FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen-Donna Adelson Upcoming Trial - *5 Guilty* #28

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Did you watch and listen to the trials? Or just the coverage?

Because more and more has come out about Wendi in this trial that was never out in the open before.

There is nothing diminished about wanting justice for Dan by hoping all involved are prosecuted.

I have no problem with your belief that Wendy is innocent of charges related to murder. I have a problem when you insist others must be brainwashed to believe she shows many signs of guilt and evidence to back that up.

Once again may I point out that many actual, practicing attorneys in Tallahassee no less have gone on the record that they think Wendi will be arrested next? This is based upon what has come out in court and what they believe is yet to come. In my experience, well respected practicing attorneys do not easily get snowed by social media. So are they also infected?

Why the vitriol against others with a different view of the evidence to date? There has not even been a jury member who has said they believe Wendi is innocent. They have seen enough to find it likely she is guilty and would want to see more to make a decision beyond a reasonable doubt.

Last, if you think Wendi knew but did not plan the murders - how can you possibly find it an illogical leap that some believe she was more involved than that by quietly passing on knowledge and setting up her ex to muddy the waters?
If she only knew and did not thing active in furtherance, that does not absolve her from charges if she knew and remained silent, has tailored testimony to cover up. It would not absolve her from losing her license to practice law in disgrace as a member of the bar. I have never said which charges Wendi should face exactly. But if you believe she knew then her obvious lies afterward to help her family at a minimum opens her up to major jail time. And a practicing attorney should know better than to lie to the court - making her crimes that much more heinous as she cannot claim ignorance nor confusion of the law.

Thank you @Best of What's Around …. so very true. What the investigators and prosecution has done with this case and all of the prosecutions thus far is quite impressive IMO. IANAL. I shall continue to wait patiently and see what becomes of this. And as I believe you also suggest, there is also that other thing called ‘accessory after the fact’ which could also be an important aspect. Conspiracy and conspiring are others. Time will tell. There is no rush IMO. MOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

I second your opinion. I find it odd that after Georgia led the P to a guilty verdict on all three counts, that anyone on this particular site, would choose “this” to rant about. It seems to me that is “off topic”. I was so put off by the pettiness of it all, I had to take a few days off.

I felt the same way. Thank you for posting.

 

[JerseyPride]

Have the contents of Sarah Y’s deposition ever been confirmed by a reliable source?

 

[Zedzded]

Have the contents of Sarah Y’s deposition ever been confirmed by a reliable source?

Yes its public knowledge, She stated (verbatim) "Wendi phoned me and stated "What if my crazy brother Charlie hired a hitman to kill Danny?""

This was on the day SG was arrested.

SY's testimony will be a huge problem for WA. It shows she knew CA was most likely responsible for Dans murder. It shows she lied about CA's involvement. That's enough.

 

[Going Rogue]

With all due respect, to say you are simply presenting an alternative point of view while not advocating directly contradicts your contention that anyone who argues in favor of Wendy’s guilt is allowing her poor character to cloud their judgment.

May I be arrogant for a moment myself? Just in the last paragraph alone you appear to not be in command of the facts. We know exactly the context as Wendi stated during her interview (which was not an interrogation) that she thought she might be suspect during the car ride. When asked to explain that in court, she lies and states she was told her ex was shot by the detective in the car ride. It is clear from her performance during the interview that she was unaware there was a shooting until she listened to her voicemail.

Lies can show consciousness of guilt as well as cover up. They are circumstantial evidence.

It was Wendy and not anyone else (other than her attorney) who was facing a very serious filing headed her way coincidentally on the day of or after the shooting. She was being accused of committing a fraud upon the court and that could have repercussions for her license in the eyes of some FL attorneys. Amazing that it needed to be done by this date and this was the date quoted to her attorney that the filing would mean the point of no return for this accusation to be on the books.

If every liar, selfish person were a murderer we would never be able to hold them all! I put more confidence in the mindset of both fellow Websleuths as well as many actual practicing attorneys who have commented on this trial. Attorneys currently practicing in Tallahassee even - their reputations are not worth click bait.

Speaking of not seeing straight, some evidence that many weigh against Wendi have less worth to me - for example, both the license plate number and travel schedule. These two points of knowledge I find to be not persuasive of Wendi’s guilt without more evidence since I also know that Donna had spent a great deal of time in town to help with the boys - giving her many opportunities to ascertain Dan’s license plate number surreptitiously as well as his travel schedule since it has been established that she was always advised of this so she could plan for when Wendi might need help. I could be wrong and there could be better evidence to back these points up, but from what little I know, I do not find them persuasive.

