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

[JerseyPride]

It is not a crime to be aware that a murder is going to be committed and to NOT report it to LE. Just being aware does not make you a conspirator.

Statements like this fail to account for the common sense brought into the jury room. Most reasonable jurors are not going to conclude that she was aware of the plan but failed to sign off on it.

 

[Weki]

I guess my issue is that alibi planning, texting to ask if he’s gonna be in Tally and confirming she will have the kids that weekend, asking Lacasse when he’s going out of town etc all seem like toppings on the cake. We are missing the cake.

JMO

 

[Weki]

Statements like this fail to account for the common sense brought into the jury room. Most reasonable jurors are not going to conclude that she was aware of the plan but failed to sign off on it.

Evan (Juror 6) said she probably knew and was involved but more investigation is needed. We’re talking guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not probability.

 

[Going Rogue]

You are incorrect. There is no requirement under Florida law for there to be an "act of furtherance" in order to prove conspiracy. The state only has to prove two things: First, that there was an agreement in place; and second, that there was intent to commit the murder.

Regarding the agreement: As stated in the referenced case below, Wendi's presence at the scene of the crime could be used by a jury to infer agreement, direct proof isn't necessary. There's also all her other actions leading up to the murder, which I won't rehash, but have been discussed ad nauseam on this thread.

---

From Jimenez vs. State: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...34862270&q=715+So.+2d+1038&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

The crime of conspiracy is comprised of the mere express or implied agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal offense; both the agreement and an intention to commit an offense are essential elements. See Pino v. State, 573 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); LaPolla v. State, 504 So.2d 1353, 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also§ 777.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). "There is no requirement that there be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy." LaPolla, 504 So.2d at 1357. Moreover, direct proof of the agreement is unnecessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury may consider and infer from the surrounding circumstances, including the defendant's presence at the scene, that a common purpose to commit a crime existed and that the defendant was a part thereof. See Wilder v. State, 587 So.2d 543, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

You’re correct that Florida law 777.04(3); Jimenez v. State, & LaPolla v. State, requires only an agreement and intent for conspiracy to commit murder if an overt act / act of furtherance cannot be established. Yes, a jury can infer agreement from circumstantial evidence like coordinated actions or presence (Wilder v. State). However, vague references to Wendi’s ‘other actions’ and presence near Trescott Drive lacks sufficient evidence to prove she entered in a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna. Knowledge of Dan’s murder, even if inferred from her drive-by, doesn’t meet the conspiracy threshold, which requires active participation in an agreement (State v. Waters). Without specific evidence—e.g., communications or testimony showing Wendi agreed to the murder plot—proving conspiracy will be difficult. Unless you can provide specific actions tying her to the agreement, I do not see the state meeting the burden of proof for conspiracy to commit murder – I’m basing that purely on public information and not making any assumptions that are not supported by evidence

 

[JerseyPride]

Evan (Juror 6) said she probably knew and was involved but more investigation is needed. We’re talking guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not probability

“This is so sweet.”

 

[Weki]

You’re correct that Florida law 777.04(3); Jimenez v. State, & LaPolla v. State, requires only an agreement and intent for conspiracy to commit murder if an overt act / act of furtherance cannot be established. Yes, a jury can infer agreement from circumstantial evidence like coordinated actions or presence (Wilder v. State). However, vague references to Wendi’s ‘other actions’ and presence near Trescott Drive lacks sufficient evidence to prove she entered in a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna. Knowledge of Dan’s murder, even if inferred from her drive-by, doesn’t meet the conspiracy threshold, which requires active participation in an agreement (State v. Waters). Without specific evidence—e.g., communications or testimony showing Wendi agreed to the murder plot—proving conspiracy will be difficult. Unless you can provide specific actions tying her to the agreement, I do not see the state meeting the burden of proof for conspiracy to commit murder – I’m basing that purely on public information and not making any assumptions that are not supported by evidence

Agreed. What do you make of the argument from @Tortoise that the alibi planning is circumstantial evidence of a coordinated effort with her co-conspirators in advance of the murder? The “TV” used as code by Donna and Charlie after the bump certainly ties that together.

 

[Going Rogue]

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

The three acts you referenced do not prove Wendi entered in a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna.

Act 1 - We’d need evidence she passed that info on as an act of furtherance. Without that it doesn’t meet the threshold – its speculation.

Act 2 – Not even close to proving she entered into a conspiracy.

Act 3 – I have said multiple times – if you can prove she was trying to set up Lacasse, you got her. I do not believe there was a coordinated attempt to set up Jeff as argued in social media and as Jeff sheepishly suggested. I actually firmly believe some of the clams made to support this ‘theory’ can VERY reasonably be proven false. I’ve commented on this previously – so I’ll spare rehashing details (it tends to upset some people). I'll just say that Wendi may been asking if Jeff was still planning his weekend trip for multiple reasons – maybe to babysit for her stock the bar party, maybe one of her many love interests were going to be in town that weekend? Who knows.

