FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *4 Guilty* #26

[Wishbone]

I have my own ideas why he left early. But it’s just ideas. Well, you take all the “coincidences” that happen to be facts and you put them all together. Circumstantial Evidence.

How many coincidences does it take to try to prove her innocence? IMO it's nothing more than lame explanations for WA trying to weasel her way out of showing just how deeply she was involved in the conspiracy to murder DM. WA had access to on DM's plans and movements and locations and passed them on so the hit could be accomplished. JMOO

 

[Going Rogue]

How many coincidences does it take to try to prove her innocence? IMO it's nothing more than lame explanations for WA trying to weasel her way out of showing just how deeply she was involved in the conspiracy to murder DM. WA had access to on DM's plans and movements and locations and passed them on so the hit could be accomplished. JMOO

I don’t think think the argument, at least the one I’m making, about citing certain events as being a ‘coincidence’ based one’s hindsight perspective of the case and then adding them up to saying there are just too many coincidences is a valid argument to prove her involvement. I also don’t believe the argument I’m making that many are placing too much weight on all the coincidences is proving her innocence. The issue with the case against her is that it’s highly circumstantial and all the ‘coincidences’, even though based on real events, are speculative in nature. Speculative meaning the way they are interpreted by most. Most every ‘coincidence’ can be interpreted several ways, but most interpret them in a way the implies its definitive proof of her involvement or knowledge. I already gave KP’er several examples of incidences (she calls coincidences - like most) that can be interpreted in a different way, and they are all in goof faith – and I’m not implying or suggesting my ‘;examples’ are fact, just things can be interpreted may ways.

Just a different perspective.

 

[IQuestion]

Once is an accident, two is a coincidence and three times is evidence.

Speaking of which WA's stock the booze party for "the most beautiful mortician friend" and now DA's "court bestie" runs a mortuary, too!!
Agent Fox Mulder, ""If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?"

 

[Going Rogue]

Once is an accident, two is a coincidence and three times is evidence.

Speaking of which WA's stock the booze party for "the most beautiful mortician friend" and now DA's "court bestie" runs a mortuary, too!!
Agent Fox Mulder, ""If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?"

I can agree with you on that. I guess where my issue lies is what we define as ‘coincidences’ and I think is an overused term in this case. Wendi deciding not to go on the trip with Jeff is not necessary a coincidence. Just like Jeff’s decision to leave a day early is not. They are simply data points that are part of the timeline of events.

Everyone analyses many of the events leading up to the murder coincidences. I will agree many might be relevant data points that might help piece together certain theories. We can also argue that some oh the events labeled as ‘coincidences’ are not coincidences at all, rather they are clues they point to the involvement of certain suspects.

My main point remains that to nail Wendi, the state needs evidence that is more tangible than whats argued in social media. We just can’t stitch together a bunch of events we call ‘coincidences’ based on how we interpret the event and summarize that there are too many to to ignore - therefore she must be guilty. That’s how interpret the way many argue the case against her.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, but it still a matter of one’s interpretation. Example, you, like many, seem convinced she canceled the trip because she had knowledge the murder was happening that week. The reality is that’s just speculation and you can speculate about many other things that occurred and say what everyone else says - “there are too many coincidences” and even use the cliche - ‘there are no coincidence in murder’, If we apply that cliche to my example about Jeff leaving early – he must have left early because he knew the murder was happening and knew he was going to be the fall guy. Just for the record, I do not believe that – its just an example,

Correct me if I’m wrong but she also cancelled another trip that he had for the first attempt right? (June 4th week) ( Like I said correct me if I’m wrong). I’d have to search for that. I hadnt heard it in awhile so maybe it wasn’t at the trial but one of the later times he went to the police?

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t think think the argument, at least the one I’m making, about citing certain events as being a ‘coincidence’ based one’s hindsight perspective of the case and then adding them up to saying there are just too many coincidences is a valid argument to prove her involvement. I also don’t believe the argument I’m making that many are placing too much weight on all the coincidences is proving her innocence. The issue with the case against her is that it’s highly circumstantial and all the ‘coincidences’, even though based on real events, are speculative in nature. Speculative meaning the way they are interpreted by most. Most every ‘coincidence’ can be interpreted several ways, but most interpret them in a way the implies its definitive proof of her involvement or knowledge. I already gave KP’er several examples of incidences (she calls coincidences - like most) that can be interpreted in a different way, and they are all in goof faith – and I’m not implying or suggesting my ‘;examples’ are fact, just things can be interpreted may ways.

