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

[Weki]

Rivera also said Wendi was there on the sidewalk with the 2 boys. I believe state had evidence that proved she wasn't there. Obviously, it was some other woman walking with her 2 kids who was suspicious of the 2 men. And there's no way Katie could've known so soon after the murder happened that it had happened. Rivera is mistaken about those two things imo.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

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

Yes, Wendi’s text to Dan is fact, but saying the text is “unusual and unnecessary” is a matter of opinion—they were co-parenting. I have mentioned this several times, not sure if you are aware, so I’ll frame it for you. The custody arrangements specifically addressed a Wednesday crossover date in the summer months AND outlined if the parent w/ custody was traveling out of town on their week, the other parent doesn’t get the Wednesday crossover date. Dan and Wendi BOTH traveled often. Wendi text can easily be interpreted as simply trying to establish if the Wednesday crossover was in play—its exactly what she asked. Yes we can speculate it was with the intention of finding out if he was in town in support of the plot. As I said, if she passed that info on to the hit team, you got her. Saying she did is speculation.

As far as the Lacasse potential set up. If that can be reasonable be proven, I agree not good for Wendi. I don share the same view as you on that.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

This is an old argument that's been debunked as far as I’m concerned. The timeline for Wendi being at the scene in time to report to the hit team the murderer was completed BEFORE Garcia’s call to Katie do not line up. Unless you subscribe to this new theory argued here the other day that Wendi took two separate trips to Trescott..

 

[Tortoise]

Yes, Wendi’s text to Dan is fact, but saying the text is “unusual and unnecessary” is a matter of opinion—they were co-parenting. I have mentioned this several times, not sure if you are aware, so I’ll frame it for you. The custody arrangements specifically addressed a Wednesday crossover date in the summer months AND outlined if the parent w/ custody was traveling out of town on their week, the other parent doesn’t get the Wednesday crossover date. Dan and Wendi BOTH traveled often. Wendi text can easily be interpreted as simply trying to establish if the Wednesday crossover was in play—its exactly what she asked. Yes we can speculate it was with the intention of finding out if he was in town in support of the plot. As I said, if she passed that info on to the hit team, you got her. Saying she did is speculation.

As far as the Lacasse potential set up. If that can be reasonable be proven, I agree not good for Wendi. I don share the same view as you on that.

So a non-suspicious text would have been 'are we still on for me having the boys on Weds 16th?' The first part of the text asking if he was in Tallahassee on the Friday was not needed. It's superfluous.

 

[Weki]

Guilty of M1 and conspiracy to commit M because of superfluous texting, circuitous driving, and nosiness of one's ex's travel plans?

 

[Tortoise]

This is an old argument that's been debunked as far as I’m concerned. The timeline for Wendi being at the scene in time to report to the hit team the murderer was completed BEFORE Garcia’s call to Katie do not line up. Unless you subscribe to this new theory argued here the other day that Wendi took two separate trips to Trescott..

Until we see her phone location data I'm keeping an open mind. I think it's just as possible that she got to the liquor store and sat outside for a long while, possibly WhatsApping Charlie while it sank in that it was done. Maybe she consulted Charlie whether she should phone the police or hospitals because she had been seen, but decided not to.

 

[Going Rogue]

Until we see her phone location data I'm keeping an open mind. I think it's just as possible that she got to the liquor store and sat outside for a long while, possibly WhatsApping Charlie while it sank in that it was done. Maybe she consulted Charlie whether she should phone the police or hospitals because she had been seen, but decided not to.

Her phone location data on the day of the murder is public record and has been covered in the previous trials. She left her home at within minutes of 12:30PM and we clearly know were she went and was for the remainder of the day.

I think I reached my post quota for the day

 

[ch_13]

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

With all due respect, you are now moving the goal posts.

Here's what you originally posted.

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.

You literally say that "an act of furtherance" is necessary to prove "conspiracy to commit murder." This is not true under Florida law. Can you at least admit that you were wrong?

Furthermore, IMO you are incorrect in your second post as well. You state: "Without specific evidence—e.g., communications or testimony showing Wendi agreed to the murder plot—proving conspiracy will be difficult." It is not necessary for the state to have this communications or testimony. They certainly do not need a recording of her saying "Charlie, I want you to kill Dan." As I pointed out, under Florida law, the agreement can be inferred from Wendi's actions. In fact, that is exactly what Jimenez was about. The jury, in part, relied on the fact that he was at the scene of the crime to find him guilty.

