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

[Going Rogue]

My MIL has the make, model, and license plate number of every family car (including mine, my BIL's, etc.) written on a piece of paper up on her wall in the kitchen. It's been there for over 10 years. Why? I don't know. I don't think she's planning to kill me, or anyone. She just likes to keep track of stuff like that.

That said, as others have discussed ad nauseum, there is so much circumstantial evidence against Wendi. Coupled with so many outright lies on the stand, there's a lot there. We can't get hung up on "reasonable doubt" until we know what else Georgia and co. have up their sleeves. Certainly there are many text messages, phone records, and such that we have not yet seen.

I am confident that if Wendi is arrested, there will be more than enough evidence to show her involvement in Dan's murder and/or covering for her family after she learned of their involvement. Yes, some things may be explained away, but when you have 500 different coincidences happening within the same week or two, at some point you have to listen to common sense.

Well said. My only comment is that we can only responsibly base our opinions on publicly available information. Based on this information, it is my opinion that the case against Wendi is very risky, and the burden of proof will be difficult to meet. It seems that most assume the prosecution is sitting on a mountain of incriminating evidence they haven’t released. I keep emphasizing that the prosecution may also be sitting on a lot of exculpatory evidence. I think it’s reasonable to say that if they had compelling evidence proving the case against Wendi beyond a reasonable doubt, she would have already been arrested.

 

[Going Rogue]

Of course people who are unable to set their preconceived notions aside will be eliminated. But look at Donna's trial , no one on that jury was knowledgeable about the case and they swiftly were able to declare Donna guilty If you were Wendi or Wendi's good friend- what advice would you give her at this time?

The case against Donna was as close to a slamdunk as you could have. It was not a surprise to ANYONE that the jury came to a swift decision. Comparing Donna’s case to Wendi’s is not apples to apples – very different cases and very different evidence. Donna’s case was a cakewalk for the prosecution. Wendi’s case is largely based on association and assumptions – very different. It will be VERY easy to prove Wendi hated Dan, had a lot to gain and has very questionable morals, not so easy to prove that she did any act of furtherance in support of the crime.

My advice to Wendi would be - If you are truly innocent, you need to publicity denounce what your family did. That may be difficult at this point because it is my personal belief that “IF” she was truly innocent, she knew her family was behind this well BEFORE she first testified, so it might be a little too late to go on that type of PR campaign.

 

[Weki]

The case against Donna was as close to a slamdunk as you could have. It was not a surprise to ANYONE that the jury came to a swift decision. Comparing Donna’s case to Wendi’s is not apples to apples – very different cases and very different evidence. Donna’s case was a cakewalk for the prosecution. Wendi’s case is largely based on association and assumptions – very different. It will be VERY easy to prove Wendi hated Dan, had a lot to gain and has very questionable morals, not so easy to prove that she did any act of furtherance in support of the crime.

My advice to Wendi would be - If you are truly innocent, you need to publicity denounce what your family did. That may be difficult at this point because it is my personal belief that “IF” she was truly innocent, she knew her family was behind this well BEFORE she first testified, so it might be a little too late to go on that type of PR campaign.

BBM

Just consider that there will be no evidence of Wendi on the wiretaps after the bump. No one calls her to discuss what should be done. No Dolce Vita, no Matsuri with Wendi surreptitiously meeting with her co-conspirators after the bump. There is no evidence of Wendi paying anybody. No evidence of Wendi giving anybody her car or paying for breast implants. Katie will not tie Wendi to the conspiracy unlike how she tied Charlie & Donna (Halloween party, envelope from Charlie to pass on to Sigfredo, wet money dropped off by Donna). In fact, Katie has testifed (and better believe Wendi's defense will bring this out again) that Charlie told her his mother was very upset by the custody issues. You've got Rivera saying he saw Wendi outside while they were scoping out Danny - state has evidence Wendi was not there so that was his paranoia more than likely.

Obviously, this is just based on what we know so far. I guess it's possible the state has wiretaps & other evidence of Wendi planning this murder with her family and they're just sitting on it. Maybe the prosecutors are just feeling too sick to go to the grand jury right now and once they're better we're gonna be rockin' and rollin'. Stay tuned!

JMO

 

[Cedars]

The case against Donna was as close to a slamdunk as you could have. It was not a surprise to ANYONE that the jury came to a swift decision. Comparing Donna’s case to Wendi’s is not apples to apples – very different cases and very different evidence. Donna’s case was a cakewalk for the prosecution. Wendi’s case is largely based on association and assumptions – very different. It will be VERY easy to prove Wendi hated Dan, had a lot to gain and has very questionable morals, not so easy to prove that she did any act of furtherance in support of the crime.