So is my judgment clouded or not that I see other evidence as persuasive? While someone’s likability should not be a factor in evaluating evidence, someone’s lies, behavior, how they conduct themselves on the stand, how they conduct themselves in interviews taped…these all go to circumstantial evidence that may be drawn by jurors as to someone’s guilt or innocence. I have not found that Wendy lies because she is a terrible person - I have found her lies to be with great purpose. You don’t need to lie about your actions the day of the shooting if you have nothing to hide. The truth tends to be more easily remembered as well. The truth doesn’t change to fit later evidence.

I am happy to be a participant in a devil’s advocate argument, but I have been simply debating why I do believe there will be enough evidence to proceed to trial of Wendy in some capacity related to the murder.

I've reread your post with a fresh set of eyes, and I hope this helps clarify my thoughts—sometimes, written communication doesn't convey points as intended. I'm not suggesting that everyone who is convinced Wendi was directly involved in Dan's murder is wrong, or that their judgment is clouded solely by Wendi’s established bad character. I realize my earlier words may have come across that way, which is why I emphasized that I wasn’t trying to be arrogant.

To restate my position more clearly, I personally aim to analyze this case as impartially as possible—almost like AI, removing emotional bias when evaluating the case / evidence. From what I’ve personally observed, I believe many people struggle with this, especially when it comes to Wendi. She very easy to dislike for many reasons, and it’s my personal belief that many (though not all) who follow this case find it very difficult to objectively assess certain facts or data, simply because of their strong disdain for Wendi. My opinion comes from years of engaging with multiple people across various platforms discussing this case. I don’t know how long you’ve been following the case, but I believe this perspective is well-founded—again, it’s just my personal opinion.

I understand that some may interpret my stance as advocating for Wendi or question my motives. Incidents like Wendi’s new claim that she was told about the shooting in the car are easily disproven by anyone familiar with the facts; the record shows she was first informed at the police station. Why would she intentionally claim otherwise? Wendi is clearly intelligent enough to know that her statement conflicts with established facts. My best explanation is that she cracked under pressure, likely misspoke, and wasn’t given the chance to correct herself—so the new claim stands. This resembles her history of varying and inconsistent statements, such as regarding the turn on Trescott. In my opinion, Cappleman should have immediately asked a follow-up about this "new" claim but chose not to, either because she new it was a bad look for Wendi or Cappleman simply missed the moment.

To be clear, I fully acknowledge that Wendi made a clear decision to lie, starting from the first trial, and I also recognize she may have been directly involved. Where I believe my perspective differs from yours and most others is that I also think it’s possible she wasn’t directly involved—but is nevertheless lying about everything she knows. Once someone starts lying, it's hard to keep their story straight. As I said in my previous post, lying does not necessarily mean direct involvement. I am 100% convinced she lied throughout all four trials, but not convinced she was directly involved. My position is 50/50 on her direct involvement, but 100% convinced she lied about her knowledge of events in all previous trials.

 

[Going Rogue]

She was more or less shielded from the planning, In part her own volition to protect herself, in part due to her families pathological need to infantilize her. I don't think anyone that knows the case has ever really suggested she was deeply involved in the planning. If that were the case she would have been arrested long ago.

So it is a difficult task proving she conspired with the others. However it is not a difficult task proving she knew about the murder. That's a very easy sell to the jury and opens up other doors for prosecution. She's going to prison for a very long time, it's just on what charge and what sentence that we don't know.

I agree. As you and I have previously discussed in the past, accessory after the fact is a much easier case to prove. I do believe that comes with it own unique hurdles, but still a much easier path.

 

[Wishbone]

I've reread your post with a fresh set of eyes, and I hope this helps clarify my thoughts—sometimes, written communication doesn't convey points as intended. I'm not suggesting that everyone who is convinced Wendi was directly involved in Dan's murder is wrong, or that their judgment is clouded solely by Wendi’s established bad character. I realize my earlier words may have come across that way, which is why I emphasized that I wasn’t trying to be arrogant.

To restate my position more clearly, I personally aim to analyze this case as impartially as possible—almost like AI, removing emotional bias when evaluating the case / evidence. From what I’ve personally observed, I believe many people struggle with this, especially when it comes to Wendi. She very easy to dislike for many reasons, and it’s my personal belief that many (though not all) who follow this case find it very difficult to objectively assess certain facts or data, simply because of their strong disdain for Wendi. My opinion comes from years of engaging with multiple people across various platforms discussing this case. I don’t know how long you’ve been following the case, but I believe this perspective is well-founded—again, it’s just my personal opinion.

