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

[Zedzded]

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

The bizarre thing is, TJ is an experienced trial attorney. He would know that DA was an integral part of the murder plot, if not the mastermind. He would know the States case against her was strong and that offering her a unicorn deal (time served) did not make sense, yet he blurted it out like a primary school kid spreading rumours. KM was offered a unicorn deal, but DA's involvement and motivations were much more significant.

 

[opt]

Unless the point of offering a deal was to expose intransigence.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

Do you think fact the Wendi used the word ‘repair’ instead of the term the tech used ‘replacement cost’ is that big a deal? I know they mean different things, but in my opinion it’s inconsequential in the context it was used. She said in that 18-minute call with Charlie she discussed whether to ‘repair or replace’ – in that context the terms (‘repair or ‘replacement cost') are interchangeable because she was referring to the dollar amount (what the tech gave as the replacement cost) and weighing it against a new purchase. A separate argument is whether or not she lied about what they discussed in that call and to my point yesterday it’s impossible to know – saying she lied is pure speculation. Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn’t.

Also, the only reference I am aware of re what type of TV Wendi had was from Jeff’s description – and its fresh in my head because I just listened to his testimony in the video Weki posted earlier. Jeff said ~ ‘its wasn’t like an 80” TV or something… it was like a TV you see in dorm room”… If it wasn’t like an 80” TV but like one in a dorm room – that means it’s a disposable cheap TV... apparently either they purchased the warranty on the TV or it was part of the purchase? I know the impression Jeff gave was it some small cheap TV, but as I stated in an earlier post, I think parts of Jeff’s testimony are exaggerated. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was a 42" or 50” maybe 55"LED – that’s “not like an 80” TV”… Maybe we ill find out more about that cheap TV at Wendi's trial

 

[Weki]

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 it’s 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.

Wendi was a parasite in Jeff’s life. And his extensive rumination after the murder is sort of a parasitic thing as well, if that makes sense. I think it’s normal for him to feel like she was setting him up perhaps. But that never added up for me either. He’s a credible and sympathetic witness for sure and will do real damage at a Wendi trial if there is one.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

Do you think fact the Wendi used the word ‘repair’ instead of the term the tech used ‘replacement cost’ is that big a deal? I know they mean different things, but in my opinion it’s inconsequential in the context it was used. She said in that 18-minute call with Charlie she discussed whether to ‘repair or replace’ – in that context the terms (‘repair or ‘replacement cost') are interchangeable because she was referring to the dollar amount (what the tech gave as the replacement cost) and weighing it against a new purchase. A separate argument is whether or not she lied about what they discussed in that call and to my point yesterday it’s impossible to know – saying she lied is pure speculation. Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn’t.

Also, the only reference I am aware of re what type of TV Wendi had was from Jeff’s description – and its fresh in my head because I just listened to his testimony in the video Weki posted earlier. Jeff said ~ ‘its wasn’t like an 80” TV or something… it was like a TV you see in dorm room”… If it wasn’t like an 80” TV but like one in a dorm room – that means it’s a disposable cheap TV... apparently either they purchased the warranty on the TV or it was part of the purchase? I know the impression Jeff gave was it some small cheap TV, but as I stated in an earlier post, I think parts of Jeff’s testimony are exaggerated. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was a 42" or 50” maybe 55"LED – that’s “not like an 80” TV”… Maybe we ill find out more about that cheap TV at Wendi's trial

80" TV's still don't cost $5,000 to replace. Trust me, I checked them out yesterday. Obviously she/the kids damaged the TV on purpose as a cover story about the phrase "This TV will cost $5K". The TV repair visit might also might have been a way to keep her away from Dan's house/the crime scene while the hit was taking place.

 

[opt]

If she arranged for the TV to be damaged in response to a family request, that's complicity. If Charlie damaged the TV and told her to wait for the repair appointment rather than discarding it, that's such nonsense that I would regard it as complicity. Either way it's a safe bet that the damage to the TV was no accident.

 

[Going Rogue]

80" TV's still don't cost $5,000 to replace. Trust me, I checked them out yesterday. Obviously she/the kids damaged the TV on purpose as a cover story about the phrase "This TV will cost $5K". The TV repair visit might also might have been a way to keep her away from Dan's house/the crime scene while the hit was taking place.

I realize they don’t cost 5k and "This TV will cost $5K" was clearly code, but that conversation was between Donna and Charlie and it was after the bump. Not sure I follow the point it was damaged as a cover for the phrase "This TV will cost $5K" – that conversation was 18-months after the murder not prior to.. I agree TV repair was likely to keep Wendi home that morning I’m just not certain if Wendi was aware it was her alibi.

