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

[Knitpicker]

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.

Of course the state has more evidence. Georgia does not ask a question without a reason. Based on Jack Campbell last comment, we can conclude it’s not over.

 

[Going Rogue]

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?

Are you alleging I was referring to you . Were there traces of donut powder all over post . I really was talking in general and giving my personal view based on many exchanges and posts / comments I’ve read across multiple forums. Coincidentally, we had an exchange last night that might have illustrated my point but I promise that was a coincidence – coincidences do happen, contrary with what Carl may say .

I must not be reading the same comments as you if you're seeing anyone here on WS making the case for Wendi’s innocence and not open to possibility of her guilt. In fact, on all forums covering this case that I’ve been exposed to, there is only one person I’ve personally seen (apparently he’s writing a book) who’s advocating for her innocence. As far Wendi advocacy posts, the ratio is probably close to 99.99 to 0.01—and that’s not an exaggeration. Again, maybe I’m not seeing what you’re seeing?

If you’re referring to my personal views, I’ve always considered the possibility that she was involved in some capacity, but I’ve also been very clear that I’ve never ruled out the possibility it was done behind her back. Without rehashing why I feel that way, that has always been my position, and I’ve always made that very clear. I don’t believe you have always viewed my messages that way, and I have never understood why?

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

I agree and leading the ‘slam-dunk’ charge has always been Carl S, but its probably not fair to single him out because there were others. He just stands out to me and its nothing personal, I just don’t agree the way he has always oversimplified the case against Wendi.

 

[Weki]

Possibilities of guilt do not garner a conviction. That's the plain hard truth of the matter. I think many in this community are in agreement that Wendi knew or was involved in some way. The extent is unclear. What is clear is that there are a whole lotta assumptions, conjectures, inferences, etc about Wendi's extent of involvement. The Wendi topic is like a wildfire at this point.

The wildfire will be extinguished at any potential trial and we will have to deal with the hard facts in a bright, fluorescent room presided over by Judge Everett. The jury will not be primed by Carl's 999 reasons that Wendi is guilty. They will be random people who know close to nothing about the case. They will see a random woman at the defense table accused of the most heinous crime one can be accused of. And they will pay attention and take their jobs seriously as the Donna jury did. Those are the ones who will decide Wendi's fate. And, no, Jack Campbell should not waste taxpayers money by taking Wendi to trial if he's not convinced he can win a conviction.

JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

Possibilities of guilt do not garner a conviction. That's the plain hard truth of the matter. I think many in this community are in agreement that Wendi knew or was involved in some way. The extent is unclear. What is clear is that there are a whole lotta assumptions, conjectures, inferences, etc about Wendi's extent of involvement. The Wendi topic is like a wildfire at this point.

The wildfire will be extinguished at any potential trial and we will have to deal with the hard facts in a bright, fluorescent room presided over by Judge Everett. The jury will not be primed by Carl's 999 reasons that Wendi is guilty. They will be random people who know close to nothing about the case. They will see a random woman at the defense table accused of the most heinous crime one can be accused of. And they will pay attention and take their jobs seriously as the Donna jury did. Those are the ones who will decide Wendi's fate. And, no, Jack Campbell should not waste taxpayers money by taking Wendi to trial if he's not convinced he can win a conviction.

JMO

Nicely stated! I love the wildfire reference, and that wildfire has been spreading out of control in social media. I have a crazy imagination, and after reading your comment, I had a visual of Carl flying in a crop duster piloted by his brother, pulling the lever and dropping 125 gallons of gasoline on the center of the wildfire. Then going on a second mission with 127 gallons

 

[Weki]

Nicely stated! I love the wildfire reference, and that wildfire has been spreading out of control in social media. I have a crazy imagination, and after reading your comment, I had a visual of Carl flying in a crop duster piloted by his brother, pulling the lever and dropping 125 gallons of gasoline on the center of the wildfire. Then going on a second mission with 127 gallons

 

[Going Rogue]

 

[LinasK]

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).

View attachment 614589
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.
View attachment 614590

I'd have picked the liquor store closest to the restaurant if the alcohol was the gift for the luncheon. Otherwise, why not stop after lunch, when there is no time pressure? Seems like a shower- even a quick one would be important.

 

[LinasK]

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.

Slower, circuitous routes only makes sense when you have the luxury of time. If you are running late to get somewhere, it makes zero sense other than an alibi.

 

[brazgal]

I wonder how many times Carl’s new wife had to wake him up from feverish nightmares where he was screaming Wendi’s name?

I'm sorry, who's Carl?

 

[minusfour]

I'm sorry, who's Carl?

Carl Steinbeck. He is a lawyer and runs a YT channel. He has been calling for WA to be arrested for some time now, and has a list of facts-190?- that he claims indicate her guilt.

 

[Zedzded]

I just don’t agree the way he has always oversimplified the case against Wendi.

i have to say it is very odd. He is an experienced trial attorney and yet has been maintaining for years WA should have been arrested long ago. He really placed a lot of emphasis on very circumstantial evidence. I now believe the State has enough to indict her, but I don't think they did 2 years prior when Carl was banging his drum re WA.

 

[brazgal]

Carl Steinbeck. He is a lawyer and runs a YT channel. He has been calling for WA to be arrested for some time now, and has a list of facts-190?- that he claims indicate her guilt.

Thank you, much appreciated. I thought maybe I've missed an Adelson or a Wendy's boyfriend or...

 

[Knitpicker]

I'd have picked the liquor store closest to the restaurant if the alcohol was the gift for the luncheon. Otherwise, why not stop after lunch, when there is no time pressure? Seems like a shower- even a quick one would be important.

