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

[Wishbone]

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.

 

[Going Rogue]

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?

 

[Wishbone]

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.

 

[Going Rogue]

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.

 

[Wishbone]

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.

https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-777/section-777-011/

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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?

Yes, you're missing that an overt act is not necessary to prove conspiracy here - just agreement and intent. See Judge Everett's conspiracy instructions below.

Also, "It is not necessary that the agreement, conspiracy, combination, or confederation to commit first-degree murder be expressed in any particular words, or that words pass between the conspirators. It is not necessary that the defendant do any act and furtherance of the offense conspired."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[opt]

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..

One small act: forcing Jeff and the kids to watch a broken TV for no discernible reason other than to cement the TV repair alibi.

Like all the bits of circumstantial evidence it can be argued. Individually not convincing, but when aggregated very convincing.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yes, you're missing that an overt act is not necessary to prove conspiracy here - just agreement and intent. See Judge Everett's conspiracy instructions below.

Also, "It is not necessary that the agreement, conspiracy, combination, or confederation to commit first-degree murder be expressed in any particular words, or that words pass between the conspirators. It is not necessary that the defendant do any act and furtherance of the offense conspired."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I understand that an overt act is not necessary. What Judge Everett is explaining starting at the 4:35 minute mark for ‘count 2’ is essentially what constitutes a “conspiratorial agreement”. The question I’m asking is what evidence exists that Wendi EITHER committed an overt act OR entered into a conspiratorial agreement. Either would suffice for a conspiracy to commit murder charges. A conspiratorial agreement has a legal definition that goes beyond mere knowledge a crime is being committed or planned. Those who continue to say she "had to know" are likely correct, but knowledge alone is not a crime.

 

[Going Rogue]

One small act: forcing Jeff and the kids to watch a broken TV for no discernible reason other than to cement the TV repair alibi.

Like all the bits of circumstantial evidence it can be argued. Individually not convincing, but when aggregated very convincing.

I appreciate the response, but respectfully, if that's the best we can come up with, I think it underscores what I've been saying for a very long time about the weakness of the case against her

 

[DustysMom]

I appreciate the response, but respectfully, if that's the best we can come up with, I think it underscores what I've been saying for a very long time about the weakness of the case against her

What if it can be proven (through moving company receipts, receipts for moving boxes/tape/supplies, landlord communication) that Wendi arranged to move from Tallahassee prior to the murder?

 

[opt]

I appreciate the response, but respectfully, if that's the best we can come up with, I think it underscores what I've been saying for a very long time about the weakness of the case against her

The best would be a laundry list of small acts, all of which have been discussed here. The broken TV incident is a particularly unambiguous example. It's just one donut's worth, but it's clearly powdered sugar.

 

[DustysMom]

I’ve often wondered why Wendi vomited at the dinner with her brother, the celebratory dinner in Miami post murder.
She knew her family was behind the murder, so that news flash wouldn’t trigger it (IMO). My hunch is that CA told Wendi that Katie and her husband were involved. Wendi, instantly realizes that this gold digger bimbo, who is directly connected to CA will be the downfall of this murder plot.
I’m interested in hearing what everyone here thinks …

 

[LinasK]

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.

How can it be too easily? Listen to former prosecutor Kelly Siegler who has the shows Prosecuting Evil and Cold Justice- Circumstantial evidence is as strong or stronger than Direct Evidence. Most of the recent convictions on the show Cold Justice are from Circumstantial Evidence that her team discovers on Cold Cases.

 

[Going Rogue]

What if it can be proven (through moving company receipts, receipts for moving boxes/tape/supplies, landlord communication) that Wendi arranged to move from Tallahassee prior to the murder?

If they can prove any of the things you outline, it’s pretty much conclusive evidence that Wendi knew Dan was going to be murdered – it will no longer an assumption. As I stated previously, ‘knowledge’ is not a crime BUT if any of those things you outline can be proven, it’s VERY easy to charge her with perjury and accessory after the fact and easily convict her on those charges. I say easily, because proving she had knowledge, proves she lied about almost everything she testified to and covered for her family under oath. If they had any of the evidence you outline, they would likely also bundle in conspiracy to commit murder charges. Worst case scenario is they don’t get all 12 jurors to vote guilty on murder 1, BUT easily get convictions on all other charges – they can essentially lock her up for a VERY LONG time.

 

[Baba O'Riley]

What if it can be proven (through moving company receipts, receipts for moving boxes/tape/supplies, landlord communication) that Wendi arranged to move from Tallahassee prior to the murder?

I think of Jeff LaCasse's testimony -- or maybe it was during the police interview -- of the time he arrived at Wendi's, and she was pulling the children's artwork off the kitchen walls. Why? I don't think she was getting the walls painted. Too bad Jeff didn't ask her why she was doing it. In and of itself, it's not a smoking gun, and it may seem like it's minor, but it adds up with all the other strange incidents.