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

[LinasK]

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.

I was just at Costco yesterday. The most expensive TV I saw was $2,000, so clearly "The TV cost $5K" was a code for a hitman payment.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

Frequent contact with her convicted co-conspirators? – that is not accurate. Although its very possible the TV repair was set up as an alibi for Wendi, there is no way to prove Wendi was in on the alibi, and if she was what prompted her to drive to the crime scene if she knew the TV repair was her alibi? You are getting too hung up on verbiage. In a report written by an investigator that interviewed the BestBuy tech, the tech indicated he discussed with Wendi the “cost of replacement”…. so, technically it wasn’t going to be an onsite repair, but apparently there was an option given for a replacement that I assume would be less that a new purchase. When she testified she discussed repair or replace with Charlie, she knew what was in the at report, so even if she lied to align with the report, its impossible to prove. I think people need to stop listening to Carl about nonsense like the repair guy was there too long and she probably stalled him as part of the plan etc… She will not need to explain what he was there too long, in fact that will not come up in a potential Wendi trial… its a ridiculous talking point that I think Carl started in his 1001 indicators of guilt video.

 

[opt]

A jury isn't going to be persuaded by Wendi's lawyer's explanations. The trail of coincidences is too long. Only Wendi's own testimony could sell her story. It's the same situation Charlie faced, and we saw how that turned out, even though Charlie had an explanation for everything except why hit men would murder a stranger on spec.

 

[Zedzded]

Frequent contact with her convicted co-conspirators? – that is not accurate. Although its very possible the TV repair was set up as an alibi for Wendi, there is no way to prove Wendi was in on the alibi, and if she was what prompted her to drive to the crime scene if she knew the TV repair was her alibi? You are getting too hung up on verbiage. In a report written by an investigator that interviewed the BestBuy tech, the tech indicated he discussed with Wendi the “cost of replacement”…. so, technically it wasn’t going to be an onsite repair, but apparently there was an option given for a replacement that I assume would be less that a new purchase. When she testified she discussed repair or replace with Charlie, she knew what was in the at report, so even if she lied to align with the report, its impossible to prove.

His words verbatim were that he "discussed the cost of replacement." That doesn't take an 18 minute phone call to discuss paying $300 for a replacement TV. It shouldn't even be a phone call, but at the very most 30s. CA stated on the stand they talked about something different.

So the jury will have to consider what WA and CA were talking about for 18 minutes and why she would lie about the conversation. It's not plausible to discuss a TV purchase for 18 minutes.

 

[Zedzded]

A jury isn't going to be persuaded by Wendi's lawyer's explanations. The trail of coincidences is too long. Only Wendi's own testimony could sell her story. It's the same situation Charlie faced, and we saw how that turned out, even though Charlie had an explanation for everything except why hit men would murder a stranger on spec.

Yup. I think plausibility is something some people are not considering. And this was both CA and DA's downfall. They thought any answer would suffice and disregarded the fact a jury would require the answer to be plausible.

 

[Going Rogue]

His words verbatim were that he "discussed the cost of replacement." That doesn't take an 18 minute phone call to discuss paying $300 for a replacement TV. It shouldn't even be a phone call, but at the very most 30s. CA stated on the stand they talked about something different.

So the jury will have to consider what WA and CA were talking about for 18 minutes and why she would lie about the conversation. It's not plausible to discuss a TV purchase for 18 minutes.

Where was it alleged that the ‘only’ topic they discussed during that 18-minute phone call as the decision to ‘replace or repair’ the TV? Wendi was asked what she discussed during her call with Charlie and her response is part of the record… you are getting caught up in details that are not even going to be part of a potential Wendi trial. Yes, its possible she lied about what they discussed on the call, but to conclude that because the call was 18-minutes long and she testified they discussed the decision to repair or replace the TV and that doesn’t take 18-minutes therefore a jury will find her guilty is a stretch in my opinion. Maybe if the jury was made up of people that think like Carl S you‘d be correct

 

[Zedzded]

Where was it alleged that the ‘only’ topic they discussed during that 18-minute phone call as the decision to ‘replace or repair’ the TV? Wendi was asked what she discussed during her call with Charlie and her response is part of the record… you are getting caught up in details that are not even going to be part of a potential Wendi trial. Yes, its possible she lied about what they discussed on the call, but to conclude that because the call was 18-minutes long and she testified they discussed the decision to repair or replace the TV and that doesn’t take 18-minutes therefore a jury will find her guilty is a stretch in my opinion. Maybe if the jury was made up of people that think like Carl S you‘d be correct

