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

[opt]

Losing first and last months security (rent) would not have been a problem for Donna I am sure.
Getting Wendi back down to S Florida..She was willing to bribe Dan with 1 million.
6K is loose change,

Paying for a return ticket from Vietnam would also have been no problem. Once a penny pincher, always a penny pincher.

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe one of her friends said in police interview that Wendi had dropped off some of the boys' outgrown clothing to her house the night before the shooting too.

Right. The friend who had a bladder procedure-and Wendi bought her chicken soup. Ryan I think is the name but don’t quote me lol.

 

[Knitpicker]

Paying for a return ticket from Vietnam would also have been no problem. Once a penny pincher, always a penny pincher.

I know wealthy people. It’s surprising what they choose to be cheap about, and what they throw money away on.
We don’t know the terms of that rental.
Since there was to be an attempt around June 4th, it could be she was on month to month in July?

 

[Wishbone]

Just a guess, but I don't expect WA to be arrested until DA is officially sentenced and as of right now a date for that has not been set. A case management hearing is for October 14

 

[Zedzded]

I believe one of her friends said in police interview that Wendi had dropped off some of the boys' outgrown clothing to her house the night before the shooting too.

Correct.

 

[Going Rogue]

The State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WA drove down Trescott to confirm DanM had been shot yeah? Cos if you're still maintaining she got lost or was taking a shortcut there's no point debating this.

I'm not sure where her getting lost comes from? Regarding Trescott being a shortcut, if you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the facts supporting the claim that Wendi preferred to cut through Trescott as her usual route to points south of the Trescott home, you are not looking at this objectively. I often attribute this to confirmation bias. Isn’t it a fact that Jeff Lacasse literally said in his police interview that he passed Dan’s house hundreds of times because Trescott is a shortcut? Didn’t Jeff also say under cross-examination that he and Wendi traveled that route together on at least three separate occasions, specifically mentioning the trip to Gainesville a month before the murder when they took Trescott? What I’m giving you is all fact – not assumptions. Why does no one ever mention that Jeff also considers Trescott a shortcut? Another local, Mentour Lawyer, also said Trescott is a route he often takes and that it can be considered a shortcut. Yet, in all forums discussing this case, it’s claimed not to be a shortcut? Additionally, Carl S. constantly claims the extra 4.1 miles Wendi traveled to go to ABC was 40 minutes out of her way – when it likely added only 6 to 9 minutes to her route. Sorry, but there is a complete failure to examine the facts objectively in social media. My statement doesn’t mean I’m claiming Wendi is innocent, but, by and large, in social media the way certain details about the case against Wendi is analyzed is heavily biased – the Treccott shortcut is a great example. As I outlined, the facts support its was her preferred route and it can be considered a shortcut – Per Jeff Lacasse (not me)..

Respectfully, if you think it’s not worth debating because I refuse to acknowledge that Trescott is not a shortcut, I’m at a loss for words. If you want to debate whether her being in the area on the afternoon of the shooting is suspicious, I’d agree, but:

• Wendi attempting to take Trescott on the afternoon of the shooting is a fact – I 100% agree with that.​
• Wendi attempting to take Trescott on the afternoon of the shooting to confirm Dan was shot is an assumption – not a fact.​
• Tresott not being a shortcut, is a ridiculous argument that only exists in social media. Facts are that it CAN be considered a shortcut. Just ask Jeff or Mentour Lawyer - two locals that have LITERALLY said it is or CAN be considered a shortcut - Don't ask Carl ​

 

[Going Rogue]

I contend that forcing Jeff and the kids to watch the broken TV proves that she was in on the TV as alibi part of the plan.

Help me understand. Why did she need Jeff to confirm the TV was actually broken? Assuming Wendi was in on the TV alibi, I seriously don’t understand what would be the purpose of forcing him (according to Jeff) to watch TV on a broken screen? So at some future date, after the murder, he would testify that the TV was actually broken? I am struggling to understand why people make this argument.

 

[opt]

Help me understand. Why did she need Jeff to confirm the TV was actually broken? Assuming Wendi was in on the TV alibi, I seriously don’t understand what would be the purpose of forcing him (according to Jeff) to watch TV on a broken screen? So at some future date, after the murder, he would testify that the TV was actually broken?

Exactly. It needed to be memorable.

 

[Ferpo]

Sources: Donna Adelson Considering Reduced Sentence To Testify Against Her Own Daughter Wendi Adelson

Could this be correct? Donna giving up Wendi in exchange for a reduced sentence? According to this article, DA doesn’t want Harvey prosecuted and is willing to testify against her daughter to get out of jail and spend what’s left of her life with him.

Hubpages is all about getting clicks. The truth doesn't matter there.

 

[Going Rogue]

Exactly. It needed to be memorable.

Sorry, but I still don’t understand the logic behind this thought process and you aren’t the only one that has brought up this point. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Wendi didn’t need Jeff to confirm the TV was broken.

