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

[Knitpicker]

As I understood the theory* that's been proposed, Wendi went by Trescott around noon, when she wasn't on the phone with anyone and didn't even have the phone in her car so she has no alibi during that time period. If someone saw her car at that time, it would point to her as the shooter.

However, the evidence that's been presented at trial is that she went by Trescott at 12:30-ish while she was on the phone with someone from the U.K. So even if the police hadn't yet arrived and someone spotted her car, she would still have an alibi since she obviously couldn't have shot Dan while in mid-conversation with her friend.

*And note, I never said whose theory it was or wasn't.

OK, you directed your comment to Z which is why I didnt think he should be put on the defensive or blamed lol.

We do not know the exact time she passed Trescott because unfortunately Brannon did not document when he saw the car.
When I have time (it took me awhile to find the “I know” comment from Katie this weekend), I will watch all the trials and see the different times Brannon said he thought he saw her car.

Thats really what would lay this dilemma to rest.

How did they know where she was going at 12:30? The phone pinged in the area of Dans house which is also the same area as ABC. So she could have driven right from her house to ABC right? Unless theres info that they KNOW that she was on Dans street at 12:40 or so.

The timeline fits in better with her leaving her house around 12:32 and getting to ABC around 12:43, buying the bourbon at 12:48.

I don’t know how much time it would take for her to Drive up to Dans house, turn around and then get back on Centerville. Maybe another 5 minutes…so in that respect she really would not have enough time to make that purchase at 12:48 (after spending a few minutes talking to the guy there etc.

 

[Knitpicker]

You are treating certain general statements about timeframes as if they were an exact science, when they are not. For example, Wendi said she left at noon, but the data shows she left at around 12:27pm. Based on this discrepancy, you believe she must be hiding something (like a second trip), when she was just providing a general timeframe. Minor time discrepancies are common when people recall past events, and while is isn’t always irrelevant, timeframes aren’t an exact science. For instance, in Isom’s recent interview, he said he arrived at the restaurant at 1:15pm and approached Wendi, had a brief conversation with her about the “incident,” and stated that she willingly left with him for questioning. However, it would have been impossible for Wendi to have eaten her “whole delicious lunch” by 1:15pm when we know she arrived at the restaurant after 1:00pm—correct? Isom is clearly providing an inaccurate timeline here. Was he lying to protect Wendi somehow? Obviously not, so why do you take other minor time discrepancies and build elaborate theories around them? Can you give a reason why Isom is making the claim he got to the restaurant at 1:15pm?

We aren’t talking about Isom, we are talking about Wendi, no?

Theres a lot we can say about Isom but one thing is for sure-Wendi outsmarted him.

 

[opt]

*And note, I never said whose theory it was or wasn't.

If you really want to be nitpicker, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

 

[Going Rogue]

When she said she was home in the morning until noon-those are her words not anyone else’s.
Yes it is truth that she left at 12:32 or so also. (The phone pings prove it)
So both are true statements.
Just one has been lost over time.

Wouldn’t you say that a witnesses first account is usually the correct one?

There will be no way to prove that she made a first trip prior to what has “evolved” to be her only trip at 12:32 ,so I am sure the state is one step ahead of my thinking! And the only account we have to go by is her FIRST account which was with Isom.
I believe that what she is saying is the truth. That may be the first time lol

And we will just have to wait with bated breath to see what is revealed at her trial.
Are you a betting man?

You are correct she gave an inaccurate timeline—I agree but so did Isom. Wendi’s raises a flag, but Isom’s doesn’t? Respectfully, I think you are overanalyzing this a bit. I just recently saw the clip of her initial interview–must have been in one of ML’s recent videos? She had said she left at about 12:15pm but I know she had also said around noon at some point. My point is we can't treat her timelines as an exact science.

As I have said previously, its not impossible that she made two trips, but I think its improbable. Which is why I questioned both you and Zedzded on what data/information was driving this theory. You both follow this case closely and any thoughts, ideas or theories either or you have I consider, but if it doesn’t make sense to me, I’m going to try to understand the logic behind the theory—and I don’t agree with the logic behind it.

