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

[Weki]

Purely FYI, I just came across a similar case of murder for hire in 1992 in Vancouver, this time the victim was the mother.

Her mother-in-law was convicted, as she was directly tied to hiring and paying the killers.

However neither the ex-husband/son or father-in-law/husband of the killer were charged. Many believed they could have been involved or at least known - the son likely knew most about the victim's lifestyle, but had a perfect alibi that depended on purchasing and retaining a time-stamped ticket...the wealthy father-in-law had the successful business, however there were rumours his wife had received an inheritance that might have paid for the hit.

Anyway, I guess it was pre-social media, and of course, Vancouver is a pretty laid-back place.

One big difference though, is that custody of the child was awarded to the victim's mother. The father never saw his son until, apparently, they both showed up on opposite sides at the killer's parole hearing.

So perhaps the deep desire to punish Wendi is the perception that she 'won' the custody issue and got the benefit of the hit. I can't really see, however, how the boys could have been transferred to the custody of Dan's parents.

Jelka Pesic spurs more outrage over her daughter-in-law's murder....

Alexandra Pesic’s murder in August 1992 was big news across Metro Vancouver. A beautiful young mother who had just gone through a messy divorce gunned down outside …

vancouversun.com

BBM

The bolded is spot on and I think hits at the core of the hatred against Wendi in a certain corner of YouTube.

It is interesting to me that Tim Jansen's "source" claimed there was a supposed plea deal for Donna that fits so neatly into this counter-factual narrative. In the counter-factual narrative, Wendi is the head of the snake and it would make sense for the state to let Donna walk in order to get Wendi. It's curious that Tim Jansen has now changed his tune and is apparently saying Wendi's arrest is not imminent. However, he fully rationalized this supposed plea deal and stood behind it even after it was refuted by Jack Campbell.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

Re Tim Jansen's source, lets look at it from a professional perspective. There is a small group of people that are privy to some highly sensitive and critical information pertaining to a plea deal for a murder trial. Is someone going to sacrifice their job and career by running off to tell a Youtuber what they just heard in their emergency meeting?

Or perhaps GC et al were discussing it at Starbucks and were overheard?

It's a case of Chinese whispers. Someone who knew someone that dated their brothers ex heard about the plea deal. If a plea deal was mooted, it would have been a casual suggestion in an informal setting with little weight behind it i.e it was never more than a suggestion. Someone heard it, passed it on to Tim's source and he's stated it as fact.

As I said earlier Tim is a lawyer. The very first unit you do in law school teaches you about research and the importance of verifying your source of information i.e does this information come from a credible, verifiable source, if not it gets discarded. Tim would know to fact check this "plea deal" rumour with a second person before jumping on youtube and spreading rumours like a Tiktok teenager. He was simply chasing likes.

And he's now claiming WA won't be arrested anytime soon. I'm assuming all the extremely sensitive and protected data detailing the evidence incriminating Wendi has somehow made its way to Tim's inbox?

 

[Zedzded]

BBM

The bolded is spot on and I think hits at the core of the hatred against Wendi in a certain corner of YouTube.

WA is hated because she had the father of her children murdered.

 

[Luna20]

Motion for a new trial filed by Donna Adelson, which is routine. Of course, juror misconduct is alleged based on what the jurors said and defense seeks to interview two of the jurors. This is why it's best if jurors just keep quiet. It's a nothing burger I'm sure but still.

Donna Adelson Motion for a New Trial

I wonder if she is going to adjust her legal counsel. After all Sarah Boone is on her 13th attorney.

In my opinion I think there should be a clause for jurors to not speak out until after the date for an appeal is passed. It doesn’t mean that they won’t file an appeal but the path of least resistance is better.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Donna Adelson files motion for new trial blaming judge, jurors

Attorneys for Donna Adelson asked a judge for permission to interview two jurors while accusing him of favoring the prosecution.

www.courttv.com

Less than a week after a jury found Donna Adelson guilty of masterminding the murder-for-hire that killed her former son-in-law, she has filed a motion asking for a new trial and for permission to interview two of the jurors who convicted her.

 

[opt]

I thought that to get a new trial you need to show some reasonable chance that the verdict could have been different. I don't see any basis for that possibility. Does the motion explain how she could have been acquitted?

 

[Zedzded]

A new trial would be years away. She'll be either financially broke or dead by then. Imagine if all 4 Adelsons are locked up, appealing and trying to get new trials. Their $$ would be disappearing before their eyes.

 

[Tortoise]

I thought that to get a new trial you need to show some reasonable chance that the verdict could have been different. I don't see any basis for that possibility. Does the motion explain how she could have been acquitted?