IMO, the ONLY reason the prosecution wanted Jeff to mention when he initially noticed the TV was broken was to make the point that Wendi didn’t have the TV repaired right away – it had nothing to do with forcing him to watch the movie on a broken screen so he could confirm at some future hearing that the TV was actually broken.

Maybe I’m missing something?

 

[Weki]

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 this is the type of evidence some of us were hoping/expecting to see at Donna's trial. I thought there would be evidence on a computer or planner that The Domestic Coordinator was making preparations to move Wendi prior to the murder. I guess the Adelsons were too smart for that. JMO

 

[Weki]

I'm not sure where her getting lost comes from? Regarding Trescott being a shortcut, if you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the facts supporting the claim that Wendi preferred to cut through Trescott as her usual route to points south of the Trescott home, you are not looking at this objectively. I often attribute this to confirmation bias. Isn’t it a fact that Jeff Lacasse literally said in his police interview that he passed Dan’s house hundreds of times because Trescott is a shortcut? Didn’t Jeff also say under cross-examination that he and Wendi traveled that route together on at least three separate occasions, specifically mentioning the trip to Gainesville a month before the murder when they took Trescott? What I’m giving you is all fact – not assumptions. Why does no one ever mention that Jeff also considers Trescott a shortcut? Another local, Mentour Lawyer, also said Trescott is a route he often takes and that it can be considered a shortcut. Yet, in all forums discussing this case, it’s claimed not to be a shortcut? Additionally, Carl S. constantly claims the extra 4.1 miles Wendi traveled to go to ABC was 40 minutes out of her way – when it likely added only 6 to 9 minutes to her route. Sorry, but there is a complete failure to examine the facts objectively in social media. My statement doesn’t mean I’m claiming Wendi is innocent, but, by and large, in social media the way certain details about the case against Wendi is analyzed is heavily biased – the Treccott shortcut is a great example. As I outlined, the facts support its was her preferred route and it can be considered a shortcut – Per Jeff Lacasse (not me)..

Respectfully, if you think it’s not worth debating because I refuse to acknowledge that Trescott is not a shortcut, I’m at a loss for words. If you want to debate whether her being in the area on the afternoon of the shooting is suspicious, I’d agree, but:

• Wendi attempting to take Trescott on the afternoon of the shooting is a fact – I 100% agree with that.​
• Wendi attempting to take Trescott on the afternoon of the shooting to confirm Dan was shot is an assumption – not a fact.​
• Tresott not being a shortcut, is a ridiculous argument that only exists in social media. Facts are that it CAN be considered a shortcut. Just ask Jeff or Mentour Lawyer - two locals that have LITERALLY said it is or CAN be considered a shortcut - Don't ask Carl ​

While I completely agree that the fake narratives promoted by YouTubers has warped the facts of this case, to be fair, the state has done a lot to buttress the inference that Wendi went there out of curiosity because she knew the murder was happening that day. They brought out maps and showed the distance and shorter, alternative routes to the liquor store.

 

[DustysMom]

Sorry, but I still don’t understand the logic behind this thought process and you aren’t the only one that has brought up this point. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Wendi didn’t need Jeff to confirm the TV was broken.

IMO, the ONLY reason the prosecution wanted Jeff to mention when he initially noticed the TV was broken was to make the point that Wendi didn’t have the TV repaired right away – it had nothing to do with forcing him to watch the movie on a broken screen so he could confirm at some future hearing that the TV was actually broken.

Maybe I’m missing something?

I thought she merely wanted to make sure everyone knew it was broken and needed repair. Of course, NOT being able to watch it and having to go into another room to view a movie with the boys would probably be just as memorable.
My guess is that her mindset at the time - taking care of her sons, working a full time job, dating, dealing with her Mother AND ex husband, unhappy in Tally and drinking her dinner - it all made sense to her at the time.

 

[Going Rogue]

While I completely agree that the fake narratives promoted by YouTubers has warped the facts of this case, to be fair, the state has done a lot to buttress the inference that Wendi went there out of curiosity because she knew the murder was happening that day. They brought out maps and showed the distance and shorter, alternative routes to the liquor store.

Yes, the narrative of Wendi’s long circuitous route that afternoon that no one in their right mind would ever take, started in the first trial and the state did a great job painting that picture. The way they presented it (and they did a great job) essentially became low lying fruit for the YouTube content creators. In reality, if there is ever a Wendi trial, the trip to Trescott will be a MAJOR point of contention and those that want to dismiss or ignore the facts I am presenting, will be in for an eye opening during a Wendi trial.

 

[Going Rogue]

I thought she merely wanted to make sure everyone knew it was broken and needed repair. Of course, NOT being able to watch it and having to go into another room to view a movie with the boys would probably be just as memorable.
My guess is that her mindset at the time - taking care of her sons, working a full time job, dating, dealing with her Mother AND ex husband, unhappy in Tally and drinking her dinner - it all made sense to her at the time.

