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.
From Donna Adelson's trial jury instructions (link below):
"
Count 2 - To prove the crime of criminal conspiracy the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - the intent of DA was that the offense of 1st degree murder would be committed.
Element 2 - In order to carry out the intent DA agreed, conspired, combined or confederated with CA or KM or other persons to cause 1st degree murder to be committed either by them or one of them, or by some other person. It is not necessary that the agreement, conspiracy, combination or confederation to commit 1st degree murder be expressed in any particular words, or that words passed between the conspirators. It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the offense conspired."
For 1st degree murder (not conspiracy) the state does have to prove the death was caused by a criminal act of the defendant: The significance of which is for the jury to decide. Note in Donna Adelson's jury instructions judge Everett said the following (same link) -
"
the intent with which an act is done is an operation of the mind and therefore is not always capable of direct and positive proof. It may be established by circumstantial evidence like any other fact in a case."
Act 1 - Wendi texted Dan on July 6th (from the area of her parents' condo), 'Are you in Tallahassee July 14-18?
I just want to know if I can have the kiddos on the 16th. Thanks.' Dan replied 'yes you can'. Wendi already knew that she was scheduled to have the boys on the 16th. As far as we know, Wendi did not have any special plans for the boys on Weds 16th, which needed a text that far in advance. Her text did not need to, but did, stray beyond Wendi having the boys on the Weds, to surreptitiously confirm Dan's whereabouts on the 18th. She didn't
just want to know if she could have the boys on the 16th, she asked if he was in Tallahassee on those dates. A non-suspicious text would have been 'am I still having the boys on the 16th?'.
Act 2 - On the same trip to her parents, the TV repair was booked. The TV repair was farcical and an obvious alibi for the time of the murder, to eliminate her from the investigation and facilitate a diversion from the real perpetrators.
Act 3 - Wendi endeavored to frame Jeff for the murder by asking him detailed questions about whether he would definitely be going to Tennessee on Friday and what time and what route he would be taking. This was after she had indicated she didn't want to see him that week and probably didn't want to continue their relationship. It becomes clear that she planned to implicate him in her police interview, when she didn't know he had altered his plans and had already gone on his trip the night before. Again this would have been to divert attention from the real killers, and throw off the police investigation.
IMO and BBM