I understand that some may interpret my stance as advocating for Wendi or question my motives. Incidents like Wendi’s new claim that she was told about the shooting in the car are easily disproven by anyone familiar with the facts; the record shows she was first informed at the police station. Why would she intentionally claim otherwise? Wendi is clearly intelligent enough to know that her statement conflicts with established facts. My best explanation is that she cracked under pressure, likely misspoke, and wasn’t given the chance to correct herself—so the new claim stands. This resembles her history of varying and inconsistent statements, such as regarding the turn on Trescott. In my opinion, Cappleman should have immediately asked a follow-up about this "new" claim but chose not to, either because she new it was a bad look for Wendi or Cappleman simply missed the moment.

To be clear, I fully acknowledge that Wendi made a clear decision to lie, starting from the first trial, and I also recognize she may have been directly involved. Where I believe my perspective differs from yours and most others is that I also think it’s possible she wasn’t directly involved—but is nevertheless lying about everything she knows. Once someone starts lying, it's hard to keep their story straight. As I said in my previous post, lying does not necessarily mean direct involvement. I am 100% convinced she lied throughout all four trials, but not convinced she was directly involved. My position is 50/50 on her direct involvement, but 100% convinced she lied about her knowledge of events in all previous trials.

My disdain for WA stems from her lying and her miserable acting skills while testifying, along with evidence presented, not from any difficulty to objectively assess certain acts or data. JMOO

 

[JerseyPride]

Yes its public knowledge, She stated (verbatim) "Wendi phoned me and stated "What if my crazy brother Charlie hired a hitman to kill Danny?""

This was on the day SG was arrested.

SY's testimony will be a huge problem for WA. It shows she knew CA was most likely responsible for Dans murder. It shows she lied about CA's involvement. That's enough.

I’ve heard that too, but who verified the information? As far as I’m aware the deposition transcript is not public. It’s also “publicly” on the internet that SY testified that WA stated “I’m going to prison for the rest of my life.” With respect to all of this, where is any legitimate verification of the testimony? This is not a rhetorical question. Perhaps there is a verified source, I honestly don’t know.

 

[Going Rogue]

I’ve heard that too, but who verified the information? As far as I’m aware the deposition transcript is not public. It’s also “publicly” on the internet that SY testified that WA stated “I’m going to prison for the rest of my life.” With respect to all of this, where is any legitimate verification of the testimony? This is not a rhetorical question. Perhaps there is a verified source, I honestly don’t know.

Excerpts from Sara’s deposition were included in a motion filed by Donna's defense team. I don’t believe the full deposition was moved to public record? The statement she made where she quoted Wendi as you referenced ~ “I’m going to prison for the rest of my life.” as well as the comment by Donna at a party at Donna’s house shorty after Dan’s murder saying “Dan was a jerk” were included in the motion.

 

[Weki]

I was glad to hear Jo Patuto at the end of Juror 6 interview (after he left) point out, which I did yesterday, that there is evidence that Wendi had resigned herself to staying in Tally and perhaps wanted to stay out of Donna’s control in Miami. But that Donna and Charlie basically strong armed her out of it. And she went along with the murder plot.

This is what I think happened as well. She knew but wasn’t as involved in the planning. She went along passively. I think Jeff Lacasse interview is pretty good in understanding Wendi’s psychology. She’s a mess.

My main issue with the Wendi rhetoric is that she’s the instigator, the master manipulator etc.

JMO

 

[Knitpicker]

Wendi also told Jeff that she vomited at the "celebration dinner" after Dan's murder.

She said that to her ex-boyfriend. The one who was just named as a potential suspect by her friend. Why would she ever tell him that? Naturally Jeff turned around and told it to Isom. It's come up in all the trials to date. And the only reason anyone knows about it is because of her big mouth.

I think she's cold and calculating, but at the same time she also does stuff that just makes no logical sense.

I dont think it came up in Donnas trail. Did. It?

 

[Knitpicker]

I was glad to hear Jo Patuto at the end of Juror 6 interview (after he left) point out, which I did yesterday, that there is evidence that Wendi had resigned herself to staying in Tally and perhaps wanted to stay out of Donna’s control in Miami. But that Donna and Charlie basically strong armed her out of it. And she went along with the murder plot.

This is what I think happened as well. She knew but wasn’t as involved in the planning. She went along passively. I think Jeff Lacasse interview is pretty good in understanding Wendi’s psychology. She’s a mess.