She had a long conversation with a convicted co-conspirator shortly before the victim was murdered. She lied when she said they discussed whether or not to repair the TV. GC will be able to make the argument that this was more than likely a meeting of minds. The jury does not need to know the contents of the phone call. 2 pieces of information are critical:

1. a long conversation with a convicted co-conspirator before the crime was committed
2. lies about said conversation

Note prior to the 18 minute conversation WA and CA had already communicated on the phone as well as numerous texts.

 

[Best of What's Around]

Frequent contact with her convicted co-conspirators? – that is not accurate. Although its very possible the TV repair was set up as an alibi for Wendi, there is no way to prove Wendi was in on the alibi, and if she was what prompted her to drive to the crime scene if she knew the TV repair was her alibi? You are getting too hung up on verbiage. In a report written by an investigator that interviewed the BestBuy tech, the tech indicated he discussed with Wendi the “cost of replacement”…. so, technically it wasn’t going to be an onsite repair, but apparently there was an option given for a replacement that I assume would be less that a new purchase. When she testified she discussed repair or replace with Charlie, she knew what was in the at report, so even if she lied to align with the report, its impossible to prove. I think people need to stop listening to Carl about nonsense like the repair guy was there too long and she probably stalled him as part of the plan etc… She will not need to explain what he was there too long, in fact that will not come up in a potential Wendi trial… its a ridiculous talking point that I think Carl started in his 1001 indicators of guilt video.

I am not sure how you know in advance what would or would not be admitted as evidence in the event of a trial of Wendy, but I think no one single piece of evidence convicts Wendy of anything - it will be a totality. Brick by brick - each item could be explained away but in totality it just does not add up that she is not guilty of at least knowledge and consent beforehand. I do believe she wanted to be left out of it. Very little else explains her very odd behavior from police questioning (and her obsession that she must be a suspect). The venom sustained for years afterward for a man she didn’t love and did not like but was murdered. The people who knew her well who thought her reactions were off. The driving down her old road full of speed bumps when she was running late for lunch.

One thing I have wondered about is how her family believes she never drinks and yet her boyfriend said she drank her dinner most nights and was an alcoholic. but I digress.

Asking about said boyfriend’s plans after pushing him away which coincides with the exact morning of the murder, cutting her family off only as much as it benefits herself legally but otherwise pretending she does not believe they could be guilty. She has demonstrably lied about so many things that it does not make sense to lie about unless you are not innocent. She lied about hating him, lied about even purposely dropping the divorce bomb on him just before his scheduled speech. Lie after lie after lie. And she is not uneducated. She knows exactly what game she is playing. Attorneys know that by conceding nothing you look guilty because we cannot believe anything you say. Then your drive by the crime scene and tv repair appt explanations don’t seem innocent. She has destroyed her credibility. She even denies benefitting from his death. That is another good one.

I could go on and on but what I actually wanted to write to say is I understand and respect your opinion that you do not believe there is enough evidence to convict Wendy of conspiracy to commit murder. However, and forgive me for giving advice if unwanted, I find that your arguments would be more persuasive if they did not also often seemingly insult those who disagree with you as sheeple and/or followers of Carl. Trust me I know what it feels like to be certain you are in the right (the Watts trial showed me how quickly I can go sideways myself), but if you realize that frustration and insinuation that others are too bogged down in the details or not seeing clearly or merely followers of podcasters only serve to undermine the rationality of your conclusions and leave people wondering if you work for Wendi’s high powered defense. Last, as I said some time ago, there are many actual trial attorneys (not all but many) who have said they do believe the evidence is there. None think it will be a slam dunk but many across different interviews and some from Jacksonville who practice there do believe it could be a winning case for the prosecution. I truly do not believe that many practicing attorneys would risk their reputations if it were a farce of a position to take just so they can be a more frequent guest on a forgettable
Podcast. It does not enhance their careers to take ridiculous positions and they know that. Not the least of which is the former friend of both Wendi and Dan who is also a defense attorney herself, among others who do not know the parties involved.

