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

[Going Rogue]

I'm sure Ruth thought she was communicating privately with the DA and never imagined her email would be seen by Wendi let alone released publicly. I doubt Ruth understood the intricacies of the discovery rules. Once Ruth understood about the discovery rules, I can't see her blaming the DA's office either. It's just one of those unfortunate circumstances based on ignorance of the rules. But it makes sense that she regretted sending the email.

I also think that the Adelsons were going to cut off the Markels no matter what. This email is just a convenient excuse that casts blame on the Markels. If Donna Adelson was willing to kill Danny to get the boys, there is no way she's agreeing to a visitation with the Markel grandparents. She wanted total control. That much is clear.

JMO

That’s a solid perspective. There is no doubt in my mind that Ruth never thought it would be public or seen by Wendi. As I said earlier, I may have been a bit harsh calling it gross incompetence by the DA’s office… Its easy to say after the fact that it should have been sealed because of the issues it caused. In the real world people are busy and things move fast so I may have been too critical…. and I hate Monday morning quarterbacks so I don’t want to be one. Although I completely agree it was a very convenient excuse, I do wonder how it would have played out if the email didn’t surface.

 

[Knitpicker]

Actually, it was the murder that convinced me the Adelson family wanted to erase Dan…. I didn’t need the name change to convince me.

If you read Ruth’s email (which I posted so I assume you did), I stand by the point I made that it can be interpreted the way Wendi described it during her testimony…. so I don’t think my statement (the one you snipped) was outlandish. Just for the record. making that point doesn’t mean I support Wendi’s decision.

As far as my personal opinion on Wendi’s ‘potential’ involvement, I have no issues sharing my views and analysis, and I try to be fair and objective. Do you think people are fair and objective when discussing the case against Wendi... especially the strength of the case against her?

There is nothing good to say about her testimony or her interview, her podcast, her comments to others…so really the only thing to talk about are her lies and deception.
You won’t like this analogy but what comes to mind is Junes comment “He was a great guy except for the murder” (I’m sure not her exact words but may be)

 

[opt]

what comes to mind is Junes comment “He was a great guy except for the murder” (I’m sure not her exact words but may be)

It was something like that. Except now it would have to change to "He was a great guy except for the life without parole prison sentence".

 

[Weki]

I have to push back on you on this issue @Going Rogue

“Emergency placement, due to arrests” is objectively clear in my opinion.

The Adelsons have been projecting their negativity and ill-will onto the Markels since before the murder. They intentionally ordered non-kosher food at the wedding for goodness sake. Did Wendi misunderstand then as well? They were slandering the Markels even at Donna’s sentencing. It never ends.

The email is nothing more than an excuse for Wendi/Donna to play victim with the Markels. She knew what Ruth intended. It’s a way to place blame and responsibility on Ruth for their cruelty. It’s pretty disgusting. Not only is she grieving the loss of her son in such a nonsensical and violent death but now she gets to feel responsible for losing access to her grandkids.

JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

I have to push back on you on this issue @Going Rogue

“Emergency placement, due to arrests” is objectively clear in my opinion.

The Adelsons have been projecting their negativity and ill-will onto the Markels since before the murder. They intentionally ordered non-kosher food at the wedding for goodness sake. Did Wendi misunderstand then as well? They were slandering the Markels even at Donna’s sentencing. It never ends.

The email is nothing more than an excuse for Wendi/Donna to play victim with the Markels. She knew what Ruth intended. It’s a way to place blame and responsibility on Ruth for their cruelty. It’s pretty disgusting. Not only is she grieving the loss of her son in such a nonsensical and violent death but now she gets to feel responsible for losing access to her grandkids.