My advice to Wendi would be - If you are truly innocent, you need to publicity denounce what your family did. That may be difficult at this point because it is my personal belief that “IF” she was truly innocent, she knew her family was behind this well BEFORE she first testified, so it might be a little too late to go on that type of PR campaign.

IMO, it was Rivera's testimony about the actual hit that convicted Garcia and KM. It was KM's testimony about the actual hit that convicted Charlie. It was Charlie's recorded communications with Donna about the actual hit that convicted Donna.

So. IMO, someone's direct or recorded testimony with Wendi about the actual hit, will be required to convict Wendi.

JMO

 

[apeXperience]

So. IMO, someone's direct or recorded testimony with Wendi about the actual hit, will be required to convict Wendi.

Cedars, I agree 100% with your assessment.

And that someone would not be Donna because a post conviction appeal reducing her sentence from LWOP to 19 years would not help her much given her age.

That someone to point finger at Wendi could likely be Charlie!
Reducing Charlie's sentence from LWOP to 19 years minus time served could allow his to get out in his 70s.
At this time, Charlie should be asking himself about Phil's short phrase "is it worth it?"
And, even what is "it" that Charlie gained from effectuating Dan Markel's murder?

After Charlie's appeal at 1DCA runs out; and he starts to think about post conviction relief, then Charlie will be ready to point finger at Wendi.
Incidentally, Wendi should keep Charlie in her mind!
In the Jail Transport Van going to Leon County in August 2025, what was Charlie eating? Wendy's!

The investigation of the Dan Markel murder continues despite Donna's conviction.
Additional emails from Donna to multiple persons such as Harvey, Byrd etc. were added as evidence in the "Answers to demand for discovery" of yesterday 9/11/2025.
IMHO, prosecutors are NOT wasting time.
They start to look at the low hanging fruit, Harvey!
"I guess, you may stay tuned!"

 

[tomatotraveler]

I mean…Wendi’s absolutely guilty. I think they probably have enough to at least get her on an accessory charge (before or after, really) from what I’ve heard.

If they never go for it I will understand, I guess. Trials are expensive to the state/taxpayers and just trying people to say you did helps no one if you don’t think you’ve got a shot.

I do think if they reach the point where they feel like they’ve gotten as much evidence as they’re ever going to get, they should go for it, though. For someone like Wendi even if she ends up getting acquitted it’s still humiliating and will stay with her forever (and unlike other famous exonerates, it’d put her more in the OJ category of “people who were technically found not guilty but everyone knows they did it”.)

 

[Going Rogue]

BBM

Just consider that there will be no evidence of Wendi on the wiretaps after the bump. No one calls her to discuss what should be done. No Dolce Vita, no Matsuri with Wendi surreptitiously meeting with her co-conspirators after the bump. There is no evidence of Wendi paying anybody. No evidence of Wendi giving anybody her car or paying for breast implants. Katie will not tie Wendi to the conspiracy unlike how she tied Charlie & Donna (Halloween party, envelope from Charlie to pass on to Sigfredo, wet money dropped off by Donna). In fact, Katie has testifed (and better believe Wendi's defense will bring this out again) that Charlie told her his mother was very upset by the custody issues. You've got Rivera saying he saw Wendi outside while they were scoping out Danny - state has evidence Wendi was not there so that was his paranoia more than likely.

Obviously, this is just based on what we know so far. I guess it's possible the state has wiretaps & other evidence of Wendi planning this murder with her family and they're just sitting on it. Maybe the prosecutors are just feeling too sick to go to the grand jury right now and once they're better we're gonna be rockin' and rollin'. Stay tuned!

JMO

When the leading argument (not a scientific study ) in social media tying Wendi to Dan's murder is ~ “There is no way they would have done this without Wendi’s approval,” it shows how difficult the case will be to prove and meet the burden of proof. In my opinion, the case against Wendi boils down to three key hurdles (her strong dislike of Dan and having a motive are givens):