If Wendi was in on the TV alibi – why did she need Jeff to verify the screen was broken? Wouldn’t the BestBuy tech verify it was broken – BTW, he did. I seriously don’t know why anyone thinks Wendi forcing Jeff (as per the way Jeff described it) and the kids to watch a movie on the cracked screen had anything to do with a reason / motive tied into the TV alibi.

 

[Cedars]

The defence won't proffer anything. Much like Fulford in DA's trial. You think WA's lawyer is going to get up and try and suggest she went up Trescott because she was bad with directions despite having lived in that area for 8+ years and on that exact street? Or try and suggest it was a shortcut despite homicide detectives using GPS technology to show it wasn't? Or try and come up with reasons why WA lied umpteen times about her trip up Trescott?

The State will present their theory on WA's drive up Trescott and the defence will just roll over meekly and admit defeat. Or try and argue and look stupid which is worse than admitting defeat.

No, the defense will cite case law to show that driving along a road is not a crime.

 

[Cedars]

Sorry, but I still don’t understand the logic behind this thought process and you aren’t the only one that has brought up this point. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Wendi didn’t need Jeff to confirm the TV was broken.

IMO, the ONLY reason the prosecution wanted Jeff to mention when he initially noticed the TV was broken was to make the point that Wendi didn’t have the TV repaired right away – it had nothing to do with forcing him to watch the movie on a broken screen so he could confirm at some future hearing that the TV was actually broken.

Maybe I’m missing something?

IMO these arguments are not logical, they are based on the causal fallacy.

To prove that Wendi must have been in on the conspiracy, we shall interpret every action we know she took as being motivated by her being in on the conspiracy, and therefore, without a doubt, she must have been in on the conspiracy.

Eg: Wendi went to lunch with her friends because she was trying to avoid police. Therefore that proves beyond a reasonable doubt she was part of the conspiracy.

"This fallacy occurs when a causal connection is assumed without proof. All too often claims to a causal connection are based on a mere correlation. The occurrence of one event after the other or the occurrence of events simultaneously is not proof of a causal connection."

Questionable Cause

www.txst.edu

ETA I want to cite an exact similar argument that has been made in the past:

"This black man walking through my neighbourhood doesn't live here, the only possible reason he could be walking along my street is because he is going to commit a crime, therefore I am justified in shooting him because I know beyond a reasonable doubt he is planning to harm me"

 

[Going Rogue]

IMO these arguments are not logical, they are based on the causal fallacy.

To prove that Wendi must have been in on the conspiracy, we shall interpret every action we know she took as being motivated by her being in on the conspiracy, and therefore, without a doubt, she must have been in on the conspiracy.

Eg: Wendi went to lunch with her friends because she was trying to avoid police. Therefore that proves beyond a reasonable doubt she was part of the conspiracy.

"This fallacy occurs when a causal connection is assumed without proof. All too often claims to a causal connection are based on a mere correlation. The occurrence of one event after the other or the occurrence of events simultaneously is not proof of a causal connection."

Questionable Cause

www.txst.edu

ETA I want to cite an exact similar argument that has been made in the past:

"This black man walking through my neighbourhood doesn't live here, the only possible reason he could be walking along my street is because he is going to commit a crime, therefore I am justified in shooting him because I know beyond a reasonable doubt he is planning to harm me"

Describing many of the theories in social media as 'causal fallacy' is an excellent observation and the examples are endless. I have said many times in the past the EVERY single action or event is so overanalyzed and thought to have some significance that is tied to the plot to murder Dan. Combine casual fallacy with confirmation bias and its easy to understand why we have 1001 indicators of guilt. It is how the human mind functions, so I understand why we have all these theories. To take it one step further (at the risk of upsetting some of the regulars here) I think one of the states KEY witnesses has fallen into the causal fallacy trap when he obsessed over every detail in his effort to review his relationship with Wendi in such meticulous detail in an effort to help the prosecution. To be clear, I have no issue with this key witness, but I think a lot of the things he recalls might be slightly inaccurate because of a phenomenon like the causal fallacy trap – its done at a subconscious level.

 

[Knitpicker]

Help me understand. Why did she need Jeff to confirm the TV was actually broken? Assuming Wendi was in on the TV alibi, I seriously don’t understand what would be the purpose of forcing him (according to Jeff) to watch TV on a broken screen? So at some future date, after the murder, he would testify that the TV was actually broken? I am struggling to understand why people make this argument.

Do you actually think Wendi thought a cracked TV screen can be fixed?

 

[Knitpicker]

Hoping someone knows the truth on this subject.
When Wendi left the divorce papers, as per the last trial she was in Miami for 2 weeks.
I remember on the stand Wendi disputing this saying that Dan saw the kids the NEXT DAY.

Previously, I had thought she stayed with a friend for a few days.
And he didn’t know where they were.
Regardless, either Wendi isn't being forthright in her story or Dan wasn’t.

Does anyone know the truth about this?
Did Dan see the kids the next day?(He did know where she and the kids were)
Was she staying local for a few days? (And he did not know where the kids were)
Was she with her family in S Florida for 2 weeks?(And he did not know where the kids were)