Anyway, apologies if my points are unwelcome. I will not press the matter again. I just see you slogging away to make your point and wonder if you realize you could be undermining some otherwise legitimate arguments - at least in my eyes - and perhaps I am alone in that. It is just my 2 cents and worth as much.

Off topic, I wonder why Wendi has never offered to take a lie detector test to clear herself? I would be shouting from the rooftops to hook me up despite their obvious drawbacks. I would be begging for one publicly myself, assuming I was innocent. This of course proves nothing but I do find it unsettling (yet another brick) that she refused further questioning after the first day. That never sits right with me no matter what defense attorneys say. And her insistence she never reads anything about the case ever under advisement of counsel just screams suspicion. This is the father of your sons. Don’t you want to help solve the case? You may have a key. I know you will say each of these proves nothing but at a certain point it all lines up to one conclusion. Risking getting caught in lies - she knows how bad that could look - she is an attorney. If she had no culpability she would not be lying constantly to rewrite history. It is a dangerous game you only play when you need to create a narrative instead of rely the messy truth because you know your innocence.

 

[opt]

I just see you slogging away to make your point and wonder if you realize you could be undermining some otherwise legitimate arguments - at least in my eyes - and perhaps I am alone in that.

Not exactly alone. I have trouble seeing how anyone here or on a jury could reasonably doubt that Wendi knew that her family planned to solve her problem and then made it happen. Yes, murder as a surprise gift is possible in theory but not with this set of facts.

I'm very open to discussion of Wendi's degree of culpability but if I were in the jury I would want to see a complete set of facts that makes sense. When the defense doesn't present a credible alternative to the prosecution's story, the jury will make the most reasonable inferences. No matter how I look at them, the facts don't add up to complete innocence.

 

[Going Rogue]

I am not sure how you know in advance what would or would not be admitted as evidence in the event of a trial of Wendy, but I think no one single piece of evidence convicts Wendy of anything - it will be a totality. Brick by brick - each item could be explained away but in totality it just does not add up that she is not guilty of at least knowledge and consent beforehand. I do believe she wanted to be left out of it. Very little else explains her very odd behavior from police questioning (and her obsession that she must be a suspect). The venom sustained for years afterward for a man she didn’t love and did not like but was murdered. The people who knew her well who thought her reactions were off. The driving down her old road full of speed bumps when she was running late for lunch.

One thing I have wondered about is how her family believes she never drinks and yet her boyfriend said she drank her dinner most nights and was an alcoholic. but I digress.

Asking about said boyfriend’s plans after pushing him away which coincides with the exact morning of the murder, cutting her family off only as much as it benefits herself legally but otherwise pretending she does not believe they could be guilty. She has demonstrably lied about so many things that it does not make sense to lie about unless you are not innocent. She lied about hating him, lied about even purposely dropping the divorce bomb on him just before his scheduled speech. Lie after lie after lie. And she is not uneducated. She knows exactly what game she is playing. Attorneys know that by conceding nothing you look guilty because we cannot believe anything you say. Then your drive by the crime scene and tv repair appt explanations don’t seem innocent. She has destroyed her credibility. She even denies benefitting from his death. That is another good one.

I could go on and on but what I actually wanted to write to say is I understand and respect your opinion that you do not believe there is enough evidence to convict Wendy of conspiracy to commit murder. However, and forgive me for giving advice if unwanted, I find that your arguments would be more persuasive if they did not also often seemingly insult those who disagree with you as sheeple and/or followers of Carl. Trust me I know what it feels like to be certain you are in the right (the Watts trial showed me how quickly I can go sideways myself), but if you realize that frustration and insinuation that others are too bogged down in the details or not seeing clearly or merely followers of podcasters only serve to undermine the rationality of your conclusions and leave people wondering if you work for Wendi’s high powered defense. Last, as I said some time ago, there are many actual trial attorneys (not all but many) who have said they do believe the evidence is there. None think it will be a slam dunk but many across different interviews and some from Jacksonville who practice there do believe it could be a winning case for the prosecution. I truly do not believe that many practicing attorneys would risk their reputations if it were a farce of a position to take just so they can be a more frequent guest on a forgettable
Podcast. It does not enhance their careers to take ridiculous positions and they know that. Not the least of which is the former friend of both Wendi and Dan who is also a defense attorney herself, among others who do not know the parties involved.

