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

[Going Rogue]

I’m convinced that many of the people obsessively asking when Wendi will be arrested haven’t watched any of the trials. They don’t listen to the evidence or the arguments closely. They’re just there to hang out and “fight for justice.” They watch these YouTube shows and they pick up on the narrative and repeat it like good soldiers. It gets the hosts attention and keeps the drum beating which gets more clicks. It’s vacuous engagement. This is why Websleuths is so great. It doesn’t have the parasocial aspect to it. People pay attention to the evidence and facts.

JMO

Agreed! I have often placed the blame on the extremely biased coverage by many of the YouTube channel hosts that have helped create and promote this echo chamber where the majority of their loyal followers believe the case against Wendi is so incredibility strong. I have argued for years that based the information in the public domain that the case against Wendi is weak and would be very risky for the prosecution to take on, but that’s not the message being delivered by many of the prominent YouTube channel hosts. There is definitely a major disconnect with the reality of the strength of the case against Wendi and how it’s represented by many in social media and anything ‘new’ is given much more weight than it deserves – IMO.

 

[Zedzded]

I have argued for years that based the information in the public domain that the case against Wendi is weak and would be very risky for the prosecution to take on,

What case? Murder or Accessory?

And you have willfully ignored the gradual accumulation of circumstantial evidence that incriminates WA by doing what most WA advocates do attack the individual piece of circumstantial evidence. i.e Donna could have obtained the license plate, KM knew about the murder because Dan's neighbour phoned her??, WA told SY that she thought CA had hired hitmen because he was acting funny, JL was lying about what WA told her about CA hiring hitmen because he was jealous, WA drove past 3+ liquor stores because she was bad with directions, that TV was her favourite TV, hence the reason she was so upset....

Circumstantial evidence always has another option. There always is an argument for the defence to proffer, hence the reason it is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence works on volume. 1 piece is irrelevant, 10 pieces more relevant, 50 pieces - they are guilty. But people like to separate out those 50 pieces and analyse them separately because it suits their narrative. That's not how circumstantial evidence works though. It's numbers end of.

You're not going to be found not guilty if you have a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that incriminates you. Law of probabilities and all that. As CA said "what are the chances of Wendi driving past the crime scene 30 minutes after Dan was shot - 1 in 10'000?"

It's irrelevant what I think anyway. It's what the courts think. And they will accept a certain amount of "coincidences." But not a Wendi amount of circumstances.

 

[opt]

Right. It's not the mountain of circumstantial evidence the state had against Donna, but it's now a sizable foothill.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Juror 6 talked to Court TV too.

Juror reveals evidence that led to Donna Adelson's murder conviction

A juror who convicted Donna Adelson in the murder-for-hire of her former son-in-law pointed to testimony from her own son as key in the case.

www.courttv.com

 

[Going Rogue]

What case? Murder or Accessory?

And you have willfully ignored the gradual accumulation of circumstantial evidence that incriminates WA by doing what most WA advocates do attack the individual piece of circumstantial evidence. i.e Donna could have obtained the license plate, KM knew about the murder because Dan's neighbour phoned her??, WA told SY that she thought CA had hired hitmen because he was acting funny, JL was lying about what WA told her about CA hiring hitmen because he was jealous, WA drove past 3+ liquor stores because she was bad with directions, that TV was her favourite TV, hence the reason she was so upset....

Circumstantial evidence always has another option. There always is an argument for the defence to proffer, hence the reason it is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence works on volume. 1 piece is irrelevant, 10 pieces more relevant, 50 pieces - they are guilty. But people like to separate out those 50 pieces and analyse them separately because it suits their narrative. That's not how circumstantial evidence works though. It's numbers end of.

You're not going to be found not guilty if you have a significant amount of circumstantial evidence that incriminates you. Law of probabilities and all that. As CA said "what are the chances of Wendi driving past the crime scene 30 minutes after Dan was shot - 1 in 10'000?"

It's irrelevant what I think anyway. It's what the courts think. And they will accept a certain amount of "coincidences." But not a Wendi amount of circumstances.

I am referring to conspiracy to commit murder and I don’t believe the evidence against Wendi reaches the threshold needed to incriminate her beyond a reasonable doubt for those charges. While you mention the “volume” of circumstantial evidence, I think it’s worth considering whether the pieces presented cohesively point to her guilt or if they remain open to reasonable alternative explanations. IMO, there are many data points argued in social media as ‘evidence’ that I consider ‘events’ – so I don’t and have never subscribed to notion there are 125 plus indicators of guilt and so many coincidences.

