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

[Going Rogue]

I watched the Jeff interview in Going Rogue’s post, above. I think it’s important to note that he is specifically asked whether he has ever been to Dan’s house, and it is only in this context that he says he drove by it WITH Wendi, and passed Dan’s house “hundreds of times” but “never stopped.”

He could only have known it was Dan’s house he was passing if this was after he met her. The fact that he makes a point of noting that he did not stop also suggests to me that when he drove by either she was with him, or at the very least it was after he met her and found out it was Dan’s house. Otherwise, it would not be remarkable that he did not stop by, to me.

I’m other words, there is no indication from this video posted above of Jeff that he ever used Trescott as a regular shortcut prior to meeting Wendi, or that he even knew about it.

Is it possible that he was not aware of this shortcut until he met her? Is it possible she told him it was a shortcut? Is it possible, then, that it was NOT a well-known shortcut for people in Tally, because it didn’t really save a lot of time? Is it possible that this is why it seemed odd to investigators that Wendi claimed in her interview that it was “a shortcut?”

Correct, he did say he passed Dan’s house with Wendi 100’s of times and that ‘Trescott was a shortcut’. If you want to infer that Wendi taught him that shortcut, okay – maybe? Regardless, I am bringing this up because Trescott being (or NOT being) shortcut is (in my opinion) an IMPORTANT detail to the way this case is viewed. That is my opinion, and I never understood why so many people were so adamant about stressing that it wasn’t a shortcut. If you drill down to the comments section to the video I posted – Mentour Lawyer (a local and the OG of the case) even stated that it is in fact a shortcut and he said that ‘HE' has said this 100’s of times and he also uses it as a shortcut. Do we really need any more proof that Trescott is a ‘shortcut’ (or can be viewed as one) when heading south on Centerville towards Thomasville than Menouur Lawyers saying it is?

 

[Knitpicker]

if I recall correctly, the text shown at trial did not ask if she could have the kiddos for that whole week. To the best of my recollection, in the text she asked if he would be traveling that week, (which we now know was the week of the murder) because she wanted to have the kids that Wednesday evening. To me, this is curious.

Why? Because as we now know, the week of the murder was Dan’s week with the kids. it is my understanding that pursuant to their custody arrangement, the parent who did NOT have the kids that week would get them for a Wednesday overnight; I believe she mentioned this in her police interview, when she was telling Isom how she had the kids that Wednesday and saw Dan in the window of Whole Foods and didn’t go in.

Since the week of the murder was Dan’s week with the kids, it seems to me that W would have been entitled to have them overnight on Wednesday pursuant to their agreement. It is curious to me, then, that the evidence presented at trial shows that she sent a text to Dan saying she wanted have them that Wednesday and asking whether he would be traveling.

I have not seen the agreement, and it is certainly possible that it required the non-custodial parent to ask the other parent every single time about whether the Wednesday visit would occur. But from my knowledge of custody agreements and contracts in general, I believe this to be highly unlikely. The purpose of an agreement, generally, is for the parties to know what was expected to happen without having to ask.

Also significant to me is that it is my understanding that during that summer, his custom was to travel to visit Amy during the weeks he did NOT have the kids, not when he did, and I believe there is evidence that W knew this (I believe W spoke of this during her police interview); the fact that the evidence shown at trial showed that she sent this text weeks before the week of the murder; and the fact that cell tower records shown at trial indicate she sent it from the area of her parents’ condo in South Florida.

Ok so she asked if he was going to be home. I stand corrected. Thanks the “kiddos” comment was that she wanted them Wednesday. But you are right. She didn’t have to ask.

So if there was actually a July 1st attempt (I know that bothers people-but just hypothetically), it would make sense that when she was in Miami those 2 weeks, she would be asking him about that week.

 

[Knitpicker]

Well, I'm not one of the people who commented about Trescott. I'm not a local, so I have no idea what's a shortcut and what isn't. But I guess the question really is: "Trescott is a shortcut from where to where?" It really depends on where one lives and where one is going.