JMO

I agree there is no disputing the Adelsons displayed ill-will onto the Markeks before an after the murder. I also 100% believe Ruth’s intent was to make sure there was a plan in the event Wendi was arrested. The email was post Sigfeddo, Rivera and Katie’s arrest and after Charlie’s original arrest affidavit was made public. I’m not saying I believe that Wendi’s interpretation was correct, just that it could be interpreted the way she testified and she used it to her advantage. At the very least, even if Wendi took liberties with her interpretation, the email made it clear to Wendi that the Markel’s thought she was directly involved. I know most can't make this leap I’m about to suggest, but if she wasn’t involved, I can somewhat understand how that email might have drove Wendi’s decision.

Disclaimer- that does not mean I think Wendi is innocent or that her decision to keep boys away from the Markels was the correct decision

 

[Best of What's Around]

I agree there is no disputing the Adelsons displayed ill-will onto the Markeks before an after the murder. I also 100% believe Ruth’s intent was to make sure there was a plan in the event Wendi was arrested. The email was post Sigfeddo, Rivera and Katie’s arrest and after Charlie’s original arrest affidavit was made public. I’m not saying I believe that Wendi’s interpretation was correct, just that it could be interpreted the way she testified and she used it to her advantage. At the very least, even if Wendi took liberties with her interpretation, the email made it clear to Wendi that the Markel’s thought she was directly involved. I know most can't make this leap I’m about to suggest, but if she wasn’t involved, I can somewhat understand how that email might have drove Wendi’s decision.

Disclaimer- that does not mean I think Wendi is innocent or that her decision to keep boys away from the Markels was the correct decision

Putting myself in Wendi’s shoes, I would have indeed been viscerally hurt that they could think I could be involved and were even considering next steps in the event of my arrest. However, because I am an adult with empathy and reasoning skills, I would have quickly come around to the fact that even if I believe my family not to be guilty, it certainly looks like they could be. We know at a minimum Wendi wondered herself (which I do not take at face value but construing in the most positive light for this argument). Believing Charlie could have been involved or it at the very least certainly rationally looked to be the case to the rest of the world, I would have bent over backwards to be kind to the Markels, even if they weren’t my favorite people. Not to curry favor, but because my family may have been involved with the murder of their son. I would have found Wendi’s testimony more believable had she said something more reasonable like she felt uncomfortable since the Markels must believe her family is guilty - not make up a poorly fabricated excuse that her takeaway was that they were trying to take her kids from her. She is trained as an attorney. She knows exactly what the letter meant. She further lies and says the letter meant they not only wanted to take her kids from her but to put them in foster care for an indefinite period. Again, an obvious misstatement that she is not that uneducated to make. The fact that Wendi seizes on the letter and purposely misconstrues its intent in court under oath - when she has had time to reflect - proves to me that even if she were innocent, she was looking for a reason to cut the Markels out and found it. There is simply no other reasonable explanation given her own words and testimony and for purposes of making this point, this is assuming she was/is innocent of involvement. And then, as only a calculating sociopath would do, she extends an olive branch only once she is told that this will look very bad for Charlie with his upcoming trial when it is revealed she has kept the boys from the Markels for many years. She is told this by the way because her excuse for doing so was so unreasonable and makes the family look like selfish, uncaring people.

Does she make nice now? No. Only for the testimony. She orchestrates the meetings so as to make the Markels look untrustworthy and limit the interaction to the very bare and rude minimum despite the Markels not having engaged in trying to unduly influence the boys (unlike the Adelson family). Last, she retracts the invite to the first born’s temple ceremony (where they were not invited to the reception) once Charlie is coming up for trial. What does his arrest have to do with hurting the Markels? Yes, it would have been awkward and uncomfortable as heck, but you pull up your adult pants and do it if all you care about are your boys and/or doing the right thing. A sane and empathetic (and innocent) person would feel shame at the evidence of what her brother might have done and tried to lessen the pain of the Markels, not compound it.