On the first degree murder count they are saying there is no evidence she did an act to assist in the commission of the crime, before the murder had happened, arguing that the money drop is obviously after the murder happened.

They seem to be ignoring the coded messages with Charlie which the jury were free to interpret as murder planning with Donna having the "ideas" -

Mar 4 – ‘I can’t talk now. BUT I’ll text u before we stop in Gainesville where I can go to the bathroom and have a moment of privacy. Then I’ll call. Please pick up because I will have very limited *alone* time today. Erase this text after u read it’.

‘We’ll stop in about 5 minutes and I can speak to u privately about dad’s birthday gift when I’m out of the car. I have some good ideas (emoji)’.

Jun 7 – three days after the failed murder trip - Charlie texts Donna ‘Ok have fun still working on dads b day present’. Donna replies ‘I know it’s a tough b’day – being 70 & all. But I know you’ll come thru (thumbs up and blowing kiss emoji) mom’.


and the fact that Donna with Harvey booked the TV repair seven days before the murder, which is setting up an alibi for Wendi and TV was the code for murder during the bump when Donna admitted it involves both of us -

and adding Wendi as a resident at the condo in May

and writing Dan's car details on her planner before the murder

and Donna having more motive than Charlie

and Donna not being curious about who committed the murder and giving wrong details about the murder (they went to his door and asked if he was Dan Markel) when the police hadn't released any details.

and telling Rob he didn't know anything anyway when he spoke to police.

(IMO)

 

[Zedzded]

"Jun 7 – three days after the failed murder trip - Charlie texts Donna ‘Ok have fun still working on dads b day present’. Donna replies ‘I know it’s a tough b’day – being 70 & all. But I know you’ll come thru (thumbs up and blowing kiss emoji) mom’.

And the present was a freaking rice dish.....

I would like them to speak to the catering company and find out when they ordered the stupid paella.

 

[Knitpicker]

"Jun 7 – three days after the failed murder trip - Charlie texts Donna ‘Ok have fun still working on dads b day present’. Donna replies ‘I know it’s a tough b’day – being 70 & all. But I know you’ll come thru (thumbs up and blowing kiss emoji) mom’.

And the present was a freaking rice dish.....

I would like them to speak to the catering company and find out when they ordered the stupid paella.

Hey you have to put value on Miami Paella. Especially made by a Paella guy.

 

[opt]

Hey you have to put value on Miami Paella. Especially made by a Paella guy.

It's killer.

 

[Knitpicker]

It's killer.

No no…digas eso!!!

 

[ch_13]

I wonder if she is going to adjust her legal counsel. After all Sarah Boone is on her 13th attorney.

In my opinion I think there should be a clause for jurors to not speak out until after the date for an appeal is passed. It doesn’t mean that they won’t file an appeal but the path of least resistance is better.

I don't get all this handwringing over having jurors give their perspectives after the trial is over. The jurors have done nothing wrong.

DA filed an appeal? So, what. That's what rich people do after they are convicted. If it hadn't been this, it would have been something else: She wasn't given enough time by the judge to decide if she wanted to testify. Or there was too little protein in the prison food. Or the ugly sweaters she wore prejudiced the jury against her. Her lawyers would have found some issue they could raise.


Edit - And, say for argument, it turns out the jurors did commit misconduct. Let's say they were reading news articles about the case and discussing them during deliberations. Then, as much as I dislike Donna, she would 100% deserve a new trial. If the point is to hide relevant info from the defense so they can't appeal, why even bother with an appeals process in the first place?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Another article on the motion.

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2025/09/16/donna-adelson-seeks-new-trial-in-dan-markel-murder-bias-judge-stephen-everett/86187176007/

State Attorney Jack Campbell told the Tallahassee Democrat he hasn't seen anything in the defense motion that would entitle Adelson to a new trial.

"As soon as I saw the jurors were talking, I knew that they would probably complain about that," Campbell said. "And we're going to continue to fight their motions for a new trial and all their defenses until the end of time."

 

[Zedzded]

I don't get all this handwringing over having jurors give their perspectives after the trial is over. The jurors have done nothing wrong.

DA filed an appeal? So, what. That's what rich people do after they are convicted. If it hadn't been this, it would have been something else: She wasn't given enough time by the judge to decide if she wanted to testify. Or there was too little protein in the prison food. Or the ugly sweaters she wore prejudiced the jury against her. Her lawyers would have found some issue they could raise.


Edit - And, say for argument, it turns out the jurors did commit misconduct. Let's say they were reading news articles about the case and discussing them during deliberations. Then, as much as I dislike Donna, she would 100% deserve a new trial. If the point is to hide relevant info from the defense so they can't appeal, why even bother with an appeals process in the first place?

