played a part. You may believe it's just 'conjecture' that can all be explained away as a series of unfortunate coincidences, but I suspect that a jury will be more skeptical.

By the way, I got that above quote from another case: Denise Williams v. State. She was convicted of murder and conspiracy after her husband was killed by her lover. The appeals court vacated the murder conviction but upheld the conspiracy charge. There are both similarities and differences from this case, but I found the ruling to be interesting reading.

Denise Williams vs State of Florida

Denise Williams vs State of Florida

law.justia.com

I agree ‘direct proof’ is not needed if the evidence is all circumstantial, but the state still needs to convince a jury Wendi was part of the conspiracy. Essentially they do need to prove to the jury that the case, as a whole, is proven to jury and the jury is convinced the state proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a very high burden and my personal opinion is it’s a VERY risky case for the state based on what’s public – it's not impossible, but I’d say it’s close to 50 / 50. State prosecutors generally don’t take on cases that are 50 / 50. She very well may be guilty, but I believe it’s a hard case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I know many disagree with my assessment but that’s just my honest opinion. If we learn more during Donnas trial, I may change that stance. I just have a hard time with the concept that the state is trying the cases ‘one-by-one’.

 

[LinasK]

Personally I don't see there is much in the way of evidence, circumstantial or not that could demonstrate that there was an express or implied agreement between WA and the other co-conspirators. I think WA asking DanM his schedule is close to implying she was wanting to know his movements so she could pass this on to the killers.But possibly not quite enough.

Irregardless, I think it's a moot point. They can't get her on conspiracy they'll get her on Accessory after the fact. And that's 30 years. They can easily show she had knowledge the crime was going to be committed or knowledge that the crime had been committed.

I think WA may look to cooperate. Well her lawyers should be telling her to. Once DA is convicted she will be next. The State may accept 20-30 years for accessory rather than risk going to trial with Conspiracy.

Works for me for Donna. For a woman her age, it's a life sentence. She already looks like she's really aged with all that grey hair.

 

[Going Rogue]

I don't know. It surprised me that it got a mention. It could have referred to anything. The TV being repaired for instance. The problem with all the evidence that supposedly incriminates WA is that most of it can be argued away. But as the case evolves we learn new things every day. WA is even more of a trainwreck than previously thought, so I'd be surprised if the State doesn't have a few Aces up their sleeve.

I also think with DA's bond application denied she will change tactics. She already has really. She knows the double extortion defence is dead, so she can longer simply align with CA's defence. The State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt she did the money drop. So her defence will be she knew nothing, just did what CA told her to do. So essentially flipping on CA. Subtle flipping. She does not have to say much to ensure he is dead and buried. She already has flipped I suppose, stating that she just wrote cheques to KM at the behest of CA.

And once she does that, the gloves are off. CA will go for WA.

The reason the ‘this is so sweet’ text is a such big red flag, is because she deleted it that day... I find that very curious and it seems to me it shows, at a minimum, she had knowledge. You are correct it could have been about anything – but why did she delete it?

Donna will play dumb.. she wont turn on Charlie... her defense will be she just listened to Charlie and he attorneys will argue she was clueless... That is the reason when Robert Adelson was deposed, that state made it a point to ask him if Donna was easily fooled. They are anticipating that defense... I see it coming a mile away

 

[Zedzded]

Donna will play dumb.. she wont turn on Charlie... her defense will be she just listened to Charlie and he attorneys will argue she was clueless...

I agree, that's what I think it will be. But I'm just trying to put myself in her lawyer's shoes and trying to envisage what her lawyer is thinking and advising DA. A 5 year old can see this case is a slam dunk. so I'm assuming DA's lawyer can. Is DA's lawyer being transparent with her? If so then what is their Plan B?

 

[Zedzded]

The reason the ‘this is so sweet’ text is a such big red flag, is because she deleted it that day... I find that very curious and it seems to me it shows, at a minimum, she had knowledge. You are correct it could have been about anything – but why did she delete it?

