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

[Knitpicker]

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

The jurors never saw the other trials to pick up on things that we have.
For instance, they wouldn’t know that Wendi initially agreed to leaving her house around noon, or that Brannon also testified to seeing her around that time.
And all the different accounts of Trescott that she gave. And where she turned.
And many other important discrepancies in her testimony.
We have the benefits of watching all 4 trials to their one trial.
Being educated on the other trials and following this case for years gives us an advantage, not a disadvantage,

 

[Zedzded]

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.

This also explains why she didn't shower. Lunch is at 1pm. She calls DanM at 11.44 no answer, a quick drive to Trescott and back home will be 25mins return which gives her plenty of time to shower and change. But police seeing her changes everything. She has to race home, get invite, race off to ABC and start working on her alibi.

 

[Going Rogue]

This also explains why she didn't shower. Lunch is at 1pm. She calls DanM at 11.44 no answer, a quick drive to Trescott and back home will be 25mins return which gives her plenty of time to shower and change. But police seeing her changes everything. She has to race home, get invite, race off to ABC and start working on her alibi.

They imaged her laptop hard drive. In her police interview, she alleged she was working and sending edits back and forth prior to leaving for lunch. I’m sure in the interview they didn’t discuss a minute by minute timeline, but I’d bet they have enough data e.g. email timestamps and Window’s applications (assuming it was windows) like ‘event viewer’ that logs all events with a timestamp to verify these claims.

 

[Going Rogue]

The jurors never saw the other trials to pick up on things that we have.
For instance, they wouldn’t know that Wendi initially agreed to leaving her house around noon, or that Brannon also testified to seeing her around that time.
And all the different accounts of Trescott that she gave. And where she turned.
And many other important discrepancies in her testimony.
We have the benefits of watching all 4 trials to their one trial.
Being educated on the other trials and following this case for years gives us an advantage, not a disadvantage,

And they never watched Carl’s 10 thousand reasons Wendi is guilty, so they have no biases. They are at an advantage not a disadvantage.

 

[Knitpicker]

This also explains why she didn't shower. Lunch is at 1pm. She calls DanM at 11.44 no answer, a quick drive to Trescott and back home will be 25mins return which gives her plenty of time to shower and change. But police seeing her changes everything. She has to race home, get invite, race off to ABC and start working on her alibi.

She did not have the invite with her though. Maybe looked it up on her email what she was supposed to buy.
She may have just seen “Bulleit” which may explain why she got Rye instead of Bourbon. (Bc she didn't have it with her to show the guy).

 

[Knitpicker]

They imaged her laptop hard drive. In her police interview, she alleged she was working and sending edits back and forth prior to leaving for lunch. I’m sure in the interview they didn’t discuss a minute by minute timeline, but I’d bet they have enough data e.g. email timestamps and Window’s applications (assuming it was windows) like ‘event viewer’ that logs all events with a timestamp to verify these claims.

“Allegedly” was working. We have no evidence of when she was working. We do know she sent something to the librarian for citations. The times was never mentioned.

 

[Knitpicker]

And they never watched Carl’s 10 thousand reasons Wendi is guilty, so they have no biases. They are at an advantage not a disadvantage.

Watching Carl and watching the other 4 trials is not the same thing.
As I am SURE you would agree!

 

[Going Rogue]

Watching Carl and watching the other 4 trials is not the same thing.
As I am SURE you would agree!

I disagree – they are both forms of torture

 

[Hilt]

Assuming one wanted to be as efficient as possible, it would have been best for Ms. Adelson to have picked up the “Bulliet Bourbon” when she was in the vicinity of the 3 stores (Publix, Market Square and Total Wine & More) selling hard liquor within a half mile of the Mozaik restaurant (9 minutes from her house). Alternatively, it would have been about 8 minutes faster to go to the Capital Liquors on Capital Circle and then to Mozaik (11 minutes), rather than ABC and on to Mozaik (19 minutes). Perhaps spending 19 minutes instead of 9 is insignificant to this carefree mother of two. But then, one must wonder why she couldn’t find time for a shower or a quick go with her hairbrush.

What would bother me more than the time going to ABC via Mr. Markel’s residence is the 8 speed bumps on Trescott; none if she had gone on down Centerville to Betton Road (also 3-4 minutes faster).


Regarding the “Bulliet Bourbon, she actually purchased Bulliet Rye whiskey, not bourbon. Assuming that the party invite specified bourbon and that Ms. Adelson ostensibly conferred with the liquor store clerk regarding the beverage (not to mention Summa Laude from Brandeis) one wonders if this was a mistake made of haste. Perhaps related to the emotional turmoil occasioned by the contract murder of one’s ex-husband.

 

[Weki]

I misspoke I believe Evan (Juror 6) mentioned the speed bumps on Trescott and said it was an odd choice to drive through there. He knows about the speed bumps because he runs on that road. I remember now. I can’t edit my earlier comment. All the jurors comments are jumbled up in my head at this point. I feel like someone did say it wasn’t odd to them that she drove by there. Correct me if I’m wrong.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

I misspoke I believe Evan (Juror 6) mentioned the speed bumps on Trescott and said it was an odd choice to drive through there. He knows about the speed bumps because he runs on that road. I remember now. I can’t edit my earlier comment. All the jurors comments are jumbled up in my head at this point. I feel like someone did say it wasn’t odd to them that she drove by there. Correct me if I’m wrong.

