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

[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.

As a witness that the TV was actually not functioning hence the need for a service call. (Actually proves guilt)
But anyone with half a brain knows you cant fix a cracked TV screen.

 

[Going Rogue]

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

Does it matter what she thought? Issuing a warranty claim for electronic equipment with physical damage is probably a lot more common than you think. Although physical damage is NOT covered under the warranty of any electronics equipment like a flat panel display, MANY times the consumer plays dumb, files a warranty claim and it goes through. Does it really surprise you the Adelson’s would attempt to file a warranty claim on a damaged display? I known the Markels wouldn’t do that but the Adelsons aren’t exactly a family that is a model of good ethical standards. The fact that they tried to get one over and file the claim NEVER surprised me… and yes, it could have been a silly alibi or simply an attempt to get a new flat panel before Wendi’s big move.

 

[Knitpicker]

Does it matter what she thought? Issuing a warranty claim for electronic equipment with physical damage is probably a lot more common than you think. Although physical damage is NOT covered under the warranty of any electronics equipment like a flat panel display, MANY times the consumer plays dumb, files a warranty claim and it goes through. Does it really surprise you the Adelson’s would attempt to file a warranty claim on a damaged display? I known the Markels wouldn’t do that but the Adelsons aren’t exactly a family that is a model of good ethical standards. The fact that they tried to get one over and file the claim NEVER surprised me… and yes, it could have been a silly alibi or simply an attempt to get a new flat panel before Wendi’s big move.

She said it wasn’t under warranty. And that she paid for the service call.

Your comment about her filing a phoney claim also further proves her guilt.

Best Buy ( or The Geek Squad) isn’t stupid enough to cover an uncovered unfixable TV screen, just because someone thinks their techs are stupid enough fall for someone who attempted to TRY and claim the TV had been under a warranted damage. They would know when they got there what the deal was (And they did!)

I don’t buy your theory. But keep trying!

They were going to throw away 13K a month on that ICON blue tinted windows-can’t see a thing out of them-luxury condo.
I think they would have replaced the broken TV June 11th when “someone” threw something at it.

If Donna really loved her grandsons, she would have replaced the TV THAT day.
Would she really want her sunshine’s suffering?

 

[Going Rogue]

She said it wasn’t under warranty. And that she paid for the service call.

Your comment about her filing a phoney claim also further proves her guilt.

Best Buy ( or The Geek Squad) isn’t stupid enough to cover an uncovered unfixable TV screen, just because someone thinks their techs are stupid enough fall for someone who attempted to TRY and claim the TV had been under a warranted damage. They would know when they got there what the deal was (And they did!)

I don’t buy your theory. But keep trying!

They were going to throw away 13K a month on that ICON blue tinted windows-can’t see a thing out of them-luxury condo.
I think they would have replaced the broken TV June 11th when “someone” threw something at it.

If Donna really loved her grandsons, she would have replaced the TV THAT day.
Would she really want her sunshine’s suffering?

Yes, in one of the trials Cappleman asked her “who paid for service call’ and Wendi likely misspoke and said “I did”. Where was it ever stated it wasn’t under warranty? Physical damage wasn’t covered under the warranty, but the display (as far as I know) was under the extended warranty – per court testimony.

Okay, a phony claim proves guilt? Good thing you aren’t a prosecutor

As I said, it shouldn’t be a surprise the Adelson’s attempted to file a warranty claim for a display that had physical damage.

If Donna really loved he grandsons, she wouldn't have murdered their father.

 

[Knitpicker]

“If Donna really loved he grandsons, she wouldn't have murdered their father.“

We finally agree
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

 

[Wishbone]

Yes, in one of the trials Cappleman asked her “who paid for service call’ and Wendi likely misspoke and said “I did”. Where was it ever stated it wasn’t under warranty? Physical damage wasn’t covered under the warranty, but the display (as far as I know) was under the extended warranty – per court testimony.

Okay, a phony claim proves guilt? Good thing you aren’t a prosecutor

As I said, it shouldn’t be a surprise the Adelson’s attempted to file a warranty claim for a display that had physical damage.

If Donna really loved he grandsons, she wouldn't have murdered their father.