Just looking at the map from Charlie's trial, it does appear that Wendi went out of her way to go to ABC when there were liquor stores that were much closer to the restaurant. If I recall, her excuse was that she was unaware of those other stores.

Is it possible that she's so flighty she never noticed any other liquor store in her neighborhood even though she'd lived there for years? I guess. But to me, it just seems like another instance of Wendi playing dumb on the stand to cover up obvious lies.


Edit - I just remembered that during the trial I plugged in Wendi's address and ABC liquor into Google to see if it ever picked Trescott as a shortcut. I put in different days of the week and times of the day, and while sometimes it chose alternate routes, it never showed Trescott as an option. Try it yourself, and see if you can get a route that uses Trescott.

3303 Aqua Ridge Way to ABC Fine Wine & Spirits

maps.app.goo.gl

When asked why she went to ABC she said “ it’s the first one that came up” or something like that. I took that to mean she googled “Liquor stores in my area” or something.
I know whenever there are multiples of the same stores in my area and I want to see which is closer, the one that “comes up” is always the closest one.

 

[Going Rogue]

if I recall correctly, the text shown at trial did not ask if she could have the kiddos for that whole week. To the best of my recollection, in the text she asked if he would be traveling that week, (which we now know was the week of the murder) because she wanted to have the kids that Wednesday evening. To me, this is curious.

Why? Because as we now know, the week of the murder was Dan’s week with the kids. it is my understanding that pursuant to their custody arrangement, the parent who did NOT have the kids that week would get them for a Wednesday overnight; I believe she mentioned this in her police interview, when she was telling Isom how she had the kids that Wednesday and saw Dan in the window of Whole Foods and didn’t go in.

Since the week of the murder was Dan’s week with the kids, it seems to me that W would have been entitled to have them overnight on Wednesday pursuant to their agreement. It is curious to me, then, that the evidence presented at trial shows that she sent a text to Dan saying she wanted have them that Wednesday and asking whether he would be traveling.

I have not seen the agreement, and it is certainly possible that it required the non-custodial parent to ask the other parent every single time about whether the Wednesday visit would occur. But from my knowledge of custody agreements and contracts in general, I believe this to be highly unlikely. The purpose of an agreement, generally, is for the parties to know what was expected to happen without having to ask.

Also significant to me is that it is my understanding that during that summer, his custom was to travel to visit Amy during the weeks he did NOT have the kids, not when he did, and I believe there is evidence that W knew this (I believe W spoke of this during her police interview); the fact that the evidence shown at trial showed that she sent this text weeks before the week of the murder; and the fact that cell tower records shown at trial indicate she sent it from the area of her parents’ condo in South Florida.

The text was sent the week before Dan’s scheduled week in which he was murdered. Although the timing of the text does seem curious, the question that Wendi asked wasn’t out of left field based on the details of the custody agreement. There was a ‘summer month travel stipulation’ in the custody agreement that stated if the parent with custody was traveling out of town on their week, it trumped the Wednesday crossover night. In Wendi’s text, she was asking if Dan was planning on traveling his upcoming week because if would have affected her crossover date.

Dan traveled often, so its not an odd question to ask especially based on the travel stipulation in the custody agreement. What makes it ‘curious’ is Dan was murdered that week she questioned his travel plans. I fully realized that if Wendi passed that information onto Donna and Charlie knowing why they wanted that information she is 100% guilty of being a coconspirator. However absent proof she passed that information on, its just conjecture speculation.

 

[ch_13]

The map you posted, which was used by the prosecution, depicts the ‘ENTIRE’ route (or actual route) from Wendi’s home to ABC then the restaurant vrs. the alternative route – home to ‘Publix’ to restaurant. I am specifically referencing the Trescott ‘shortcut’ which a completely different ‘debate’ then her decision to go to ABC vrs ‘Publix’ or ‘Market Square Liquors’ or any other liquor store which is what that map is illustrating.