Circumstantial evidence does rely on volume, but it also requires a clear, cohesive narrative that eliminates reasonable doubt. IMO, in Wendi’s case, much of the evidence remains speculative or lacks the direct connection needed to prove conspiracy or involvement. For instance, she’s never been charged despite extensive investigations and multiple trials involving her family members. It seems the prosecution doesn't share the same view as many in social media on the strength of the case against Wendi - otherwise she would have already been arrested.

You’re right that courts weigh probabilities, but they also require evidence to cross a high threshold for conviction. In my opinion, the case against Wendi seems to rely on suspicion and association rather than a compelling accumulation of evidence that directly ties her to the crime which is why I’ve always said the case against her is weak. I have never waivered from that stance, but will be happy to reevaluate my position on this if and when new information becomes available.

 

[Zedzded]

You’re right that courts weigh probabilities, but they also require evidence to cross a high threshold for conviction. In my opinion, the case against Wendi seems to rely on suspicion and association rather than a compelling accumulation of evidence that directly ties her to the crime which is why I’ve always said the case against her is weak. I have never waivered from that stance, but will be happy to reevaluate my position on this if and when new information becomes available.

OK look at Dan's license plate and car year entries in DA's 2014 planner. As well as WA's. How did she know what year Dan's car was built and what year WA's car was built?

1.The defence will say DA drove up to Tallahassee, drove over to Dan's house, recorded his license plate and then broke in to his car to find documentation that showed car year. Then did the same with WA's car.

2.The prosecution will say WA texted DA the information.

Now you get 100 people in a room and ask them which scenario is more likely? 98/99/100 will choose option 2. Sure there's doubt, as I said there always is with circumstantial evidence. Option 1 is a possibility. But the jury is not being ordered to dismiss evidence when there is doubt. They are asked to consider (with a lot of evidence) what most likely occurred. Not what definitely occurred. Most likely.

What do you think happened? Note this is a loaded question. You want to choose 2, but you know you can't because you think not wavering from your position and being completely inflexible is a strength. But you know 1 is ridiculous and a jury will quickly dismiss it as an option.

So your best option would be to go off on a tangent and not answer the question. You can use that as your out

 

[Zedzded]

much of the evidence remains speculative or lacks the direct connection needed to prove conspiracy or involvement.

the case against Wendi seems to rely on suspicion and association

What you have described is circumstantial evidence.

DA said to CA "it involves the two of us"

That is meaningless (on its own). It could be she booked tickets for the two of them to Disneyland. Its extremely speculative to say it refers to the murder of DanM, wouldn't you say? So why did GC mention it?

 

[Going Rogue]

OK look at Dan's license plate and car year entries in DA's 2014 planner. As well as WA's. How did she know what year Dan's car was built and what year WA's car was built?

1.The defence will say DA drove up to Tallahassee, drove over to Dan's house, recorded his license plate and then broke in to his car to find documentation that showed car year. Then did the same with WA's car.

2.The prosecution will say WA texted DA the information.

Now you get 100 people in a room and ask them which scenario is more likely? 98/99/100 will choose option 2. Sure there's doubt, as I said there always is with circumstantial evidence. Option 1 is a possibility. But the jury is not being ordered to dismiss evidence when there is doubt. They are asked to consider (with a lot of evidence) what most likely occurred. Not what definitely occurred. Most likely.

What do you think happened? Note this is a loaded question. You want to choose 2, but you know you can't because you think not wavering from your position and being completely inflexible is a strength. But you know 1 is ridiculous and a jury will quickly dismiss it as an option.

So your best option would be to go off on a tangent and not answer the question. You can use that as your out

Based on the fact that the entry in Donna’s planner listed the year and model of BOTH Wendi’s car and Dan’s car, can’t we reasonably assume it may have had something to do with her meddling in the divorce proceedings - either pre or post since there were major ongoing issues related to assets. Isn’t that logical? I'd say occam's razor would dictate its the most logical explanation. I also can see Donna getting some or all the car data from Wendi and it being related to the division of assets. Maybe it was for the purposes of getting into to deliver to the hitmen. That could have been with or without Wendi’s knowledge as to why mommy dearest wanted the information. Had the entry in the planner listed ONLY Dan’s car info, it’s MUCH more compelling.

You seen to be hung up on Donna having the year of Dan's car and there being some big mystery as to how she got that information. She very likely got the info from Wendi. With all due respect, I don't see that as any case cracker but, in support of your argument, I do believe it may potentially be woven into the story - just like a Prius looking similar to a Sentra was .