Last, just using the words “that is never going to happen” when invited to Canada with the boys according to Mr. Markel, sounds to me unnecessarily cruel and unusual to be so blunt. Of course, the narcissistic and/or sociopathic family is going to fear that the Markels would try to defame her to the boys because that is exactly what the Adelsons did; and with these personality defects, one often assumes everyone else is that way. Or that there are only winners and losers - those with empathy are seen as chumps.

How the Markels have, throughout this entire decade plus nightmare, kept their words and actions measured and respectful is nothing short of amazing. The dirty tricks never stop from the Adelsons, right up to and including absurdly calling them liars in his statement at sentencing (Harvey). This is who these four people are. And this is why Robert extricated himself from their dirty tricks and crazy making gaslighting.

 

[Knitpicker]

Putting myself in Wendi’s shoes, I would have indeed been viscerally hurt that they could think I could be involved and were even considering next steps in the event of my arrest. However, because I am an adult with empathy and reasoning skills, I would have quickly come around to the fact that even if I believe my family not to be guilty, it certainly looks like they could be. We know at a minimum Wendi wondered herself (which I do not take at face value but construing in the most positive light for this argument). Believing Charlie could have been involved or it at the very least certainly rationally looked to be the case to the rest of the world, I would have bent over backwards to be kind to the Markels, even if they weren’t my favorite people. Not to curry favor, but because my family may have been involved with the murder of their son. I would have found Wendi’s testimony more believable had she said something more reasonable like she felt uncomfortable since the Markel’s must believe her family is guilty - not make up a poorly fabricated excuse that her takeaway was that they were trying to take her kids from her. She is trained as an attorney. She knows exactly what the letter meant. She further lies and says the letter meant they not only wanted to take her kids from her but to put them in foster care for an indefinite period. Again, an obvious misstatement that she is not that uneducated to make. The fact that Wendi seizes on the letter and purposely misconstrues its intent in court under oath - when she has had time to reflect - proves to me that even if she were innocent, she was looking for a reason to cut the Markels out and found it. There is simply no other reasonable explanation given her own words and testimony and for purposes of making this point, this is assuming she was/is innocent of involvement. And then, as only a calculating sociopath would do, she extends an olive branch only once she is told that this will look very bad for Charlie with his upcoming trial to say she has kept the boys from the Markel’s for many years. She is told this by the way because her excuse was unreasonable and not believable.

Does she make nice now? No. She orchestrates the meetings so as to make the Markels look untrustworthy and limit the interaction to the very bare and rude minimum despite the Markels not having engaged in trying to unduly influence the boys (unlike the Adelson family). Last, she retracts the invite to the first born’s temple ceremony (where they were not invited to the reception) once Charlie is coming up for trial. What does his arrest have to do with hurting the Markels? Yes, it would have been awkward and uncomfortable as heck, but you pull up your adult pants and do it if all you care about are your boys and/or doing the right thing. A sane and empathetic (and innocent) person would feel shame at the evidence of what her brother might have done and tried to lessen the pain of the Markels, not compound it.

Last, just using the words “that is never going to happen” when invited to Canada with the boys according to Mr. Markel, sounds to me unnecessarily cruel and unusual to be so blunt. Of course, the narcissistic and/or sociopathic family is going to fear that the Markels would try to defame her to the boys because that is exactly what the Adelsons did; and with these personality defects, one often assumes everyone else is that way. Or that there are only winners and losers - those with empathy are seen as chumps.

How the Markel’s have throughout this entire decade plus nightmare kept their words and actions measured and respectful is nothing short of amazing. The dirty tricks never stop from the Adelsons, right up to and including absurdly calling them liars in his statement at sentencing (Harvey). This is who these four people are. And this is why Robert extricated himself from their dirty tricks and crazy making gaslighting.

Fantastic, well thought out comment.
Wendi made it appear as though the arrests were imaginations of the Markels.
When at the time in 2016, Police Chief Michael DeLeo announced there were More suspects - and possibly more arrest which pointed to her family.
Ruth was just responding to this.

Here’s the article..