I am under no illusions that this will be a slam-dunk case. However, I believe the state has substantial circumstantial evidence that her actions before she was told Dan was shot were indicative of someone who knew he was getting murdered. And that alone is legally sufficient for a jury verdict. I won't predict what the jury will do, but I don't think the jury will have as much trouble making the inference as you believe they will.

Finally, you reference State v. Waters, but neglect to link to it. I tried looking it up. In Florida there's State v. Waters (1983), Waters v. State (1995) and State v. Waters (1998) but none of those are conspiracy cases. Can you provide a link to this case, that you say supports your position?

 

[opt]

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

We have the powdered sugar on her face but there are no donuts.

 

[ch_13]

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?

RSMB.

If this was some random person that Charlie was speaking with and that was the only thing she did, then it likely wouldn't be conspiracy.

But there's a plethora of other actions that she took leading up to the hit. I won't rehash them, but everyone knows what they are.

And it's important to also keep in mind what she did afterwards. Within two days she was gone from Tallahassee for good. The whole murder would have been pointless unless the conspirators knew she would leave.

IMO, there's plenty for a jury to infer her guilt from the circumstantial evidence.

 

[Weki]

We have the powdered sugar on her face but there are no donuts.

No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say that I would've said we have cake smeared on her face but no actual cake.

 

[SubtlePseudonym]

Ya’ll have now brought Carl and Wendi together. Here is something else to think about (btw, I totally believe Wendi is guilty). A simple way to say this is, if the cops had behaved badly, or if Markel was a Boston cop, would everyone still see the evidence against Wendi as clearly, or would they be more apt to see the same evidence as not a slam dun. I saw both cases as slam dunk based on evidence, but I am quite sure I have witnessed “most people” seeing evidence of guilt in both cases from two different perspectives, same people, evidence as strong in both but most people not seeing it that way at all. In one case a text does not mean guilt and another it does. Lucky for the Markel’s the cops did not behave badly.

 

[Going Rogue]

So a non-suspicious text would have been 'are we still on for me having the boys on Weds 16th?' The first part of the text asking if he was in Tallahassee on the Friday was not needed. It's superfluous.

View attachment 614809

With all due respect, you are now moving the goal posts.

Here's what you originally posted.


You literally say that "an act of furtherance" is necessary to prove "conspiracy to commit murder." This is not true under Florida law. Can you at least admit that you were wrong?

Furthermore, IMO you are incorrect in your second post as well. You state: "Without specific evidence—e.g., communications or testimony showing Wendi agreed to the murder plot—proving conspiracy will be difficult." It is not necessary for the state to have this communications or testimony. They certainly do not need a recording of her saying "Charlie, I want you to kill Dan." As I pointed out, under Florida law, the agreement can be inferred from Wendi's actions. In fact, that is exactly what Jimenez was about. The jury, in part, relied on the fact that he was at the scene of the crime to find him guilty.

I am under no illusions that this will be a slam-dunk case. However, I believe the state has substantial circumstantial evidence that her actions before she was told Dan was shot were indicative of someone who knew he was getting murdered. And that alone is legally sufficient for a jury verdict. I won't predict what the jury will do, but I don't think the jury will have as much trouble making the inference as you believe they will.

Finally, you reference State v. Waters, but neglect to link to it. I tried looking it up. In Florida there's State v. Waters (1983), Waters v. State (1995) and State v. Waters (1998) but none of those are conspiracy cases. Can you provide a link to this case, that you say supports your position?

Yes, I was wrong. For murder or conspiracy to commit murder, the state need to prove either an act of furtherance was committed or they need to prove the defendant entered into a conspiratorial agreement. Knowledge alone is not conspiratorial agreement.

Here is the info on State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66, Fla. 1983) - (I couldn’t find a public line either):

The case State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983), is a Florida Supreme Court decision that clarifies key aspects of conspiracy law under Florida Statutes § 777.04(3), particularly relevant to discussions about whether knowledge alone constitutes conspiracy. Below is a concise explanation of the case, its holding, and its relevance to the question about Wendi Adelson and conspiracy to commit murder.