It's a high profile trial and everything is magnified.

 

[Knitpicker]

Ruth Markel recent interview excerpt:

Ellin Bessner: So the prosecutor at the end of the trial, like, what’s going to happen next? Because everyone’s saying, okay, you got all of these five. What about Wendi? What about Harvey? So she said, stay tuned, right? What feelings do you have when you hear her say these things?

Ruth Markel: I think that they will make a decision in terms of how they feel about the other parties in the family. It is a murder for hire. It is a murder where we know. And even in this last trial, there was much more that was now released about, you know, certain communications pre and post the murder. This is a game of evidence. When we normally think, as people who’ve lost somebody and so forth, you think of your loss, you think of your tragedy. But the lawyers, all it is is evidence. Evidence is the mantra of the day. So they have to feel they have enough.

Ellin Bessner: But as the grandmother, if Wendi gets convicted, let’s say a hypothetical, and she goes to prison, then who’s gonna look after the boys? Something you weigh on your mind, I assume it is.

Ruth Markel: But you remember now, this is a different game, like when they were preschoolers. They’re now all 16. And similar to here, they will have a big choice. Certainly, I would run down, and I would try to bridge whatever I could. It also depends about Harvey. If the father is there and Wendi has a significant boyfriend at this point. So there are a lot of factors. But the fact really, the big picture, big, big picture is the boys have a decision. Now, I would love to say that, you know, we’ll pick them up and run away with them and so forth, but it won’t happen that way. It’s going to be a court issue with them, not us, with them being the major decision makers of what’s going to happen to them. Sad.

 

[Zedzded]

What was this about the house alarm going off? WA mentioned it in the police interview. The alarm had gone off and she assumed someone had broken in to Dan's house?

 

[Luna20]

I don't get all this handwringing over having jurors give their perspectives after the trial is over. The jurors have done nothing wrong.

DA filed an appeal? So, what. That's what rich people do after they are convicted. If it hadn't been this, it would have been something else: She wasn't given enough time by the judge to decide if she wanted to testify. Or there was too little protein in the prison food. Or the ugly sweaters she wore prejudiced the jury against her. Her lawyers would have found some issue they could raise.


Edit - And, say for argument, it turns out the jurors did commit misconduct. Let's say they were reading news articles about the case and discussing them during deliberations. Then, as much as I dislike Donna, she would 100% deserve a new trial. If the point is to hide relevant info from the defense so they can't appeal, why even bother with an appeals process in the first place?

The jurors have done nothing wrong. I just wish the protocol was different. If the defendant wants another trial and there is no evidence to support that, it’s common for them to look anywhere they can to see what they can blame it on. If no juror has spoken they can’t blame it on the juror. Leave no stone unturned.

 

[Knitpicker]

What was this about the house alarm going off? WA mentioned it in the police interview. The alarm had gone off and she assumed someone had broken in to Dan's house?

Yeah on the 17th. She kind of just threw that out there.

 

[Luna20]

Ruth Markel recent interview excerpt:

Ellin Bessner: So the prosecutor at the end of the trial, like, what’s going to happen next? Because everyone’s saying, okay, you got all of these five. What about Wendi? What about Harvey? So she said, stay tuned, right? What feelings do you have when you hear her say these things?

Ruth Markel: I think that they will make a decision in terms of how they feel about the other parties in the family. It is a murder for hire. It is a murder where we know. And even in this last trial, there was much more that was now released about, you know, certain communications pre and post the murder. This is a game of evidence. When we normally think, as people who’ve lost somebody and so forth, you think of your loss, you think of your tragedy. But the lawyers, all it is is evidence. Evidence is the mantra of the day. So they have to feel they have enough.

Ellin Bessner: But as the grandmother, if Wendi gets convicted, let’s say a hypothetical, and she goes to prison, then who’s gonna look after the boys? Something you weigh on your mind, I assume it is.

Ruth Markel: But you remember now, this is a different game, like when they were preschoolers. They’re now all 16. And similar to here, they will have a big choice. Certainly, I would run down, and I would try to bridge whatever I could. It also depends about Harvey. If the father is there and Wendi has a significant boyfriend at this point. So there are a lot of factors. But the fact really, the big picture, big, big picture is the boys have a decision. Now, I would love to say that, you know, we’ll pick them up and run away with them and so forth, but it won’t happen that way. It’s going to be a court issue with them, not us, with them being the major decision makers of what’s going to happen to them. Sad.

Wendi would be the type to marry just for that reason.