 

[Luna20]

80" TV's still don't cost $5,000 to replace. Trust me, I checked them out yesterday. Obviously she/the kids damaged the TV on purpose as a cover story about the phrase "This TV will cost $5K". The TV repair visit might also might have been a way to keep her away from Dan's house/the crime scene while the hit was taking place.

Agree, this is what makes sense to me. Plus a TV repairman sounds so antiquated. It’s been decades since I’ve had snow on my TV. They are much more low maintenance than they used to be.

When I’ve moved, I had a tech come out and they take care of the TV’s, internet, etc. It hasn’t been a TV repairman. If I unpacked a new TV and it was broken I would take it back. If it was shipped I would fill out a return label and have it picked up.

The whole TV scenario is shady and it’s a sloppy cover up.

 

[Weki]

The problem with having a cuckoo bird defendant is that for every incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence there’s corresponding perplexing behavior that undermines it. TV repair alibi but then you’re driving down Trescott….

 

[Zedzded]

Do you think fact the Wendi used the word ‘repair’ instead of the term the tech used ‘replacement cost’ is that big a deal? I know they mean different things, but in my opinion it’s inconsequential in the context it was used.

No! These words are not interchangeable. She's an educated lawyer, she understands what words mean and the importance of using the correct words whether it's a legal document or chat to a mate about the football. Additionally during her law course she would have studied commercial law and be aware of what warranties mean in the context of consumer law i.e a company does not provide warranties for item that are accidentally broken. You don't drive your car into a brick wall and Toyota replace it with a brand new one. Her little party trick is to play some of kind of blonde bimbo that does not understand really simple stuff. One of the reasons she gave for going up Trescott was that she's "bad with directions."

Her cheap TV was broken by her son. It should have gone straight in the bin. End of. No contact with anyone. Instead her entire family were involved in the planning of the technicians visit. Both HA and DA had spoken to Best Buy to help coordinate the visit and CA was contacted numerous time about it as he purchased it.

There is no jury on the planet there is going to sit there and listen to the absolute farce that is the TV repair and think that it was legitimate. What would a rational and reasonable person do? Stick the TV in the bin. WA didn't do that so then we move to the next step. Why didn't she stick the TV in the bin? Once GC has finished detailing the great TV repair debacle the jury will be happy to convict WA right there and then.

 

[opt]

If she arranged for the TV to be damaged in response to a family request, that's complicity. If Charlie damaged the TV and told her to wait for the repair appointment rather than discarding it, that's such nonsense that I would regard it as complicity. Either way it's a safe bet that the damage to the TV was no accident.

I'm going to retract that assertion. The TV could have been broken accidentally. Then the family decided to use it as an alibi. Then years later they used it as a code word. This scenario makes perfect sense.

 

[Zedzded]

I would guess one of the kids possibly did damage it. Then one of the dimwits came up with the brilliant idea of getting a TV repair guy out to alibi WA.

 

[IQuestion]

Time stamp 3:07:43
WA: I have a lot of friends.
ISOM: I know.
WA: How do you know that?
ISOM: Well you had two of them there for a last minute lunch date. Right?
WA: Last minute?
ISOM: Well, I mean you went up there, you're sitting with them, you have friends...
WA: I do. What I meant by it is that Danny didn't treat me very well and I was so scared that maybe someone did this... not because they hate Danny but because they thought this was good somehow"
ISOM: OH, Are you saying that you think maybe one of your friends would have done something like this?
WA: Who would do this?
ISOM I don't know, that's why we are here and why we're talkin.'
ISOM: Would you ever ask someone to do something like this?
WA: Not in a million years.
ISOM: OK, Do you think someone would do this for your benefit without asking you?
WA: No.
ISOM: What good does it serve?
WA: I mean...my brother, uhm, the one whose name is Charlie, the one I'm really close to. He makes a lot of jokes in bad taste. And it was a joke he made. He bought the tv for me, this morning that got broken. And I was talking to him about
whether it made sense to pay fix it or whether I should get a new one. And it was always his joke, that like, He knew
Danny treated me badly. And it was always his joke. He said, "I , I ya know I looked into hiring a hitman and it was cheaper to get you this tv. So, instead I got you this TV." Uhm I mean he would never. He's my big
brother and he's been taking care of me since I was little.
But he would never. And i said, I told that to the repair guy this morning.
ISOM: Right. that's ok.
WA: He said, he asked me how much it costs. I said I didn't know 'cause it was a gift because it was cheaper than a
hitman. It was a divorce present,
Such a horrible thing to say. I'm so sorry. But even my family who knew I was being mistreated would never do something like this. Never.
Ending TIME STAMP: 3:09:40. My point? In 2 minutes she says to Isom Her motive "Danny didn't treat me very well" then, Charlie's motive "He knew Danny treated me badly" and finally Parent's motive "even my family who knew I was being mistreated..."
In those two minutes the entire who, what, where, why and when of this entire tragedy was revealed. IMO, she panicked when Isom said, "I know."
Everything before and after those two minutes was strictly for show. in my opinion.
FOUR HOURS LATER, 7:08:45 SHE, (WA) FINALLY CALLS HER MOTHER.

