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.

 

[apeXperience]

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.

Ex post Donna’s conviction, State Attorney Campbell uttered a clear proclamation to the effect of “we will prosecute all involved”

• At least the financing of the murder of Dan Markel and the dropping of the blood money are evidence of Harvey’s involvement
• Wendi is a State labeled unindicted co-conspirator to the murder of Dan Markel, as written by ASA Cappleman in Charles Adelson's PCA
• There is no statute of limitation for murder in Florida

Therefore, Harvey and Wendi will be prosecuted. As of “when”, it could depend on “for which degree of murder charge”

 

[Florida_marlin]

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.

If you will observe the comments initiated by my comment, you will see that it served its intended purpose! Nothing like a little tongue-in-cheek provocateur to get a ball rolling. Cheers!

 

[minusfour]

Sitting in my study, black cat on my lap, quietly hoping that there will be further prosecutions.

 

[Going Rogue]

If you will observe the comments initiated by my comment, you will see that it served its intended purpose! Nothing like a little tongue-in-cheek provocateur to get a ball rolling. Cheers!

Well done! I will continue to stay tuned

 

[Going Rogue]

Ex post Donna’s conviction, State Attorney Campbell uttered a clear proclamation to the effect of “we will prosecute all involved”

• At least the financing of the murder of Dan Markel and the dropping of the blood money are evidence of Harvey’s involvement
• Wendi is a State labeled unindicted co-conspirator to the murder of Dan Markel, as written by ASA Cappleman in Charles Adelson's PCA
• There is no statute of limitation for murder in Florida

Therefore, Harvey and Wendi will be prosecuted. As of “when”, it could depend on “for which degree of murder charge”

Here is Jack Campbell’s exact quote:

“We will continue to work and make sure that every person who is responsible we can hold them accountable. Now, I can’t predict where that will lead us right now but I can guarantee you that were will not stopping looking at the evidence”.

As I said, he chose his words very carefully. It's good to know they are still looking at the evidence, but nothing in his statement suggests there will be any arrests in the immediate future, UNLESS they find something NEW, since they are "not stopping looking at the evidence.' and he “can’t predict where it will lead” them. His statement was a carefully crafted and very political response to what must be enormous amount of public pressure on him and his office to arrest Wendi.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Here is Jack Campbell’s exact quote:

“We will continue to work and make sure that every person who is responsible we can hold them accountable. Now, I can’t predict where that will lead us right now but I can guarantee you that were will not stopping looking at the evidence”.

As I said, he chose his words very carefully. It's good to know they are still looking at the evidence, but nothing in his statement suggests there will be any arrests in the immediate future, UNLESS they find something NEW, since they are "not stopping looking at the evidence.' and he “can’t predict where it will lead” them. His statement was a carefully crafted and very political response to what must be enormous amount of public pressure on him and his office to arrest Wendi.

Yes, well stated @Going Rogue …. and IMO there is absolutely no rush. None at all.

I hope that investigators and the prosecution team continue to sift through all of the evidence. And any newer revelations or realizations. Perhaps a nice golden nugget will appear. Or it will appear in a different light or context upon being re-examined. And as the others already convicted ponder their situation - maybe something else will arise and something else will be revealed.

And as @Knitpicker I believe states above, GC has other cases as well.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, well stated @Going Rogue …. and IMO there is absolutely no rush. None at all.

I hope that investigators and the prosecution team continue to sift through all of the evidence. And any newer revelations or realizations. Perhaps a nice golden nugget will appear. Or it will appear in a different light or context upon being re-examined. And as the others already convicted ponder their situation - maybe something else will arise and something else will be revealed.

And as @Knitpicker I believe states above, GC has other cases as well.

“Your brother protected you for years,” Donna Adelson wrote to Wendi in the texts, which were presented in her trial. “Now you are not guilty. Your lawyer took very good care of you.”

 

[Fromeaster]

I'm waiting until the new year for Wendi's arrest, if not then I'll retire with this case. I so dream of seeing her in handcuffs.