Playing the devils advocate, I delete texts sometimes. But WA stated she "deletes all her texts." The State did not chase this up. I'm assuming what will transpire is that there is a conversation between her and CA with only that one text deleted. Same same with the calendar entry for the TV repair.

 

[Knitpicker]

Playing the devils advocate, I delete texts sometimes. But WA stated she "deletes all her texts." The State did not chase this up. I'm assuming what will transpire is that there is a conversation between her and CA with only that one text deleted. Same same with the calendar entry for the TV repair.

JL mentioned her “calendar” and with the new unredacted video of his interview, he mentions it more. She said ont he stand that she uses her phone as an appointment book and deletes as a “crossing off” kind of thing. But she never mentions an actual physical planner/calendar which I have always found interesting. JL said a lot was on that calendar.

 

[Ferpo]

DA's motion to be released on bond denied. The judge primarily cites the one-way Vietnam trip as an example of flight risk but does mention the self-harm concern as well.

Does anyone know who attorney "Gregg A. Toomey" is, as listed in the letter? That name is new to me.

According to other reports, Gregg A. Toomey is an attorney who has been retained by the Leon County Sherriff's Office (LCSO). LCSO runs the Leon County Jail, so that makes sense to be included.

 

[Going Rogue]

I agree, that's what I think it will be. But I'm just trying to put myself in her lawyer's shoes and trying to envisage what her lawyer is thinking and advising DA. A 5 year old can see this case is a slam dunk. so I'm assuming DA's lawyer can. Is DA's lawyer being transparent with her? If so then what is their Plan B?

I’d say when they initially sat her down, she swore up and down she was innocent. Even if they are approaching this with the highest ethical standards and hold true to their ethical obligation as defense attorneys and they honestly expressed to her how dire her situation and case was based on the evidence, she likely continued to emphatically insists she was innocent. At that point they’d have the option of recusing themselves or to defend her based on her insistence she is innocent. I’d say if the scenario I laid out is correct, a VERY small % of defense attorneys would recuse themselves. They have to make a living and the majority of the clients they represent are guilty anyway – its par for the course. I have no reason to believe her attorneys are doing anything unethical or giving bad guidance.

 

[Going Rogue]

Playing the devils advocate, I delete texts sometimes. But WA stated she "deletes all her texts." The State did not chase this up. I'm assuming what will transpire is that there is a conversation between her and CA with only that one text deleted. Same same with the calendar entry for the TV repair.

I think you are slightly misquoting her.. I could swear she said ~ “I always delete my texts”... She didn’t say “all” and that makes a big difference. It’s another one of her statements that is rather ambiguous and hard to prove definitively.

 

[yazoost]

According to other reports, Gregg A. Toomey is an attorney who has been retained by the Leon County Sherriff's Office (LCSO). LCSO runs the Leon County Jail, so that makes sense to be included.

He's actually representing the jail's outsourced health care provider (per the court's efiling portal).

 

[Going Rogue]

JL mentioned her “calendar” and with the new unredacted video of his interview, he mentions it more. She said ont he stand that she uses her phone as an appointment book and deletes as a “crossing off” kind of thing. But she never mentions an actual physical planner/calendar which I have always found interesting. JL said a lot was on that calendar.

She definitely kept notes in her iPhone calendar or other third-party calendar app because it’s in evidence that she deleted the BestBuy appointment from her phone. Jeff also admitted to snooping in her personal stuff and referenced her ‘calendar’ entries in the interview. I assume he was referring to a physical wall / desk calendar but perhaps he had the pass code to her phone but that seems unlikely - she had a lot to hide. I have a habit of writing dates on a wall calendar and I also keep calendar reminders in my iPhone. I don’t find it odd if she did both because many do leverage both physical & electronic calendar reminders.

 

[amicuscurie]

I think you are slightly misquoting her.. I could swear she said ~ “I always delete my texts”... She didn’t say “all” and that makes a big difference. It’s another one of her statements that is rather ambiguous and hard to prove definitively.

In my opinion, hypothetically, if you say you “always” delete your texts, it seems to me that this must apply to all of your texts.

