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

[Zedzded]

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.

You are right about the trup not being circuitous. I thought it was, but I think you pointed out it was only a few miles, I double-checked and yup wasn't much at all. So not really unusual for someone to go out of their way to get liquor I guess, but as I said earlier it's still behaviour that is going to get the attention of prosecutors and ultimately will go against her in a trial, rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps if that was the only odd thing she did then it's something that could be dismissed. Unfortunately for her the week of the murder and the weeks after the murder her behaviour, actions, comments were all over the place and in perfect harmony with what a murderer would do.

It's not about finding reasons or excuses for said behaviour, it's about finding reasons and excuses that makes sense and will make sense to the jury. WA stated she was too afraid to leave the house, could not eat, sleep or drink for weeks, but managed to arrange to meet random guys from OK Cupid. There is no acceptable explanation for this. At least not one the jury will accept. She might come up with some ridiculous Adelsonesque reason, but that ain't gonna cut the mustard.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

Yes, Wendi had a serious credibility issue and that definitely works against her. That’s is an undeniable fact. Everyone knows she lied through her teeth about multiple things in every trial. As I have said in the past I’m 50 / 50 on my feelings on whether or not she played a direct role in the murder. I can see a scenario where she was purposely left out and the family conspired behind her back and I can also see her playing a small role like passing on Dan’s schedule. Involved or not, I’m convinced the state is not confident they have a strong enough case against her for conspiracy charges. I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to explain how I’m wrong

 

[Going Rogue]

You are right about the trup not being circuitous. I thought it was, but I think you pointed out it was only a few miles, I double-checked and yup wasn't much at all. So not really unusual for someone to go out of their way to get liquor I guess, but as I said earlier it's still behaviour that is going to get the attention of prosecutors and ultimately will go against her in a trial, rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps if that was the only odd thing she did then it's something that could be dismissed. Unfortunately for her the week of the murder and the weeks after the murder her behaviour, actions, comments were all over the place and in perfect harmony with what a murderer would do.

It's not about finding reasons or excuses for said behaviour, it's about finding reasons and excuses that makes sense and will make sense to the jury. WA stated she was too afraid to leave the house, could not eat, sleep or drink for weeks, but managed to arrange to meet random guys from OK Cupid. There is no acceptable explanation for this. At least not one the jury will accept. She might come up with some ridiculous Adelsonesque reason, but that ain't gonna cut the mustard.

I’m starting to think you are on the Adelson PR Team LOL. You couldn’t get away with a comment like you are making a couple of year’s ago saying the trip to ABC ‘wasn’t much at all” - ask me how I know .

If Wendi was not involved and it was planned behind her back, this ‘situation’ she is entangled in is a simple case of not being forthright out of the gate and getting into a position where you have to lie to cover your lies.

 

[Knitpicker]

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 DA 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 DS 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.

You said it better than I could have.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

Dependent on Donnas trial.

 

[Zedzded]

Yes, Wendi had a serious credibility issue and that definitely works against her. That’s is an undeniable fact. Everyone knows she lied through her teeth about multiple things in every trial. As I have said in the past I’m 50 / 50 on my feelings on whether or not she played a direct role in the murder. I can see a scenario where she was purposely left out and the family conspired behind her back and I can also see her playing a small role like passing on Dan’s schedule. Involved or not, I’m convinced the state is not confident they have a strong enough case against her for conspiracy charges. I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to explain how I’m wrong

You're right. I don't think they a strong enough case for conspiracy charges. I believe she was purposely left out, but was probably told what was going to happen or at the very least it was inferred. i.e "Don't worry Wendi, your big brother will take care of Dan. He won't bother you any more."

That's the smart thing to do. She's protected which is part of the reason why we have Accessory charges with knowledge being an element. It means people who are told about a crime, can't just stick their hands up and say "hey they told me about it, but I was not involved...."

 

[Zedzded]

I’m starting to think you are on the Adelson PR Team LOL. You couldn’t get away with a comment like you are making a couple of year’s ago saying the trip to ABC ‘wasn’t much at all” - ask me how I know .

