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

  • #821
IMO it is more than obvious that WA was the conduit on DM's movements making sure DM would be where they wanted him to be in order to murder him. Add to that her conflicting testimonies at various trials and it is clear as rain to me that she was an integral conspirator. Opinions are just that and need no justification.
 
  • #822
IMO it is more than obvious that WA was the conduit on DM's movements making sure DM would be where they wanted him to be in order to murder him. Add to that her conflicting testimonies at various trials and it is clear as rain to me that she was an integral conspirator. Opinions are just that and need no justification.

It seems more than obvious to a lot of people, yet more than 11 years after the murder Wendi has not been charged? Either it’s not so obvious to the Tally DA’s office or they don’t think the can meet the burden of proof. Even if she provided conflicting statements or inconsistent testimony in all 4 trials, that does not prove she participated in the plot. Not going to go there, but I can name more than one witness for the prosecution that provided inconsistent statements across the 4 trials. As far as Wendi being the conduit for Dan’s movements, there is absolutely no proof of this – its just one of the many assumptions being made in social media. In a capital murder case, a prosecutor needs to provide evidence based on facts not assumptions.

Can you answer how the state proves she committed an overt act, or how to they prove that she willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement in the plot to murder Dan? This question is open to anyone – maybe I’m missing something?
 
  • #823
It seems more than obvious to a lot of people, yet more than 11 years after the murder Wendi has not been charged? Either it’s not so obvious to the Tally DA’s office or they don’t think the can meet the burden of proof. Even if she provided conflicting statements or inconsistent testimony in all 4 trials, that does not prove she participated in the plot. Not going to go there, but I can name more than one witness for the prosecution that provided inconsistent statements across the 4 trials. As far as Wendi being the conduit for Dan’s movements, there is absolutely no proof of this – its just one of the many assumptions being made in social media. In a capital murder case, a prosecutor needs to provide evidence based on facts not assumptions.

Can you answer how the state proves she committed an overt act, or how to they prove that she willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement in the plot to murder Dan? This question is open to anyone – maybe I’m missing something?
As I stated in my post it is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
 
  • #824
As I stated in my post it is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

There are no shortage of opinions on this case. I understood it’s your opinion, and it’s fine that you’re sticking to it. No one can argue against someone else’s opinion unless it can be factually proven false or it's outlandish. Your opinion cannot be proven false, nor is it outlandish, but the state needs to present a case against Wendi and meet the criteria for conspiracy to commit murder charges. I have no problem with your opinion, bur my open question to the community remains.
 
  • #825
It speaks loudly to me that the prosecution has named WA an unindicted co-conspirator in the murder-for-hire of her ex-husband. JMOO

2024 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI - Crimes
Chapter 777 - Principal; Accessory; Attempt; Solicitation; Conspiracy
777.011 - Principal in First Degree.
Universal Citation:
FL Stat § 777.011 (2024)
Learn more
Next
777.011 Principal in first degree.—Whoever commits any criminal offense against the state, whether felony or misdemeanor, or aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures such offense to be committed, and such offense is committed or is attempted to be committed, is a principal in the first degree and may be charged, convicted, and punished as such, whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present at the commission of such offense.
History.—s. 1, ch. 57-310; s. 11, ch. 74-383; s. 1194, ch. 97-102.
Note.—Former s. 776.011.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,338
Total visitors
2,451

Forum statistics

Threads
632,764
Messages
18,631,446
Members
243,291
Latest member
lhudson
Back
Top