Just a different perspective.

So it may be a coincidence she drove by the crime scene, but what about lying that she couldn';t even turn onto Trescott, after admitting twice she did. We know the roadblock was NOT where Trescott starts off of Centerville.
What about that? How do you defend that?

Also I asked earlier- do we know who took the beach photo and was it stated it was on Katies phone or do we not know that? That makes a BIG difference

 

[Going Rogue]

Correct me if I’m wrong but she also cancelled another trip that he had for the first attempt right? (June 4th week) ( Like I said correct me if I’m wrong). I’d have to search for that. I hadnt heard it in awhile so maybe it wasn’t at the trial but one of the later times he went to the police?

I don’t recall a cancelled trip during the first attempt. I think that would be something we both would remember because we would have heard Uncle Carl say it a hundred times. A canceled trip during both weeks would worthy of adding to the list of things that are not a coincidence. Better argument than the owl tee shirt or buying Bulleit Bourbon .

 

[Zedzded]

I still believe these is no way she would flip on her. She’d rather rot in jail.

Why?

 

[Zedzded]

My main point remains that to nail Wendi, the state needs evidence that is more tangible than whats argued in social media. We just can’t stitch together a bunch of events we call ‘coincidences’ based on how we interpret the event and summarize that there are too many to to ignore - therefore she must be guilty. That’s how interpret the way many argue the case against her.

Well there have been cases where a whole bunch of coincidences, bundled together have secured a guilty verdict. I think with WA, it's close. Her little trip down Trescott and subsequent deception about it really strengthens the circumstantial case against her.

But yeah it's not enough. Not quite. I think SY's testimony bolsters an argument for accessory. But overall the State are missing one little puzzle piece, a text or a poorly timed phone call. e.g if WA was texting KM on the day of the murder, on it's own it's inconsequential and potentially arguable. But you add it with all the other circumstantial evidence it means a lot.

You have WA texting a co-conspirator on the day of the murder, someone she said she never contacted via phone and definitely did not contact her on the day of the murder. That's enough. Obviously this is hypothetical, as we don't know she did that. My laboured point - the State don't need much more evidence, they're very close.

 

[Zedzded]

So it may be a coincidence she drove by the crime scene, but what about lying that she couldn';t even turn onto Trescott, after admitting twice she did. We know the roadblock was NOT where Trescott starts off of Centerville.
What about that? How do you defend that?

Also I asked earlier- do we know who took the beach photo and was it stated it was on Katies phone or do we not know that? That makes a BIG difference

It was a selfie on KM's phone.

The lying about Trescott is hugely problematic for WA. But it's still not enough. She could claim she was confused, stressed at the time, she forgot. Or whatever. It does mean something, it is important, but as I said in my previous post it's not quite enough.

 

[Zedzded]

I don’t think think the argument, at least the one I’m making, about citing certain events as being a ‘coincidence’ based one’s hindsight perspective of the case and then adding them up to saying there are just too many coincidences is a valid argument to prove her involvement. I also don’t believe the argument I’m making that many are placing too much weight on all the coincidences is proving her innocence. The issue with the case against her is that it’s highly circumstantial and all the ‘coincidences’, even though based on real events, are speculative in nature. Speculative meaning the way they are interpreted by most. Most every ‘coincidence’ can be interpreted several ways, but most interpret them in a way the implies its definitive proof of her involvement or knowledge. I already gave KP’er several examples of incidences (she calls coincidences - like most) that can be interpreted in a different way, and they are all in goof faith – and I’m not implying or suggesting my ‘;examples’ are fact, just things can be interpreted may ways.

Just a different perspective.

I more or less agree. Most of WA's "coincidences" could be dismissed e.g cancelled trip, the Owl t-shirt, Bulleit bourbon. IMO, they carry no weight and have been sensationalised by social media. Even bundled together then mean very little.