TPD concerned other Markel suspects may flee

Tallahassee Police wanted to seal the arrest affidavit of a suspect in Dan Markel’s slaying out of fear future co-defendants might flee U.S.

www.tallahassee.com

Edit- I retrieved that article and was always able to read that particular one- now this time trying to read it- it seems it on a paywall. Usually most of this sites articles are on a paywall but this one was always readable. They may give you some free reads -hope you can read it.

 

[Knitpicker]

.

PS. Why would Wendi have said in the interview with Isom that Dans parents are going to think she “did it”?
Didn’t she also critique them to Isom? I seem to remember her saying they weren’t very nice people (or something to that effect)

 

[Going Rogue]

Putting myself in Wendi’s shoes, I would have indeed been viscerally hurt that they could think I could be involved and were even considering next steps in the event of my arrest. However, because I am an adult with empathy and reasoning skills, I would have quickly come around to the fact that even if I believe my family not to be guilty, it certainly looks like they could be. We know at a minimum Wendi wondered herself (which I do not take at face value but construing in the most positive light for this argument). Believing Charlie could have been involved or it at the very least certainly rationally looked to be the case to the rest of the world, I would have bent over backwards to be kind to the Markels, even if they weren’t my favorite people. Not to curry favor, but because my family may have been involved with the murder of their son. I would have found Wendi’s testimony more believable had she said something more reasonable like she felt uncomfortable since the Markels must believe her family is guilty - not make up a poorly fabricated excuse that her takeaway was that they were trying to take her kids from her. She is trained as an attorney. She knows exactly what the letter meant. She further lies and says the letter meant they not only wanted to take her kids from her but to put them in foster care for an indefinite period. Again, an obvious misstatement that she is not that uneducated to make. The fact that Wendi seizes on the letter and purposely misconstrues its intent in court under oath - when she has had time to reflect - proves to me that even if she were innocent, she was looking for a reason to cut the Markels out and found it. There is simply no other reasonable explanation given her own words and testimony and for purposes of making this point, this is assuming she was/is innocent of involvement. And then, as only a calculating sociopath would do, she extends an olive branch only once she is told that this will look very bad for Charlie with his upcoming trial when it is revealed she has kept the boys from the Markels for many years. She is told this by the way because her excuse for doing so was so unreasonable and makes the family look like selfish, uncaring people.

Does she make nice now? No. Only for the testimony. She orchestrates the meetings so as to make the Markels look untrustworthy and limit the interaction to the very bare and rude minimum despite the Markels not having engaged in trying to unduly influence the boys (unlike the Adelson family). Last, she retracts the invite to the first born’s temple ceremony (where they were not invited to the reception) once Charlie is coming up for trial. What does his arrest have to do with hurting the Markels? Yes, it would have been awkward and uncomfortable as heck, but you pull up your adult pants and do it if all you care about are your boys and/or doing the right thing. A sane and empathetic (and innocent) person would feel shame at the evidence of what her brother might have done and tried to lessen the pain of the Markels, not compound it.

Last, just using the words “that is never going to happen” when invited to Canada with the boys according to Mr. Markel, sounds to me unnecessarily cruel and unusual to be so blunt. Of course, the narcissistic and/or sociopathic family is going to fear that the Markels would try to defame her to the boys because that is exactly what the Adelsons did; and with these personality defects, one often assumes everyone else is that way. Or that there are only winners and losers - those with empathy are seen as chumps.

How the Markels have, throughout this entire decade plus nightmare, kept their words and actions measured and respectful is nothing short of amazing. The dirty tricks never stop from the Adelsons, right up to and including absurdly calling them liars in his statement at sentencing (Harvey). This is who these four people are. And this is why Robert extricated himself from their dirty tricks and crazy making gaslighting.