 

[Zedzded]

You are incorrect. There is no requirement under Florida law for there to be an "act of furtherance" in order to prove conspiracy. The state only has to prove two things: First, that there was an agreement in place; and second, that there was intent to commit the murder.

Regarding the agreement: As stated in the referenced case below, Wendi's presence at the scene of the crime could be used by a jury to infer agreement, direct proof isn't necessary. There's also all her other actions leading up to the murder, which I won't rehash, but have been discussed ad nauseam on this thread.

I'm not sure. Agreement is a mutual understanding that the two parties will commit a crime, a meeting of the minds. The State need to produce something that shows WA contributed and colluded with CA and DA. I can't see how Trescott does that. If CA had said to WA he hired hitmen to kill Dan on the morning of the shooting and she drove up to check, has a crime been committed?

Checking with Dan about his plans is suspicious, but I've always felt its something that could be easily defended. She was double-checking? (devil's advocate).

I think if they arrest WA for m1 it will be based on evidence we are not privy to at this moment in time.

 

[Zedzded]

The three acts you referenced do not prove Wendi entered in a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna.

Act 1 - We’d need evidence she passed that info on as an act of furtherance. Without that it doesn’t meet the threshold – its speculation.

Act 2 – Not even close to proving she entered into a conspiracy.

Act 3 – I have said multiple times – if you can prove she was trying to set up Lacasse, you got her. I do not believe there was a coordinated attempt to set up Jeff as argued in social media and as Jeff sheepishly suggested. I actually firmly believe some of the clams made to support this ‘theory’ can VERY reasonably be proven false. I’ve commented on this previously – so I’ll spare rehashing details (it tends to upset some people). I just say that Wendi may been asking if Jeff was still planning his weekend trip for multiple reasons – maybe to babysit for her stock the bar party, maybe one of her many love interests were going to be in town that weekend? Who knows.

More or less agree.
re Act 3 - I think if there was an attempt to set JL up, it was half-hearted and lastminute.com. Nothing in it.

 

[Zedzded]

I guess my issue is that alibi planning, texting to ask if he’s gonna be in Tally and confirming she will have the kids that weekend, asking Lacasse when he’s going out of town etc all seem like toppings on the cake. We are missing the cake.

JMO

That's a good analogy. I also feel like we're missing the cake.

 

[Zedzded]

Agreed. What do you make of the argument from @Tortoise that the alibi planning is circumstantial evidence of a coordinated effort with her co-conspirators in advance of the murder? The “TV” used as code by Donna and Charlie after the bump certainly ties that together.

There need something more from the TV alibi. I think it has potential as strong evidence, but missing something.

 

[Tortoise]

The three acts you referenced do not prove Wendi entered in a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna.

Act 1 - We’d need evidence she passed that info on as an act of furtherance. Without that it doesn’t meet the threshold – its speculation.

Act 2 – Not even close to proving she entered into a conspiracy.

Act 3 – I have said multiple times – if you can prove she was trying to set up Lacasse, you got her. I do not believe there was a coordinated attempt to set up Jeff as argued in social media and as Jeff sheepishly suggested. I actually firmly believe some of the clams made to support this ‘theory’ can VERY reasonably be proven false. I’ve commented on this previously – so I’ll spare rehashing details (it tends to upset some people). I'll just say that Wendi may been asking if Jeff was still planning his weekend trip for multiple reasons – maybe to babysit for her stock the bar party, maybe one of her many love interests were going to be in town that weekend? Who knows.

As I stated in my post, those acts were for a charge of '1st degree murder (not conspiracy)...', since conspiracy does not require an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

[Going Rogue]

Agreed. What do you make of the argument from @Tortoise that the alibi planning is circumstantial evidence of a coordinated effort with her co-conspirators in advance of the murder? The “TV” used as code by Donna and Charlie after the bump certainly ties that together.

The TV appointment may have been a foolish attempt by Donna to keep Wendi busy and out of harms way. The appointment was NOT set up by Wendi. We know Donna was directly involved – so IF it was intended to be an alibi (likely so) not only is it a silly alibi, but we could argue (get ready for this shocker) that it might shows Wendi was unaware of the plot. Here is why I say this—if Wendi were directly involved, why does she need such a foolish alibi that keeps her at the house? She doesn’t… it seems more likely Donna was trying to pin Wendi to the house out of concern Wendi might be in harms way and could suggest Wendi had no knowledge of the plans. If she knew about the plot, she wouldn’t not need a home appointment to keep her occupied AND she wouldn’t dare travel to the crime scene - or would she? LOL

 

[DustysMom]

I noticed that too. I don’t think Ruth and family have pressured the state into arresting Wendi. At least that was my conclusions based on her comment. I was surprised but not surprised bc she seemed to believe that without Donnas influence the murder would not have happened. Could it be she is just protecting herself so she can still see the boys? Probably none of my or anyone else’s business.