Anyway, apologies if my points are unwelcome. I will not press the matter again. I just see you slogging away to make your point and wonder if you realize you could be undermining some otherwise legitimate arguments - at least in my eyes - and perhaps I am alone in that. It is just my 2 cents and worth as much.

Off topic, I wonder why Wendi has never offered to take a lie detector test to clear herself? I would be shouting from the rooftops to hook me up despite their obvious drawbacks. I would be begging for one publicly myself, assuming I was innocent. This of course proves nothing but I do find it unsettling (yet another brick) that she refused further questioning after the first day. That never sits right with me no matter what defense attorneys say. And her insistence she never reads anything about the case ever under advisement of counsel just screams suspicion. This is the father of your sons. Don’t you want to help solve the case? You may have a key. I know you will say each of these proves nothing but at a certain point it all lines up to one conclusion. Risking getting caught in lies - she knows how bad that could look - she is an attorney. If she had no culpability she would not be lying constantly to rewrite history. It is a dangerous game you only play when you need to create a narrative instead of rely the messy truth because you know your innocence.

I don’t mind the feedback at all. My critique of how Carl has persuaded and fed the community with false optimism about the strength of the case against Wendi and has the entire community believing her arrest is imminent is my honest opinion. I don’t like to sugarcoat things, and truth be told, I don’t always feel great about sharing that perspective because I don’t think Carl is a bad person. I just believe he has significant blind spots in how he analyzes this case and has reported misleading facts that are too big to be little. Do you think my statement that people should stop listening to Carl is offensive to his followers? I’m not calling his followers sheep, Carl is not a regular anonymous moron like me posting on the internet, he has legal credentials, and should be more responsible than someone like me. He has literally undermined (on several occasions) the tally DA’s office. Personally, I believe someone with his credentials should not go there especially when his is not privy to inside information.

 

[Zedzded]

I don’t mind the feedback at all. My critique of how Carl has persuaded and fed the community with false optimism about the strength of the case against Wendi and has the entire community believing her arrest is imminent is my honest opinion. .

You need to remember many of us are seekers of truth, capable of being objective, not easily swayed by confirmation biases or subjective people with hidden agendas.

I base my opinions and thoughts on:
- what evidence we know about
- how I think the jury will interpret that evidence
- how previous co-conspirators have fared in court

As I learn more about the case I've changed my opinion multiple times.

1. first I thought guilty of murder 1/cons/sol
2. then possibly not involved, but knew about it
3. not guilty of murder 1/cons/sol, but guilty of accessory after
4. I'm now back to murder 1/cons/sol

That's based on my own research,interpretation and analysis of information, not because someone with a law degree and youtube channel told me so.

 

[Going Rogue]

You need to remember many of us are seekers of truth, capable of being objective, not easily swayed by confirmation biases or subjective people with hidden agendas.

I base my opinions and thoughts on:
- what evidence we know about
- how I think the jury will interpret that evidence
- how previous co-conspirators have fared in court

As I learn more about the case I've changed my opinion multiple times.

1. first I thought guilty of murder 1/cons/sol
2. then possibly not involved, but knew about it
3. not guilty of murder 1/cons/sol, but guilty of accessory after
4. I'm now back to murder 1/cons/sol

That's based on my own research,interpretation and analysis of information, not because someone with a law degree and youtube channel told me so.

To be clear, I’m not saying Carl has convinced and influenced everyone, but I believe he has made a very significant impact and I believe he changed a lot of peoples perspectives on the strength of the evidence against Wendi.

I have said many times confirmation biases are rampant in true crime in general and this case is no exception. The thing about confirmation biases is that they are very difficult to self-detect without deliberate reflection or external challenge. You and I both might have our own confirmation biases on our perspectives of this case, and we may not be aware which is why we should always challenge thoughts and ideas. I have no problem being challenged if my thought process seems a bit off.

 

[Knitpicker]

His words verbatim were that he "discussed the cost of replacement." That doesn't take an 18 minute phone call to discuss paying $300 for a replacement TV. It shouldn't even be a phone call, but at the very most 30s. CA stated on the stand they talked about something different.

So the jury will have to consider what WA and CA were talking about for 18 minutes and why she would lie about the conversation. It's not plausible to discuss a TV purchase for 18 minutes.

