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

[Tortoise]

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

RSBM

I think you're viewing it from the perspective of a caring, empathetic person. If she had an ounce of any care or empathy inside her, she couldn't have allowed the father of her children to be shot dead (IMO). She would have had some comprehension that it wouldn't be even slightly amusing to anyone outside the Adelson family that Charlie joked about hiring a hitman. She felt nothing but loathing for Dan (IMO).

 

[Zedzded]

reasonable alternate theory

Easy tiger.

I'd be interested in hearing your interpretation of the word "reasonable." And note, it's what the jury would find reasonable not what the Adelsons would find reasonable. Also don't forget you cannot look at a lot of WA's behaviours and actions in isolation. If you do then obviously they could be construed as "reasonable."

Hey Trescott was a shortcut! That's reasonable isn't it? 30 minutes after Dan was shot, not stopping when she saw the police, not phoning daycare to check on the boys, quickly phoning 3 people on the trot for some odd reason, lying 4+ times on the stand and in a LE interview about the trip down Trescott.

Cancelling cable is reasonable isn't it? People do that all the time. I did that 3 weeks ago. WA did it 2 weeks before the murder, so what? Oh she also took down her kids pictures. Oh she also gave away a whole bunch of kids clothes.... you cannot as a defence attorney get up and argue away all these interlinked pieces of evidence, dismissing them as just the reasonable behaviours of a busy Mum...

Now her little trip does not look so reasonable. Same with a whole bunch of other stuff. And this is the undoing of the Adelsons , there Achilles heel- the fact that many of their words and actions are not reasonable e.g DA "outside your house" supposedly means driving past 2km away. The jury did not find DA's interpretation of this phrase to be reasonable and accepted the literal translation of it.

WA thinks any explanation is good enough doesn't matter how whack. It doesn't quite work like that.

 

[ch_13]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Donna and Charlie acted on their own. After all, what if they committed this murder and then Wendi said, "Actually, I'm fine staying in Tallahassee. It would be just too traumatic for the boys to move. Their school is here, their friends are here. I don't want to uproot them and take them away from all they've known."

They needed some assurance that Wendi would play ball. And apparently they had it, because Wendi took the boys fled Tallahassee within two days of the murder. Didn't even take a few days to think about what she wanted to do next. On its own that may not be any kind of proof of conspiracy, but it does indicate that she knew ahead of time.

It's like one of those cases where a spouse is murdered and a new girlfriend/boyfriend moves in within a few weeks. Not proof of guilt in and of itself, but pretty damning.

 

[ch_13]

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

I don't agree with this. Now that Donna and Charlie have been convicted, of course people want to know what will happen to Wendi. She's the last link in the chain. (Or the train, to use Georgia's analogy.) Charlie was arrested in the aftermath of Katie's trial, then Donna when she tried to flee after Charlie's trial. It certainly suggests that Wendi is up next. At this point the state probably has all the evidence they are ever likely to get, so either they will arrest Wendi within the next few months, or she will remain free.

I don't find it at all surprising that it's the number one topic that's being debated amongst those watching this case. And I don't think it has anything to do with social media. I've never watched STS or any of the other channels devoted to this case. (I watched this week for the first time when he interviewed the jurors.) But I certainly want to know as well.

 

[Weki]

I’m not Wendi nor her good friend, I’m just looking at the facts, the evidence, and the arguments presented at trial and calling it like I see it. I prefer to form my opinion based on those factors rather than what YouTubers or podcast hosts say for clicks.

JMO

 

[ch_13]

I’m not Wendi nor her good friend, I’m just looking at the facts, the evidence, and the arguments presented at trial and calling it like I see it. I prefer to form my opinion based on those factors rather than what YouTubers or podcast hosts say for clicks.

JMO

Was this aimed at me? I never accused you of being Wendi or anyone related to this case.

But I don't see why you keep claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is only doing this because of YouTubers. As I said, I've never watched any of the content creators who are devoted to this case. Almost everything I know comes from reading the WS threads and the linked articles and documents.

It is possible to think that Wendi is guilty of at least conspiracy, and not be swayed by social media.

 

[Zedzded]

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.