Ruth knew WA for many years, and IIRC from her book, had a loving relationship with her. It’s entirely possible that she has witnessed through the years how DAs meddling affected WA and views her as an unwitting accomplice and Donna as the snake in the grass.
From the very beginning Donna was a controlling, lying B$tch when she lied about the kosher menu at their wedding. That cruel and sneaky move was just the beginning. That relationship didn’t have a chance.

 

[Wishbone]

The three acts you referenced do not prove Wendi entered in a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna.

Act 1 - We’d need evidence she passed that info on as an act of furtherance. Without that it doesn’t meet the threshold – its speculation.

Act 2 – Not even close to proving she entered into a conspiracy.

Act 3 – I have said multiple times – if you can prove she was trying to set up Lacasse, you got her. I do not believe there was a coordinated attempt to set up Jeff as argued in social media and as Jeff sheepishly suggested. I actually firmly believe some of the clams made to support this ‘theory’ can VERY reasonably be proven false. I’ve commented on this previously – so I’ll spare rehashing details (it tends to upset some people). I'll just say that Wendi may been asking if Jeff was still planning his weekend trip for multiple reasons – maybe to babysit for her stock the bar party, maybe one of her many love interests were going to be in town that weekend? Who knows.

It can't be proved that WA entered into a conspiratorial agreement because she hasn't gone on trial yet and the state has not presented it's evidence if it does exist. Proving her guilt and revealing all the state's evidence before her trial is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Weki]

Ruth knew WA for many years, and IIRC from her book, had a loving relationship with her. It’s entirely possible that she has witnessed through the years how DAs meddling affected WA and views her as an unwitting accomplice and Donna as the snake in the grass.
From the very beginning Donna was a controlling, lying B$tch when she lied about the kosher menu at their wedding. That cruel and sneaky move was just the beginning. That relationship didn’t have a chance.

Exactly! And it would be very easy to reasonably argue that Wendi was controlled and brainwashed (Ruth mentioned parents brainwashing their children in her post-verdict interview with Joel) by Donna. We have 2 hours of Jeff Lacasse talking about how immature and emotionally unstable Wendi is to prove this up. Wendi going to the crime scene when she allegedly “conspired” to set up an alibi for herself is just another example of the inconsistency with her behavior.

JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

As I stated in my post, those acts were for a charge of '1st degree murder (not conspiracy)...', since conspiracy does not require an act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

To meet the burden of proof the state needs to prove an act of furtherance OR that Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna – regardless of whether the charges are for 1st degree or conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[Tortoise]

Act 1 - We’d need evidence she passed that info on as an act of furtherance. Without that it doesn’t meet the threshold – its speculation.

As stated by judge Everett, it may be established by circumstantial evidence, which means it could be a reasonable inference from the fact Wendi sent an unusual and unnecessary text to Dan about that date and Dan's location, and Garcia knew Dan would be there. Rivera also testified in the first trial that they knew Dan was going to be out of town the next day. Those are facts in evidence, not speculation, just as Donna delivering the money could be inferred from 'outside your house' and Katie (an unreliable witness IMO) saying Charlie said Donna washed the money.

Act 3 – I have said multiple times – if you can prove she was trying to set up Lacasse, you got her. I do not believe there was a coordinated attempt to set up Jeff as argued in social media and as Jeff sheepishly suggested. I actually firmly believe some of the clams made to support this ‘theory’ can VERY reasonably be proven false. I’ve commented on this previously – so I’ll spare rehashing details (it tends to upset some people). I'll just say that Wendi may been asking if Jeff was still planning his weekend trip for multiple reasons – maybe to babysit for her stock the bar party, maybe one of her many love interests were going to be in town that weekend? Who knows.

I have no idea about what is argued in social media. My opinions come from watching Donna's trial. He was a credible witness as far as I'm concerned. Wendi sent an email that night asking for no contact from Jeff, so babysitting seems out of the question to me, and she didn't seem to care too much about seeing other men while she was dating Jeff. Proving it is a matter for jurors to make a logical and reasonable inference from the circumstances and Jeff's credibility. Wendi brought up his name in the police interview which is a tell. Jeff would have no motive to murder Dan because Wendi would move to Miami as far as he was concerned, putting the kibosh on their relationship.

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

To meet the burden of proof the state needs to prove an act of furtherance OR that Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement with Charlie and Donna – regardless of whether the charges are for 1st degree or conspiracy to commit murder.

Yes, the acts I listed were in furtherance of first degree murder, not conspiracy. As the law requires.

 

[Tortoise]

Plus there's the evidence that Katie already knew the murder had been committed when Garcia called her. There were no reports out by that time. Wendi couldn't have known that from seeing crime scene tape up.

I believe witnesses weren't questioned about this during Donna's trial because Donna was the focus.