I think the prosecution’s map you posted might confuse the average case follower when discussing whether or not Trescott is a shortcut. The shortcut ‘debate’ is different than the debate of why she chose ABC liquors. I completely understand the argument people make regarding her decision to go to ABC and all the reasons people state she chose ABC but again that is different than the ‘Trescott’ shortcut debate.

Isn't the relevant question whether or not the Trescott route is a shortcut for Wendi going from her home to ABC liquor? And from the routes charted by Google maps it doesn't seem to be.

If instead you want to argue whether anyone, anywhere in the history of Tallahassee has ever used Trescott as a shortcut to somewhere, well that's a different issue. I'm sure someone has, but it doesn't mean that it makes sense as a shortcut for Wendi on that morning.

For what it's worth, there's a road near me that has speed bumps (like Trescott). It's not a shortcut, it takes longer than the regular route. However, I take it sometime because it's a nice drive. But not when I'm in a hurry, and I would never take it if I was running late to meet other people. But maybe Wendi didn't care about her friends, and decided to take the scenic route.

Still, she told so many obvious lies on the stand, that it's hard for me to give credence to anything she says about her actions and motivations.

 

[Going Rogue]

Isn't the relevant question whether or not the Trescott route is a shortcut for Wendi going from her home to ABC liquor? And from the routes charted by Google maps it doesn't seem to be.

If instead you want to argue whether anyone, anywhere in the history of Tallahassee has ever used Trescott as a shortcut to somewhere, well that's a different issue. I'm sure someone has, but it doesn't mean that it makes sense as a shortcut for Wendi on that morning.

For what it's worth, there's a road near me that has speed bumps (like Trescott). It's not a shortcut, it takes longer than the regular route. However, I take it sometime because it's a nice drive. But not when I'm in a hurry, and I would never take it if I was running late to meet other people. But maybe Wendi didn't care about her friends, and decided to take the scenic route.

Still, she told so many obvious lies on the stand, that it's hard for me to give credence to anything she says about her actions and motivations.

Simply put, there are two separate questions:

1) Is it bizarre that Wendi chose ABC liquors to make her purchase that day?
2) Was taking Trescott as shortcut (INSTEAD of staying on Centerville to Benton) a bizarre way to travel?

One and two above are two separate questions / debates that will be forever be linked together. I am not arguing that if “anyone anywhere in the history of Tallahassee” ever used Trescott as a shortcut it is therefore a shortcut. If you follow the case closely, it is undeniable that there are multiple videos and discussions centered on Wendi’s ‘decision’ to use Trescott and that she called it a ‘shortcut’. The narrative is her decision to take Trecott instead of staying on Centerville is an indicator of guilt because it’s NOT a shortcut. Why do people think it’s not a shortcut? In my opinion, its because a few YouTubers drilled that point into the heads of their audience multiple times over the years.

I agree she told many lies but I am pointing out a detail in this crazy case that (in my opinion) is failure by many people to objectively review ‘data’ and provide a non-biased opinion. If someone reviews all the data and proclaims that no one in their right mind would ever take Trescott as their preferred route traveling south on Centerville to Thomasville, in my opinion they aren’t being objective. It’s fine if anyone disagrees, but the argument can’t be “Wendi lies so I don’t think it could possibly be a shortcut”.

 

[amicuscurie]

Correct, he did say he passed Dan’s house with Wendi 100’s of times and that ‘Trescott was a shortcut’. If you want to infer that Wendi taught him that shortcut, okay – maybe? Regardless, I am bringing this up because Trescott being (or NOT being) shortcut is (in my opinion) an IMPORTANT detail to the way this case is viewed. That is my opinion, and I never understood why so many people were so adamant about stressing that it wasn’t a shortcut. If you drill down to the comments section to the video I posted – Mentour Lawyer (a local and the OG of the case) even stated that it is in fact a shortcut and he said that ‘HE' has said this 100’s of times and he also uses it as a shortcut. Do we really need any more proof that Trescott is a ‘shortcut’ (or can be viewed as one) when heading south on Centerville towards Thomasville than Menouur Lawyers saying it is?

