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

[Going Rogue]

stretching the truth…is that a lie or a way to soften the severity of lying on the stand?
Her responses were not “inconsistencies” but lies. Plain and simple.

She said she saw the car because she knew someone saw her.
I personally believe she changed her story from what she told Isom because she found out that an officer saw her after that. Her alternating accounts was to confuse the issue, imo. If she stayed with being at DM’s house, she would be too close for comfort. So she distanced herself on her second account.

Call it a lie, a half-truth, stretching the truth, being purposely ambiguous or cunningly deceptive, it doesn’t matter. I agree that her testimony about the attempt to take Trescott was testimony that was very wordy and confusing and I’m not suggesting it was an innocent mishap – it may have been a very strategic response for all the reasons you and others mention. It’s not a good look to be there and to not question what happened in the eyes of the public and she wanted to distance herself – yes, that’s very possible. The point I’m trying to make that getting lost is that Cappleman should have done a better job with follow up questions as soon as it got to the point where Wendi’s statements were not crystal clear. That’s the job of a prosecutor or attorney when they are questioning a witness and the witness gives responses that are unclear or ambiguous. Unless Mentour Lawyer is correct and Cappleman decided not to press because she wanted the exact outcome and public impression that this developed into.

As I said previously, Wendi has a very easy out. She wasn’t asked any follow up questions to clarify and give specific detail like where exactly the roadblock was OR how far did she travel down Trescott in ANY of the trials once it became clear that her response was 'vague' (to put it mildly) when she testified about the famous ‘turn’ on Trescott. I FULLY acknowledge her testimony was VERY inconsistent and the opportunity was lost to get clarity in all of the past trials. As I said previously, her legal team will have her well prepared to clear this up if she is questioned again on this and the prosecution drills down on the details. I can see her response 1000 miles away when that day comes. Mark it ~ “It was x years ago, I don’t remember how far down I traveled.. I’m not sure if the roadblock was near the intersection of Centerville and Trescott or further drown”.

 

[Knitpicker]

Call it a lie, a half-truth, stretching the truth, being purposely ambiguous or cunningly deceptive, it doesn’t matter. I agree that her testimony about the attempt to take Trescott was testimony that was very wordy and confusing and I’m not suggesting it was an innocent mishap – it may have been a very strategic response for all the reasons you and others mention. It’s not a good look to be there and to not question what happened in the eyes of the public and she wanted to distance herself – yes, that’s very possible. The point I’m trying to make that getting lost is that Cappleman should have done a better job with follow up questions as soon as it got to the point where Wendi’s statements were not crystal clear. That’s the job of a prosecutor or attorney when they are questioning a witness and the witness gives responses that are unclear or ambiguous. Unless Mentour Lawyer is correct and Cappleman decided not to press because she wanted the exact outcome and public impression that this developed into.

As I said previously, Wendi has a very easy out. She wasn’t asked any follow up questions to clarify and give specific detail like where exactly the roadblock was OR how far did she travel down Trescott in ANY of the trials once it became clear that her response was 'vague' (to put it mildly) when she testified about the famous ‘turn’ on Trescott. I FULLY acknowledge her testimony was VERY inconsistent and the opportunity was lost to get clarity in all of the past trials. As I said previously, her legal team will have her well prepared to clear this up if she is questioned again on this and the prosecution drills down on the details. I can see her response 1000 miles away when that day comes. Mark it ~ “It was x years ago, I don’t remember how far down I traveled.. I’m not sure if the roadblock was near the intersection of Centerville and Trescott or further drown”.

Well, she was pretty specific in all her testimonies, unless you think the 10 year mark completely erases all memories of Trescott, while being extremely cunning with how she answers ever other topic . Such as “I don’t believe so”, “I don’t remember that” vs a straight “yes” or “no”.

And also re: Trescott-if she misspoke the second time (She couldn't even turn on Trescott) , why would she ever go back to her first account?
Any way ya slice it, it’s still bologna.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well, she was pretty specific in all her testimonies, unless you think the 10 year mark completely erases all memories of Trescott, while being extremely cunning with how she answers ever other topic . Such as “I don’t believe so”, “I don’t remember that” vs a straight “yes” or “no”.