 

[Zedzded]

Here is Jack Campbell’s exact quote:

“We will continue to work and make sure that every person who is responsible we can hold them accountable. Now, I can’t predict where that will lead us right now but I can guarantee you that were will not stopping looking at the evidence”.

As I said, he chose his words very carefully. It's good to know they are still looking at the evidence, but nothing in his statement suggests there will be any arrests in the immediate future, UNLESS they find something NEW, since they are "not stopping looking at the evidence.' and he “can’t predict where it will lead” them. His statement was a carefully crafted and very political response to what must be enormous amount of public pressure on him and his office to arrest Wendi.

make sure that every person who is responsible we can hold them accountable.

That absolutely suggests more arrests are imminent. Campbell would be very conscious of his words, cognisant of who is listening ie the Markels, similarly with GC's post trial comments re WA. Their statements may sound casual and flippant, but Campbell is not going to infer that he will hold WA and HA accountable if he knows the cases against them are weak and arrests unlikely.

If that were the case a better statement would be "“We will continue to work the case. Now, I can’t predict where that will lead us right now but I can guarantee you that were will not stopping looking at the evidence”.

 

[Going Rogue]

make sure that every person who is responsible we can hold them accountable.

That absolutely suggests more arrests are imminent. Campbell would be very conscious of his words, cognisant of who is listening ie the Markels, similarly with GC's post trial comments re WA. Their statements may sound casual and flippant, but Campbell is not going to infer that he will hold WA and HA accountable if he knows the cases against them are weak and arrests unlikely.

If that were the case a better statement would be "“We will continue to work the case. Now, I can’t predict where that will lead us right now but I can guarantee you that were will not stopping looking at the evidence”.

I think we all agree that Jack Campbell had to say something, and the statement he gave was intentionally worded in a very strategic and careful way. You interpret it as Jack suggesting that more arrests are imminent, while I interpret it as him buying time because, currently, they do not have enough evidence to move forward and prosecute Wendi. There is nothing in Jack Campbell’s statement that he needs to walk back if there is no arrest by a certain date. The expectation he set is that they will continue to work the case and hold anyone accountable as long as they have the evidence to do so. Can you imagine if he said ~ ‘”we currently don’t have enough evidence to charge Wendi but we are still activity investigating the case?'. What would Carl say in his next livestream?

Can you, or anyone, answer the million-dollar question that is key to the case against Wendi for conspiracy to commit murder? As I keep saying, it seems logical that she had knowledge at some point, but knowledge is not sufficient for conspiracy to commit murder. What evidence do they have that she committed an overt act, or how to they prove that she willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement in the plot to murder Dan? Why is it that no one can answer that question but everyone has been predicting and expecting Wendi to be arrested after Donna’s conviction? That question shouldn't be too difficult to answer if the case against her is so strong - yet no one can answer it..

 

[Weki]

I think we all agree that Jack Campbell had to say something, and the statement he gave was intentionally worded in a very strategic and careful way. You interpret it as Jack suggesting that more arrests are imminent, while I interpret it as him buying time because, currently, they do not have enough evidence to move forward and prosecute Wendi. There is nothing in Jack Campbell’s statement that he needs to walk back if there is no arrest by a certain date. The expectation he set is that they will continue to work the case and hold anyone accountable as long as they have the evidence to do so. Can you imagine if he said ~ ‘”we currently don’t have enough evidence to charge Wendi but we are still activity investigating the case?'. What would Carl say in his next livestream?

Can you, or anyone, answer the million-dollar question that is key to the case against Wendi for conspiracy to commit murder? As I keep saying, it seems logical that she had knowledge at some point, but knowledge is not sufficient for conspiracy to commit murder. What evidence do they have that she committed an overt act, or how to they prove that she willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement in the plot to murder Dan? Why is it that no one can answer that question but everyone has been predicting and expecting Wendi to be arrested after Donna’s conviction? That question shouldn't be too difficult to answer if the case against her is so strong - yet no one can answer it..

Excuse me but have you not heard Carl’s 1001 reasons Wendi is guilty? Clearly, you’re not up on your case podcast research.

Once Georgia gets her beauty sleep Wendi will be arrested. Stay tuned!