 

[Zedzded]

She very likely got the info from Wendi. With all due respect, I don't see that as any case cracker but, in support of your argument, I do believe it may potentially be woven into the story - just like a Prius looking similar to a Sentra was .

It's one of the very few pieces of evidence that supports a case of conspiracy against WA.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's one of the very few pieces of evidence that supports a case of conspiracy against WA.

I’d also be willing to bet the make and years of both vehicles are listed in the divorce filings where all the assets are listed out. I’d also bet Donna (Wendi’s S FL attorney) had copies of all the divorce papers.

 

[Zedzded]

I’d also be willing to bet the make and years of both vehicles are listed in the divorce filings where all the assets are listed out. I’d also bet Donna (Wendi’s S FL attorney) had copies of all the divorce papers.

They were divorced in 2013. You don't list specifics such as car registrations in financial settlements. You wouldn't even have to list the year of the car, just value.

So again we have an Occam's razor situation. Which is more likely, DA wrote down car details 1 year after the financial settlement including superfluous and unnecessary information because it was pertinent to a divorce that had already been settled. Or it was information to be provided to the hitmen via CA.

 

[Going Rogue]

They were divorced in 2013. You don't list specifics such as car registrations in financial settlements. You wouldn't even have to list the year of the car, just value.

So again we have an Occam's razor situation. Which is more likely, DA wrote down car details 1 year after the financial settlement including superfluous and unnecessary information because it was pertinent to a divorce that had already been settled. Or it was information to be provided to the hitmen via CA.

Occam’s razor back at you - If it was related to the hit, why did she have both vehicles listed?

 

[opt]

Occam’s razor back at you - If it was related to the hit, why did she have both vehicles listed?

Because Wendi's car is the one NOT to shoot at when she drives by the murder scene!

I'm skeptical that the VINs are connected to the murder. I would exclude them from the foothill of circumstantial evidence

 

[Zedzded]

Because Wendi's car is the one NOT to shoot at when she drives by the murder scene!

Beat me to it. My theory too. Just so the idiots didn't shoot the wrong person.

 

[Zedzded]

I'm skeptical that the VINs are connected to the murder. I would exclude them from the foothill of circumstantial evidence

What do you mean?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Ruth Markel talked with STS.

 

[Tortoise]

Did Wendi delete all her texts that morning, or just the one to Charlie that said 'this is so sweet' ?

 

[mdwannabejd]

Did Wendi delete all her texts that morning, or just the one to Charlie that said 'this is so sweet' ?

I can’t wrap my head around this text. I mean it has to be in reference to something else. No one could be that evil to reference killing her latex spouse. I look forward to hear the defense explain. Most likely it’s because charlie told her he would replace her broken tv

But something else that didn’t sit right, is that she never wanted to go to the hospital. They said he’s alive and might not make it. He has no family here, he’s the father of her kids. You would think you may want to support him. I wouldn’t even want to let a stranger die alone. One could say that shows guilt. Putting that aside, it did show me her level of hate for him.

 

[Weki]

A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to be convinced that they have enough evidence to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before they take that person to trial. The burden is high for a reason. Our justice system is based on the idea that it’s better for a guilty woman to go free than an innocent one to be locked up.

I think Jack Campbell’s aggrieved interview is a clue that they are not convinced they can win against Wendi. And I’m not either.

The standard jury instruction is that if there’s a reasonable explanation against guilt the jury is to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. NOT to the state. At least half of the suspicious activities by Wendi can be explained away by a reasonable alternate theory. It will be 12 jurors who would decide Wendi’s fate. 12 jurors who know close to nothing about the case and any jurors who have watched hours of YouTube channels that HATE Wendi will be eliminated FAST.

JMO

 

[BearWatcher]

A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to be convinced that they have enough evidence to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before they take that person to trial. The burden is high for a reason. Our justice system is based on the idea that it’s better for a guilty woman to go free than an innocent one to be locked up.

I think Jack Campbell’s aggrieved interview is a clue that they are not convinced they can win against Wendi. And I’m not either.

The standard jury instruction is that if there’s a reasonable explanation against guilt the jury is to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. NOT to the state. At least half of the suspicious activities by Wendi can be explained away by a reasonable alternate theory. It will be 12 jurors who would decide Wendi’s fate. 12 jurors who know close to nothing about the case and any jurors who have watched hours of YouTube channels that HATE Wendi will be eliminated FAST.

JMO

Of course people who are unable to set their preconceived notions aside will be eliminated. But look at Donna's trial , no one on that jury was knowledgeable about the case and they swiftly were able to declare Donna guilty If you were Wendi or Wendi's good friend- what advice would you give her at this time?