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

[Going Rogue]

I don't think it's a big rabbit hole.

A prime suspect in a murder drove to the crime scene. She potentially had an "out" by claiming it was a shortcut instead of going up Centreville (it is not a shortcut), but that excuse was cancelled out by her lying about the route she took.

Once that information is parlayed to a jury, they will be left in doubt (IMO) that when WA drove to the crime scene, she already knew Dan had been shot. Innocent people don't lie.

Additionally once you add in all the other crazy behaviour, upset about the TV, wanting to repair a TV despite being told it couldn't be, lying about the phone call conversation with CA, manic phone calling/texting around the time she drove to the crime scene... a jury will be left in no doubt about her complicity. Indeed some of the jury members from DA's trial have already stated they believe WA was involved and they have barely seen any evidence.

With all due respect, several of last few posts I just read on this forum is all the proof you need to justify labeling Wendi’s trip to ABC / Trescott as a giant rabbit hole….. and there wasn’t even a mention of the two trip theory

 

[Knitpicker]

GC is holding off on interrogating WA about Trescott. There's a video I'll dig up of WA clearly lying and GC holds off on her.

I can't remember verbatim, but GC asks her if she turned onto Trescott and WA replies "I couldn't turn on to Trescott because there was tape, so I carried straight on Centreville.

GC very gently cajoles a bit more information out of WA and she then admits she drove down Trescott for a bit. And then GC left it at that. To be continued Wendi!

Yes I rewatched her last testimony a few times and I caught something I thought would stay in my mind that really nabbed her. I’m not sure that is it! But it may be. I will watch it again bc it will help me fall asleep so hopefully I get to that before I doze off.

Edit- Oh I just remembered what it was. GC asked her about when she found out Dan was shot. She says she heard about it in the car ride with Isom… and then later she says she heard it at the station (maybe to Jane but not sure ) But it was about that subject.. It was one of those AHA moments she was trapped). It wasn’t about Trescott. I’ll find it and post it.

 

[Knitpicker]

With all due respect, several of last few posts I just read on this forum is all the proof you need to justify labeling Wendi’s trip to ABC / Trescott as a giant rabbit hole….. and there wasn’t even a mention of the two trip theory

She created the rabbit hole with her lies, we didn’t.

 

[Zedzded]

I guess a rabbit hole implies confusion and complexities when discussing something. I look at Trescott simply in that it very clearly implicates WA. But it is a a rabbit hole in that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to unpack.

However, there's no analysis of Trescott that can be done that could possible clear or vindicate WA. I think if Lauro or WA tried to explain or justify Trescott it would become farcical. And I think the same goes with a lot of the other implicatory evidence.

I'm sure WA has a whole bunch of "outside your house"* style responses to difficult questions, but the answers will not satisfy a jury. Which is why WA will never take the stand in her own trial. It will be a complete trainwreck.

* - reference to DA's ridiculous claim "outside your house" means driving 2 miles away.

 

[Zedzded]

I watched GC questioning WA again yesterday and the questions on WhatsApp.... the State must have some Whatsapp data. It doesn't make sense that GC would ask 10+ questions if she has nothing.

 

[Going Rogue]

She created the rabbit hole with her lies, we didn’t.

The rabbit hole exists because of all the coverage, speculation, ambiguity, and varying opinions – her ‘lies’ are not the reason there is a rabbit hole, they are a symptom of the chaos.

 

[Going Rogue]

there's no analysis of Trescott that can be done that could possible clear or vindicate WA.

Likewise, there is no analysis of Trescott that will nail her either – welcome to the rabbit hole. I based my statement only on information that is public. Too many people in social media provide opinions based on the assumption that the prosecution has more incriminating information not publicly disclosed.

 

[Zedzded]

Likewise, there is no analysis of Trescott that will nail her either

Like I said innocent people don't lie. She drove down Trescott to the crime scene and lied about it multiple times. That will be a huge problem for her in court.

People can claim she suffered memory loss and that's fine, but the jury will most likely not accept "memory loss" as a valid reason for her conflicting statements re her journey that morning.

If a prime suspect drives to the crime scene they need an extremely good reason for it and they need to be 100% truthful about what they did. A jury will most likely construe any form of deception as an attempt to conceal complicity. You can't get up on the stand and say what you want and not expect consequences.

 

[apeXperience]

Dan Markel was shot while in his car at his home’s garage in Tallahassee, Florida, shortly before 11 a.m. on July 18, 2014.