If the State want to build a case against her, I think it's her behaviour, words and actions that will be significant. e.g what she told JL, SY. Her actions the week of the murder, did she do anything to suggest she was moving to Miami. Had she booked a removalist? That's not speculative.

 

[Zedzded]

Re Trescott, I don't think it's that important whether WA saw the actual road block or not. She drove down Trescott, she saw a police car, a policeman and tape near her old house. 99% of mothers would have been freaking out. She did a U turn, got the hell out of Dodge, called no-one. Not a sausage. And then lied multiple times about her trip, with 3 different versions including one which said she could not actually get on to Trescott from Centreville because of the tape.

An unindicted co-conspirator with a very strong motive for killing someone, attempts to drive past the murder scene shortly after the murder... that's bad. Lying about it is worse. Lying about it 3 times means it's now evidence.

So if the State wanted to build an Accessory case against WA, you have this evidence.

1 week before murder - WA tells JL CA considered hiring hitmen to kill Dan
day of murder - CA and WA communicate frequently by phone and text, then radio silence as murder takes place
day of murder - WA drives past crime scene shortly after the murder and lies about it
2016 - SG/LR are arrested and WA phones SY in a panic asking "What if my crazy brother Charlie hired hitmen to kill Dan?"

 

[Knitpicker]

It was a selfie on KM's phone.

The lying about Trescott is hugely problematic for WA. But it's still not enough. She could claim she was confused, stressed at the time, she forgot. Or whatever. It does mean something, it is important, but as I said in my previous post it's not quite enough.

Who said it was a selfie? I seem to remember KM saying it was Charlie but wasn’t sure.

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t recall a cancelled trip during the first attempt. I think that would be something we both would remember because we would have heard Uncle Carl say it a hundred times. A canceled trip during both weeks would worthy of adding to the list of things that are not a coincidence. Better argument than the owl tee shirt or buying Bulleit Bourbon .

I’ll find it.

 

[Zedzded]

Who said it was a selfie? I seem to remember KM saying it was Charlie but wasn’t sure.

I thought KM had said it was hers, but can't remember. I could be wrong.

 

[Zedzded]

I tend to think that WA and Km had no interaction re murder planning. WA is a paradox and a contradiction. Her impulsive and reckless decision to drive down Trescott suggests someone that has little control and is ill-disciplined, which is true. But I also think she's someone that is highly manipulative and as cunning as a fox.

I think she made a very contrived decision to stay as far away from the murder planning as possible. Ensuring her tracks were covered. Interacting with Km would go against this. I do hope I'm wrong, however.

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t recall a cancelled trip during the first attempt. I think that would be something we both would remember because we would have heard Uncle Carl say it a hundred times. A canceled trip during both weeks would worthy of adding to the list of things that are not a coincidence. Better argument than the owl tee shirt or buying Bulleit Bourbon .

OK they were supposed to go and visit his parents another time and she cancelled that trip.
Then on the stand Jeffrey was asked by Georgia if there was a similar coincidence around the same time, when the killers were also in Tallahassee (that he was leaving to go somewhere when the killers were there). He said yes, that only 2 times he goes away from spring to summer semesters and those are the 2 times there was an attempt to kill DM. That was a June 6th trip he had planned.

I confused the 2 situations.

 

[Knitpicker]

I thought KM had said it was hers, but can't remember. I could be wrong.

It could have been her phone but maybe she didn’t take the photo? The point is that if she was alone with Wendi, thats a personal kind of thing. And who would have arranged that? Georgia did ask Wendi about her interactions with KM on a device and thats when W went into all those hand gestures. So I’m hoping theres more evidence on that.
Once Georgia asked W if she ever spoke to her brother when Katie was there with him -her answer was ‘I don’t think so” or “I dont believe so”
Imo whenever thats an answer, it’s a “yes”. She covers for herself in case there is something on her.

 

[New Penny]

I'd be surprised if any of the co-conspirators weren't offered plea deals to be honest. Imagine the time and $$ saved if DA had accepted a 10 year plea deal.

It’s not only about time and money. Sometimes it’s actually about truth and justice.

MOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Why?

To give up Wendi, she have to admit guilt which she’d never do. Both Donna and Charlie will likely go to their grave insisting they are innocent. They both probably never took accountability for any past wrongdoings and wont for their plot to murder Dan.