JMO

er no lol. Not quite... defendants most certainly don't get "the benefit of the doubt." If they did the prisons would be empty.

"Now be honest did you rob that bank?"
"No? Ok off you go then.."

The prosecution have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. i.e a reasonable person would have no real doubts after considering the evidence.Not a 100% certainty. That is not the standard.

E.G Once the State has detailed WA's Trescott trip with all the whacky behaviour and lies etc a reasonable person would determine that she went up there specifically to go to Dan's house to see if something had happened. Hence the reason she lied about.

 

[opt]

What do you mean?

Vehicle ID numbers have no value to hit men. I believe they were in the planner for some other reason. I can't think of a good reason, but the defense attorneys can.

 

[opt]

I don't know if you would call it evidence or reasonable inference, but there seems to be a very low chance that the family hired hit men without clearing it with Wendi.

We've had a lot of theories in this case. Murder as a birthday gift to Harvey. Murder on spec by Garcia. Next will be murder as a complete surprise to Wendi? I would not buy that one.

After her conviction Katy said "I never wanted this". Words we never heard from Wendi after Dan's murder.

 

[khaki]

I’m not Wendi nor her good friend, I’m just looking at the facts, the evidence, and the arguments presented at trial and calling it like I see it. I prefer to form my opinion based on those factors rather than what YouTubers or podcast hosts say for clicks.

JMO

You might be surprised to know that many of the YouTube hosts are practicing, reputable, knowledgeable lawyers. Many are absolutely fantastic at what they do and educate their audiences in the process. They go out of their way to explain things, remain unbiased, and teach their audiences how our system really works. In my opinion, this is one of the upsides of YouTube.

 

[Weki]

You might be surprised to know that many of the YouTube hosts are practicing, reputable, knowledgeable lawyers. Many are absolutely fantastic at what they do and educate their audiences in the process. They go out of their way to explain things, remain unbiased, and teach their audiences how our system really works. In my opinion, this is one of the upsides of YouTube.

I completely disagree with this. This is an overly generous view. Many of them are not practicing lawyers or criminal defense lawyers. They have no clue as to the local criminal legal rules and procedures of the trials they commentate on. Many of them are solely interested in gaining influence and views. Many of them also pander to their audiences.

The best way to learn about the criminal justice system is to watch the trial itself, to listen to the arguments made at trial, and to seek out local reporting on the legal goings ons in these jurisdictions. On the whole I would argue that YouTubers and podcasters have warped reality for their viewers in many areas of life not just legal commentary.

JMO

 

[khaki]

I completely disagree with this. This is an overly generous view. Many of them are not practicing lawyers or criminal defense lawyers. They have no clue as to the local criminal legal rules and procedures of the trials they commentate on. Many of them are solely interested in gaining influence and views. Many of them also pander to their audiences.

The best way to learn about the criminal justice system is to watch the trial itself, to listen to the arguments made at trial, and to seek out local reporting on the legal goings ons in these jurisdictions. On the whole I would argue that YouTubers and podcasters have warped reality for their viewers in many areas of life not just legal commentary.

JMO

I agree that grifters are rampant on YouTube. You have to weed through a lot of garbage in the vast platform, but there truly are diamonds.

Many of the YouTube hosts who are lawyers watch the trials live with their viewers and discuss/explain what's happening as it unfolds in the courtroom. The lawyers and many in their audiences often have read all the released filings as well.

 

[Weki]

Many of the YouTube hosts who are lawyers watch the trials live with their viewers and discuss/explain what's happening as it unfolds in the courtroom.

Yes, R e k i e t a law used to do this and still does. He is also technically a lawyer. Although he may have been disbarred now I’m not sure. Apparently he is/was also a drug addict and a test of his young child’s hair tested positive for cocaine. He was very influential in swaying public opinion on many trials. He would watch and interpret trials along with many other guests on his channel. While he was busy watching trials, his children were starving. Point being, you can’t trust what these people tell you about themselves. Anyone can turn a camera on and put a mic in front of them and present themselves anyway they want to.

The trials are pretty easy to follow and understand. If 12 random people off the street can follow along and render a verdict. Then anyone can watch and understand without a “legal” interpreter.