All good points, but I think that many view her taking this route to the liquor store on the say of the murder when her lunch was in the other direction problematic. Perhaps whether or not it really is a shortcut is not the only, or best, reason to find it odd and suspicious. It’s possible it really IS as shortcut, but there STILL is some other reason she took that route on that day of all days.

 

[amicuscurie]

The text was sent the week before Dan’s scheduled week in which he was murdered. Although the timing of the text does seem curious, the question that Wendi asked wasn’t out of left field based on the details of the custody agreement. There was a ‘summer month travel stipulation’ in the custody agreement that stated if the parent with custody was traveling out of town on their week, it trumped the Wednesday crossover night. In Wendi’s text, she was asking if Dan was planning on traveling his upcoming week because if would have affected her crossover date.

Dan traveled often, so its not an odd question to ask especially based on the travel stipulation in the custody agreement. What makes it ‘curious’ is Dan was murdered that week she questioned his travel plans. I fully realized that if Wendi passed that information onto Donna and Charlie knowing why they wanted that information she is 100% guilty of being a coconspirator. However absent proof she passed that information on, its just conjecture speculation.

The question for any jury in general is not whether there exists any alternate explanation for any one piece of evidence, such as you point out with regard to the text, or the drive down Trescott, for example.

The question for any jury is whether such an alternate explanation is the most reasonable one in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that a crime has taken place.

 

[Going Rogue]

The question for any jury in general is not whether there exists any alternate explanation for any one piece of evidence, such as you point out with regard to the text, or the drive down Trescott, for example.

The question for any jury is whether such an alternate explanation is the most reasonable one in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that a crime has taken place.

The prosecution needs to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Wendi did ‘something’ / ‘anything’ to aid her family in the plot to murder Dan. If you can tell me based on information that’s publicly available how they prove the case against Wendi beyond a reasonable doubt, I’m all ears.

I have yet to see anyone lay out a compelling case against Wendi that isn’t conjecture, assumptions and speculation. Please do not confuse my statements with any claim that I think she is innocent or I am advocating for her innocence. IMO, the facts are the case against her is weak which is what I’ve been saying for years. She can’t be convicted because we think her family would have never done this without her approval so its just logical she ‘must’ have been involved.

 

[Going Rogue]

All good points, but I think that many view her taking this route to the liquor store on the say of the murder when her lunch was in the other direction problematic. Perhaps whether or not it really is a shortcut is not the only, or best, reason to find it odd and suspicious. It’s possible it really IS as shortcut, but there STILL is some other reason she took that route on that day of all days.

Yes, I completely understand the way her decision to go to ABC is viewed. I never deviated from my position on this. The distance she traveled to ABC made her route 4 miles (in TOTAL) longer than had she chosen Market Square Liquors - another 5 or 7 minutes?. As you have probably have seen me argue this specific case detail before the ‘long circuitous route‘ she took is exaggerated in a VERY big way in social media unless you think 4 additional miles egregious – I don’t. We know for a fact she had the party to attend the evening and she needed to make a liquor purchase for the party. ABC just so happens to be the largest chain liquor store in Florida and the first choice of many because of their low prices. I don’t think adding 4 miles to your route go to ABC is that big a deal. And YES, I know she was in a rush and forgot to shower etc.

 

[amicuscurie]

The prosecution needs to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Wendi did ‘something’ / ‘anything’ to aid her family in the plot to murder Dan. If you can tell me based on information that’s publicly available how they prove the case against Wendi beyond a reasonable doubt, I’m all ears.

I have yet to see anyone lay out a compelling case against Wendi that isn’t conjecture, assumptions and speculation. Please do not confuse my statements with any claim that I think she is innocent or I am advocating for her innocence. IMO, the facts are the case against her is weak which is what I’ve been saying for years. She can’t be convicted because we think her family would have never done this without her approval so its just logical she ‘must’ have been involved.