Case Background

• Parties: The State of Florida prosecuted Richard Waters, who was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.​
• Facts: Waters was involved in a drug-related dispute where a murder was planned. Evidence suggested he was present during discussions of the murder plot and had some knowledge of it, but his active participation was disputed. The case centered on whether his actions constituted a conspiracy under Florida law.​
• Procedural History: The trial court dismissed the conspiracy charge, and the state appealed. The case reached the Florida Supreme Court to resolve questions about the elements of conspiracy and the sufficiency of evidence.​

Key Legal Issue

The primary issue was what constitutes a criminal conspiracy under § 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, specifically whether mere knowledge or passive acquiescence in a criminal plan is sufficient to establish conspiracy, or if an active agreement and intent to commit the crime are required.

Holding and Reasoning

• Holding: The Florida Supreme Court held that conspiracy under § 777.04(3) requires (1) an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense and (2) an intent by the defendant to commit or facilitate the offense. Mere knowledge or passive acquiescence is not enough to establish conspiracy.​
• Reasoning:​
  • The court emphasized that conspiracy is a separate offense from the underlying crime (e.g., murder), focusing on the agreement itself (State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d at 69).​
  • An agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but there must be evidence showing the defendant actively entered into or endorsed the criminal objective, not just knew about it or failed to stop it.​
  • In Waters’ case, the court found sufficient evidence of his participation in the agreement (e.g., discussions and actions suggesting intent), distinguishing his role from mere presence or knowledge.​
  • The court also noted that Florida’s conspiracy statute does not require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unlike some other jurisdictions, making the agreement and intent the critical elements (id. at 70).​

 

[New Penny]

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.

I agree with your ending statement. DA’s phone seized from her claws at the airport will prove to be a goldmine (I think).

MOO

 

[Going Rogue]

Ya’ll have now brought Carl and Wendi together. Here is something else to think about (btw, I totally believe Wendi is guilty). A simple way to say this is, if the cops had behaved badly, or if Markel was a Boston cop, would everyone still see the evidence against Wendi as clearly, or would they be more apt to see the same evidence as not a slam dun. I saw both cases as slam dunk based on evidence, but I am quite sure I have witnessed “most people” seeing evidence of guilt in both cases from two different perspectives, same people, evidence as strong in both but most people not seeing it that way at all. In one case a text does not mean guilt and another it does. Lucky for the Markel’s the cops did not behave badly.

If Lacasse worked for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, I’d have to reevaluate this entire case

 

[Going Rogue]

So a non-suspicious text would have been 'are we still on for me having the boys on Weds 16th?' The first part of the text asking if he was in Tallahassee on the Friday was not needed. It's superfluous.

She outlined the exact 'custody date range' - 14th – 18th. If she simply asked if she can still have the boys on Wednesday which was already part of the crossover arrangement and IMPLIED, wouldn’t that be just as odd? Clearly based on the custody arrangements as I outlined, the Wednesday crossover date is absolutely contingent on the other parent NOT traveling out of town their custody week. Dan traveled OFTEN. I don’t think her text, as worded, is so odd if you understand the specific and unique terms of the custody arrangement and that it was well established Dan traveled often

Definitely hit my post quota – have a great day!

 

[rkjester]

View attachment 614809


Yes, I was wrong. For murder or conspiracy to commit murder, the state need to prove either an act of furtherance was committed or they need to prove the defendant entered into a conspiratorial agreement. Knowledge alone is not conspiratorial agreement.

Here is the info on State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66, Fla. 1983) - (I couldn’t find a public line either):

The case State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983), is a Florida Supreme Court decision that clarifies key aspects of conspiracy law under Florida Statutes § 777.04(3), particularly relevant to discussions about whether knowledge alone constitutes conspiracy. Below is a concise explanation of the case, its holding, and its relevance to the question about Wendi Adelson and conspiracy to commit murder.

Case Background

• Parties: The State of Florida prosecuted Richard Waters, who was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.​
• Facts: Waters was involved in a drug-related dispute where a murder was planned. Evidence suggested he was present during discussions of the murder plot and had some knowledge of it, but his active participation was disputed. The case centered on whether his actions constituted a conspiracy under Florida law.​
• Procedural History: The trial court dismissed the conspiracy charge, and the state appealed. The case reached the Florida Supreme Court to resolve questions about the elements of conspiracy and the sufficiency of evidence.​

Key Legal Issue

The primary issue was what constitutes a criminal conspiracy under § 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, specifically whether mere knowledge or passive acquiescence in a criminal plan is sufficient to establish conspiracy, or if an active agreement and intent to commit the crime are required.

