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

[Knitpicker]

Start breaking down her Trescott trip and try and be objective. Look at it from the perspective of a reasonable and rational person, that is the standard a court uses to judge someone's actions.

WA was late for lunch.
She drove past 3 closer liquor stores to go to a liquor store further away.
She got petrol when she did not need to.
She was subsequently late for lunch.

WA stated "I'm bad with directions." Perhaps, but she's not blind. She drove past 3 ABC liquor stores and she needs a plausible explanation for that. Because I think the State can make a very strong case she had no intention of going to ABC at that time.

Well she didn’t actually drive past 3 liquor stores. They were where lunch was.

 

[Knitpicker]

Actually wasn't something recently released that shows police tracked her phone to Mozaik hence the reason they found her.

I don’t think so. It was suggested they found her address from MV records (they had the Trescott address.) so they were able to find her new address.
So they followed her due to her car passing the scene.
Darn they could have even followed her to her house right after she left the scene.

The points of interest are sort of like an acute triangle.
Top left Mozaic (and other liquor stores), top right Wendis. Bottom left. ABC

Important thing is that her Bulleit purchase was at 12: 48, and she left her house around 12:30.
I will get the times tomorrow. Seems if it takes 12 minutes to go from her house to ABC -thats right about the time she made the purchase.
Didn’t she also ask where the bourbon was, and flirt with the sales guy and such? Add in another few minutes. And pay. Another minute or 2.

Hardly enough time to also add in DMs house.
Timeline is perfect if she doesn’t pass Dans.

 

[Zedzded]

I don’t think so. It was suggested they found her address from MV records (they had the Trescott address.) so they were able to find her new address.
So they followed her due to her car passing the scene.

The points of interest are sort of like an acute triangle.
Top left Mozaic (and other liquor stores), top right Wendis. Bottom left. ABC

I had read they phoned the cell phone company and they pinpointed her whereabouts. If they had followed her they would have stopped her at ABC liquor. A youtuber confirmed this but I cannot find it.

 

[Going Rogue]

Start breaking down her Trescott trip and try and be objective. Look at it from the perspective of a reasonable and rational person, that is the standard a court uses to judge someone's actions.

WA was late for lunch.
She drove past 3 closer liquor stores to go to a liquor store further away.
She got petrol when she did not need to.
She was subsequently late for lunch.

WA stated "I'm bad with directions." Perhaps, but she's not blind. She drove past 3 ABC liquor stores and she needs a plausible explanation for that. Because I think the State can make a very strong case she had no intention of going to ABC at that time.

You gave me 3 data points (late was used twice) – none of them support the two trip theory. Do I think it’s impossible she took two trips – no. Just that there is no data to support this theory. I also think its improbable – just my opinion.

1) She was 5 mints late for lunch – had she not had to do the k-turn at the roadblock, she would have been on time. Even being 5 minutes late – how does this support the two trip theory?

2) She didn’t ‘pass 3 liquor stores’ – there were other liquor stores near the restaurant – but she didn’t pass 3.

3) Not even sure where you are getting ‘she didn’t need to fuel up? How do you know this? Also, doesn’t support a two trip theory.

 

[Knitpicker]

You gave me 3 data points (late was used twice) – none of them support the two trip theory. Do I think it’s impossible she took two trips – no. Just that there is no data to support this theory. I also think its improbable – just my opinion.

1) She was 5 mints late for lunch – had she not had to do the k-turn at the roadblock, she would have been on time. Even being 5 minutes late – how does this support the two trip theory?

2) She didn’t ‘pass 3 liquor stores’ – there were other liquor stores near the restaurant – but she didn’t pass 3.

3) Not even sure where you are getting ‘she didn’t need to fuel up? How do you know this? Also, doesn’t support a two trip theory.

She was 10 minutes late for lunch not 5.

 

[Zedzded]

You gave me 3 data points (late was used twice) – none of them support the two trip theory. Do I think it’s impossible she took two trips – no. Just that there is no data to support this theory. I also think its improbable – just my opinion.