JMO

I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a more circuitous route even one with speed bumps. I take a longer, slower route to work. The route was familiar to WA and perhaps she liked the drive (lots of trees) and she liked driving past her old house.

I think it's all the other stuff connected with that drive that just makes it odd, not stopping when she saw the police tape, lying about her route, her panicked calls, being late for lunch etc etc

On its own her Trescott drive is unexplainable, but chuck in all the other stuff its highly incriminating.

 

[apeXperience]

This is not a laughing matter, of course. We are only reading the same Wendi Adelson perspectives over and over again, sometimes from New Jersey and at other times from New Zealand. We are far away from the Old Miami Police Reports used in Sigfredo Garcia’s trial and Old Tallahassee Court Transcripts recorded during Katherine Magbanua’s trial when Wendi Adelson drove from Aqua Ridge to Trescott to ABC. Opinions come from lump New Sources and loot perspectives instead of from tried and direct sources such as the Latin Kings, which resulted with 2 LWOP sentences for their members and affiliates. In this environment worst than YT clickbait chamber, we encounter only information that reflect your echo. Misinformation about the evidence leading to the conviction of Charles Adelson distorts the perspective opposing viewpoints discussing complicated Bulliet bourbon and advanced stock the bar topics covered during the lunch break at 12:39 pm. But it is true that the Judge said of Donna Adelson, LWOP is mandatory for first degree murder. Let us wait and see if the Judge would impose 30Y + 30Y on the other 2 counts. It appears that confirmation bias from unknown syndrome fuels the tendency to favor information that reinforces non existing evidence not discussed in the trial that convicted 2 Adelson members. At last, we could laugh at the wrapped endless lubrication of mental auto-simulation for intellectual arousal.

 

[opt]

Did Trescott have speed bumps in 2014?

 

[Tortoise]

Did Trescott have speed bumps in 2014?

Yes. Google Street View 2013:

Street View · Google Maps

Explore a place in a more immersive way in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Going Rogue]

It appears that confirmation bias from unknown syndrome fuels the tendency to favor information that reinforces non existing evidence not discussed in the trial that convicted 2 Adelson members.

Well said! Social media discussions about some of the central characters in the Dan Markel case often rely on theories built from partial data, where gaps are filled with assumptions to fit a desired narrative. In Wendi’s case, the complexity and ambiguity of the evidence against her fuel rampant speculation, as people crave definitive answers. This lack of closure drives confirmation bias, leading people to cherry-pick details and insert ‘non-existing evidence’ or create ‘theories’ that are unsupported by provable facts. Such ‘gap-filling’ can distort the reality of the case, and it prioritizes preconceived beliefs over concrete evidence. IMO, this cycle of speculation can overshadow the established facts, which results in perpetuating ungrounded narratives in the public sphere.

Disclaimer – the above opinion, or observation, does not mean I believe Wendi is innocent. This is also a general comment and not necessarily based off of any recent posts

 

[opt]

Disclaimer – the above opinion, or observation, does not mean I believe Wendi is innocent. This is also a general comment and not necessarily based off of any recent posts

Any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental!

 

[Hilt]

Clarification/Explanation

I posted a comment with the term “Summa Laude” in it, which was published with the middle word replaced by angry man emojis. I assume this was an auto-edit from moderators but want to make clear I was not implying anything. (must admit I found some humor in the glitch, though)

 

[Hilt]

Clarification/Explanation

I posted a comment with the term “Summa Laude” in it, which was published with the middle word replaced by angry man emojis. I assume this was an auto-edit from moderators but want to make clear I was not implying anything. (must admit I found some humor in the glitch, though)

Did it again.

 

[Knitpicker]

Well said! Social media discussions about some of the central characters in the Dan Markel case often rely on theories built from partial data, where gaps are filled with assumptions to fit a desired narrative. In Wendi’s case, the complexity and ambiguity of the evidence against her fuel rampant speculation, as people crave definitive answers. This lack of closure drives confirmation bias, leading people to cherry-pick details and insert ‘non-existing evidence’ or create ‘theories’ that are unsupported by provable facts. Such ‘gap-filling’ can distort the reality of the case, and it prioritizes preconceived beliefs over concrete evidence. IMO, this cycle of speculation can overshadow the established facts, which results in perpetuating ungrounded narratives in the public sphere.

Disclaimer – the above opinion, or observation, does not mean I believe Wendi is innocent. This is also a general comment and not necessarily based off of any recent posts

I have always stated that anything I have said is “imo” and stated facts/timelines in connection with any “theories”.
The question in my mind is this. Why do some people appear biased towards her innocence rather than be opened to possibilities of her guilt?
Doesn’t it work both ways?
And putting a seems to soften the blow right?

 

[opt]

The question in my mind is this. Why do some people appear biased towards her innocence rather than be opened to possibilities of her guilt?

I would call it bias toward insistence on slam dunk certainty of conviction before prosecuting. We all know it's not a slam dunk. And we all know the case isn't going to improve with age. I think prosecutors should roll the dice. Others can reasonably disagree.