I think that there may be stuff we haven’t seen. From my understanding, to prove criminal conspiracy in Florida you don’t have to prove that an alleged member of the conspiracy actually did an affirmative act in furtherance of the crime.

You DO have to show: 1. intent that the crime be committed and 2. An agreement with at least one other co-conspirator to commit the crime.

I think that possibly the prosecution may be making an effort to show both of those things, and may have evidence with respect to Wendi. In my opinion they would need to demonstrate her assent to the plot. I don’t think it necessarily needs to be something in writing, I think hypothetically the jury could conclude from the totality of the circumstances that there was such an agreement.

But as far as I know, Florida doesn’t require that the defendant do something to further the plot in order to prove conspiracy, I looked it up once. That said, agreement with a co-conspirator may be difficult to show

 

[Going Rogue]

I think that there may be stuff we haven’t seen. From my understanding, to prove criminal conspiracy in Florida you don’t have to prove that an alleged member of the conspiracy actually did an affirmative act in furtherance of the crime.

You DO have to show: 1. intent that the crime be committed and 2. An agreement with at least one other co-conspirator to commit the crime.

I think that possibly the prosecution may be making an effort to show both of those things, and may have evidence with respect to Wendi. In my opinion they would need to demonstrate her assent to the plot. I don’t think it necessarily needs to be something in writing, I think hypothetically the jury could conclude from the totality of the circumstances that there was such an agreement.

But as far as I know, Florida doesn’t require that the defendant do something to further the plot in order to prove conspiracy, I looked it up once. That said, agreement with a co-conspirator may be difficult to show

We can only base our opinions and analysis on information that’s public. Of course they have information that we haven’t seen and I’m sure that includes exculpatory evidence. Not sure what comment or Florida Statute you saw or read, but they absolutely need some act of furtherance from Wendi that ties her to the planning in some way to charge her with conspiracy charges. FL Statute 777.04 was brought up here in the past, which speaks to ‘Attempts’ of a conspiracy. That statute is referring to crimes that were ‘planned’ but never carried out to completion or failed during execution of the crime. My guess is that’s what you recall seeing because you are you saying they need to show “intent that the crime be committed”. Regardless, this crime was planned and executed and they definitely need to prove Wendi did something to aid the other conspirators in some way.

 

[Knitpicker]

The prosecution needs to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Wendi did ‘something’ / ‘anything’ to aid her family in the plot to murder Dan. If you can tell me based on information that’s publicly available how they prove the case against Wendi beyond a reasonable doubt, I’m all ears.

I have yet to see anyone lay out a compelling case against Wendi that isn’t conjecture, assumptions and speculation. Please do not confuse my statements with any claim that I think she is innocent or I am advocating for her innocence. IMO, the facts are the case against her is weak which is what I’ve been saying for years. She can’t be convicted because we think her family would have never done this without her approval so its just logical she ‘must’ have been involved.

One by one….

 

[Going Rogue]

One by one….

I told you once before that the “one-by-one” comment coming out of the Tally DA’s office is a ridiculous comment and they should have just said “we can’t comment on an open investigation”.

If their strategy is truly ‘one-by-one’ and they are sitting on a rock solid case against Wendi – meaning they have info that isn’t public that proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be an outrage and a miscarriage of justice and I will have ZERO respect for whoever is behind the ‘'one-by-one' strategy.

I don’t believe for a minute that is their strategy – it’s just a silly phrase they used (more than once) to appease the public and relieve some public pressure because they have made some missteps - most obvious was the delay in arresting Charlie & Donna.

 

[Knitpicker]

I told you once before that the “one-by-one” comment coming out of the Tally DA’s office is a ridiculous comment and they should have just said “we can’t comment on an open investigation”.

If their strategy is truly ‘one-by-one’ and they are sitting on a rock solid case against Wendi – meaning they have info that isn’t public that proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be an outrage and a miscarriage of justice and I will have ZERO respect for whoever is behind the ‘'one-by-one' strategy.

