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

[Zedzded]

because proving she had knowledge,

proving she had knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

An important caveat. Where is the "proof" WA made the statement to JL about hiring a hitman? You are looking for a voice recording yeah? The "proof" is the surrounding circumstantial evidence that supports that statement otherwise witness testimony, people's words, are meaningless unless recorded. LR is a murdererer, criminal and liar. But even the courts accepted his word, because his statements were able to be supported by other evidence.

 

[Going Rogue]

We will get more information or should I say hints perhaps when Georgia is interviewed on STS after Donnas sentencing.
It was surprising she would do an interview but she did one 3 years ago there.
I guess she trusts Joel.

I don’t think trust has anything to do with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Georgia asked the Markels which podcast they prefer she do an interview on - Joel has a good rapport with Phil, so I’d bet STS got the Markel nod. I’d be surprised if the pre-interview ground rules aren’t laid out, but even if they aren’t, Georgia will make it clear that the investigation is still open and she can’t comment on Wendi or Harvey. Don’t expect her to say anything meaningful about Wendi or Harvey. Even though she won’t say anything significant about them, I’m sure new theories and hype will result from anything she says—that’s how this goes. For example, if she says, “I can’t comment on Wendi because the investigation is still open,” it will be interpreted as her not being able to say anything because they are about to arrest Wendi next week!

 

[Going Rogue]

The drive to the crime scene is the overt act that demonstrates WA was part of the conspiracy. Case law supports this. Australian case and not a like for like comparison, but NSW v Rubasha. The perpetrator was convicted of guilty of conspiracy to rob while armed. All he did was scope out a house he was planning to rob. He didn't plan to rob it on that day. He participated in an act that furthered the conspiracy. There are similar US cases, a bank robber in Florida was convicted in a similar fashion. Both these cases I suppose they could argue they had not committed a crime, they were just driving, vis-à-vis WA's drive.

However, its what the jury believes to be the case. It's not going to be hard for the State to show that WA's drive was to check out the crime scene. Ultimately she lied about it, which destroys any kind of legitimacy about her shortcut. So if hypothetically she knew Dan had been shot and drove to the crime scene, that's still not part of a conspiracy. But then the volume of communication between her co-conspirators on the day of the murder, plus all the other evidence including statements to JL confirm beyond a reasonable doubt she knew CA had planned to kill Dan.

Her act of driving to the crime scene to confirm Dan's death is conspiratorial, as it constitutes the final step in executing the crime and ensuring its completion.

Note you are using words such as proof, evidence, willingly - looking for the proverbial smoking gun. There isn't one. There is no text from WA to CA saying "I am now driving up to the crime scene to make sure the hitmen we all hired did their job and killed Dan."

Trescott is supported by other seemingly inconsequential evidence that all support and strengthen one another. e.g You and others often dismiss the validity of JL's statement, but it should be considered with all the other evidence. Similarly with her phone call with CA. He is her beloved brother, they often spoke on the phone, it means nothing her lawyer would argue. Except the phone call was purported to discuss a broken TV, it went for 18 minutes, it happened 45mins(?) before the murder and the call was to a convicted co-conspirator.

A jury is not going to believe the call was about a broken TV.....

Her drive to the crime scene is not an overt act EVEN is she knew the murder was happening. What case law supports your statement? If she drove there as part of the plan to confirm back to S. FL that the hit was indeed done, then that would be a clear overt act. Charlie seemed very surprised Wendi drove to the crime scene… do you really think that was part of the plan?

 

[Going Rogue]

proving she had knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

An important caveat. Where is the "proof" WA made the statement to JL about hiring a hitman? You are looking for a voice recording yeah? The "proof" is the surrounding circumstantial evidence that supports that statement otherwise witness testimony, people's words, are meaningless unless recorded. LR is a murdererer, criminal and liar. But even the courts accepted his word, because his statements were able to be supported by other evidence.

Not sure what your point is here? If Wendi told Jeff the ‘chilling’ version of the hitman story which was a past event (the prior year) – that doesn’t prove she had knowledge of the ACTIVE plans to murder Dan. It’s actually a good argument she didn’t know about the active plans unless you believe the reverse psychology theory – why would she tell Jeff this if she along with her family were plotting this? The fact that she (allegedly) told this to Jeff could VERY likely mean that Wendi was worried something was brewing and didn’t know how to deal with it. That could be why she confided in Jeff – who by his own admission, changed the subject because he was more worried about ‘the relationship stuff’.