And also re: Trescott-if she misspoke the second time (She couldn't even turn on Trescott) , why would she ever go back to her first account?
Any way ya slice it, it’s still bologna.

I can only speculate that Wendi answered in a way in which she felt was the best response and was likely being purposely ambiguous based on what was known and given her previous statements AND will continue to do so. As I said, she was never asked to clarify the specific details after her responses were either confusing, not clear, or not lining up. It’s pretty standard practice to ask clarifying questions and / or refer a witness to previous statements when / if something isn’t lining up OR is not clear. When June had temporary amnesia in Charlie’s trial about the stapled money – what did Cappleman do? She referred June to her deposition to refresh her memory and June miraculously remembered. It happens all the time during witness testimony - whether done on purpose or not. I really have no issue if you or anyone disagrees with me, I just see this as a big nothing burger - that my opinion. Yes, I understand she was probably purposely ambiguous but Cappleman should have / could have easily cleared this up but she chose not to.

 

[Zedzded]

Call it a lie, a half-truth, stretching the truth, being purposely ambiguous or cunningly deceptive, it doesn’t matter.

Well it wasn't a half truth, it was a blatant lie and it was an attempt to hide that she drove to the crime scene. Does it matter? Well it's not evidence per se and her trip down Trescott won't play a significant part in securing her conviction, but it will be important for the State as they show WA to be completely lacking in credibility.

The point I’m trying to make that getting lost is that Cappleman should have done a better job with follow up questions as soon as it got to the point where Wendi’s statements were not crystal clear.

GC's reluctance to pursue certain lines of questioning was so obvious that it must have been part of their strategy. They did not need to show WA's complicity in CA's trial.

 

[noZme]

Well it wasn't a half truth, it was a blatant lie and it was an attempt to hide that she drove to the crime scene. Does it matter? Well it's not evidence per se and her trip down Trescott won't play a significant part in securing her conviction, but it will be important for the State as they show WA to be completely lacking in credibility.



GC's reluctance to pursue certain lines of questioning was so obvious that it must have been part of their strategy. They did not need to show WA's complicity in CA's trial.

Well it wasn't a half truth, it was a blatant lie and it was an attempt to hide that she drove to the crime scene. Does it matter? Well it's not evidence per se and her trip down Trescott won't play a significant part in securing her conviction, but it will be important for the State as they show WA to be completely lacking in credibility.



GC's reluctance to pursue certain lines of questioning was so obvious that it must have been part of their strategy. They did not need to show WA's complicity in CA's trial.

 

[Knitpicker]

I can only speculate that Wendi answered in a way in which she felt was the best response and was likely being purposely ambiguous based on what was known and given her previous statements AND will continue to do so. As I said, she was never asked to clarify the specific details after her responses were either confusing, not clear, or not lining up. It’s pretty standard practice to ask clarifying questions and / or refer a witness to previous statements when / if something isn’t lining up OR is not clear. When June had temporary amnesia in Charlie’s trial about the stapled money – what did Cappleman do? She referred June to her deposition to refresh her memory and June miraculously remembered. It happens all the time during witness testimony - whether done on purpose or not. I really have no issue if you or anyone disagrees with me, I just see this as a big nothing burger - that my opinion. Yes, I understand she was probably purposely ambiguous but Cappleman should have / could have easily cleared this up but she chose not to.

I have to trust that Georgia had a motive to not call Wendi out MANY times. So we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Zedzded]

I have to trust that Georgia had a motive to not call Wendi out MANY times. So we will just have to wait and see.

I'm very interested in the OK Cupid data. I think when WA handed over her phone she deleted WhatsApp and OK Cupid.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well it wasn't a half truth, it was a blatant lie and it was an attempt to hide that she drove to the crime scene. Does it matter? Well it's not evidence per se and her trip down Trescott won't play a significant part in securing her conviction, but it will be important for the State as they show WA to be completely lacking in credibility.



GC's reluctance to pursue certain lines of questioning was so obvious that it must have been part of their strategy. They did not need to show WA's complicity in CA's trial.