6.3K views · 184 reactions | New video shows #WendiAdelson speaking to police immediately after finding out that her ex-husband #DanMarkel was murdered. Wendi's brother #CharlieAdelson has been convicted in the killing and Wendi's mother faces simil

New video shows #WendiAdelson speaking to police immediately after finding out that her ex-husband #DanMarkel was murdered. Wendi's brother #CharlieAdelson has been convicted in the killing and...

www.facebook.com

 

[Tortoise]

The problem with having a cuckoo bird defendant is that for every incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence there’s corresponding perplexing behavior that undermines it. TV repair alibi but then you’re driving down Trescott….

This is said though with the benefit of knowing what happened - the neighbor witnessed the shooting, promptly called emergency services, the scene was taped off and Wendi was seen by police at the tape.

Imagine none of this had happened. No one witnessed or found Dan in his car in his garage. He was lying there without emergency aid and no one knew. No one to spot Wendi driving down Trescott. Imagine what Wendi had to contemplate at that point in time, not knowing if Dan would be found shot, no one to inform the day care, would somehow the boys become involved in discovering their father shot, if Wendi received a call to say Dan hadn't picked up the boys and she had to be the one to pick them up and go back there with them, to investigate where he was?

I don't think the fact she was noticed by police on Trescott can be viewed as she would have known she would be, and as a conflict with having an alibi for the time of the murder. She took that necessary risk IMO.

I think she then made her lunch plans and detour plans to get the bourbon, to give herself a last minute alibi for heading out, if she had to be the one to discover Dan.

 

[Tortoise]

Time stamp 3:07:43
WA: I have a lot of friends.
ISOM: I know.
WA: How do you know that?
ISOM: Well you had two of them there for a last minute lunch date. Right?
WA: Last minute?
ISOM: Well, I mean you went up there, you're sitting with them, you have friends...
WA: I do. What I meant by it is that Danny didn't treat me very well and I was so scared that maybe someone did this... not because they hate Danny but because they thought this was good somehow"
ISOM: OH, Are you saying that you think maybe one of your friends would have done something like this?
WA: Who would do this?
ISOM I don't know, that's why we are here and why we're talkin.'
ISOM: Would you ever ask someone to do something like this?
WA: Not in a million years.
ISOM: OK, Do you think someone would do this for your benefit without asking you?
WA: No.
ISOM: What good does it serve?
WA: I mean...my brother, uhm, the one whose name is Charlie, the one I'm really close to. He makes a lot of jokes in bad taste. And it was a joke he made. He bought the tv for me, this morning that got broken. And I was talking to him about
whether it made sense to pay fix it or whether I should get a new one. And it was always his joke, that like, He knew
Danny treated me badly. And it was always his joke. He said, "I , I ya know I looked into hiring a hitman and it was cheaper to get you this tv. So, instead I got you this TV." Uhm I mean he would never. He's my big
brother and he's been taking care of me since I was little.
But he would never. And i said, I told that to the repair guy this morning.
ISOM: Right. that's ok.
WA: He said, he asked me how much it costs. I said I didn't know 'cause it was a gift because it was cheaper than a
hitman. It was a divorce present,
Such a horrible thing to say. I'm so sorry. But even my family who knew I was being mistreated would never do something like this. Never.
Ending TIME STAMP: 3:09:40. My point? In 2 minutes she says to Isom Her motive "Danny didn't treat me very well" then, Charlie's motive "He knew Danny treated me badly" and finally Parent's motive "even my family who knew I was being mistreated..."
In those two minutes the entire who, what, where, why and when of this entire tragedy was revealed. IMO, she panicked when Isom said, "I know."
Everything before and after those two minutes was strictly for show. in my opinion.
FOUR HOURS LATER, 7:08:45 SHE, (WA) FINALLY CALLS HER MOTHER.