As this relates to WA and her saying "I did"....to coin a phrase by Tony Montana from the movie Scarface... "I always tell the truth even when I lie"

 

[BearWatcher]

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)

My memory, during Donna's trial it came up that she rented the apartment for Wendi using Donna's maiden name. The statement I have heard is that Dan did not see his sons for several weeks until it would agree to several stipulations under this duress. I don't recall if this came up in a specific trial.

 

[Wishbone]

My memory, during Donna's trial it came up that she rented the apartment for Wendi using Donna's maiden name. The statement I have heard is that Dan did not see his sons for several weeks until it would agree to several stipulations under this duress. I don't recall if this came up in a specific trial.

I believe you are correct

The pair separated in 2012 after Wendi took their children to her parents' house in South Florida while Dan was away on a business trip, per ABC.

Was Wendi Adelson Involved in the Murder-for-Hire Plot of Her Ex-Husband? Inside Dan Markel's Killing — and Where She Is Now

Wendi Adelson's ex-husband, Dan Markel, was murdered in his home in July 2014. Here’s everything to know about Wendi Adelson, who has been called a 'conspirator' in Dan Markel’s murder.

people.com

 

[Knitpicker]

My memory, during Donna's trial it came up that she rented the apartment for Wendi using Donna's maiden name. The statement I have heard is that Dan did not see his sons for several weeks until it would agree to several stipulations under this duress. I don't recall if this came up in a specific trial.

Ok Thanks. Yes the apartment came up -that slipped my mind.
I was more focused on whether she was in Miami those 2 weeks after she left the papers.
There have been a few accounts of what happened but I clearly remembered Wendi saying on the stand “he saw them the next day”.
So then that isn’t true right? Now I will have to find it in her testimony!
Thanks !

 

[Knitpicker]

I believe you are correct

The pair separated in 2012 after Wendi took their children to her parents' house in South Florida while Dan was away on a business trip, per ABC.

Was Wendi Adelson Involved in the Murder-for-Hire Plot of Her Ex-Husband? Inside Dan Markel's Killing — and Where She Is Now

Wendi Adelson's ex-husband, Dan Markel, was murdered in his home in July 2014. Here’s everything to know about Wendi Adelson, who has been called a 'conspirator' in Dan Markel’s murder.

people.com

Yes thats what I thought- however at the last trial (I think!) when Georgia said that Dan did not know where the kids were, Wendi aggressively replied “He saw them the next day”. That is what confused me

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, in one of the trials Cappleman asked her “who paid for service call’ and Wendi likely misspoke and said “I did”. Where was it ever stated it wasn’t under warranty? Physical damage wasn’t covered under the warranty, but the display (as far as I know) was under the extended warranty – per court testimony.

Okay, a phony claim proves guilt? Good thing you aren’t a prosecutor

As I said, it shouldn’t be a surprise the Adelson’s attempted to file a warranty claim for a display that had physical damage.

If Donna really loved he grandsons, she wouldn't have murdered their father.

Would you be willing to listen to “Untold true crime files” channel- title “How Wendi Adelson incriminated herslef at Donna Adelsons trial”-6 days ago?
I think you would like the presentation style.

 

[Weki]

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

Right!

It's a mistake to look at all the previous trials and assume that the state will be able to sail through at a Wendi trial. Those other lawyers didn't have much to work with. Fulford was so desperate she went after Rob Adelson! Donna and Charlie basically convicted themselves due to their inability to STOP TALKING. Like I said previously, as far as we know, Wendi's voice will not be heard on any wire taps in that courtroom. Zero evidence of her paying money to anybody. These are the two major elements that convicted the others. JMO

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, in one of the trials Cappleman asked her “who paid for service call’ and Wendi likely misspoke and said “I did”. Where was it ever stated it wasn’t under warranty? Physical damage wasn’t covered under the warranty, but the display (as far as I know) was under the extended warranty – per court testimony.

Okay, a phony claim proves guilt? Good thing you aren’t a prosecutor

As I said, it shouldn’t be a surprise the Adelson’s attempted to file a warranty claim for a display that had physical damage.

If Donna really loved he grandsons, she wouldn't have murdered their father.

Does it bother you that at previous trials Wendi said the TV was “cracked” and in Donnas trial she said one of the boys “touched” it?
Charlie told Georgia “You’d have to ask Lincoln” he suggested Lincoln threw a remote control at it.

Someone else said a toy was thrown at it (No patience to look up who and at what trial)

Jeffrey said it looked like someone punched it.

