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

[Zedzded]

do you believe the case against her is such a cake walk like Carl? Sometimes I feel like I’m in an alternate universe debating my POV.

I'm very surprised the ease with which DA was convicted, with a lot of circumstantial evidence going unchallenged and willingly accepted by the jury. So for me that makes me think a lot of the "flimsy" evidence that could incriminate WA would also be accepted.

I'm struggling to get M1, conspiracy and solicitation to fit. I believe the State can convict WA, but it will come down to GC working her magic, crafting this story, slowly unpacking it for the jury, how the plot gradually evolved and developed. Which doesn't sit well with me. I'd prefer some harder evidence. I don't know why, for example, GC continually raises "this is so sweet" and vomiting at the restaurant table. To try and connect them to the murder without any other contextual evidence is drawing a long bow.

If this was simply about convincing a group of people about WA's complicity, no dramas. 10 mins is all it would take. Convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law... I don't know. I think Trescott can be used to prove conspiracy, but now sure how.

 

[Zedzded]

I was watching GC question WA and there's so many questions about WhatsApp, it's unreal. It would be bizarre if these weren't loaded questions and the State had no WhatsApp evidence. Why bother wasting so much time...

 

[Zedzded]

If this was simply about convincing a group of people about WA's complicity, no dramas. 10 mins is all it would take. Convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law... I don't know. I think Trescott can be used to prove conspiracy, but now sure how.

So I do take issue with people that say they're unconvinced of WA's complicity. She was beyond a shadow of a doubt involved in the murder of her ex. Anyone disputing that only has a superficial understanding of the case, has some level of ignorance and/or has a hidden agenda.

I don't have a problem with people saying "yes I believe she was complicit, but I'm unsure whether she will be charged." This is an unusual case that has a huge amount of circumstantial evidence, but little direct evidence and therefore is complex. The State need to present the story from start to finish as opposed to showing a text stating WA wanted Dan dead. GC did this beautifully in DA's trial. Half way through the trial we all knew she was done, even DA knew it and I believe GC will have an easier job in WA's trial.

By easy, I mean narrating the story will be easy, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is the issue.

 

[DustysMom]

It was at the top of a driveway looking down.

this is all I could find….it was during a later segment, after they cover DAs trial, when they talk about WA.

 

[Knitpicker]

Isn’t the most damming part of Wendi’s Tresscott testimony the fact she tries to imply she never drove down it. Every time, she says, I tried to turn but it was blocked so I kept going. The cop saw her, she can’t say she did not see the tape, she says she saw it! So whatever damage her driving down there is, it can’t be mitigated. She went there, but when asked about it, it’s like impossible to get her to say she drove all the way to the tape, but she saw the tape. For me that’s all the damage that can be done for the Jury, it can’t be undone. For probable cause she drove to the tape. So if it’s part of probable cause it is, if it goes to trial you can already determine how it will play to Jury. This is all baked in now, does not matter where the tape was, she drove there, and did a non normal turn and left, so whatever value that is, that’s all it will be and also it can’t be mitigated.

She has cleverly denied (when she admitted she saw a police car) that she did not see a police officer.
The only place the police car was, was near the house, not at the Centerville/trescott junction.

 

[DustysMom]

It was at the top of a driveway looking down.

Looking down towards the street ? I’m going back to try again

 

[DustysMom]

Looking down towards the street ? I’m going back to try again

 

[Zedzded]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... The information we have supports (beyond a reasonable doubt) that she knew CA was planning to kill Dan beforehand.

I've said a few times that I feel WA's best defence strategy would be to claim that she began to suspect her family were planning to kill Dan, but only realised the morning of his murder. She drove up to the crime scene to see if CA had lived up to his promised and had Dan murdered. She freaked out when confronted by the police.

She'd still go to prison with that defence, but may escape with lesser charges. But if she goes down the route of having no idea her family were involved until after the murder, then she's completely cooked. Then obviously if she knew about it, but deceived the police and the State, that opens up the door for other charges.

So I guess when it comes down to it, complete denial means she has a chance of not serving any time. Admitting knowledge before or after or any level of complicity means a lengthy prison term.

 

[Fromeaster]

It seems to me that there are no more people left who think Wendi is innocent, except for a few men who find her beautiful.

 

[Luna20]

Her attempt to drive down Trescott is not an issue for the state as evidence, and it is not protected under her immunity deal. In her initial police interview, she very clearly stated that she attempted to take Trescott but the road was was blocked. Her attempted trip down Trescott was not discovered under her immunized testimony, and if there is ever a Wendi trial, the attempted trip down Trescott will definitely be a very big part of the state’s case – simply for the reason that being in the area is suspicious.