In any event, I don’t think anybody deletes their texts as a matter of habit. That’s not a thing, that I’m aware of. It seems to me that you’d have to be basically constantly deleting, all day, every text. Why?

*ok, maybe not nobody. Given the size of the world’s population, probably there exists at least one person who does this. But hypothetically speaking, what are the odds that this person (or one of a vanishingly small number of people) also had an ex husband who was murdered, and got a text on the day of the murder of her ex husband that she then deleted and doesn’t have a great explanation for?

 

[amicuscurie]

I’d say when they initially sat her down, she swore up and down she was innocent. Even if they are approaching this with the highest ethical standards and hold true to their ethical obligation as defense attorneys and they honestly expressed to her how dire her situation and case was based on the evidence, she likely continued to emphatically insists she was innocent. At that point they’d have the option of recusing themselves or to defend her based on her insistence she is innocent. I’d say if the scenario I laid out is correct, a VERY small % of defense attorneys would recuse themselves. They have to make a living and the majority of the clients they represent are guilty anyway – its par for the course. I have no reason to believe her attorneys are doing anything unethical or giving bad guidance.

Agree with this. I also know that many, if not most, defense attorneys don’t ask their clients if they did it.

 

[IQuestion]

DA had sciatica issues before she was arrested...jail did not cause it. Not everyone gains 30% of their original weight while awaiting trial...some people lose weight. She has had the concern (perhaps proclivity) for weight gain/body image in the past per her daughter's podcast. Ie, (paraphrasing) My mother thinks she's fat and was not allowed to join Weight Watchers. Sorry Donna, incarceration does not schedule private trainers like the one available at the South Beach luxury condo. However, she may meet their WW weight guidelines, now. She has turned down medical care that was offered to her because she wants "her choice of treatment." (Oh don't we all know the constraints of an HMO vs a PPO.)
Many poor and indigent people who have never committed a crime wish they had the medical care available in a Tally jail. A bed, clean sheets, telephone privileges, hot showers, calorie laden meals, biscuits and gravy....sounds like the Taj Mahal compared to the plight of the mentally ill and homeless. I carefully watched DA's retelling of her "horrible, tortuous incarceration conditions" and then watched again with NO SOUND. Never once does she have an issue answering every single question. She is never so "choked up" she can not reply to every query! Never red faced, traumatized, or able to "force tears" no matter how many times she tightly squeezes her eyes. Nor is she so traumatized she can not recall each and every second of her shock an horror of someone touching her back in a shower and she screamed. (Why does this iconic "movie shot" come to mind?) Janet Leigh"
And, don't get me started on HA finally making it to a courtroom for one of his family members. (I couldn't help but notice the "GQ stubble" which actually looked good on him, IMO.) His suit/accessorizing was impeccable. However, still trying to figure out where the "he's almost 80 years old and can't make the 7 mile drive home from the airport" excuses went?? Now, forward two years, he can get housing, care for his spouse and manage transportation to a courthouse in Tally. (Is he aging in reverse?) Can't figure out if he is devoted or deluded.
I'll remove my Joan-of-Snark hat now and duck as I back out of the room. Has anyone ever followed a WS case in which pleadings to be let out of jail pending a murder trial ever heard such complaints? Sciatica and narrow ear canals...SMH.

 

[Going Rogue]

In my opinion, hypothetically, if you say you “always” delete your texts, it seems to me that this must apply to all of your texts.

In any event, I don’t think anybody deletes their texts as a matter of habit. That’s not a thing, that I’m aware of. It seems to me that you’d have to be basically constantly deleting, all day, every text. Why?

*ok, maybe not nobody. Given the size of the world’s population, probably there exists at least one person who does this. But hypothetically speaking, what are the odds that this person (or one of a vanishingly small number of people) also had an ex husband who was murdered, and got a text on the day of the murder of her ex husband that she then deleted and doesn’t have a great explanation for?