1) She was 5 mints late for lunch – had she not had to do the k-turn at the roadblock, she would have been on time. Even being 5 minutes late – how does this support the two trip theory?

2) She didn’t ‘pass 3 liquor stores’ – there were other liquor stores near the restaurant – but she didn’t pass 3.

3) Not even sure where you are getting ‘she didn’t need to fuel up? How do you know this? Also, doesn’t support a two trip theory.

She didn't need to fuel up because she had enough fuel to get to Mozaik if she had gone straight from home. Why not get fuel after if she was late?

 

[Zedzded]

1) She was 5 mints late for lunch – had she not had to do the k-turn at the roadblock, she would have been on time. Even being 5 minutes late – how does this support the two trip theory?

There was no logical reason for her to go to that ABC store. Thus two trips makes more sense.

 

[Knitpicker]

There was no logical reason for her to go to that ABC store. Thus two trips makes more sense.

Right. And after she calls Dan at 11:42 and gets his voice mail, ONE MINUTE later (12:43) she is texting Jeanine to make lunch plans.

So she leaves her house at 12:00 after trying to contact Dan at 11:42 and making lunch plans with Jeannine.
She heads South to check out if Dan was murdered.
She sees the crime tape AND Brannon and turns around freaking out.
Goes back to her house. Contacts Charlie or Katie or Sigfredo on a burner or WhatsApp and lets them know it was done.(How Katie can say “I know”, before she leaves a second time.
She knows she was seen by LE so she thinks quickly and remembers she was invited to a party and needs the bourbon and realizes she can say she was just taking the shortcut through Trescott to get to ABC.
Problem solved!

Leaves house the first time at 12-it takes 12 minutes to get to Dans.
Gets back home at 12:24 or so.
Leaves again at 12:30. (Gets on the phone with Jeff S )
Gets to ABC at around 12:42
Receipt from ABC is at 12:48
4 minutes to find the booze and pay for it.

11:45-12:27—Wendi’s phone has no activity.

 

[Zedzded]

So in CA's trial she says she left home at 12.45pm, but then when GC pushes her she says 12.30pm. Which obviously does not work with my theory. Unless WA is meaning she left home the 2nd time at 12.30. She had already been to Trescott and was home by say 12.2ish.

 

[Going Rogue]

There was no logical reason for her to go to that ABC store. Thus two trips makes more sense.

Depends on who’s logic you are using…. Isn’t is a fact she had a ‘stock the bar’ party to attend that evening and needed to make a purchase? In the social media echo chamber, ABC wasn’t a logical choice. Juror number 6 (not exposed to the echo chamber) was asked about it in his STS interview and he didn’t think much of it. I can’t quote him exactly, because I don’t remember his exact response, but he didn’t think it was so odd.

 

[Zedzded]

Right. And after she calls Dan at 11:42 and gets his voice mail, ONE MINUTE later she is texting Jeanine to make lunch plans.

So she leaves her house at 12:00 after trying to contact Dan at 11:42 and making lunch plans with Jeannine.
She heads South to check out if Dan was murdered.
She sees the crime tape AND Brannon and turns around freaking out.
Goes back to her house. Contacts Charlie or Katie or Sigfredo on a burner or WhatsApp and lets them know it was done.
She knows she was seen by LE so she thinks quickly and remembers she was invited to a party and needs the bourbon and realizes she can say she was just taking the shortcut through Trescott to get to ABC.
Problem solved!

Leaves house the first time at 12-it takes 12 minutes to get to ABC.
Gets to ABC at around 12:42
Receipt from ABC is at 12:48
4 minutes to find the booze and pay for it.

Yup that's pretty much what I got. It all works timing wise.

 

[Zedzded]

but he didn’t think it was so odd.

As someone said their MIL keeps families license plate details, a little odd, but not "so odd." Until that person is a murder suspect then every odd, unusual, strange thing is going to need to be explained. I drive a long way to work, I could take a shortcut, not sure why. It's not a problem though because I'm not a murder suspect.