Holding and Reasoning

• Holding: The Florida Supreme Court held that conspiracy under § 777.04(3) requires (1) an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense and (2) an intent by the defendant to commit or facilitate the offense. Mere knowledge or passive acquiescence is not enough to establish conspiracy.​
• Reasoning:​
  • The court emphasized that conspiracy is a separate offense from the underlying crime (e.g., murder), focusing on the agreement itself (State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d at 69).​
  • An agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but there must be evidence showing the defendant actively entered into or endorsed the criminal objective, not just knew about it or failed to stop it.​
  • In Waters’ case, the court found sufficient evidence of his participation in the agreement (e.g., discussions and actions suggesting intent), distinguishing his role from mere presence or knowledge.​
  • The court also noted that Florida’s conspiracy statute does not require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unlike some other jurisdictions, making the agreement and intent the critical elements (id. at 70).​

With current known evidence, the best the State can hope for is a Conspiracy conviction.

 

[Weki]

Haha - @Going Rogue it's easy to start wildfires but putting them out is hard work. Have some rest.

 

[Going Rogue]

Haha - @Going Rogue it's easy to start wildfires but putting them out is hard work. Have some rest.

LOL - I need Carl's crop duster Have a great day! I'm Adelsoned out for the day.

Stay tuned!

 

[ch_13]

View attachment 614809


Yes, I was wrong. For murder or conspiracy to commit murder, the state need to prove either an act of furtherance was committed or they need to prove the defendant entered into a conspiratorial agreement. Knowledge alone is not conspiratorial agreement.

Here is the info on State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66, Fla. 1983) - (I couldn’t find a public line either):

The case State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983), is a Florida Supreme Court decision that clarifies key aspects of conspiracy law under Florida Statutes § 777.04(3), particularly relevant to discussions about whether knowledge alone constitutes conspiracy. Below is a concise explanation of the case, its holding, and its relevance to the question about Wendi Adelson and conspiracy to commit murder.

Case Background

• Parties: The State of Florida prosecuted Richard Waters, who was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.​
• Facts: Waters was involved in a drug-related dispute where a murder was planned. Evidence suggested he was present during discussions of the murder plot and had some knowledge of it, but his active participation was disputed. The case centered on whether his actions constituted a conspiracy under Florida law.​
• Procedural History: The trial court dismissed the conspiracy charge, and the state appealed. The case reached the Florida Supreme Court to resolve questions about the elements of conspiracy and the sufficiency of evidence.​

Key Legal Issue

The primary issue was what constitutes a criminal conspiracy under § 777.04(3), Florida Statutes, specifically whether mere knowledge or passive acquiescence in a criminal plan is sufficient to establish conspiracy, or if an active agreement and intent to commit the crime are required.

Holding and Reasoning

• Holding: The Florida Supreme Court held that conspiracy under § 777.04(3) requires (1) an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense and (2) an intent by the defendant to commit or facilitate the offense. Mere knowledge or passive acquiescence is not enough to establish conspiracy.​
• Reasoning:​
  • The court emphasized that conspiracy is a separate offense from the underlying crime (e.g., murder), focusing on the agreement itself (State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d at 69).​
  • An agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but there must be evidence showing the defendant actively entered into or endorsed the criminal objective, not just knew about it or failed to stop it.​
  • In Waters’ case, the court found sufficient evidence of his participation in the agreement (e.g., discussions and actions suggesting intent), distinguishing his role from mere presence or knowledge.​
  • The court also noted that Florida’s conspiracy statute does not require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unlike some other jurisdictions, making the agreement and intent the critical elements (id. at 70).​

Thanks for the details on State v. Waters. But from what I see it says the same thing as Jimenez.

"An agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but there must be evidence showing the defendant actively entered into or endorsed the criminal objective, not just knew about it or failed to stop it."
"Florida’s conspiracy statute does not require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, unlike some other jurisdictions, making the agreement and intent the critical elements"