Too much was made of it being out of the way. It's not really. But as I said it's all the other stuff surrounding the trip that is problematic for WA.

 

[amicuscurie]

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.

Respectfully, Florida Statues Section 777.04 does not only refer to attempts.

It also, at subsection (3), states that someone who conspires or agrees to commit a criminal offense is guilty of the crime of conspiracy itself.

The statute does not state exactly what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

For that, we must turn to the Florida standard jury instructions for Section 777.04(3), which state as follows:

To prove the crime of Criminal Conspiracy the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The intent or defendant was that the crime of (name of crime charged) be committed; and
2. In order to carry out the intend, the defendant
[agreed] [conspired] [combined] [confederated]
with persons alleged to cause (object of conspiracy) to be committed either by them, one of them, or by some other person.

It is not necessary that the
[agreement] [conspiracy] [combination] [confederation]
to commit (object of conspiracy) be expressed in any particular words or that words pass between the conspirators.
It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the offense committed. (Emphasis mine.)



To my knowledge this is what the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this or any other Florida case for criminal conspiracy.

 

[Going Rogue]

Respectfully, Florida Statues Section 777.04 does not only refer to attempts.

It also, at subsection (3), states that someone who conspires or agrees to commit a criminal offense is guilty of the crime of conspiracy itself.

The statute does not state exactly what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

For that, we must turn to the Florida standard jury instructions for Section 777.04(3), which state as follows:

To prove the crime of Criminal Conspiracy the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The intent or defendant was that the crime of (name of crime charged) be committed; and
2. In order to carry out the intend, the defendant
[agreed] [conspired] [combined] [confederated]
with persons alleged to cause (object of conspiracy) to be committed either by them, one of them, or by some other person.

It is not necessary that the
[agreement] [conspiracy] [combination] [confederation]
to commit (object of conspiracy) be expressed in any particular words or that words pass between the conspirators.
It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the offense committed. (Emphasis mine.)



To my knowledge this is what the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this or any other Florida case for criminal conspiracy.

Statute 777.04 is primarily addressing ‘inchoate crimes’ of attempt, solicitation & conspiracy. Regarding the ‘requirement’ of an act of furtherance, it is not required is all situations / cases. You can be convicted for ‘attempt’, ‘solicitation’, or ‘conspiracy’ to murder someone (or any crime) but not commit an act of furtherance. A simple example - you send an email to someone saying that you want to put to together to plan to murder someone and request their help. That is solicitation under statute 777.04 with no act of furtherance. The email is not considered an ‘act of furtherance’ it’s solicitation to plan a crime.

Re Wendi and this case, the state will need to prove she took some part in the plan to murder Dan. Technically, if they simply find an email she wrote to one of the coconspirators prior to the murder saying something similar to my above example, it’s not an act of furtherance BUT, yes, she can be convicted on that alone. I’m not saying an ‘act of furtherance’ is always 100% required, but based on the details of this case that are publicly available, Wendi doing some overt act to help facilitate the crime will be needed.

 

[amicuscurie]

Statute 777.04 is primarily addressing ‘inchoate crimes’ of attempt, solicitation & conspiracy. Regarding the ‘requirement’ of an act of furtherance, it is not required is all situations / cases. You can be convicted for ‘attempt’, ‘solicitation’, or ‘conspiracy’ to murder someone (or any crime) but not commit an act of furtherance. A simple example - you send an email to someone saying that you want to put to together to plan to murder someone and request their help. That is solicitation under statute 777.04 with no act of furtherance. The email is not considered an ‘act of furtherance’ it’s solicitation to plan a crime.

Re Wendi and this case, the state will need to prove she took some part in the plan to murder Dan. Technically, if they simply find an email she wrote to one of the coconspirators prior to the murder saying something similar to my above example, it’s not an act of furtherance BUT, yes, she can be convicted on that alone. I’m not saying an ‘act of furtherance’ is always 100% required, but based on the details of this case that are publicly available, Wendi doing some overt act to help facilitate the crime will be needed.

By a plain reading, of the jury instructions, not only is an act in furtherance not “always 100% required,” it is NOT required at all.