So WA drove 2,3, 5 minutes out of her way, not a big deal until you consider she's a murder suspect. Arguably unfair as humans are odd character that do random, abnormal things that should not necessarily mean they are guilty. And how does WA defend that - "I'm bad with directions."

 

[Knitpicker]

So in CA's trial she says she left home at 12.45pm, but then when GC pushes her she says 12.30pm. Which obviously does not work with my theory. Unless WA is meaning she left home the 2nd time at 12.30. She had already been to Trescott and was home by say 12.2ish.

Hey guy, you got the times wrong.
Please re-read my comments.

Can you delete your comment? It’s just going to confuse anyone who reads it.
I said 12:00 and 12:30 several times as the times she left the house (my theory).
Never 12:45!

 

[Knitpicker]

Yup that's pretty much what I got. It all works timing wise.

I edited that comment you copied to include the 1st drive by

 

[Going Rogue]

As someone said their MIL keeps families license plate details, a little odd, but not "so odd." Until that person is a murder suspect then every odd, unusual, strange thing is going to need to be explained. I drive a long way to work, I could take a shortcut, not sure why. It's not a problem though because I'm not a murder suspect.

So WA drove 2,3, 5 minutes out of her way, not a big deal until you consider she's a murder suspect. Arguably unfair as humans are odd character that do random, abnormal things that should not necessarily mean they are guilty. And how does WA defend that - "I'm bad with directions."

Using that logic – was is odd that Jeff decided to leave to TN a day early? His is girlfriends ex was murdered on the day he was supposed to leave. Not a big deal until you consider Dan was murdered. Using your logic, should we conclude Jeff left early because he knew about the plans?

 

[Zedzded]

Hey guy, you got the times wrong.
Please re-read my comments.

Can you delete your comment? It’s just going to confuse anyone who reads it.
I said 12:00 and 12:30 several times as the times she left the house (my theory).
Never 12:45!

No that's what time WA said on the stand.

GC asked her what time she left home. WA said 12.45pm. We know that's not right at she was at ABC liquor around that time.

GC then queried this and WA corrected herself and confirmed that she may have left home "closer to 12.30pm"

That was in CA's trial.

I agree with you.
1st trip she leaves home 12.00pm.
2nd trip she leaves home 12.30pm.

 

[Zedzded]

Using that logic – was is odd that Jeff decided to leave to TN a day early? His is girlfriends ex was murdered on the day he was supposed to leave. Not a big deal until you consider Dan was murdered. Using your logic, should we conclude Jeff left early because he knew about the plans?

No I would conclude that anyone remotely connected to the plot, including JL would need to explain odd or unusual behaviour. JL was asked by LE about his movements and he was cleared.

 

[Weki]

Depends on who’s logic you are using…. Isn’t is a fact she had a ‘stock the bar’ party to attend that evening and needed to make a purchase? In the social media echo chamber, ABC wasn’t a logical choice. Juror number 6 (not exposed to the echo chamber) was asked about it in his STS interview and he didn’t think much of it. I can’t quote him exactly, because I don’t remember his exact response, but he didn’t think it was so odd.

Yeah listening to these jurors was a good reminder to me as someone who has been following this trial for a long time that I have looked at the evidence every which way and lived with it too long, perhaps read too much into it, and am desperate for any new clues to shed more light. For people who have no clue about this case, a lot of the evidence that I find damning is like MEH to them. The tag number, for example, didn’t seem to register much.

Evan (Juror 6) did say that it’s not weird that Wendi drove by Trescott since that’s a familiar route to her. She had done it before, he noted, I believe.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

Evan (Juror 6) did say that it’s not weird that Wendi drove by Trescott since that’s a familiar route to her. She had done it before, he noted, I believe.

JMO

But at what time.... that's what I want to know

 

[Knitpicker]

Using that logic – was is odd that Jeff decided to leave to TN a day early? His is girlfriends ex was murdered on the day he was supposed to leave. Not a big deal until you consider Dan was murdered. Using your logic, should we conclude Jeff left early because he knew about the plans?

I was very concerned by some of Jeffreys comments-such as the “drumbeat”.
But lets stay on topic with Wendi, okay