I appreciate that you gave such a thoughtful and detailed response while considering what most seem unable to consider – the possibility she was not involved. It’s hard to disagree with anything you said. I’m not making excuses for Wendi’s behavior or decisions, but I’m glad you were willing to assume, for the sake of your analysis, that she wasn’t involved. That said, have you considered the following? Wendi is a deeply flawed individual who doesn’t think or act as most would in her situation. I won’t attempt to diagnose her, but I think you’d agree there’s good reason to believe something is very off. I bring this up because, like many who discuss Wendi’s behavior, actions or reactions, there’s a tendency to do exactly what you did – put yourself in her shoes. If you believe she should have shown empathy toward the Markels given the circumstances, because that’s how you would have felt and acted, you may not fully understand Wendi. According to Jeff Lacasse, she is incapable of feeling empathy. That’s not an excuse for Wendi’s actions, its more of a reality.

I’ve said many times before that this is a complex case, and one of the factors that make it so complex is the psychological profiles of main characters. Keeping the focus on Wendi, if we are willing to assume she wasn’t involved, even if she realized her family’s involvement shortly after the murder, much of her post-murder behavior is difficult to understand – bizarre and far from normal by any standard. Her thought process differs from yours, mine, or most contributors to this forum. I believe we have good reason to believe that Wendi is a pathological liar, very cunning, and incredibly deceptive. However, these traits don’t necessarily mean she was involved in the murder plot. In my opinion, many conflate these negative characteristics with evidence of guilt. People also wrongly assume because I make that argument, I believe she is innocent or I’m advocating for her in some way.

 

[opt]

If all the Adelsons were to be arrested, Wendi would have preferred that no arrangements had been made for the boys? Hurt feelings have to take a back seat to their best interest, no?

 

[Weki]

We have a blueprint of how the Donna-Charlie-Wendi triangle operated.

Donna wants something and gets activated. She goes at Wendi to accomplish her goals. Wendi is too disorganized & isn’t quite up to the task. Also, Wendi is not as triggered by Donna’s needs. Donna calls Charlie for reinforcement. Charlie IS very much triggered into action. He must get Donna off his back. Charlie takes control. HE knows how to get things done. I think killing Dan was Charlie’s idea.

I think Wendi knew but she was not part of the planning. Aka conspiracy.

JMO

 

[opt]

I think Wendi knew but she was not part of the planning. Aka conspiracy.

If that's her defense, can she persuade a jury without testifying?

 

[Zedzded]

If that's her defense, can she persuade a jury without testifying?

She would need to testify and that would be an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Zedzded]

If that's her defense, can she persuade a jury without testifying?

And if she knew and lied about knowing to the police and on the stand, that's a problem for her. She's going to prison, but for what and for how long is the question. Lauro would have to perform some kind of miracle to keep her out of prison.

 

[opt]

This must happen frequently to criminal defendants who did less than the worst. They will probably be convicted of the worst if they stay silent and let the evidence speak.

 

[opt]

She would need to testify and that would be an unmitigated disaster.

Maybe. But I would give her the benefit of any reasonable doubt on participation in the plot as opposed to passively agreeing to let it proceed and being an accessory after the fact. I don't know what charges the latter would make her guilty of.

 

[LinasK]

I have to push back on you on this issue @Going Rogue

“Emergency placement, due to arrests” is objectively clear in my opinion.

The Adelsons have been projecting their negativity and ill-will onto the Markels since before the murder. They intentionally ordered non-kosher food at the wedding for goodness sake. Did Wendi misunderstand then as well? They were slandering the Markels even at Donna’s sentencing. It never ends.

The email is nothing more than an excuse for Wendi/Donna to play victim with the Markels. She knew what Ruth intended. It’s a way to place blame and responsibility on Ruth for their cruelty. It’s pretty disgusting. Not only is she grieving the loss of her son in such a nonsensical and violent death but now she gets to feel responsible for losing access to her grandkids.N

JMO

No, even non-Kosher Jews know what the basics of Kosher food are: No Pork or Shellfish and you don't mix dairy and meat within 6 hours of each other. There was no misunderstanding of that. It was done on purpose.