If the day ever comes where Wendi is on trial, the state can very easily convince any jury that Wendi hated Dan, had motive and lacks credibility. The way she answered the question in the previous trials about the 'turn on Trescott' will not even be introduced in her trial IF that day comes. Which is why I keep saying its a nothing burger and its made out to be some important detail in social media as it relates to a potential Wendi indictment / future trial. I even agree that she was intentionally coy in the way she responded to distance herself – although it’s impossible to prove, I do believe that is exactly what she did. It will be much of the same in Donna’s trial UNLES Capplerman decides to force Wendi to be more specific – to date she has not done that.

Regarding Cappleman’s reluctance to ask certain lines of questions, I can’t say that’s not possible but I can’t think of a logical reason she would have avoided drilling down more on the famous ‘turn’ on Trescott. It wouldn’t have ‘protected’ Wendi in anyway based on her immunity deal, so why not ask follow up questions? I can only see two possibilities – 1) ML was correct and Georgia knew it made Wendi look bad and wanted the exact public reaction this has received. 2) Georgia just wasn’t thinking on her feet and simply failed to ask Wendi to clarify the details of the turn on Trescott and where she encountered the roadblock.

 

[Knitpicker]

If the day ever comes where Wendi is on trial, the state can very easily convince any jury that Wendi hated Dan, had motive and lacks credibility. The way she answered the question in the previous trials about the 'turn on Trescott' will not even be introduced in her trial IF that day comes. Which is why I keep saying its a nothing burger and its made out to be some important detail in social media as it relates to a potential Wendi indictment / future trial. I even agree that she was intentionally coy in the way she responded to distance herself – although it’s impossible to prove, I do believe that is exactly what she did. It will be much of the same in Donna’s trial UNLES Capplerman decides to force Wendi to be more specific – to date she has not done that.

Regarding Cappleman’s reluctance to ask certain lines of questions, I can’t say that’s not possible but I can’t think of a logical reason she would have avoided drilling down more on the famous ‘turn’ on Trescott. It wouldn’t have ‘protected’ Wendi in anyway based on her immunity deal, so why not ask follow up questions? I can only see two possibilities – 1) ML was correct and Georgia knew it made Wendi look bad and wanted the exact public reaction this has received. 2) Georgia just wasn’t thinking on her feet and simply failed to ask Wendi to clarify the details of the turn on Trescott and where she encountered the roadblock.

We will just have to wait now, won’t we?

 

[Ferpo]

DA defense team submits a motion to prevent the State from questioning WA about the story line of her book.

 

[Knitpicker]

If the day ever comes where Wendi is on trial, the state can very easily convince any jury that Wendi hated Dan, had motive and lacks credibility. The way she answered the question in the previous trials about the 'turn on Trescott' will not even be introduced in her trial IF that day comes. Which is why I keep saying its a nothing burger and its made out to be some important detail in social media as it relates to a potential Wendi indictment / future trial. I even agree that she was intentionally coy in the way she responded to distance herself – although it’s impossible to prove, I do believe that is exactly what she did. It will be much of the same in Donna’s trial UNLES Capplerman decides to force Wendi to be more specific – to date she has not done that.

Regarding Cappleman’s reluctance to ask certain lines of questions, I can’t say that’s not possible but I can’t think of a logical reason she would have avoided drilling down more on the famous ‘turn’ on Trescott. It wouldn’t have ‘protected’ Wendi in anyway based on her immunity deal, so why not ask follow up questions? I can only see two possibilities – 1) ML was correct and Georgia knew it made Wendi look bad and wanted the exact public reaction this has received. 2) Georgia just wasn’t thinking on her feet and simply failed to ask Wendi to clarify the details of the turn on Trescott and where she encountered the roadblock.

I’m almost done listening to yesterdays STS -Jo addressed what we talked about Re: Georgia.

 

[Zedzded]

I’m almost done listening to yesterdays STS -Jo addressed what we talked about Re: Georgia.

As in?

