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

[Weki]

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.

If you have three kids and your YouTube channel was the only source of income you are not gonna PO your audience and make them stop watching you. You will say whatever gets you the most views/clicks. They are obsessively checking the analytics to see what gets the most views. And when things in the case slow down they have to gin up drama to get views. Hence ----> the state offered Donna immunity if she gives up Wendi! Tune in Tuesday to hear all about it from our inside source!!

Also, while we're on the subject of defense lawyers who commentate on true crime podcasts I am reminded of all the times that defense lawyers go on TV/podcasts and advocate for their murdering clients by saying what little innocent lambs they are. Sure, it's different when it's not their client they're talking about but they are still very much defense oriented. They are not interested in the truth - that's not the line of work they're in. Dave Aronberg is a former prosecutor who commentates on this case a lot. He has said Wendi will be arrested by Thanksgiving. He's also desperately working the podcast circuit and trying to make a name for himself. He knows what the people want to hear. JMO

 

[Baba O'Riley]

[...]
WA will need to explain why she insisted on watching a movie on the broken TV.

Not only that, but according to JL's interview with the police, he and Wendy rarely watched that tv even when it wasn't broken. So why watch it when it is? The answer, of course, so that he could be a witness to the fact that the tv was broken.

 

[Going Rogue]

Not only that, but according to JL's interview with the police, he and Wendy rarely watched that tv even when it wasn't broken. So why watch it when it is? The answer, of course, so that he could be a witness to the fact that the tv was broken.

I have seen this argument made so many times in the past and I sincerely do not understand why Wendi would have wanted or needed Jeff to be a witness that the TV was broken? This is one of the many narratives in social media that doesn’t add up to me. We know the TV is central to the hitman joke & story and also that Donna’s statement ~ “this TV is about 5” was code. It’s also very possible that the BestBuy appoint for the TV repair was very likely an alibi set up for Wendi whether she knew it was her alibi or not. I get the TV is a recurring theme in the case but I just don’t understand why she needed or wanted Jeff to be a witness the TV was actually broken… maybe someone can explain the logic behind this belief because I sincerely don’t.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

Great words.
Yes, it is an insult to some of us who are intelligent, to say we are just blindly following some “cult master podcaster”.
I like to think I have discernment and do not depend on anyone else to form opinions.

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

I see through many of the podcasters covering this case. They are resorting to subject matter and “shorts” that seem out of character to their profession to get clicks and views and their channels are growing.

Not all people are sheep led to the slaughter, and many see through their tactics and know they are doing it because it’s a business. Some fawn over the hosts, like groupies, and the hosts use flattery with their guests. The subscribers watch hours and hours of content getting really nothing out of it except something to do lol. The host is building a business.

But it doesn’t bother me- it’s their livelihood.

I don’t go to podcasters for information, I go directly to the trials which I have watched ad nauseum.
And rely on discernment

 

[Weki]

I guess one could argue they needed to show the TV was broken prior to the murder. Technically, the geek squad guy can only confirm the TV was broken on the murder date, and one could argue she broke it that day. To show the TV repair appt was genuine (totally not an alibi) the Adelsons would need to show TV was broken days prior. In comes Jeff. She had to make it memorable so he would remember. I guess. That’s one argument. And if she was doing that days before the murder she must’ve been in on the conspiracy. She’s planning/setting up an alibi.

OK. Still. We’re far short of beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO

 

[opt]

Anyone can see that Wendi's not stupid. She is reasonably adept at dodging questions, for example. It strains my credulity that Wendi could have been oblivious to the murder plan.

It also strains my credulity that the family would have proceeded without first assuring themselves that Wendi would not turn against them, sending them to jail for life immediately rather than 10 years later. The family must have sounded her out. I can imagine lawyer Wendi responding "Hypothetically, ... "

A jury is never going to believe Wendi had no part in the plan and that she was ignorant of her family's role until Charlie's trial, as she has claimed under oath. She's not that stupid, and neither is the jury. As I said, if the defense can't present a credible version of her minor/inadvertent/ignorant participation, the jury will conclude that she approved the murder and that her participation was substantial.

The defense needs a reasonable story that's consistent with her innocence. I don't see one. The mountain of circumstantial evidence and lies is too high.