1. Her drive to Trescott: In my opinion, her drive to Trescott and decision to go to ABC Liquors is overblown, but I agree it may suggest she had knowledge, and it is a big hurdle, though it doesn’t prove involvement. The Trescott shortcut argument is silly—there is evidence to support that it’s a known shortcut and her preferred route; Lacasse even confirmed this! ABC Liquors added slightly more than four miles compared to choosing Market Square Liquors. Social media makes it seem like she climbed Mount Everest to go to ABC.​
2. Deleting the text “this is so sweet”: This definitely raises suspicion that she might have had knowledge. However, she also deleted other items that wouldn’t be part of a “cover-up.” Deleting this text may be suspicious, but at most, it suggests she might have had knowledge. This might sway a jury, but is it enough?​
3. Her text asking if Dan was in town the week of the murder to confirm she had the kids for the Wednesday crossover day: Although the timing is suspicious, it’s only suspicious because of what happened. They were co-parenting, and this was a normal question to ask based on their custody arrangements.​

What about the Lacasse setup theory? In my opinion, it can easily be proven false, and I firmly believe that if argued in Wendi’s trial, it would do more harm than good for the prosecution’s case. There was no reason for the defense to argue against that narrative in the previous four trials—except perhaps in Charlie’s trial and Rashbaum’s teams missed the mark. It will be much different in a Wendi trial, and if the prosecution introduces the Lacasse setup theory, I believe it will backfire against a zealous defense. In my opinion, the theory that the plan was to have witnesses see the getaway car and somehow it will be reported that it looked like Jeff's car fleeing the scene is silly. I know there’s more to this theory, but it was born out of Jeff’s friends’ suspicions that Wendi was trying to frame him. I find it interesting how the argument in the previous three trials was that Jeff’s Sentra looked like the Prius, and now in Donna's trial it has shifted to it looking like the first car rented! Why doesn’t anyone point out how interesting that is and how the argument shifts to fit the narrative? Not to mention that Rivera and Katie testified there was no plan to rent a specific type car. Also, Jeff took many liberties (easily proven) regarding Wendi’s knowledge of his exact departure time to fit the setup narrative—that will fail under a zealous cross-examination.

 

[JerseyPride]

I mean…Wendi’s absolutely guilty. I think they probably have enough to at least get her on an accessory charge (before or after, really) from what I’ve heard.

If they never go for it I will understand, I guess. Trials are expensive to the state/taxpayers and just trying people to say you did helps no one if you don’t think you’ve got a shot.

I do think if they reach the point where they feel like they’ve gotten as much evidence as they’re ever going to get, they should go for it, though. For someone like Wendi even if she ends up getting acquitted it’s still humiliating and will stay with her forever (and unlike other famous exonerates, it’d put her more in the OJ category of “people who were technically found not guilty but everyone knows they did it”.)

I am not a Florida attorney, but others have noted that FL criminal law excepts immediate family from accessory after the fact charges. If that’s true, it would be useful to hear from a FL attorney on whether WA can be charged as an accessory to KM, SG, and LR. If it’s theoretically possible, does the State have to prove that WA knew of KM, SG, and LR’s involvement (as opposed to the involvement of unnamed co-conspirators)?

 

[Weki]

When the leading argument (not a scientific study ) in social media tying Wendi to Dan's murder is ~ “There is no way they would have done this without Wendi’s approval,” it shows how difficult the case will be to prove and meet the burden of proof. In my opinion, the case against Wendi boils down to three key hurdles (her strong dislike of Dan and having a motive are givens):

1. Her drive to Trescott: In my opinion, her drive to Trescott and decision to go to ABC Liquors is overblown, but I agree it may suggest she had knowledge, and it is a big hurdle, though it doesn’t prove involvement. The Trescott shortcut argument is silly—there is evidence to support that it’s a known shortcut and her preferred route; Lacasse even confirmed this! ABC Liquors added slightly more than four miles compared to choosing Market Square Liquors. Social media makes it seem like she climbed Mount Everest to go to ABC.​
2. Deleting the text “this is so sweet”: This definitely raises suspicion that she might have had knowledge. However, she also deleted other items that wouldn’t be part of a “cover-up.” Deleting this text may be suspicious, but at most, it suggests she might have had knowledge. This might sway a jury, but is it enough?​
3. Her text asking if Dan was in town the week of the murder to confirm she had the kids for the Wednesday crossover day: Although the timing is suspicious, it’s only suspicious because of what happened. They were co-parenting, and this was a normal question to ask based on their custody arrangements.​

What about the Lacasse setup theory? In my opinion, it can easily be proven false, and I firmly believe that if argued in Wendi’s trial, it would do more harm than good for the prosecution’s case. There was no reason for the defense to argue against that narrative in the previous four trials—except perhaps in Charlie’s trial and Rashbaum’s teams missed the mark. It will be much different in a Wendi trial, and if the prosecution introduces the Lacasse setup theory, I believe it will backfire against a zealous defense. In my opinion, the theory that the plan was to have witnesses see the getaway car and somehow it will be reported that it looked like Jeff's car fleeing the scene is silly. I know there’s more to this theory, but it was born out of Jeff’s friends’ suspicions that Wendi was trying to frame him. I find it interesting how the argument in the previous three trials was that Jeff’s Sentra looked like the Prius, and now in Donna's trial it has shifted to it looking like the first car rented! Why doesn’t anyone point out how interesting that is and how the argument shifts to fit the narrative? Not to mention that Rivera and Katie testified there was no plan to rent a specific type car. Also, Jeff took many liberties (easily proven) regarding Wendi’s knowledge of his exact departure time to fit the setup narrative—that will fail under a zealous cross-examination.