Removing nits from someone's hair is generous but nitpicking ad nauseam about Wendi Adelson’s travel along Trescott Dr. on July 18, 2014 at around 12:30 is a unnecessary waste of time.

• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect of “I did not visit the crime scene”, she is telling the truth
• No matter how people dislike the varying and deceptive elaborations of her answer, TPD report clearly states that (1) she made a K turn at about the police perimeter tape and (2) that tape was not located at the house where the crime occured
• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect that “Trescott Dr seems to be a shortcut … Trescott Dr seems to be the most familiar route etc …”, these varying explanations are not evidence of conspiracy to commit first degree murder
• Within the Florida Rules of Evidence in criminal case, these are plausible alternative explanations and therefore admissible

Some “smart” people are obsessed about ASA Cappleman’s repeated questioning of Wendi Adelson’s travel along Trescott Dr. on July 18, 2014. However, these repetitions could be just interrogative techniques used in the examination of this State labeled un-indicted co-conspirator because she is obviously an “hostile witness”

• One basic such interrogative techniques is to ask sometimes innocuous questions and at other times loaded questions (asked multiple times) in order of inducing the hostile witness into making deceptive statements such that the Jurors comprehend better the behavior of the hostile witness with regards to the nature of the crime
• Such techniques are described in authoritative literature such as in this seminal source “Barland, G. H. & Raskin, D. C. Detection of Deception. In W. F. Prokasy & D. C. Raskin (Eds.) Psychological Research. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp 417-477.”
• Even if Wendi Adelson were to respond consistently (which she did not obviously do), her deceptive behavior is exposed for all (especially the Jurors) to see from her dissociative attitude
• Wendi Adelson’s dissociative attitude is illustrated by her unfocused attention and her monotonous “I do not remember” and “that sounds right” responses
• When the Jurors observed her attitude and her answers, they may have considered “this hostile witness has something to hide. Hence, the defendant is guilty. And the witness might be guilty of something ... perhaps as the defendant”, and the Prosecutor Cappleman achieved her goal!

Please, kindly forgive the somewhat academic narrative but it would be better to focus sleuthing resources in more salient and potentially rewarding items rather than picking nits in Wendi Adelson’s hair. More Justice For Dan Markel!

 

[LetsSolvIt]

STS Donna Adelson's Jailhouse daughter Drina Bernhardt talks!Wow I love good gossip

I listened: I’d say she offers more than gossip. My response is, “Wow!”

OMO.

 

[Zedzded]

• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect of “I did not visit the crime scene”, she is telling the truth
  
  A crime scene is an area. Crime scene tape would prevent someone from getting to the actual scene i.e the driveway. WA is a lawyer. She would understand what yellow crime scene tape means and would understand what the question meant "did you visit the crime scene?" Trying to rely on a flimsy technicality like that would fail. Note, courts look at the ordinary interpretation of words. This is why DA's claim "outside your house" meant "driving two miles away," failed.
  
  
• No matter how people dislike the varying and deceptive elaborations of her answer, TPD report clearly states that (1) she made a K turn at about the police perimeter tape and (2) that tape was not located at the house where the crime occured
  
  The tape does not have to be located at the house for one to "visit" a crime scene otherwise for a suspect to visit a crime, under your interpretation, they would have to cross the tape and walk right up to the dead body.
  
  
• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect that “Trescott Dr seems to be a shortcut … Trescott Dr seems to be the most familiar route etc …”, these varying explanations are not evidence of conspiracy to commit first degree murder
  
  She knew the area very well. Trescott Dr had speed bumps and was slower than going straight down Centreville, a main carriageway. The drive down Trescott was twice the time compared to the Centreville route. She was running late. Going straight down Centreville would have been the logical route. Courts assess conduct based on the standard of a reasonable and rational person, who, under similar circumstances, would have taken the most direct and efficient route. Whilst this does not mean WA is a murderer, it just adds to that huge list of incriminating factors.
  
  
• Within the Florida Rules of Evidence in criminal case, these are plausible alternative explanations and therefore admissible

Driving to the scene of a crime, turning around where there is distinctive police tape and then obtusely claiming you didn't "visit the crime scene" would not be considered "plausible." Kinda like pulling up to a bank mid-robbery, wearing a ski mask and then claiming you were cold. Maybe you were cold and maybe WA did think there was a fallen tree, but a court would not see it that way because as you've correctly pointed out, there needs to be alternative explanations that are plausible.