 

[Going Rogue]

Great words.
Yes, it is an insult to some of us who are intelligent, to say we are just blindly following some “cult master podcaster”.
I like to think I have discernment and do not depend on anyone else to form opinions.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with relying on others to help form opinions… there are subject matter experts, and smart people in every arena and there is nothing wrong with relying on others to help shape our views…. maybe that’s my personal issue with Carl. Carl has actual legal credentials and has dedicated a lot of time breaking down this case. He is free to express his opinions, just like you and I are, so my issue isn’t that he has a platform - my issue is his message. As you know I have always strongly disagreed with the way Carl oversimplifies and presents the case against Wendi. That is my honest belief, and if other’s disagree, I’m okay with that and I don’t take it personally. I’m free to express my opinions on Carl’s just like Carl is free to express his opinions on the likes of Jack Campbell. Carl has a lot of fans, so many of them do take exception to any public call out.

I thought the constructive criticism from ‘Best of What’s Around’ was fair based on how I expressed a specific point or two in a few recent posts and it did make me stop and think… but, in fairness, I never alleged that everyone that follows this case is blindly following Carl or their favorite podcaster or that people are sheep and incapable of thinking on their own. My comments about Carl are based on my personal observations, and I believe Carl has influenced a lot of people into believing the case against Wendi is rock solid. I just disagree, do I need to add my normal disclaimer that making that point does not mean I think Wendi is innocent?

 

[Going Rogue]

I guess one could argue they needed to show the TV was broken prior to the murder. Technically, the geek squad guy can only confirm the TV was broken on the murder date, and one could argue she broke it that day. To show the TV repair appt was genuine (totally not an alibi) the Adelsons would need to show TV was broken days prior. In comes Jeff. She had to make it memorable so he would remember. I guess. That’s one argument. And if she was doing that days before the murder she must’ve been in on the conspiracy. She’s planning/setting up an alibi.

OK. Still. We’re far short of beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO

I guess that’s as good an argument as any… but after Jeff saw the TV was broken, what would have been the purpose of forcing them all to watch the movie on a broken screen to the point the boys were crying and Jeff felt like crying – per Jeff. If all she wanted was for Jeff to acknowledge it was broken, there would have been no reason for all the drama as Jeff described. Many things about this case just don’t add up.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Please move on from discussion of defence lawyers and podcasts. There are thousands of defence lawyers out there with thousands of opinions.

The only defence lawyers Websleuths is interested in hearing from are those involved directly in the case at hand.

 

[Florida_marlin]

Today marks 10 weeks since DA’s conviction, and no movement since. And yet, this thread is alive and well, courtesy of WA speculation.

My pragmatic self says if the State thought they could, they would. WA would be charged and the next case would be underway. Of course, I know it’s not that simple.

My thoughts on scenarios:

1. The State has decided that they do not have sufficient evidence, at this time, to charge WA and are just doing what is sensible in that case, i.e, saying nothing. Possibly hoping some party will flip or someone will trip over some new evidence. Certainly they could say something about the case hoping to “tickle the wires”, but low probability that would or could work at this time. A caveat is they can hope some of the blabbermouths will spill some beans on Jail phone. No shortage of yakkers in this case. Murder has no SOL, so no need to say anything.
2. The State thinks they’re really close and they think they might have a line on that last piece that takes it over that other line. If that doesn’t pan out, they go with what they have. I don’t know what that last piece could be. Just sheer speculation.
3. They have their case and are ripping and raring to go, just awaiting the right time. Although, even though it’s true that they have LOTS of other cases, I could not imagine they would be sitting on a sure thing after 10 weeks. That would be a travesty.

They say one bite of the apple. Yes, even if you bite that apple and put in back in the fridge, it still turns brown.

Personally, I think case 1. But in any case, no need to say or do anything publicly. So, we will just have to continue to cook in our slow simmering stew.

 

[Weki]

I guess that’s as good an argument as any… but after Jeff saw the TV was broken, what would have been the purpose of forcing them all to watch the movie on a broken screen to the point the boys were crying and Jeff felt like crying – per Jeff. If all she wanted was for Jeff to acknowledge it was broken, there would have been no reason for all the drama as Jeff described. Many things about this case just don’t add up.

The first time I ever heard Jeff describe this insane scene was at Donna's trial. He testified at all the previous trials and never detailed this event. If someone was like we're gonna sit here and watch on this broken TV even if there's another perfectly good TV in the other room, wouldn't you just be like, wtf, I'm outta here?

Recollections may vary

JMO

 

[Fromeaster]

It seems to me that the turning point could be when Charlie's appeal is denied. Does he accept his situation or try to sell something to the prosecutors about Wendi? If I were Charlie, I would get on my knees and beg for a plea deal, I would betray my whole family.