 

[ch_13]

Regarding Cappleman’s reluctance to ask certain lines of questions, I can’t say that’s not possible but I can’t think of a logical reason she would have avoided drilling down more on the famous ‘turn’ on Trescott. It wouldn’t have ‘protected’ Wendi in anyway based on her immunity deal, so why not ask follow up questions? I can only see two possibilities – 1) ML was correct and Georgia knew it made Wendi look bad and wanted the exact public reaction this has received. 2) Georgia just wasn’t thinking on her feet and simply failed to ask Wendi to clarify the details of the turn on Trescott and where she encountered the roadblock.

IMO, GC knows she's walking a tightrope when questioning Wendi while she's under a grant of immunity. Every answer could be the basis for a future motion to exclude by Wendi's lawyers. Maybe the motions wouldn't have a good chance of succeeding, but why risk it? GC was just going to get what she needed to convict Charlie and no more.

In fact, I would say GC's obvious reluctance to ask followups is one of the best indications that Wendi is still in the DA's crosshairs. If they really had no intentions of indicting her, GC would be free to grill Wendi and highlight all the fabrications in her testimony.

 

[apeXperience]

“Now, good digestion wait on appetite, and health on both!” dixit William Shakespeare

The State Attorneys labeled Wendi Adelson as an unindicted co-conspirator when they were affiant seeking the arrest of Charles Adelson, who was subsequently indicted by the grand jurors on April 20th, 2022

• First-degree murder, characterized by premeditation (such as evidenced by conspiracy with others) and intent (such as evidenced by solicitation of others), has no statute of limitations in Florida
• Hence, Florida State Attorneys are allowed to pursue justice for victims and their families, regardless of how much time has passed since the murder
• If the State were to seek an indictment for a lesser charge (say second degree murder), the State forfeits its ability to pursue the first-degree murder in the future due to “double jeopardy”
• “Double jeopardy” (outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) provides a legal protection preventing a defendant from being tried again for the same crime after they have already been acquitted or convicted on lesser charge
• Both Charles Adelson and Donna Adelson were held pursuant to a grand jury arrest warrant
• A grand jury arrest warrant is a significant legal mechanism with profound implications for individuals involved in criminal investigations
• Unlike standard warrants, grand jury arrest warrants are issued following grand jury deliberations, adding judicial scrutiny and hefty weight to the process

Conclusion

• IMHO, the State as affiant through its attorneys will seek the arrest of Wendi Adelson when they have enough evidence toward potential grand jurors’ indictment for first degree murder, no less
• IMHO, this event would occur shortly after Donna Adelson's conviction, as expected by the State
• That is because more evidence against Wendi Adelson would avail ... potentially from new witnesses such as Dr. Robert Adelson and/or ... the already convicted co-conspirators such as Katherine Magbanua ... and ... Charles Adelson ... in the course of Donna Adelson's trial
• This strategic process is sensible given the egregious allegations against Wendi Adelson as discussed in the arrest affidavits and court proceedings’ transcripts of Luis Rivera, Sigfredo Garcia, Katherine Magbanua, Charles Adelson, and Donna Adelson
• Wisely, the State Attorneys are focused on Donna Adelson’s case at the moment, which is far from being a slam dunk contrary to the opinion of some armchair lawyers

Besides, the State’s divide and conquer strategic process ensures that slowly but surely … the remaining Adelson alleged co-conspirators are losing hope of escaping the Justice for Dan Markel.

 

[opt]

RSBM

the remaining Adelson alleged co-conspirators are losing hope of escaping the Justice for Dan Markel.

Losing hope of avoiding 7-figure legal fees, at least. Perhaps also losing hope that the boys will continue to believe that their mother's family is innocent.

 

[Zedzded]

In fact, I would say GC's obvious reluctance to ask followups is one of the best indications that Wendi is still in the DA's crosshairs. If they really had no intentions of indicting her, GC would be free to grill Wendi and highlight all the fabrications in her testimony.

Exactly. Good point.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’m almost done listening to yesterdays STS -Jo addressed what we talked about Re: Georgia.

I did see the episode and I assume you are referring to her speaking to possible memory issues with witnesses?

Also, I need to correct my recent inaccurate statement re the famous turn. Last night, I watched an old video going over the detail of the ‘inaccurate’ statements or ‘lies’. Wendi did in fact say in the first trial she never turned on Trescott and when Cappleman asked about seeing the roadblock, Wendi’s response was “I saw the roadblock so I didn’t turn”. I knew that was the case in the past, I just forgot the details. My error was saying she claimed in every trial she ‘turned around at the roadblock” – that was inaccurate on my part - she didn’t say that in trial one.