At KM’s first trial, her reason for calling Charlie was that she was so upset about Dan wanting to take the kids swimming, she had to discuss this with Charlie. She gave up on that ridiculous excuse for the other trials and then made it about discussing repair vs. replacement.

In the report, the guy said there was “impact damage”.
He went over “costs of replacement” and “talked to her about prices”.
He never said it could be repaired. She lied about that.
He said “she was upset (sad).He said “she said her son didn’t do it and she was not there”.”He was watched by her dad at the time”
At the last trial I believe she said Lincoln threw a remote at it.
The first KM trial she said “one of the boys threw a toy at it”.
Charlie said to GC “you’d have to ask Lincoln”
Harvey was with Lincoln (the other boy wasnt there) at the time of the damage.
The guy said she was texting her brother (or someone) when he was there.
she was texting Dan and arguing with him about the pool situation.
She never texted Charlie when the guy was there
.
But “repairing the TV” was never brought up by the guy,

He also said in the report that he would contact her later in the day about her “decision after she “spoke to someone”.
Obviously that never happened,

Edit- I may not have the quotes exactly right but thats the gist of it. The testimony has changed about how the damage happened. Charlie was the first to bring up that her younger son did it. Then the last trial she went with that.
Why would she even say to the guy that her “son didn’t do it”. so much oddity.

 

[Weki]

The opinion of a bunch of lawyers commentating on podcasts carries little weight for me. More often than not they are not familiar with all the facts of the case, they do not practice criminal law, and if they do practice criminal law they do not practice in the jurisdiction of the trial in question. The true crime podcasting industrial complex is incredibly lucrative and these lawyers are there to promote themselves and get paying gigs, IMO. I have no idea if Carl ever practiced law. Anyone can create a LinkedIn profile/website saying anything. Do we have actual proof?

In this case, we have Tim Jansen who is a local defense atty and provided some good local context and that was valuable to me. I liked Tim until recently. BTW, Tim Jansen started out saying Wendi won’t be charged and he got a ton of backlash. Some people said he must be working for the Adelsons. He’s now changed his tune. These people are human. They are influenced by the audience just like the audience is influenced by them. He is also a confirmed spreader of verifiably false information. Aided and abetted by STS. Some are still arguing that it was possible there was a deal offered to Donna even though the DA and her defense has said no deal was offered. Certainly, given the facts of this case no one could reasonably believe that the state would offer Donna immunity. They are called social media influencers for a reason. These podcasts are not in search of the truth. They are in search of drama, clicks, and money.

JMO

 

[rescuemom]

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.

If I was on a jury, the question i would ask is could she have stopped it?????

 

[rescuemom]

The opinion of a bunch of lawyers commentating on podcasts carries little weight for me. More often than not they are not familiar with all the facts of the case, they do not practice criminal law, and if they do practice criminal law they do not practice in the jurisdiction of the trial in question. The true crime podcasting industrial complex is incredibly lucrative and these lawyers are there to promote themselves and get paying gigs, IMO. I have no idea if Carl ever practiced law. Anyone can create a LinkedIn profile/website saying anything. Do we have actual proof?

In this case, we have Tim Jansen who is a local defense atty and provided some good local context and that was valuable to me. I liked Tim until recently. BTW, Tim Jansen started out saying Wendi won’t be charged and he got a ton of backlash. Some people said he must be working for the Adelsons. He’s now changed his tune. These people are human. They are influenced by the audience just like the audience is influenced by them. He is also a confirmed spreader of verifiably false information. Aided and abetted by STS. Some are still arguing that it was possible there was a deal offered to Donna even though the DA and her defense has said no deal was offered. Certainly, given the facts of this case no one could reasonably believe that the state would offer Donna immunity. They are called social media influencers for a reason. These podcasts are not in search of the truth. They are in search of drama, clicks, and money.

JMO

I'm amazed at all of the podcasts on any given subject. In the end it is mostly just opinion. I don't have the energy or inclination to fill my head with someone elses opinion. Sadly our 'news' networks are for the most part the same. Growing up my parents watched 3 networks for at most an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening. Whether that news was truthful we didn't know. Are we better off now or not?? In the end if WA is brought to trial in Tallahassee I will watch and listen and trust GC, et all.