IMO bc she was seen at the crime scene and had to come up with a reason she was there.
IMO I don't believe she planned on going to ABC when she drove past Dans.

 

[Zedzded]

<modsnipped- original removed>

<Modsnipped->

There's literally hundreds of pieces of circumstantial evidence that incriminate WA. All that people do is attack circumstantial evidence individually. That's not how circumstantial evidence works. It works in volume. As I've said previously it's possible to have coincidences. It's possible to have a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that potentially implicates you, but you're actually innocent.

JL stated "Wendi said Charlie considered hiring hitmen to kill Dan."

Instead of looking at any other interconnected evidence, people simply discredit JL. "Oh he lied, he's just a jealous ex etc etc" Give JL's statement a hypothetical evidence score say 3/10, so not worth much. But add in SY's parallel statement, suddenly JL's statement is a 6/10 or 7/10. i.e it is now supported by a similar piece of evidence and is now of more value. If there was a third person that WA mentioned hiring hitmen to then the score goes even higher.

DA's journey to CA's house is another example. "Outside your house" was linked to KM's statement and cell phone data and GPS data and toll booth data. By itself "outside your house" is valueless.

Even more evidence implicating WA came out in DA's trial, but the same response from people. Oh the license plate means nothing, it could be insurance or divorce papers or anything. Again looking at evidence individually and attacking it's credit worthiness in solitude. Add it to the big picture. A prime suspect wrote down the license plate of the murder victim in her planner shortly before he was killed.. what a coincidence... "oh but my MIL does that so it doesn't mean anything..."

 

[Going Rogue]

<modsnipped>
There's literally hundreds of pieces of circumstantial evidence that incriminate WA. All that people do is attack circumstantial evidence individually. That's not how circumstantial evidence works. It works in volume. As I've said previously it's possible to have coincidences. It's possible to have a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that potentially implicates you, but you're actually innocent.

JL stated "Wendi said Charlie considered hiring hitmen to kill Dan."

Instead of looking at any other interconnected evidence, people simply discredit JL. "Oh he lied, he's just a jealous ex etc etc" Give JL's statement a hypothetical evidence score say 3/10, so not worth much. But add in SY's parallel statement, suddenly JL's statement is a 6/10 or 7/10. i.e it is now supported by a similar piece of evidence and is now of more value. If there was a third person that WA mentioned hiring hitmen to then the score goes even higher.

DA's journey to CA's house is another example. "Outside your house" was linked to KM's statement and cell phone data and GPS data and toll booth data. By itself "outside your house" is valueless.

Even more evidence implicating WA came out in DA's trial, but the same response from people. Oh the license plate means nothing, it could be insurance or divorce papers or anything. Again looking at evidence individually and attacking it's credit worthiness in solitude. Add it to the big picture. A prime suspect wrote down the license plate of the murder victim in her planner shortly before he was killed.. what a coincidence... "oh but my MIL does that so it doesn't mean anything..."

Without getting into the weeds and arguing any of the hundreds of pieces of circumstantial evidence, I ask you, or anyone, to explain what act of furtherance the prosecution has on Wendi to prove conspiracy to commit murder. An act of furtherance is needed for a conviction on those charges.

Many claim Wendi gave the conspirators Dan’s schedule, which is pure speculation—that seems to be the leading act of furtherance argued, but as I said, it’s speculative. Do you believe the prosecution can win the case by delivering a “Carl-like” presentation without providing a clear act of furtherance to prove Wendi aided in some way? They can just say ~ “trust us bro we believe in our gut she was involved”.

What is the act of furtherance that is key to a conviction? I’m asking for just one—that’s all that’s needed. Let’s not confuse the argument about the voluminous amount circumstantial evidence (which can also be debated) with what constitutes an act of furtherance. It’s a sincere question and shouldn’t be too difficult for anyone who believes as Carl does. I’d also love to hear Carl’s response to this question.

 

[BearWatcher]

If Wendi and her friends were going to anomously 'workshop' their defense ideas where would they go? Reddit? Websleuths? other websites? Do you think Wendi would get on the stand so these ideas could be presented, if she is arrested and has a trial in front of a jury? Or would she have a friend get on the stand and present the ideas and risk perjury if these are not true?

 

[Wishbone]

Without getting into the weeds and arguing any of the hundreds of pieces of circumstantial evidence, I ask you, or anyone, to explain what act of furtherance the prosecution has on Wendi to prove conspiracy to commit murder. An act of furtherance is needed for a conviction on those charges.

Many claim Wendi gave the conspirators Dan’s schedule, which is pure speculation—that seems to be the leading act of furtherance argued, but as I said, it’s speculative. Do you believe the prosecution can win the case by delivering a “Carl-like” presentation without providing a clear act of furtherance to prove Wendi aided in some way? They can just say ~ “trust us bro we believe in our gut she was involved”.

What is the act of furtherance that is key to a conviction? I’m asking for just one—that’s all that’s needed. Let’s not confuse the argument about the voluminous amount circumstantial evidence (which can also be debated) with what constitutes an act of furtherance. It’s a sincere question and shouldn’t be too difficult for anyone who believes as Carl does. I’d also love to hear Carl’s response to this question.

If and when WA goes on trial would be the opportune time for “an act of furtherance” to be revealed,not while others are being tried in IMO. It seems silly for the prosecution to lay all their cards on the table before hand needlessly exposing their evidence.

 

[opt]

I doubt that Wendi's expensive attorneys would deign to ask Internet randos for advice or opinions.

 

[Luna20]

Can Wendi request a bench trial? I hope not because she would do anything to make it difficult for the judge to rule against her.