Therefore, I do not understand what you mean when you say that if Wendi were to be charged with conspiracy, the state would need to show her “doing some overt act” in order for the state to prove the crime of conspiracy.

Perhaps what you mean is the general principle that if the state must prove that the defendant agreed to the conspiracy, such agreement could be shown by pointing to some act the defendant did?

Speaking generally, I believe that showing agreement is a lesser burden to meet than having to show the actual commission of an act in furtherance.

 

[Going Rogue]

By a plain reading, of the jury instructions, not only is an act in furtherance not “always 100% required,” it is NOT required at all.

Therefore, I do not understand what you mean when you say that if Wendi were to be charged with conspiracy, the state would need to show her “doing some overt act” in order for the state to prove the crime of conspiracy.

Perhaps what you mean is the general principle that if the state must prove that the defendant agreed to the conspiracy, such agreement could be shown by pointing to some act the defendant did?

Speaking generally, I believe that showing agreement is a lesser burden to meet than having to show the actual commission of an act in furtherance.

Right, I already gave you an example of where an act of furtherance is not required and specifically said she can be convicted without an act of furtherance depending on the charges / evidence – as per the example I gave.

To be charged with ‘conspiracy’ the state will need to prove she ‘conspired’ in some way to help plan or facilitate the murder. They don’t necessarily need an ‘act of furtherance’ BUT they will need prove she conspired in some way. If Wendi had knowledge her family was going to commit the crime, that is not ‘conspiring’ (nor would it fall under subsection of FL 777.04) – I think that might be where the disconnect is? She could literally have been told by Charlie it was going to happen (had knowledge) and turned a blind eye to it – that is not a crime based off of any Florida State Statute.

For them to convict Wendi they need to either prove she played some part in the ‘planning’ of Dan’s murder OR that she committed an overt act / act of furtherance.

 

[amicuscurie]

Right, I already gave you an example of where an act of furtherance is not required and specifically said she can be convicted without an act of furtherance depending on the charges / evidence – as per the example I gave.

To be charged with ‘conspiracy’ the state will need to prove she ‘conspired’ in some way to help plan or facilitate the murder. They don’t necessarily need an ‘act of furtherance’ BUT they will need prove she conspired in some way. If Wendi had knowledge her family was going to commit the crime, that is not ‘conspiring’ (nor would it fall under subsection of FL 777.04) – I think that might be where the disconnect is? She could literally have been told by Charlie it was going to happen (had knowledge) and turned a blind eye to it – that is not a crime based off of any Florida State Statute.

For them to convict Wendi they need to either prove she played some part in the ‘planning’ of Dan’s murder OR that she committed an overt act / act of furtherance.

You had me until “act in furtherance.” I believe that the legal definition of “act in furtherance” is an act which is part of the actual plan or which causes the crime to happen. I believe that is simply not required in order to prove conspiracy pursuant to the jury instructions.

What IS required is a showing that the defendant agreed with one or more of the co-conspirators that they would cause the crime to be committed, either by one of them or by someone else.

I admit that it may be very difficult to prove something like that without testimony from a co-conspirator, but I would imagine that in some cases it can be inferred from the defendant’s conduct or actions that the defendant knew about the conspiracy and agreed to it, and thereby became part of it.

 

[BearWatcher]

The fact that Wendy drove by her marital home where her children live. Was seen by LE while there in her car, choose to do a ‘K turn’ around and did not stop to ask what happened is not a normal response by anyone, unless they already know what happened. I am guessing she was followed to her next stop. How else would they have known where she was to bring her into the station for the interview.

 

[Knitpicker]

The fact that Wendy drove by her marital home where her children live. Was seen by LE while there in her car, choose to do a ‘K turn’ around and did not stop to ask what happened is not a normal response by anyone, unless they already know what happened. I am guessing she was followed to her next stop. How else would they have known where she was to bring her into the station for the interview.

It’s too bad Brannon said he couldnt even tell if it was a man or woman and could not ID her. Also too bad he didnt have his phone ready to take a photo of the plate. or at least remember some of it. He was told what her car models/color was.
I’m not sure she was followed. They had her cell number and they knew the location of it (pretty sure).