 

[Going Rogue]

Maybe. But I would give her the benefit of any reasonable doubt on participation in the plot as opposed to passively agreeing to let it proceed and being an accessory after the fact. I don't know what charges the latter would make her guilty of.

There is absolutely no way Wendi will ever testify in her own trial. She only testified in the previous 4 trials because she was compelled to testify. Nothing good would come out of her testifying in her own trial. We already saw how bad they can make her look with countless references to things she said (e.g. Dan is like an STD) and although that might not be proof of involvement, its obvious they will just execute the same full-court press personality attack if she testifies – and they have plenty of material. If she ever testified at her own trail it would be a colossal error.

I agree w/ Weki, it’s very possible she knew but didn’t participate… but her defense wont be - “I knew but wasn’t part of the planning”. If she admits knowledge, they can lock her up for a very long time for perjury and aiding and abetting. If Wendi is charged, her counsel will not need to prove her innocence…. rather the prosecution will need to prove the case against her and meet the burden of proof. Based on all public information, I just don’t see how they can prove Wendi either committed an act in furtherance of the crime or entered into a conspiratorial agreement with one of the other defendants. There are too many arguments made in social media tying Wendi to the conspiracy that are highly speculative or are just opinions that will fail to meet the scrutiny of the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard.

 

[Going Rogue]

And if she knew and lied about knowing to the police and on the stand, that's a problem for her. She's going to prison, but for what and for how long is the question. Lauro would have to perform some kind of miracle to keep her out of prison.

IMO, without Charlie or Donna flipping, proving Wendi knew key details and lied about them would be just as tough for prosecution as proving she entered into a conspiratorial agreement or performed an act of furtherance.

 

[Zedzded]

IMO, without Charlie or Donna flipping, proving Wendi knew key details and lied about them would be just as tough for prosecution as proving she entered into a conspiratorial agreement or performed an act of furtherance.

This is where WA's credibility will be key as well as GC's ability to construct a persuasive narrative that WA was complicit. The TV repair incident can be used to show that beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a meeting of the minds that morning. WA was in frequent contact with her convicted co-conspirators.

What she/Lauro will need to do is give plausible explanations for the TV repair, the various communications and WA's overall behaviour and demeanour. WA, for example, will quite happily get up on the stand and say she spoke to CA for 18 mins about whether she should repair or replace the TV or not.

That phone call was not recorded, so the State do not have proof of what was and was not said. But they do not need it. WA was told multiple times by the Geek Squad guy the TV could not be repaired. He told her within minutes of arriving. The TV could not be repaired, it had to be replaced and it was not covered under warranty.

WA will need to explain that phone call with a plausible explanation (she can't).
WA will need to explain why she kept on debating whether to repair or replace it, when she knew it could not be repaired.
WA will need to offer a plausible explanation for why she became upset over the inability to repair an old, inexpensive television.
WA will need to explain why the TV repair guy was there for so long.
WA will need to explain why every person in her family was involved in the TV purchase and repair booking.
WA will need to explain the voluminous communications with her family re the TV repair. It's nonsensical to have that much contact for the reapir of a household item.
WA will need to explain why she insisted on watching a movie on the broken TV.
WA will need to explain why she refused JL's generous offer of buying her a new TV.

All these questions need plausible answers, not ridiculous Wendiesque answers. "The TV was so dear to me!"

If WA is brave enough to take the stand, she will be completely eviscerated by GC. She will be exposed as a liar, with no credibility who was in frequent comms with the people who killed DanM shortly after. This IMO will satisfy two of the elements of conspiracy, an agreement and intent.

Note for an agreement the State do not need a text from WA to CA saying "hey lets go kill Dan, it will be great. I hate him." And for most people convicted of conspiracy, that kind of direct evidence does not exist. It's simple things like call logs and inferences that play a part in their conviction.