 

[Going Rogue]

I am not sure how you know in advance what would or would not be admitted as evidence in the event of a trial of Wendy, but I think no one single piece of evidence convicts Wendy of anything - it will be a totality. Brick by brick - each item could be explained away but in totality it just does not add up that she is not guilty of at least knowledge and consent beforehand. I do believe she wanted to be left out of it. Very little else explains her very odd behavior from police questioning (and her obsession that she must be a suspect). The venom sustained for years afterward for a man she didn’t love and did not like but was murdered. The people who knew her well who thought her reactions were off. The driving down her old road full of speed bumps when she was running late for lunch.

One thing I have wondered about is how her family believes she never drinks and yet her boyfriend said she drank her dinner most nights and was an alcoholic. but I digress.

Asking about said boyfriend’s plans after pushing him away which coincides with the exact morning of the murder, cutting her family off only as much as it benefits herself legally but otherwise pretending she does not believe they could be guilty. She has demonstrably lied about so many things that it does not make sense to lie about unless you are not innocent. She lied about hating him, lied about even purposely dropping the divorce bomb on him just before his scheduled speech. Lie after lie after lie. And she is not uneducated. She knows exactly what game she is playing. Attorneys know that by conceding nothing you look guilty because we cannot believe anything you say. Then your drive by the crime scene and tv repair appt explanations don’t seem innocent. She has destroyed her credibility. She even denies benefitting from his death. That is another good one.

I could go on and on but what I actually wanted to write to say is I understand and respect your opinion that you do not believe there is enough evidence to convict Wendy of conspiracy to commit murder. However, and forgive me for giving advice if unwanted, I find that your arguments would be more persuasive if they did not also often seemingly insult those who disagree with you as sheeple and/or followers of Carl. Trust me I know what it feels like to be certain you are in the right (the Watts trial showed me how quickly I can go sideways myself), but if you realize that frustration and insinuation that others are too bogged down in the details or not seeing clearly or merely followers of podcasters only serve to undermine the rationality of your conclusions and leave people wondering if you work for Wendi’s high powered defense. Last, as I said some time ago, there are many actual trial attorneys (not all but many) who have said they do believe the evidence is there. None think it will be a slam dunk but many across different interviews and some from Jacksonville who practice there do believe it could be a winning case for the prosecution. I truly do not believe that many practicing attorneys would risk their reputations if it were a farce of a position to take just so they can be a more frequent guest on a forgettable
Podcast. It does not enhance their careers to take ridiculous positions and they know that. Not the least of which is the former friend of both Wendi and Dan who is also a defense attorney herself, among others who do not know the parties involved.

Anyway, apologies if my points are unwelcome. I will not press the matter again. I just see you slogging away to make your point and wonder if you realize you could be undermining some otherwise legitimate arguments - at least in my eyes - and perhaps I am alone in that. It is just my 2 cents and worth as much.

Off topic, I wonder why Wendi has never offered to take a lie detector test to clear herself? I would be shouting from the rooftops to hook me up despite their obvious drawbacks. I would be begging for one publicly myself, assuming I was innocent. This of course proves nothing but I do find it unsettling (yet another brick) that she refused further questioning after the first day. That never sits right with me no matter what defense attorneys say. And her insistence she never reads anything about the case ever under advisement of counsel just screams suspicion. This is the father of your sons. Don’t you want to help solve the case? You may have a key. I know you will say each of these proves nothing but at a certain point it all lines up to one conclusion. Risking getting caught in lies - she knows how bad that could look - she is an attorney. If she had no culpability she would not be lying constantly to rewrite history. It is a dangerous game you only play when you need to create a narrative instead of rely the messy truth because you know your innocence.

I reread your post this morning and it prompted me to do a 360 review of some my recent comments, and I see how my tone, especially around Carl’s influence or calling points “ridiculous,” could seem dismissive. I’ll work on framing my arguments more constructively as I value the discussion here and want to keep it productive, so I’ll try better. Feel free to keep me in check!