My main issue with the Wendi rhetoric is that she’s the instigator, the master manipulator etc.

JMO

I agree with you about her knowing, and probably could not contain herself and the alcohol and psych meds helped it come out. Could it be she had some conviction -suppressed it?—but it was already too late? I would say perhaps but remember this was the second attempt and she went on a podcast ridiculing her murdered “latex spouse” and saying he was killed by a “professional” aka hitman even before the first arrests.
Didn’t she claim with Isom it could have been a student, someone angry with him, someone trying to protect her, Amys husband?? So how did she arrive at a hitman months later?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Juror 6 talked to WTXL.

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: Juror in Donna Adelson trial reveals how they arrived at guilty verdict

One juror is sharing how they arrived at a guilty verdict for Donna Adelson's trial in connection with the murder of former Florida State Professor Dan Markel.

www.wtxl.com

Also on YouTube

 

[Knitpicker]

Juror 6 talked to WTXL.

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: Juror in Donna Adelson trial reveals how they arrived at guilty verdict

One juror is sharing how they arrived at a guilty verdict for Donna Adelson's trial in connection with the murder of former Florida State Professor Dan Markel.

www.wtxl.com

Also on YouTube

We need no more evidence—-Campbell is suggesting here that there will be more arrests.

 

[Going Rogue]

We need no more evidence—-Campbell is suggesting here that there will be more arrests.

I think you took a lot of liberties with that interpretation . I heard him say they aren’t going to stop with the investigation and he isn’t sure where it will lead them. Where are you getting “we need no more evidence”?. IMO, what he said is right inline with something I’d expect him to say based on the fact that Wendi hasn’t been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder and there is a lot of public pressure on his office. There is absolutely no reason to further delay her arrest if they are confident they can meet the burden of proof - I have said for a LONG time they are not confident they can meet the burden. The excuse in social media that they need Wendi to testify in Donna’s trial can no longer be used

 

[Tapeartree]

I was glad to hear Jo Patuto at the end of Juror 6 interview (after he left) point out, which I did yesterday, that there is evidence that Wendi had resigned herself to staying in Tally and perhaps wanted to stay out of Donna’s control in Miami. But that Donna and Charlie basically strong armed her out of it. And she went along with the murder plot.

This is what I think happened as well. She knew but wasn’t as involved in the planning. She went along passively. I think Jeff Lacasse interview is pretty good in understanding Wendi’s psychology. She’s a mess.

My main issue with the Wendi rhetoric is that she’s the instigator, the master manipulator etc.

JMO

What leads me to believe she wasn't apart of the planning but knew something was her drive by Trescott. She was too curious and wanted to know what was going on. I wonder what she expected to see. DM watering his lawn? or his front door ajar with nobody around. Was she planning to stop? I don't think so. Just one of those times she couldn't stop herself.

I think the hitman comments had been thrown around within the A family for awhile. WA refused just like she did with the million dollar bribe and crazy suggestions. It wasn't until DM went after her for fraud that she gave the OK. I don't know what charges the state can charge? I don't know if it's actually conspiracy or something else. JMO

 

[Best of What's Around]

I've reread your post with a fresh set of eyes, and I hope this helps clarify my thoughts—sometimes, written communication doesn't convey points as intended. I'm not suggesting that everyone who is convinced Wendi was directly involved in Dan's murder is wrong, or that their judgment is clouded solely by Wendi’s established bad character. I realize my earlier words may have come across that way, which is why I emphasized that I wasn’t trying to be arrogant.

To restate my position more clearly, I personally aim to analyze this case as impartially as possible—almost like AI, removing emotional bias when evaluating the case / evidence. From what I’ve personally observed, I believe many people struggle with this, especially when it comes to Wendi. She very easy to dislike for many reasons, and it’s my personal belief that many (though not all) who follow this case find it very difficult to objectively assess certain facts or data, simply because of their strong disdain for Wendi. My opinion comes from years of engaging with multiple people across various platforms discussing this case. I don’t know how long you’ve been following the case, but I believe this perspective is well-founded—again, it’s just my personal opinion.

I understand that some may interpret my stance as advocating for Wendi or question my motives. Incidents like Wendi’s new claim that she was told about the shooting in the car are easily disproven by anyone familiar with the facts; the record shows she was first informed at the police station. Why would she intentionally claim otherwise? Wendi is clearly intelligent enough to know that her statement conflicts with established facts. My best explanation is that she cracked under pressure, likely misspoke, and wasn’t given the chance to correct herself—so the new claim stands. This resembles her history of varying and inconsistent statements, such as regarding the turn on Trescott. In my opinion, Cappleman should have immediately asked a follow-up about this "new" claim but chose not to, either because she new it was a bad look for Wendi or Cappleman simply missed the moment.