 

[Going Rogue]

Today marks 10 weeks since DA’s conviction, and no movement since. And yet, this thread is alive and well, courtesy of WA speculation.

My pragmatic self says if the State thought they could, they would. WA would be charged and the next case would be underway. Of course, I know it’s not that simple.

My thoughts on scenarios:

1. The State has decided that they do not have sufficient evidence, at this time, to charge WA and are just doing what is sensible in that case, i.e, saying nothing. Possibly hoping some party will flip or someone will trip over some new evidence. Certainly they could say something about the case hoping to “tickle the wires”, but low probability that would or could work at this time. A caveat is they can hope some of the blabbermouths will spill some beans on Jail phone. No shortage of yakkers in this case. Murder has no SOL, so no need to say anything.
2. The State thinks they’re really close and they think they might have a line on that last piece that takes it over that other line. If that doesn’t pan out, they go with what they have. I don’t know what that last piece could be. Just sheer speculation.
3. They have their case and are ripping and raring to go, just awaiting the right time. Although, even though it’s true that they have LOTS of other cases, I could not imagine they would be sitting on a sure thing after 10 weeks. That would be a travesty.

They say one bite of the apple. Yes, even if you bite that apple and put in back in the fridge, it still turns brown.

Personally, I think case 1. But in any case, no need to say or do anything publicly. So, we will just have to continue to cook in our slow simmering stew.

Great analysis! I fully agree that 1 is the most likely…

 

[Going Rogue]

The first time I ever heard Jeff describe this insane scene was at Donna's trial. He testified at all the previous trials and never detailed this event. If someone was like we're gonna sit here and watch on this broken TV even if there's another perfectly good TV in the other room, wouldn't you just be like, wtf, I'm outta here?

Recollections may vary

JMO

I do believe he told the story about being forced to watch the move on the broken screen prior to Donna’s trial…. He did drop a few new nuggets in the last trial – Wendi removing the kids art from the wall and Wendi asking about the age in which kids have memory recall come to mind.

 

[Weki]

I do believe he told the story about being forced to watch the move on the broken screen prior to Donna’s trial…. He did drop a few new nuggets in the last trial – Wendi removing the kids art from the wall and Wendi asking about the age in which kids have memory recall come to mind.

I stand corrected. I went back to see what he said on this topic at Charlie's trial.

Interesting lead up here about June 4th when Jeff says Wendi was a wreck. He had to stop by the store to pick up Pepto Bismol for her before heading to her house for a hang. Wendi was in distress, no food poisoning, just a mess for some weird reason. The insinuation is that she knew hitmen were in town that week to kill Danny (the first trip). Camera pans to Charlie a few times as he smirks.

Anyway then we get into the broken TV. TV was broken between June 11-18 per Jeff's immaculate research/memory.
He remembers renting a DVD movie to watch with Wendi and her kids. He says it looked like someone hit the TV with their fist. He says it didn't seem plausible the kids broke it. Georgia confirms he didn't see how it was broken so he doesn't really know. Jeff says Wendi told him the DVD wouldn't work in the other room and she stopped him from setting up movie night in there. And they watched the movie on the broken TV. Kids whining and crying the whole time and Jeff was tempted to as well. He didn't understand what was going on. Wendi turned him down when he offered to get a new TV.

I gotta say this is all pretty damning for Wendi. Jeff Lacasse would be a key witness in any trial against Wendi. It would be interesting to see how Jeff survives cross examination by Wendi's advocate.

Starts at 2:19:20

 

[Going Rogue]

I stand corrected. I went back to see what he said on this topic at Charlie's trial.

Interesting lead up here about June 4th when Jeff says Wendi was a wreck. He had to stop by the store to pick up Pepto Bismol for her before heading to her house for a hang. Wendi was in distress, no food poisoning, just a mess for some weird reason. The insinuation is that she knew hitmen were in town that week to kill Danny (the first trip). Camera pans to Charlie a few times as he smirks.

Anyway then we get into the broken TV. TV was broken between June 11-18 per Jeff's immaculate research/memory.
He remembers renting a DVD movie to watch with Wendi and her kids. He says it looked like someone hit the TV with their fist. He says it didn't seem plausible the kids broke it. Georgia confirms he didn't see how it was broken so he doesn't really know. Jeff says Wendi told him the DVD wouldn't work in the other room and she stopped him from setting up movie night in there. And they watched the movie on the broken TV. Kids whining and crying the whole time and Jeff was tempted to as well. He didn't understand what was going on. Wendi turned him down when he offered to get a new TV.