I guess her statement can be interpreted many ways which is why is say its rather ambiguous. Regardless, I agree with you. I can see some people deleting texts as part of routine cell phone maintenance and perhaps to free up storage? However, that specific text was sent on that day and deleted on the same day AND it was to Charlie and the context seems to be very suspicious based on the unfortunate event to follow. Her deletion doesn’t seem to have been part of cell phone maintenance – unless we learn she deleted a series of (and multiple) other random text messages on that day (new or old) as well? It’s very suspicious to me and I have always said in my view it seems to prove at a minimum she was aware.

 

[amicuscurie]

DA had sciatica issues before she was arrested...jail did not cause it. Not everyone gains 30% of their original weight while awaiting trial...some people lose weight. She has had the concern (perhaps proclivity) for weight gain/body image in the past per her daughter's podcast. Ie, (paraphrasing) My mother thinks she's fat and was not allowed to join Weight Watchers. Sorry Donna, incarceration does not schedule private trainers like the one available at the South Beach luxury condo. However, she may meet their WW weight guidelines, now. She has turned down medical care that was offered to her because she wants "her choice of treatment." (Oh don't we all know the constraints of an HMO vs a PPO.)
Many poor and indigent people who have never committed a crime wish they had the medical care available in a Tally jail. A bed, clean sheets, telephone privileges, hot showers, calorie laden meals, biscuits and gravy....sounds like the Taj Mahal compared to the plight of the mentally ill and homeless. I carefully watched DA's retelling of her "horrible, tortuous incarceration conditions" and then watched again with NO SOUND. Never once does she have an issue answering every single question. She is never so "choked up" she can not reply to every query! Never red faced, traumatized, or able to "force tears" no matter how many times she tightly squeezes her eyes. Nor is she so traumatized she can not recall each and every second of her shock an horror of someone touching her back in a shower and she screamed. (Why does this iconic "movie shot" come to mind?) Janet Leigh"
And, don't get me started on HA finally making it to a courtroom for one of his family members. (I couldn't help but notice the "GQ stubble" which actually looked good on him, IMO.) His suit/accessorizing was impeccable. However, still trying to figure out where the "he's almost 80 years old and can't make the 7 mile drive home from the airport" excuses went?? Now, forward two years, he can get housing, care for his spouse and manage transportation to a courthouse in Tally. (Is he aging in reverse?) Can't figure out if he is devoted or deluded.
I'll remove my Joan-of-Snark hat now and duck as I back out of the room. Has anyone ever followed a WS case in which pleadings to be let out of jail pending a murder trial ever heard such complaints? Sciatica and narrow ear canals...SMH.

By my calculations based on information I’ve seen in the records of Donna’s arrest, 30% of her body weight would be around 30 lbs, give or take, (if I recall correctly, at arrest she weighed around 112), and it seems likely she now weighs around 130 (I’m just speculating). This is not obese by any measure. What I noticed, and this is just my opinion, was that the only time she showed any emotion was when talking about things she herself had suffered, and not, for example, talking about Charlie’s situation or the verdict. In my opinion, the whole thing was so embarrassing for her, necessitating the public airing of such embarrassing personal information, that I can only surmise that she must really crave any kind of attention on herself, no matter what kind of attention (I’m just speculating again).

 

[Zedzded]

I have no reason to believe her attorneys are doing anything unethical or giving bad guidance.

What is bad guidance?

Is it bad guidance if DA tells them she's innocent and they go in to bat for her, doing their best to defend her dog of a case vs telling DA you may be innocent, but the evidence against you is overwhelming. We will do our best for you, but you need to understand in all likelihood you will be found guilty.

For me bad guidance is not being 100% honest, open and transparent. I don't want a lawyer schmoozing me, telling me I'll be home in time for summer, the State's case is weak yadda, yadda, yadda. I want transparency. It prepares you for the inevitable, but also allows you to strategise. If you know you're going down, you can think of other options e.g cooperation.

I wonder in 5 years time when all the Adelsons are locked up, if anyone of them could go back in time, to before they were convicted, what would they change? Would they cooperate?

 

[Zedzded]

I think you are slightly misquoting her.. I could swear she said ~ “I always delete my texts”... She didn’t say “all” and that makes a big difference. It’s another one of her statements that is rather ambiguous and hard to prove definitively.

Yeah could be that.