6.3K views · 184 reactions | New video shows #WendiAdelson speaking to police immediately after finding out that her ex-husband #DanMarkel was murdered. Wendi's brother #CharlieAdelson has been convicted in the killing and Wendi's mother faces simil

New video shows #WendiAdelson speaking to police immediately after finding out that her ex-husband #DanMarkel was murdered. Wendi's brother #CharlieAdelson has been convicted in the killing and...

www.facebook.com

Excellent.

There was another point that I had noted but haven't been back to find the timestamp, where she said something either to the victim advocate or to her friend, along the lines of 'they're going to think I did this because of the relocation'. Dead giveaway when she should have had no idea if this was a road rage incident, or a neighbor, or an argument with a disgruntled ex or student etc, and not a planned hit. IMO

 

[Knitpicker]

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 it’s 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.

He said she knows he's not a morning person. But to say she knew he would be passing DM’s house at 11. I don’t remember anything he said in interview or testimony to support the exact time he would be driving by DM’s house on the way to Tn.

My guess is that He regularly slept late , (ah the life of a college professor!), and he taught late morning classes and had a pattern of when he passed that area to go teach?

It’s interesting that JL at Donnas trial reverted back to the summer of 2013 “Hit man would be 15K “,and not the possibility of 50K as previous testimonies. I know criticism of JL is usually not accepted.
He also said he only saw Wendi for 2 weekends from March to June. Strange. That’s when they were “serious boyfriend and girlfriend”.

Edit: I’m not against JL just something to point out-needs thought by GC who also suggested the duo asked for a car like JL’s to implicate him in some way. Which would mean the family got his car info to SG and LR

 

[Knitpicker]

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?

He seems to no longer do “lives”.
“Shorts” on a daily basis seem to help algorithms/profits more that 3 hour lives once a week.
I’m noticing this with more channels.
“Jay” and Judy as another example.. Jay is only doing shorts now, and has recently grown his channel more in the last few months than all the previous years he was doing lives.
Edit: Shorts can go to instagram , tick Toc, X, etc. More exposure, more views, more income.

 

[opt]

This is said though with the benefit of knowing what happened - the neighbor witnessed the shooting, promptly called emergency services, the scene was taped off and Wendi was seen by police at the tape.

Imagine none of this had happened. No one witnessed or found Dan in his car in his garage. He was lying there without emergency aid and no one knew. No one to spot Wendi driving down Trescott. Imagine what Wendi had to contemplate at that point in time, not knowing if Dan would be found shot, no one to inform the day care, would somehow the boys become involved in discovering their father shot, if Wendi received a call to say Dan hadn't picked up the boys and she had to be the one to pick them up and go back there with them, to investigate where he was?

I don't think the fact she was noticed by police on Trescott can be viewed as she would have known she would be, and as a conflict with having an alibi for the time of the murder. She took that necessary risk IMO.

I think she then made her lunch plans and detour plans to get the bourbon, to give herself a last minute alibi for heading out, if she had to be the one to discover Dan.

One of the crime family members (jailhouse Donna?) expected the murder to occur at the front door, in which case it might not have been discovered until much later. What would have been the plan in that case? Wendi discovers the body? Would Donna trust Wendi to control herself then?

 

[rescuemom]

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.

IMO, Jeff, although he can contirbute alot to everything WA, he can't help but add to everything WA his slant on the break up with WA. Obviously, he was more into her than she was into him. I've listened to his interviews some more than once and I hear him several times reitterate the break up that to me is not relevant in a police or any interview. I believe he has vital information to add but in the end he was a jilted lover. All JMO.

 

[Tortoise]

One of the crime family members (jailhouse Donna?) expected the murder to occur at the front door, in which case it might not have been discovered until much later. What would have been the plan in that case? Wendi discovers the body? Would Donna trust Wendi to control herself then?

The scene could have looked any number of ways. He might have been nowhere to be seen, not there and car not there, or run around the back of the house and shot there, front door opened and lying in the doorway, lying in the front yard. I think she would have wanted to prepare for if she would have to report it herself, to protect the boys from having to go there at all, or work out if it was obvious enough for someone else to report it. Possibly she was expecting the whole road to be closed off if police were there, but because it wasn't she took the next step of approaching the house. I think she was scouting.