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

[Going Rogue]

Tomorrow, Oct 4 will be 1 month since DA’s conviction. I believe that constitutes a “few weeks”. Curiously awaiting the next step, whatever that may be.

IMO, there is a misalignment between the expectations set by all the internet pundits and the expectations that were set by the DA’s office post Donna’s conviction. Jack Campbell & Georgia Cappleman chose their words very carefully, and despite that, people interpret their words in a way that suits their wishes rather than what seems to be reality.

 

[Going Rogue]

I was looking in to how indictments for 1st degree murder work in Florida and it seems convoluted and lengthy and the State need to ensure they have their ducks in a row before going before a grand jury. If they go in unprepared because they've rushed their indictment application and its denied WA gets to walk free and most likely will never be charged. So I can see why it may take months to prepare, like a mini trial I suppose.

If a decision is made to indict someone for first-degree murder, a prosecutor should have a very high level of confidence, 95% or more, in securing a conviction. With that level of confidence, drafting a solid probable cause affidavit and presenting the case to a grand jury should be a cakewalk. That’s not to minimize the importance of having their ‘ducks in a row’, but if the case is strong enough, obtaining a grand jury indictment should not be an issue. The challenge with the case against Wendi, is what I have argued for years, it is not very strong, and meeting the burden of proof will be difficult. However, getting a grand jury to approve an indictment should not be an issue, as it is a one-sided presentation where Wendi has no representation. It's been over 11 years since Dan’s murder, if they have or had plans to indict Wendi they have had plenty of time to get their ducks in a row.

 

[Zedzded]

It's been over 11 years since Dan’s murder, if they have or had plans to indict Wendi they have had plenty of time to get their ducks in a row.

That is what is concerning me. They're not putting together a new indictment application, they've had the bulk of it on their desks for years. Some new evidence has surfaced, but it doesn't take months to amend an indictment. If she's not been arrested by October end of month then she won't be.

 

[Going Rogue]

That is what is concerning me. They're not putting together a new indictment application, they've had the bulk of it on their desks for years. Some new evidence has surfaced, but it doesn't take months to amend an indictment. If she's not been arrested by October end of month then she won't be.

I'm not sure we would know whether or not they are working on an indictment, but I agree that unless new evidence surfaces or someone flips, the prospects of an indictment seem slim if this extends past October. I've always been puzzled why so many who follow this case believe the case against Wendi is so strong. For the longest time, I've challenged people to explain what I'm missing, and I have not heard a compelling argument that changes my perspective. I've been accused of defending Wendi, being in love with her, and being on her PR team, but all I'm looking for is an explanation of how the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wendi committed an act in furtherance or willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement in the plot to murder Dan.

 

[Knitpicker]

That is what is concerning me. They're not putting together a new indictment application, they've had the bulk of it on their desks for years. Some new evidence has surfaced, but it doesn't take months to amend an indictment. If she's not been arrested by October end of month then she won't be.

She has other cases.

 

[Zedzded]

I've always been puzzled why so many who follow this case believe the case against Wendi is so strong.

Many people don't understand what is and what isn't incriminating evidence, that includes people on both sides of the fence. Maybe I don't fully understand hence the reason why I vacillate between she will and won't be charged. But I read up on the case and ways in which she can be charged and now am back believing she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, as well as soliction and murder.

DA's trial demonstrated how powerful a lot of the seemingly innocuous circumstantial evidence was. I thought a lot of it would be dismissed and it wasn't.

 

[Going Rogue]

Many people don't understand what is and what isn't incriminating evidence, that includes people on both sides of the fence. Maybe I don't fully understand hence the reason why I vacillate between she will and won't be charged. But I read up on the case and ways in which she can be charged and now am back believing she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, as well as soliction and murder.

DA's trial demonstrated how powerful a lot of the seemingly innocuous circumstantial evidence was. I thought a lot of it would be dismissed and it wasn't.

Well I would hope someone like Carl S, who was a career prosecutor and defense attorney, understands what is incriminating evidence and he has always represented the case against Wendi as so incredibly strong. I will continue to say, I think Carl influenced a lot of people. The case against Donna was very strong, the money drop, writing the checks and all her post bump activity were all that was needed, but they went above and beyond in proving the case as they should have. In the case against Wendi, there is no provable overt act or proof she willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement in the plot to murder Dan. It seems logical she had knowledge at some point, but even that isn’t a crime for first-degree murder charges.

 

[Zedzded]

I think at least 3 jury members were interviewed and it was interesting how willingly and easily they accepted the State's circumstantial evidence. Almost too easily.

 

[opt]

I think at least 3 jury members were interviewed and it was interesting how willingly and easily they accepted the State's circumstantial evidence. Almost too easily.

This is why I think the odds of conviction are higher than most experts believe. As I said, it's common sense plus a mountain of circumstantial evidence. The amount of it proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors have no problem seeing the obvious as easily as we do.