To add to the Lacasse set up theory - Wendi texted Rob a picture of Lacasse and told him he was her new boyfriend and not to tell the parents. Lacasse, of course, testified that he met the parents and they knew about him. So why did Wendi send that text to Rob? The implication is that she was planting the "Lacasse did it" seed. Presumably, so Rob would relay that to LE after the murder. First of all, they are all estranged from Rob so it's weird that she would think to involve him all the way in upstate NY. Secondly, Rob testified Donna told him not to talk to LE. So which is it? They wanted him to talk to LE and point the finger at Lacasse or they didn't want him to talk to LE?

Also, in a hypothetical Wendi trial, Lacasse would be a major witness for the state. In his 2 hour long interview with LE, he has outlined a pretty detailed psychological profile of Wendi as being essentially emotionally unstable/fragile. I think he would be cross-examined extensively about all that and it would help Wendi.

Stay tuned!

JMO

 

[BearWatcher]

I do think it is more likely Wendi will have a stronger defense than the previous two Adelson trials, if she is arrested and tried, based on comments about the quality of her civil attorney. But most of the jurors thought the defense lack of sense for DA was due to lack of plausible information to overcome the facts that were presented at trial. I also recall that Wendi did seem to be surprised at some documentation during Charle’s trial she was asked to read. I think many expect Donna’s phone and iPads / computers may have additional information that we have not seen yet.

 

[Zedzded]

Vehicle ID numbers have no value to hit men. I believe they were in the planner for some other reason. I can't think of a good reason, but the defense attorneys can.

She did not have the VIN. She had:
make
model
license plate
and year car was made (to help identify it). A 2015 Honda Odyssey looks very different to a 2005 one.

 

[Zedzded]

My MIL has the make, model, and license plate number of every family car (including mine, my BIL's, etc.) written on a piece of paper up on her wall in the kitchen. It's been there for over 10 years. Why? I don't know. I don't think she's planning to kill me, or anyone. She just likes to keep track of stuff like that.

And you've just hit the nail on the head. You don't know why she does this because it is unusual behaviour. Now with your MIL it's OK she's not a suspect in a murder investigation she does not need to provide a reason for doing this. Unfortunately for people like DA and WA, unusual behaviour needs explaining because they are suspects in a murder investigation.

Perhaps there is a genuine, innocent explanation that DA has for writing down Dans license plate number in 2014 shortly before he was killed, but it needs to be plausible. e.g "I like writing random stuff down" is not going to cut the mustard...

Back to what a reasonable person would believe the reason is for DA writing that number plate down...

 

[Zedzded]

So the theory to support why Donna having the info on BOTH Wendi’s car and Dan’s car in her planner is she wanted the hitmen to have Dan car info AND also have Wendi info so that won’t shoot at Wendi’s car? I’m not buying that explanation.

That's my theory. It's admittedly a bit out there, but then DA was obsessed with protecting WA at all costs. She probably was terrified that WA would drive up and somehow get shot. Crazier things have happened in this murder.

Irregardless a defence attorney is going to have to come up with something to explain both entries. The ball is in the prosecutions court in relation to this piece of evidence. It is incriminating and needs a plausible explanation.

 

[Zedzded]

lack of plausible information to overcome the facts that were presented at trial.

That's the issue WA will have too. Why did she drive past 3 liquor stores that were closer? Her answer (after living in that area for 9 years) "I'm bad with directions."

 

[Zedzded]

Third hit.

Why does GC ask JL about WA's erratic behaviour on April 21st and again on June 4th (2nd hit)?

JL said WA was drunk and on meds on April 21st and was acting erratically and was upset. Why would GC raise this at DA's trial? This was months before the murder.

 

[ShadyLady]

Cedars, I agree 100% with your assessment.

And that someone would not be Donna because a post conviction appeal reducing her sentence from LWOP to 19 years would not help her much given her age.