As far as her ‘potential’ trial, my opinion hasn’t NEVER changed. I firmly believe the case isn’t strong enough to meet the burden of proof based on information that’s public. That doesn’t mean they won’t eventually charge her, but all this recent optimism after Donna trial and all the ‘NEW’ evidence, didn’t change my opinion. I think people are so thirsty to see Wendi nailed to a cross that they evaluate all and any ‘data’ with a blind vengeance.

 

[ch_13]

You are missing a little in your interpretation. She never planned a second trip, she only decided to go on the second trip because she was spotted. After she was spotted, her quick thought was to immediately go back home and get her cell phone and go back on second trip. Prior to being spotted, she had no plan to go to ABC, but because she was spotted, she used ABC as the reason for being in the area--the quick thinker she is. Also, her plan was to go home after the first trip and shower, but because she was spotted, she needed to make that second trip and that threw a wrench in the showering plans.

Does it make better sense now?

Wait now I'm really confused. I thought the theory / hypothesis / whatever was that Wendi was planning to drive by Trescott and confirm Dan's murder then go home and shower and then go to the lunch with her friends (unless the cops came by her home first). So there would always have been two trips, right? The only difference was that she wasn't originally planning on stopping by ABC.

 

[Knitpicker]

Wait now I'm really confused. I thought the theory / hypothesis / whatever was that Wendi was planning to drive by Trescott and confirm Dan's murder then go home and shower and then go to the lunch with her friends (unless the cops came by her home first). So there would always have been two trips, right? The only difference was that she wasn't originally planning on stopping by ABC.

No the ABC trip was because she had to have a reason to pass by Dans. Only after she was seen at the crime scene. If she was not seen, she would have gone home , showered and gone to lunch.

 

[ch_13]

No the ABC trip was because she had to have a reason to pass by Dans. Only after she was seen at the crime scene. If she was not seen, she would have gone home , showered and gone to lunch.

Right that's exactly what I said.

 

[Knitpicker]

If you really want to be nitpicker, it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

OK. Not sure if I came up with the word “theory”.
The important thing is whether its true

And that’s KNITpicker not nitpicker

 

[Knitpicker]

Right that's what I said.

You said “so there would always be 2 trips”. I thought you meant that she planned 2 trips originally.

I don’t think there was a plan for 2 trips. Not sure if I misunderstood that part.

 

[ch_13]

You said “so there would always be 2 trips”. I thought you meant that she planned 2 trips originally.

I don’t think there was a plan for 2 trips. Not sure if I misunderstood that part.

Trip 1- Go to Dan's house. Then return home, shower, pick up phone.

Trip 2- Go to lunch

 

[Knitpicker]

You are correct she gave an inaccurate timeline—I agree but so did Isom. Wendi’s raises a flag, but Isom’s doesn’t? Respectfully, I think you are overanalyzing this a bit. I just recently saw the clip of her initial interview–must have been in one of ML’s recent videos? She had said she left at about 12:15pm but I know she had also said around noon at some point. My point is we can't treat her timelines as an exact science.

As I have said previously, its not impossible that she made two trips, but I think its improbable. Which is why I questioned both you and Zedzded on what data/information was driving this theory. You both follow this case closely and any thoughts, ideas or theories either or you have I consider, but if it doesn’t make sense to me, I’m going to try to understand the logic behind the theory—and I don’t agree with the logic behind it.

As far as her ‘potential’ trial, my opinion hasn’t NEVER changed. I firmly believe the case isn’t strong enough to meet the burden of proof based on information that’s public. That doesn’t mean they won’t eventually charge her, but all this recent optimism after Donna trial and all the ‘NEW’ evidence, didn’t change my opinion. I think people are so thirsty to see Wendi nailed to a cross that they evaluate all and any ‘data’ with a blind vengeance.

Isom - So you tell me what time you left your house this morning.

WA: I was there- I didn’t leave this morning until NOON…Oh my god and I tried to drive up Trescott and it was blocked!

 

[Knitpicker]

Trip 1- Go to Dan's house. Then return home, shower, pick up phone.

Trip 2- Go to lunch

Yes. Not planned:
1. Pass by Dans-go home
2. Then go back down to ABC.

But thats what happened (hypothesis)

Planned
1. Drive by Dans right after he doesn’t answer her call.
2. Go home, shower go to lunch.