 

[Going Rogue]

You had me until “act in furtherance.” I believe that the legal definition of “act in furtherance” is an act which is part of the actual plan or which causes the crime to happen. I believe that is simply not required in order to prove conspiracy pursuant to the jury instructions.

What IS required is a showing that the defendant agreed with one or more of the co-conspirators that they would cause the crime to be committed, either by one of them or by someone else.

I admit that it may be very difficult to prove something like that without testimony from a co-conspirator, but I would imagine that in some cases it can be inferred from the defendant’s conduct or actions that the defendant knew about the conspiracy and agreed to it, and thereby became part of it.

I said they need to ‘either’ prove she was part of the planning OR (not ‘and’) prove she committed an overt act / act in furtherance. Without an overt act or act in furtherance (e.g. passing on Dan’s schedule), simple knowledge is not enough, they would need to prove she did ‘something’ that proves she was part of the planning ‘IF’ there is no overt act or act in furtherance.

 

[Going Rogue]

It’s too bad Brannon said he couldnt even tell if it was a man or woman and could not ID her. Also too bad he didnt have his phone ready to take a photo of the plate. or at least remember some of it. He was told what her car models/color was.
I’m not sure she was followed. They had her cell number and they knew the location of it (pretty sure).

Makes absolutely no difference whether or not he positively ID’s her. She admitted seeing the police vehicle at the roadblock and turning around at the tape. She never denied being there. This is another ‘social media’ controversy that started in YouTube because people are so hung up on Wendi’s ‘inconsistent’ testimony about the famous ‘turn’. I know we been through this multiple times but trust me i's a big nothing burger from a ‘legal’ standpoint. Its only a big deal in YouTube La La Land where content creators are looking to create content and stir up controversy OR they have a poor understanding of what’s important or relevant.

 

[Zedzded]

You had me until “act in furtherance.” I believe that the legal definition of “act in furtherance” is an act which is part of the actual plan or which causes the crime to happen. I believe that is simply not required in order to prove conspiracy pursuant to the jury instructions.

What IS required is a showing that the defendant agreed with one or more of the co-conspirators that they would cause the crime to be committed, either by one of them or by someone else.

I admit that it may be very difficult to prove something like that without testimony from a co-conspirator, but I would imagine that in some cases it can be inferred from the defendant’s conduct or actions that the defendant knew about the conspiracy and agreed to it, and thereby became part of it.

It's the "agreeing" part that will be difficult to prove. That and/or an act in furtherance. As I said earlier I don't know whether this was contrived by WA or she just got lucky, but I believe she had a hands off approach. CA told her he would take care of DanM and WA said "OK." Which isn't agreeance. She would have to say "it's a great idea to kill DanM, lets do it."

I think she's as a cunning as a fox and never said anything along those lines. At least not in text or email and if she did probably on a burner phone. Any acts in furtherance would also have been minimal. I just have not seen one thing that suggests she could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. People are saying she conspired as who else would have told the killers about DanM's movements. Great, where's the proof!?

 

[Knitpicker]

Makes absolutely no difference whether or not he positively ID’s her. She admitted seeing the police vehicle at the roadblock and turning around at the tape. She never denied being there. This is another ‘social media’ controversy that started in YouTube because people are so hung up on Wendi’s ‘inconsistent’ testimony about the famous ‘turn’. I know we been through this multiple times but trust me i's a big nothing burger from a ‘legal’ standpoint. Its only a big deal in YouTube La La Land where content creators are looking to create content and stir up controversy OR they have a poor understanding of what’s important or relevant.

Except 2 accounts of the tape were at Centerville and Trescott where there was none. My comment was to the poster who mention her being seen by Brannon. I was just saying that he did not identify her.

 

[Zedzded]

Except 2 accounts of the tape were at Centerville and Trescott where there was none. My comment was to the poster who mention her being seen by Brannon. I was just saying that he did not identify her.

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

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

 

[Going Rogue]

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

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

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

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