That someone to point finger at Wendi could likely be Charlie!
Reducing Charlie's sentence from LWOP to 19 years minus time served could allow his to get out in his 70s.
At this time, Charlie should be asking himself about Phil's short phrase "is it worth it?"
And, even what is "it" that Charlie gained from effectuating Dan Markel's murder?

After Charlie's appeal at 1DCA runs out; and he starts to think about post conviction relief, then Charlie will be ready to point finger at Wendi.
Incidentally, Wendi should keep Charlie in her mind!
In the Jail Transport Van going to Leon County in August 2025, what was Charlie eating? Wendy's!

The investigation of the Dan Markel murder continues despite Donna's conviction.
Additional emails from Donna to multiple persons such as Harvey, Byrd etc. were added as evidence in the "Answers to demand for discovery" of yesterday 9/11/2025.
IMHO, prosecutors are NOT wasting time.
They start to look at the low hanging fruit, Harvey!
"I guess, you may stay tuned!"

Amazing how quickly Wendi ghosted her beloved family.

They will have plenty of time to reflect on it.

 

[Going Rogue]

That's my theory. It's admittedly a bit out there, but then DA was obsessed with protecting WA at all costs. She probably was terrified that WA would drive up and somehow get shot. Crazier things have happened in this murder.

Irregardless a defence attorney is going to have to come up with something to explain both entries. The ball is in the prosecutions court in relation to this piece of evidence. It is incriminating and needs a plausible explanation.

Do you really think Donna had Wendi’s car information written in her planner with the intention of passing it to the hitmen, instructing them to avoid carrying out the hit near Wendi’s vehicle? I agree that theory is “out there”. There are several reasons Donna might have had both Dan and Wendi’s car information that are unrelated to the murder. As I mentioned previously, it likely had something to do with the divorce or the ongoing post-divorce drama. If Donna had Jeff Lacasse’s vehicle information in her planner, that would have been noteworthy!

 

[Going Rogue]

Third hit.

Why does GC ask JL about WA's erratic behaviour on April 21st and again on June 4th (2nd hit)?

JL said WA was drunk and on meds on April 21st and was acting erratically and was upset. Why would GC raise this at DA's trial? This was months before the murder.

The prosecution used Jeff in all four trials to portray Wendi in a negative light, so the April 21st ‘new’ story, is par for the course. I wonder what new stories we’ll hear in a Wendi trial? The reality is that Jeff felt "wronged" by Wendi—his own words from his testimony. He knew she cheated on him but stayed with her. Even days after Dan’s murder, he wanted her back—again, his words. Wendi ended the relationship abruptly, and in my opinion, Jeff’s resentment toward her grew and intensified in the months following Dan’s murder. His three police interviews seem to support this theory. In the third interview, eight months after the murder, Jeff was convinced Wendi was involved and appeared determined to implicate her. I strongly believe Jeff is a good person trying to do the right thing. However, in his effort to be helpful, he may have recalled events inaccurately or subconsciously exaggerated certain details. I have previously pointed out specific examples of that in the past which can reasonably be proven and they have gone unchecked in social media. Jeff is likely the primary reason 99% of those following this case believe Wendi was directly involved. His testimony will be critical in a potential Wendi trial, and I believe it will face significant scrutiny in cross-examination.

 

[Zedzded]

As I mentioned previously, it likely had something to do with the divorce or the ongoing post-divorce drama.

And as I mentioned previously the divorce had been finalised a year before which included the financial settlement. And as I also mentioned there is no need in the valuation of one's assets to put specific information such as year of the car and especially the license plate.

If there was some specific motion or process that was ongoing relating to the financial settlement that involved the cars that will be easy for WA's previous lawyer to produce that documentation. Without any relevant documentation, the idea that it was divorce related will be usurped by the likelihood that it was related to the murder.

Every piece of circumstantial evidence that the prosecution produces will need a credible and plausible explanation. Without that the jury will most likely accept the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence.

WA's attorney will smile and laugh and look all cute as he wax's lyrical about WA's poor sense of direction, driving past all those liquor stores and that's fine. He can do story time till the cows come home. The jury simply will not accept silly and implausible explanations.

Thus no financial documentation vis a vis licence plate information, it defaults to it was relating to the murder.

 

[Zedzded]

The prosecution used Jeff in all four trials to portray Wendi in a negative light, so the April 21st ‘new’ story, is par for the course.

But why did she pick two very specific dates. June 4th (hit attempt) and April 21st. Presumably there were plenty of times WA was drunk/high.erratic. Why April 21st? Plausible remember!