To be clear, I fully acknowledge that Wendi made a clear decision to lie, starting from the first trial, and I also recognize she may have been directly involved. Where I believe my perspective differs from yours and most others is that I also think it’s possible she wasn’t directly involved—but is nevertheless lying about everything she knows. Once someone starts lying, it's hard to keep their story straight. As I said in my previous post, lying does not necessarily mean direct involvement. I am 100% convinced she lied throughout all four trials, but not convinced she was directly involved. My position is 50/50 on her direct involvement, but 100% convinced she lied about her knowledge of events in all previous trials.

Thank you for the clarification. I find it is a more logical argument to debate one’s viewpoint based upon the merits versus taking an ad hominem approach where you state that another’s arguments are clouded by emotional reaction rather than logic, without evidence of undue bias.

How a suspect acts, speaks and lies before, during and after a murder is all evidence. We can debate the evidence. But stating that there is a conflation between bad character and evidence of guilt when we are discussing the actual lies, behavior, and presentation of testimony directly related to this murder by the suspect is merely an ad hominem approach that substitutes for rational argument, ironically. IMO.

 

[Going Rogue]

Thank you for the clarification. I find it is a more logical argument to debate one’s viewpoint based upon the merits versus taking an ad hominem approach where you state that another’s arguments are clouded by emotional reaction rather than logic, without evidence of undue bias.

How a suspect acts, speaks and lies before, during and after a murder is all evidence. We can debate the evidence. But stating that there is a conflation between bad character and evidence of guilt when we are discussing the actual lies, behavior, and presentation of testimony directly related to this murder by the suspect is merely an ad hominem approach that substitutes for rational argument, ironically. IMO.

I appreciate your point about avoiding ad hominem arguments and focusing on the merits of the evidence. My intention wasn’t to dismiss others’ views as purely emotional or to imply that their conclusions lack logic. Rather, I was sharing my observations from my personal experience engaging in this case over time in several forums, where I’ve noticed Wendi’s unlikeable traits can sometimes amplify suspicion of her guilt in discussions. I agree this observation shouldn’t substitute for a rational argument.

I fully agree that Wendi’s actions, statements, and lies—before, during, and after the murder—are critical pieces of evidence. Her inconsistent statements, like the claim about being told of the shooting in the car, are red flags. As you rightly point out, how a suspect behaves and presents testimony is evidence, and her history of lying, raises serious questions about her credibility and potential involvement. I share your view that these lies are directly relevant to the case and should be debated on their merits.

Where our perspectives may diverge is on the interpretation of her lies. I’m 100% convinced Wendi lied about her knowledge of events across all trials, as I’ve stated, but I remain 50/50 on whether those lies indicate direct involvement or an attempt to cover up knowledge of others’ actions. Lies can stem from various motives—guilt, fear, or self-preservation—and I’m open to the possibility that her dishonesty doesn’t necessarily equate to orchestrating the murder. That said, I completely understand why her behavior and testimony lead many to conclude she was directly involved, and I respect that position as grounded in the evidence.

I’d be interested in hearing more about how you weigh her specific lies and behaviors in concluding her guilt. For example, do you see her inconsistent statements as deliberate attempts to obscure direct involvement, or could they reflect a panicked effort to distance herself from others’ actions?

 

[Knitpicker]

I think you took a lot of liberties with that interpretation . I heard him say they aren’t going to stop with the investigation and he isn’t sure where it will lead them. Where are you getting “we need no more evidence”?. IMO, what he said is right inline with something I’d expect him to say based on the fact that Wendi hasn’t been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder and there is a lot of public pressure on his office. There is absolutely no reason to further delay her arrest if they are confident they can meet the burden of proof - I have said for a LONG time they are not confident they can meet the burden. The excuse in social media that they need Wendi to testify in Donna’s trial can no longer be used

Evidence -being what he said not evidence for the murder case.

 

[Going Rogue]

Evidence -being what he said not evidence for the murder case.

Got ya. I still think his statement was intentionally ambiguous and nothing we can hold him to--and that was by design. He had to say what he said and I don’t interpret it as meaning there will be another arrest anytime 'soon'. If there is a something ‘new’ uncovered in their active investigation that gets them over the hump, perhaps an arrest will be forthcoming--and I do wonder how active they really are investigating this at this current stage?

I know there’s a heightened belief that Wendi’s arrest is imminent. Time will tell.