I still think its a nothing burger, and completely agree with everyone that points out her initial statements from the police interview to trial one did not add up and it got more confusing as her testimony ‘evolved’. I don’t think anyone is wrong to view it as a blatant lie and / or a strategic way to try to ‘distance herself’. It seems like a silly lie to make when her police interview contradicts her statement, so it is possible it was a memory issue. Its impossible for us to say definitively whether it was a purposeful lie or memory issue, but regardless its something she can easily get away with in future testimony. I’m 100% certain her legal team understands this is a hot button, at least in social media, and she will be prepared to clarify in any future testimony.

 

[IQuestion]

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

BBM above. "she lied through her teeth" Wow, I just listened to older recordings of DA & CA and the same "phraseology" was used in conversation by both DA and CA when discussing the registration of a vehicle. Okay, I'll bite.... You are not wrong on "any one single issue"...but it is the preponderance of double (even triple) speak, bizarre explanations, and over emoting made in court has me screaming at my computer, "Stop, just stop! I've heard enough absolutely far fetched coincidences to know when I am being hoodwinked." WA not being able to discern whether or not her parents were wealthy...but knows the financial status of "human traffickers" doesn't come across as "CONVINCING or CREDIBLE ."
CA told DA literally the very same thing in a jail call. DA & CA spent a lot of time rehashing WA's testimony (book, drive by, alcohol purchase etc) but NEVER ONCE CRITICIZED KMagbanua's testimony.
I wonder why?

 

[Going Rogue]

BBM above. "she lied through her teeth" Wow, I just listened to older recordings of DA & CA and the same "phraseology" was used in conversation by both DA and CA when discussing the registration of a vehicle. Okay, I'll bite.... You are not wrong on "any one single issue"...but it is the preponderance of double (even triple) speak, bizarre explanations, and over emoting made in court has me screaming at my computer, "Stop, just stop! I've heard enough absolutely far fetched coincidences to know when I am being hoodwinked." WA not being able to discern whether or not her parents were wealthy...but knows the financial status of "human traffickers" doesn't come across as "CONVINCING or CREDIBLE ."
CA told DA literally the very same thing in a jail call. DA & CA spent a lot of time rehashing WA's testimony (book, drive by, alcohol purchase etc) but NEVER ONCE CRITICIZED KMagbanua's testimony.
I wonder why?

Maybe you are over thinking it. Donna & Charlie knew that EVERYTHING they were saying on those jail calls was being recorded. They were even HIGHLY suspicions their phones were being tapped before Charlie’s arrest – remember Charlie saying to Donna ~ “you didn’t do anything wrong”.... “I hope they catch whoever is responsible”. If he were speaking ‘truthfully’ and not ‘carefully’ because he knew or thought he was being recorded, that statement would mean that Donna was innocent. NOTHING they said on any call (jailhouse calls or other) can be interpreted in any logical way. 90% of everything they said on all of the recorded calls had a purpose and the purpose was to deceive OR throw the investigators off track in some way.

As far as Wendi and ANYTHING Wendi said, If we believe Jeff Lacasse, she is a pathological liar. Combine being a pathological liar with all the other disorders she likely has, we can start to understand why she gives answers that any normal functioning adult can’t reconcile. In my analysis of Wendi’s ‘potential’ involvement and my open-minded approach, I am able to separate all the ‘things’ she lied about or stretched the truth about when evaluating all the evidence and circumstances. I fully acknowledge she lied about MANY things, but the fact that she lied does not mean she was directly involved. If Jeff is correct and she is a pathological liar, its very difficult to rationalize her lies and understand her motive for any singular lie. Example – the Trescott turn – did she simply lie to distance herself? If so, she could have consciously lied about that and still be innocent. I can give tons of examples. IMO, the psychology of the personalities involved in this case what make this case so interesting.

 

[Ferpo]

CA deposition by DA team, State to appear via Zoom. I'm doubting CA will or can say anything.