There are many details about this trip that have developed over the past 11-plus years. Starting with the obvious, Wendi gave inconsistent testimony in the four trials about turning on Trescott. I agree it's possible she lied or purposely crafted her words – fully knowing what she said in her police interview and in a conscious effort to distance herself. It’s also possible she had a lapse of memory or there was simply a bad or unclear exchange between Wendi and Cappleman regarding the specific details, and it could have been easily cleared up with proper follow-up questions that Cappleman chose (perhaps purposely) not to drill further into.

Stating the above will likely upset people, and they will view my analysis as defending Wendi and lacking good faith for some bizarre reason. There seems to be a good number of people who think her inconsistent testimony about the attempt to drive down Trescott is going to be a major issue for Wendi. My take is it won’t even be mentioned in a case against her, and if it is, it won’t be a major part of the case against her – for the simple reason that she never denied her intended route was Trescott. Wendi being in the area approximately 1-hour after the shooting is an entirely different argument and is definitely suspicious, but it's different from all the social media buzz around her testimony about where she turned, etc. Her inconsistent testimony is a nothing burger from an evidentiary perspective, overhyped as a big deal in social media. Her presence in the area and attempt to take Trescott will be a significant part of her trial – if there is one. The minutiae debated in social media about her inconsistent testimony or lies, depending on one’s perspective, will not be a focus of the state if that day ever comes.

Didn’t Charlie and Donna have a ‘private’ phone conversation about Trescott?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

IANAL. IIUC WA was given ‘immunity’ or ‘queen’ for a day for certain events in some of the trials? Or was she given the ‘Queen immunity’ for testimony given to investigators? Or both or neither? I envision she was under oath for any testimony given under that proffer or in any venue where she gave a statement or testimony? (I might have this wrong or jumbled and am relying in part from memory and information on the DM case which spans nearly nine years.)

If so, wonder whether that was beneficial for the prosecution of any of the cases that resulted in convictions thus far? Is it not the case that if WA tells fabrications or outright provable falsehoods or lies then that immunity could be invalid or no longer applies as was granted?

I imagine there is no real way to predict whether or not WA helped gain convictions for any thus far. Maybe prosecutors just wanted her statements and input; hence the immunity proffer.

It was illustrative IMO that some of her answer seemed to be ‘I don’t believe so…… ‘. It took nine (9) years to get to this point and these convictions. Will be interested to see if there are further developments in the case. No rush IMO. MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE

Anymore bickering and personalizing in this discussion will result in a loss of posting privileges.

Post accordingly.

Thank you.

 

[Fromeaster]

Does anyone have any idea how Wendi will be arrested? Will Pat Sanford fly to Austin to arrest her personally? I think they'll come pick her up at the gym, I heard she goes to yoga and introduces herself as Jill Estrada.So sweet!!!!

 

[Knitpicker]

View attachment 622174

Hmmm. I appreciate you searching. I don’t believe it was through a window. And it was a different view. I don’t have peacock to try and find it. My spouse wanted to record it but I watched it live.

 

[Knitpicker]

Does anyone have any idea how Wendi will be arrested? Will Pat Sanford fly to Austin to arrest her personally? I think they'll come pick her up at the gym, I heard she goes to yoga and introduces herself as Jill Estrada.So sweet!!!!

I thought Sanford would have to go to Texas because it’s the Feds right? Introducing herself? I have gone to the gym decades and prefer to be incognito. Work out and leave.

 

[Knitpicker]

View attachment 622112View attachment 622112this is all I could find….it was during a later segment, after they cover DAs trial, when they talk about WA.

I’m so sorry I got you on a wild goose chase. I have the shot in my head. I wish I could look for it myself. Thx for the effort . It’s a driveway. Like someone went out side their door and looked in the street. To the left was the tape with a few men together near a police car. Like you go outside where your mailbox is on the side of the driveway near the street.

 

[Fromeaster]

I thought Sanford would have to go to Texas because it’s the Feds right? Introducing herself? I have gone to the gym decades and prefer to be incognito. Work out and leave.

I wish he would fly to Austin to pick her up, that would be nice. I've made some friends at the gym, maybe she's looking for them too.

 

[DustysMom]

Hmmm. I appreciate you searching. I don’t believe it was through a window. And it was a different view. I don’t have peacock to try and find it. My spouse wanted to record it but I watched it live.

I have peacock and can watch as infinitum- I’ll try again now

 

[DustysMom]

I’m so sorry I got you on a wild goose chase. I have the shot in my head. I wish I could look for it myself. Thx for the effort . It’s a driveway. Like someone went out side their door and looked in the street. To the left was the tape with a few men together near a police car. Like you go outside where your mailbox is on the side of the driveway near the street.

This is all I could find. If you remember if it was early or late in the episode, I can give it another shot tomorrow.

 

[rescuemom]

If they are going to arrest her, the local police could detain her while anyone else is enroute. Of course she will lawyer up.