 

[Zedzded]

Not sure what your point is here? If Wendi told Jeff the ‘chilling’ version of the hitman story which was a past event (the prior year) – that doesn’t prove she had knowledge of the ACTIVE plans to murder Dan. It’s actually a good argument she didn’t know about the active plans unless you believe the reverse psychology theory – why would she tell Jeff this if she along with her family were plotting this? The fact that she (allegedly) told this to Jeff could VERY likely mean that Wendi was worried something was brewing and didn’t know how to deal with it. That could be why she confided in Jeff – who by his own admission, changed the subject because he was more worried about ‘the relationship stuff’.

July 14 - WA - JL "My brother had considered hiring hitmen to kill Dan:
July 18 - WA phones convicted co-conspirator CA for 18 minutes 45 mins prior to Dan being shot
July 18 - WA drives to the crime scene 1 hour after Dan is shot

 

[Zedzded]

Her drive to the crime scene is not an overt act EVEN is she knew the murder was happening. What case law supports your statement? If she drove there as part of the plan to confirm back to S. FL that the hit was indeed done, then that would be a clear overt act. Charlie seemed very surprised Wendi drove to the crime scene… do you really think that was part of the plan?

She does not need to contact any of her co-conspirators. If she was part of the conspiracy and drove to the crime scene to confirm that Dan had been shot that will suffice.

An overt act is "a physical action taken by one or more parties to the agreement to further or advance the criminal plan." Confirming a crime has been completed is a stage in a crime, it advances the criminal plan. Often co-conspirators are NOT contacted after a drive by has been done as this was alert authorities. Often its planned that someone will drive to the crime scene for confirmation and will only contact their fellow co-conspirators if there is an issue. Silence = job done. No contact needed.

There's plenty of case law, but you will be needing an example that matches WA's scenario perfectly otherwise you will just say I'm comparing apples with oranges. Lots of bank robbery cases where suspects have done drive bys - and that is enough to charge with attempted bank robbery. No proof.

 

[Zedzded]

Wendi was worried something was brewing and didn’t know how to deal with it.

And that's fine. I'm sure she was very concerned about it, but unfortunately for her she should have conveyed these fears to the police. This is why the police often say you're a witness at the moment, don't become a suspect. So either tell the truth or STFU and get a lawyer. WA suspecting CA, but not articulating those fears to the police is an issue for her.

 

[Luna20]

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.

Do you mean the Festival of lights?

 

[Luna20]

We also don’t know if she was tapped at any time for the last decade. They could have that evidence on her.

 

[Zedzded]

Charlie seemed very surprised Wendi drove to the crime scene… do you really think that was part of the plan?

It did not need to be part of their plan. Her driving to the crime scene was her choice and most likely done behind the back of her fellow conspirators. But people in a conspiracy do things together and do things by themselves with or without the knowledge of others. What is important is does that action constitute an overt act that gives furtherance to the crime?

Lets say 4 people decide to rob a bank on a Saturday at 9am. On the Friday the getaway driver does a drive-by to scope out the area to make sure he knows the route. He doesn't tell his co-conspirators he is doing this. This is still an overt act. Even if he decides to not be the getaway driver, it is too late, he has committed a crime.

I can't make it much more simpler!

 

[Going Rogue]

It did not need to be part of their plan. Her driving to the crime scene was her choice and most likely done behind the back of her fellow conspirators. But people in a conspiracy do things together and do things by themselves with or without the knowledge of others. What is important is does that action constitute an overt act that gives furtherance to the crime?

Lets say 4 people decide to rob a bank on a Saturday at 9am. On the Friday the getaway driver does a drive-by to scope out the area to make sure he knows the route. He doesn't tell his co-conspirators he is doing this. This is still an overt act. Even if he decides to not be the getaway driver, it is too late, he has committed a crime.

I can't make it much more simpler!

In your example, once the four people decided to rob a bank, all four were part of the conspiracy, and all four are guilty. The getaway driver was part of the conspiracy as soon as he agreed to rob the bank with the others. He didn’t need to do the dry run the day before to be considered guilty – entering the agreement is all that was required. That said, they would still need to prove that he and the others entered into an agreement to rob the bank.

Tying it back to the Wendi, the flaw in your argument is that we have no proof Wendi entered into the conspiracy or agreed to be involved in any part of the plans to murder Dan. Even if she had knowledge that it was happening, that does not meet the criteria for entering into a conspiratorial agreement. Her attempt to drive down Trescott does not prove she was part of the conspiracy, nor is it an overt act. As I said earlier, if they can prove the plan was for her to go there and communicate to someone in South Florida that the job was done, that would be a clear overt act. There is no such proof.

You keep making arguments based on how you envision things in your mind’s eye, often blurring the lines between what is factual and what is assumption. The state cannot prove any elements that establish Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement. If they could, she would have been arrested LONG ago. You seem so convinced Wendi is guilty that the facts don’t matter – you insist her drive to the crime scene was an act in furtherance of the conspiracy when there is no proof of that.