I don’t believe for a minute that is their strategy – it’s just a silly phrase they used (more than once) to appease the public and relieve some public pressure because they have made some missteps - most obvious was the delay in arresting Charlie & Donna.

Wouldn’t it be true if they are saving evidence for Wendi? Of course they haven’t revealed the evidence for her yet. We will just have to wait…

 

[Going Rogue]

Wouldn’t it be true if they are saving evidence for Wendi? Of course they haven’t revealed the evidence for her yet. We will just have to wait…

Not sure what you mean by “saving evidence”? If you mean they have enough evidence today (that’s not public) and it's enough to very reasonably meet the burden of proof and they delayed Wendi’s arrest – Then, yes, it would be true that they did in fact deploy the ‘one-at-a-time’ strategy. As I said if that turns out to be the case, it would be a serious miscarriage of justice and I'd be very disappointed in the DA's office AND if I'm a Markel, I'd be calling for someone's head.

 

[Zedzded]

It doesn't really matter if Trescott was a shortcut or not. I drive a longer route to work as it goes down the coast. The issue is a murder happened, WA was the default suspect being the ex-wife and as a suspect, default or not, it's critical to ensure you don't lie and your statements are logical and rational.

When you tell lies and make statements that don't make sense and don't adhere to what a "normal" person would do then there will be a problem. Sometimes people do abnormal things, however, but in a murder investigation you can't do 3, 4, 5 abnormal things because then you look suspicious.

So assuming for a minute WA is innocent, she has done enough abnormal things to make her look guilty and sometimes innocent people are found guilty. And to look less suspicious she needs believable excuses for that behaviour.

e.g it might be true that she has a poor sense of direction, but that's not good enough. Same with passing 3, 4, 5 liquor stores to get to the one she ultimately went to. Maybe it was her favourite liquor store, that's just bad luck for her unfortunately.

Like CA found out and more recently DA, their responses to accusations need to be credible. It doesn't matter about the truth, it has to be credible. None of the Adelsons have any credibility, so much of what they say truthful or not will be disregarded and will not be accepted by the jury.

 

[Zedzded]

Not sure what you mean by “saving evidence”? If you mean they have enough evidence today (that’s not public) and it's enough to very reasonably meet the burden of proof and they delayed Wendi’s arrest – Then, yes, it would be true that they did in fact deploy the ‘one-at-a-time’ strategy. As I said if that turns out to be the case, it would be a serious miscarriage of justice and I'd be very disappointed in the DA's office AND if I'm a Markel, I'd be calling for someone's head.

If you look at the "one at a time" strategy in the context of DA's case, it makes sense. If they had arrested her when CA was arrested they would not have had the jailhouse calls, they would not have had the phonecall that was not hung up, the text exchanges between WA and DA and most importantly they would not have had the consciousness of guilt with the attempt to flee.

The case against DA is infinitely stronger now than it was back in 2022 when CA was arrested. Applying that logic to WA's case, it seems reasonable to wait until after DA's trial to arrest WA. Even if there was no more incriminating evidence to come out, there is still the remote chance CA or DA cooperates and hands the State WA's big fat head on a platter.

 

[Zedzded]

I also believe that if the State wanted to pursue an Accessory after the fact charge, that more evidence to support this will surface during DA's trial. As time has gone on, more and more information has come out that shows WA knew about the crime, knew about it, but did not conspire.

 

[Zedzded]

In my opinion they would need to demonstrate her assent to the plot.

Whether this was contrived or not I don't know, but WA has, seemingly, done enough to cover her arse when it comes to evidence that shows she conspired. Maybe CA wanted to own and manage the murder by himself, maybe he wanted to protect his little sister or maybe WA did not want to get her hands dirty, we don't know. I think WA wanted it done and wanted as little involvement as possible.

So I would not be surprised if the State had nothing that proved WA conspired. She was very quiet when it came to texting about the murder and probably used a burner phone. She did not reply to a lot of DA's raging emails re DanM and was apparently reasonably diligent, which is why i think Accessory is the most likely route the State will go.