I gotta say this is all pretty damning for Wendi. Jeff Lacasse would be a key witness in any trial against Wendi. It would be interesting to see how Jeff survives cross examination by Wendi's advocate.

Starts at 2:19:20

There is no doubt the whole broken TV story is bizarre. Again, if the plan was for Jeff to verify it was broken as part of the master plan, why watch the movie on the broken screen after he had verified it was broken? Wasn’t the mission accomplished after he witnessed the damage?

Here are some of my raw thoughts after watching that clip again – this is more of a flashback, because I have previously mentioned these points. I believe there are holes in some of Jeff’s testimony that will be problematic for the state. Overall I find him to be credible, so my following comment is going to be a bit contradictory, but I think he has a tendency to exaggerate or add details because he believes he is helping the state's case. Maybe it’s done subconsciously because he feels he was played by Wendi and he believes she was part of this in some way. He did say in the clip you timestamped that the state had given him confirmation that Wendi had multiple online dating accounts the entire time he and Wendi were exclusive and he had also testified in the first trial that he felt ‘wronged’ by Wendi. He is only human - did that influence his testimony?

The best example I can give on how his testimony changed was when he testified about Wendi knowing he was leaving for TN at 11:00am on Friday – central to the theory that Jeff was being set up. That is a big pet peeve of mine and I have bought it up in the past and its a point that people don’t want to acknowledge. He said in the police interview he had vague plans to leave for TN on either Friday or Saturday. He later said to Isom that Wendi knew he was leaving on Friday and Isom interjected to say ~ “I thought you said she didn’t know for sure when you were leaving”… after a long pause Jeff said, “yea that's right, but she could have found out from others at work that I was leaving on Friday, because I’m sure I must have told someone.” Fast forward to Jeff’s court testimony, he testified that Wendi knew he was leaving at exactly 11:00am on Friday. That’s significant because it perfectly aligns with the time Dan was shot and Jeff was ‘scheduled’ to leave town and breathes a lot of life into the 'Lacasse set up narrative'. This has always stuck with me and as I said, I have brought it up before and I get crickets. I’m sorry to say this, but that has always made me question some other things Jeff has testified to and the accuracy of detail he gives. I think 90% of what Jeff testified to is accurate, but I also think parts are exaggerated and perhaps embellished. If the day ever comes, his cross-examination will be key. Just my honest opinion.

 

[opt]

JL has fully earned the right to have strong opinions about WA, but he needs to testify to facts, not opinions.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

The best buy guy's repoprt stated that he looked at the TV, saw it had impact damage, told WA and informed her it was not covered under warranty. He went over costs of replacement. No mention of repairing the TV. He then stated that she was texting her brother to discuss the prices relating to replacing the TV, not repairing. She subsequently received a phone call from him later on. She also phoned him again for 18 minutes.

Remember the standard in court is what a "reasonable and rational person" would do. A reasonable and rational person would, when hearing the TV was broken, take it to the bin and dump it in there. Drive to the shop and get a new one. Not involving the entire family and multiple discussions about repairing something that was irreparable.

This seemingly innocuous event gets plenty of airtime because (IMO) the State will use this as evidence of conspiracy, meeting of minds. This back and forth between the co-conspirators, the train-car principle. The defence will try and sell the narrative it was about a TV repair, but the whole thing was so ridiculous that it will be easily rebutted. Reasonable people do not behave like this in regards to a cheap TV that is broken. That is not debatable. A jury is not going to think the Adelsons acted reasonably.

So the meeting of minds will be established. This is where Lauro could potentially argue that this is when WA first found out that CA had hired hitmen. She was aghast and distraught and raced up to Trescott to see if it was indeed true. Or he could argue that indeed she was saddened by the broken $200 TV and spoke at length to her millionaire brother about the pros and cons of replacing the TV or possibly having it sent off to be repaired.

 

[Zedzded]

I think 90% of what Jeff testified to is accurate, but I also think parts are exaggerated and perhaps embellished.

I don’t think much thought went into setting up JL. If WA and the others timed the hit to coincide with JL passing by, it wasn’t to get him arrested; it was more about adding another potential suspect to confuse detectives and create distance between themselves and law enforcement.