On the case, I still think points like the TV repair / replace conversation have plausible explanations. The BestBuy report, for example, supports Wendi’s claim about discussing “repair or replace,” which aligns with what the tech told investigators. I’ve mentioned confirmation bias before, and after a deep dive into this case about four years ago, I started questioning mainstream narratives, especially on YouTube back then. I admit I might have my own biases, which is why I push back on certain points I see made in this forum. I have always been clear that I’m 50/50 on Wendi’s involvement and get the sense most are reluctant to entertain ideas suggesting she wasn’t part of the plot. I’m curious why that is and think it’s worth exploring all angles.

To your points about Wendi’s behavior, I can see why things like her driving by the crime scene or inconsistencies in her statements raise red flags. You mentioned she’s lied about hating Dan and benefiting from his death etc. and I agree she is very deceitful in the way she testified and I agree she lied about many things. When I analyze the case against her, I don’t dismiss those things, but as someone not convinced she was directly involved, I can understand why she lied and distanced herself as a way of self-preservation given her family’s involvement put her in a tough spot legally and emotionally. I’m not saying the lies are justified, just that the fact she was deceitful and lied, does not convince me she was directly involved.

Thanks again for the constructive feedback!

 

[Going Rogue]

If I was on a jury, the question i would ask is could she have stopped it?????

Unless the charges are failing to stop her family from moving forward with the murder, asking that question would be irrelevant to the charges the jury would be voting on. The burden that state would have is proving she conspired with her family. Knowing they were plotting to murder Dan and not stopping it s not a crime, but I do understand how asking that question could influence the way you might vote on the main charges.

I’ve mention this a couple times before; Mentour Lawyer put out an excellent video (at least two year’s ago) on how he would go after Wendi if he worked for the Tallahassee DA’s office. In that video, at that time, he seemed resigned to the fact that the case for conspiracy was too difficult to prove (not sure what his current opinion is?), so he’d charge her with endangering the welfare of her children because she didn’t attempt to stop her family and as a member of the FL Bar she had a moral and ethical obligation to do so – even though in the state of FL, knowledge of a crime and not taking steps to stop it is not a crime. He made it very clear in that video that what he was suggesting was not an easy path and it included some serious leg work like going to the supreme court in an effort to create case law that covered this exact circumstance. My explanation of his points and video are going off memory so I might be missing some of the points he articulated, but it was along those lines and he made it clear it wasn’t an easy path based on the case facts.

 

[Going Rogue]

The opinion of a bunch of lawyers commentating on podcasts carries little weight for me. More often than not they are not familiar with all the facts of the case, they do not practice criminal law, and if they do practice criminal law they do not practice in the jurisdiction of the trial in question. The true crime podcasting industrial complex is incredibly lucrative and these lawyers are there to promote themselves and get paying gigs, IMO. I have no idea if Carl ever practiced law. Anyone can create a LinkedIn profile/website saying anything. Do we have actual proof?

In this case, we have Tim Jansen who is a local defense atty and provided some good local context and that was valuable to me. I liked Tim until recently. BTW, Tim Jansen started out saying Wendi won’t be charged and he got a ton of backlash. Some people said he must be working for the Adelsons. He’s now changed his tune. These people are human. They are influenced by the audience just like the audience is influenced by them. He is also a confirmed spreader of verifiably false information. Aided and abetted by STS. Some are still arguing that it was possible there was a deal offered to Donna even though the DA and her defense has said no deal was offered. Certainly, given the facts of this case no one could reasonably believe that the state would offer Donna immunity. They are called social media influencers for a reason. These podcasts are not in search of the truth. They are in search of drama, clicks, and money.

JMO

I think it’s very fair to question the motives and agendas of anyone that has a monetized platform that is pumping out content on this case. As an extension, any regular guest on any of the YouTube channels that cover the case, is aware they need to choose their words carefully if they are going to provide a more objective view on the case against Wendi because of the backlash you mention. I have always thought the YouTube coverage feeds the echo chamber, and in my opinion 95% of the content on YouTube seems to be lacking any objective coverage of the case. I think the point you make about them not searching for the truth and prioritizing content that gets them clicks and views thus increasing their revenue stream is 100% spot on.

 

[Wishbone]

A jury isn't going to be persuaded by Wendi's lawyer's explanations. The trail of coincidences is too long. Only Wendi's own testimony could sell her story. It's the same situation Charlie faced, and we saw how that turned out, even though Charlie had an explanation for everything except why hit men would murder a stranger on spec.

too many coincidences means that it isn't coincidental. JMOO