JMO

 

[JerseyPride]

They needed some assurance that Wendi would play ball.

This. They would also need to make sure she wasn’t going to hand them over to the police for killing her children’s father!

 

[SubtlePseudonym]

Is it reasonable that Wendi did not have some foreknowledge and complete post knowledge? Are people saying they don’t think she knew or are they saying they don’t think 12 people will all vote guilty to M? I mean no one thinks the state can’t get some kind of conviction on her do they, as in they really think there is reasonable doubt? Seems unreasonable to say she had no knowledge at all.

 

[Going Rogue]

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

So the theory to support why Donna having the info on BOTH Wendi’s car and Dan’s car in her planner is she wanted the hitmen to have Dan car info AND also have Wendi info so that won’t shoot at Wendi’s car? I’m not buying that explanation.

 

[PoisonPill]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Donna and Charlie acted on their own. After all, what if they committed this murder and then Wendi said, "Actually, I'm fine staying in Tallahassee. It would be just too traumatic for the boys to move. Their school is here, their friends are here. I don't want to uproot them and take them away from all they've known."

They needed some assurance that Wendi would play ball. And apparently they had it, because Wendi took the boys fled Tallahassee within two days of the murder. Didn't even take a few days to think about what she wanted to do next. On its own that may not be any kind of proof of conspiracy, but it does indicate that she knew ahead of time.

It's like one of those cases where a spouse is murdered and a new girlfriend/boyfriend moves in within a few weeks. Not proof of guilt in and of itself, but pretty damning.

This is a very good point. With the "was Wendi involved?" question it feels like there's so many dots but I'm not sure the state can really connect them conclusively enough. But of course trials are just two sides telling their own versions of a story, and juries decide based on who's story they like best.

 

[Going Rogue]

Is it reasonable that Wendi did not have some foreknowledge and complete post knowledge? Are people saying they don’t think she knew or are they saying they don’t think 12 people will all vote guilty to M? I mean no one thinks the state can’t get some kind of conviction on her do they, as in they really think there is reasonable doubt? Seems unreasonable to say she had no knowledge at all.

Yes, it's reasonable to believe that Wendi either knew in advance and potentially contributed in some manner in an act in furtherance of the crime. I haven't seen anyone post anything here ever claiming she was unequivocally not involved or not aware. The core argument, however, is whether Wendi's direct involvement can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In my humble opinion, the Tallahassee DA's office does not believe they can reasonably meet that burden—or, stated differently, they realize there's a very high risk in taking her to trial with the information they currently have. With the risk of coming across as arrogant (for the second time this week), if anyone believes the DA's office is confident they can meet the burden of proof, you're not looking at this realistically—or perhaps you've bought into the hype of the "125 indicators of guilt".

 

[Weki]

So the theory to support why Donna having the info on BOTH Wendi’s car and Dan’s car in her planner is she wanted the hitmen to have Dan car info AND also have Wendi info so that won’t shoot at Wendi’s car? I’m not buying that explanation.

In case she does her looky loo drive by BEFORE the murder and accidentally gets murdered herself, maybe? I guess, stay tuned.

 

[Cutie]

Vehicle ID numbers have no value to hit men. I believe they were in the planner for some other reason. I can't think of a good reason, but the defense attorneys can.

My MIL has the make, model, and license plate number of every family car (including mine, my BIL's, etc.) written on a piece of paper up on her wall in the kitchen. It's been there for over 10 years. Why? I don't know. I don't think she's planning to kill me, or anyone. She just likes to keep track of stuff like that.

That said, as others have discussed ad nauseum, there is so much circumstantial evidence against Wendi. Coupled with so many outright lies on the stand, there's a lot there. We can't get hung up on "reasonable doubt" until we know what else Georgia and co. have up their sleeves. Certainly there are many text messages, phone records, and such that we have not yet seen.

I am confident that if Wendi is arrested, there will be more than enough evidence to show her involvement in Dan's murder and/or covering for her family after she learned of their involvement. Yes, some things may be explained away, but when you have 500 different coincidences happening within the same week or two, at some point you have to listen to common sense.