Think of how much more time she would have had to shower and then head over to the restaurant that was close to her house.
Interesting is that Jeannine S, an oncologist, had an office right where Centerville and Betton connected (the hospital was there). Maybe she wasn’t working that day or Wendi chose something nice closer to her house.

But yes, if she drove by Dans around 12:11 or so , she would have had over 45 minutes to go home and get ready for lunch.

Brannon sort of messed up those planes.
Of course only a “hypothesis”.

 

[Going Rogue]

Isom - So you tell me what time you left your house this morning.

WA: I was there- I didn’t leave this morning until NOON…Oh my god and I tried to drive up Trescott and it was blocked!

As I said, I am aware she said ‘noon’, but she also said I left around 12:15. It might have been shortly after she referenced the driving by Trescott? I literally just saw the clip the last couple of days.

 

[Knitpicker]

As I said, I am aware she said ‘noon’, but she also said I left around 12:15. It might have been shortly after she referenced the driving by Trescott? I literally just saw the clip the last couple of days.

I think her first answer is the right answer.

 

[Going Rogue]

Wait now I'm really confused. I thought the theory / hypothesis / whatever was that Wendi was planning to drive by Trescott and confirm Dan's murder then go home and shower and then go to the lunch with her friends (unless the cops came by her home first). So there would always have been two trips, right? The only difference was that she wasn't originally planning on stopping by ABC.

I think you have the theory correct—those that believe in this theory think there were ‘two-trips’ to the crime scene. The second trip to Trescott wasn’t planned, Wendi only decided she needed to make that second trip because she was spotted at the roadblock. Had she not been spotted, she would have gone home taken her shower and then left for lunch taking a route nowhere near the crime scene.

FYI, there was some slight sarcasm in my other post asking if it made sense

 

[Knitpicker]

I think you have the theory correct—those that believe in this theory think there were ‘two-trips’ to the crime scene. The second trip to Trescott wasn’t planned, Wendi only decided she needed to make that second trip because she was spotted at the roadblock. Had she not been spotted, she would have gone home taken her shower and then left for lunch taking a route nowhere near the crime scene.

FYI, there was some slight sarcasm in my other post asking if it made sense

The second trip was NOT to Trescott. It was to ABC. Stop confusing everyone

 

[Going Rogue]

The second trip was NOT to Trescott. It was to ABC. Stop confusing everyone

I heard Officer Brennan gave the Tallahassee Democrat an interview after his latest testimony and said he thinks he spotted her twice… First time she just kept going straight and the second time she did a k-turn. Can’t wait till Wendi’s trial

 

[Zedzded]

No the ABC trip was because she had to have a reason to pass by Dans. Only after she was seen at the crime scene. If she was not seen, she would have gone home , showered and gone to lunch.

Well ABC only came about because she saw the cops.
I think CH_13 understands it like I do.

Check on Dan's house, U turn, go home shower lunch. No ABC liquor.

The police presence changed everything. Suddenly she had to try and alibi herself.

 

[Zedzded]

It’s my theory not Zedzded’s.
.

It was actually a theory I was discussing with someone on Reddit, but anyway!

I'm still not 100% sold on it. I vacillate back and forth. It does make sense and it's that no phone activity for 45mins that gets me going.. something was going on at that time.

2nd trip does mean she gets to ABC Liquor store around 12.40pm as her phone pinged on Centreville at 12.35pm. This means she would have sat in her car on the phone for 7 mins then gone in to the shop. It also means this fits in nicely with a trip up Trescott supporting the 1 trip theory. i.e Her phone data

 

[Zedzded]

12.31 phone pings leaving Aqua Ridge
12.35 pings junction Centreville and Capital.
Direct to ABC is 7 mins which gets her there for 12.42pm
To Trescott from Centreville and Capital. is 6 mins. So if she goes there it's 12.41pm when she does the U turn
From Trescott to ABC is another 6 mins which gets her there for exactly 12.47pm which is when she ends the call.

So I think I'm leaning towards one trip. Or if there was two trips she went to Trescott twice which would be nuts. Maybe she went up there the 1st time, just saw Dan's car in the drive, was panicking, didn't want to get a closer look drove home. Realised she needed confirmation he was dead and drove up a 2nd time for a "closer" look?

But 1 trip is now IMO the more likely.