WA also conveniently mentioned being “terrible with directions,” as if that somehow explains why she drove directly up Trescott, coincidentally, the road leading to the crime scene. Sorry it wasn't a crime scene, the scene where the tree had fallen.

 

[LinasK]

Since 2013 while the conspiracy was hatched, Wendi Adelson’s knowledge of the Florida Rules of Evidence in criminal case drove her disciplined attitude about what, when, where and with whom to keep her mouth shut.

Wendi Adelson is difficult to indict because she is an admitted lawyer in good standing of the Florida bar. Just in case it is not clear, it is difficult for the SAO to indict her despite the volume of indicators pointing to her parts in the murder of her ex-husband, as listed and described in the PCA and transcripts of the 4 previous related trials because she is informed and smart.

Under examination and counter examination at court proceedings, she displayed her skills at giving non committal responses, deflecting questions, and wasting time. Pretending to be doltish, she shuffled the leaves of Georgia Cappleman’s large binder pretending to not know how to find page numbers.

Wendi Adelson’s fables about “hitman joke” and “TV as divorce present” are examples of deflections. Even in ordinary conversation, she is routinely deflecting topics in a manner to ridicule or infuriate her interlocutors. When Dan Markel talked about including his “love of God” in the upbringing of their sons, perhaps Wendi Adelson kept talking about her brother Charles’ “love of dog.” If their mutual friends such as Tamara Demko were attempting to impart wisdom such as “a good man is hard to find”, Wendi would deflected the conversation into how “a hard man is good to find.”

In his LWOP + 30Y + 30Y appeal process, Charles Adelson’s response brief is due tomorrow 11/5/2025 at Florida’s 1DCA. To find More Justice For Dan Markel and “indict all persons involved in his murder”, the SAO has to be creative and find venue to turn Charles Adelson into State witness starting by making him aware that the appeal process is futile.

I disagree. There's no reason that you can't indict a lawyer "in good standing". There are crooked lawyers who commit crimes all the time. They get disbarred.

 

[rescuemom]

Why is she using Zellman and Fulford?

No one else would touch it???????

 

[Ferpo]

Why is she using Zellman and Fulford?

I think because it's just simple paperwork. They don't specialize in appellate law so I'm sure she will be finding other representation. For her first case in 1DCA over the summer (where she tried to remove Judge Everett), she used Rachael Elizabeth Reese out of Tampa. Her specialty is post-conviction law so let's see if DA goes with her again.

 

[Fromeaster]

I wonder how much money Harvey has left? Maybe it's enough to spend money on Donna's appeals anyway, there's no point because it won't help. Let him save for himself and Wendi.

 

[BearWatcher]

I wonder if the diatribe from DA at the sentencing will make it difficult for her to find appellate representation.

 

[Fromeaster]

I wonder if the diatribe from DA at the sentencing will make it difficult for her to find appellate representation.

I don't think it matters, because Donna has no chance, she's a murderer.

 

[Zedzded]

I wonder how much money Harvey has left? Maybe it's enough to spend money on Donna's appeals anyway, there's no point because it won't help. Let him save for himself and Wendi.

I've done a guesstimate from when CA was arrested to now and figure it to be close to $7 million. We know for example that Rashbaum was charging a flat fee of $75k/month, so just from CA's arrest to his conviction he paid $1.5 million. (april 2022 - Nov 2023). Plus he made a reportedly $1 million for the jury consultant Josh Dubin and the associated costs with the mock trial. So CA's total costs from arrest to conviction = $2.5 million. He then has ongoing legal costs with his appeal etc.

DA was arrested Nov 2023 and convicted Oct 2025 and she would have been on a similar flat fee of $75k per month with DR, so close to $2 million.

HA and WA have had lawyers on and off for the last few years. WA paid close to $500k for a Kastigar specialist, plus her previous lawyer and now John Lauro. His 2 week stint in Tallahassee cost close to a rumoured $30k.

DA now has to pay $750k in restitution.

Note in 2014 the family net worth was $8 million (see below), but that does not include their property portfolios, which would be extensive. I would imagine most of their savings have gone and they are down to selling properties, but $$ from property sales could last them a few more years.

 

[Zedzded]

If HA is arrested next, I wonder how hard it will be for WA to be financially supported by HA when she is arrested if he's in jail? I'm assuming Jorge won't hang around long as soon as the legal bills start piling up.

 

[Luna20]

STS Donna Adelson's Jailhouse daughter Drina Bernhardt talks!Wow I love good gossip

Is there a link? I missed that.