Wendy going from “a crack” to a “touch”. Not sus?

 

[Zedzded]

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.

it did become low hanging fruit. I think Steinbeck said it was 40 minutes out of her way, which is a great exaggeration. It was a detour, a longer route, but not by much, I will concede that. I too take longer routes, but as you said State witnesses did a good job of painting the picture of a circuitous route. It's an easy sell to the jury. That's what is important. What the jury believes or is led to believe. Once GC lays everything out on the table, details her route, why it was illogical and then goes through all of WA's lies about her trip, the jury are not going to believe WA wasn't doing a drive by.

 

[Zedzded]

I'm not sure where her getting lost comes from?

One of WA's excuses as to why she went to a distant liquor store - "she's very bad with directions."

 

[Zedzded]

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

So like if you were planning on robbing a bank and "scoping out the joint" the day before, you could cite case law and not get charged with bank robbery?

 

[Going Rogue]

Would you be willing to listen to “Untold true crime files” channel- title “How Wendi Adelson incriminated herslef at Donna Adelsons trial”-6 days ago?
I think you would like the presentation style.

I watched it a few days ago, and my thought was they failed to explain how “Wendi Adelson Incriminated Herself” – which was in the title of the video. I also posted their other video in to another forum that I won’t mention by name -”The Case Against Wendi Adelson: Why She Hasn’t Been Charged”. Which I think they hit the mark… meaning the content was presented in a way the matched the title. IMO, the one you referenced is more clickbait because it didn’t prove at all how Wendi incriminated herself in my opinion.. If I missed something, let me know.

 

[Zedzded]

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?

I don't think you can accuse me of confirmation bias. I calculated the route to be a significant delay, you calculated it to be much shorter, I rechecked and told you, you were indeed correct, through gritted teeth lol. I look at the information objectively hence the reason my opinions often vacillate hence the reason I went from strongly believing in this 2 trip theory, back to it only being 1 trip (most likely).

I try and look at the evidence from a jury members perspective. What are they most likely going to believe? What is the narrative the State will try and spin and how successful will it be? WA's trip to Trescott has many issues associated with it. It's not as simple as the defence successfully proving that it was a shortcut or a route she often took. It's everything else connected to the trip. 20+ things that can be argued in isolation but put them altogether and its incriminating.

Even if the jury accept her belief that a tree and fallen in a storm (on a calm summers day) they will most likely take issue with the fact WA did not call anyone about the multitude of emergency vehicles parked outside/near her ex's house where her kids were staying. She didn't speak to LE, didn't speak to Dan, didn't phone daycare. The jury will most likely have parents on it, they know the gig. Any parent would fly in to a panic and assume the worst, not casually drive on to the lunch with mates ignoring the fact your kids could have been harmed. Then obviously all the lies and everything else.

It's not what you believe or what I believe, it's what the jury believes.

 

[Going Rogue]

Does it bother you that at previous trials Wendi said the TV was “cracked” and in Donnas trial she said one of the boys “touched” it?
Charlie told Georgia “You’d have to ask Lincoln” he suggested Lincoln threw a remote control at it.

Someone else said a toy was thrown at it (No patience to look up who and at what trial)

Jeffrey said it looked like someone punched it.

Wendy going from “a crack” to a “touch”. Not sus?

It doesn’t bother me at all. It’s a fact the TV was broken and we will likely never know how it happened. If I were to bet, it’s probably true that one of the boys threw something at it – that is a VERY common household accident in homes w/ with young kids. I laughed my a$$ off reading some of the past comments (in other places) where people agreed with Lacasse when he gave his ‘expert’ opinion that he ‘played catch’ with the boys and he didn’t think they were capable of breaking the screen AND he didn’t see anything in the room that they could have used to break it with – really? Do you know how easy it is to break a flat panel screen? Do you really think the plan was to purposely break the screen so they can set up the BestBuy appointment as an alibi? I don’t – I think the odds are greater that Donna actually baked Dan banana bread..

Here is a video compilation of kids breaking screens - enjoy

Why are they taking it out on the tvs? : r/KidsAreFuckingStupid

 

[Zedzded]

Does it matter what she thought? Issuing a warranty claim for electronic equipment with physical damage is probably a lot more common than you think. Although physical damage is NOT covered under the warranty of any electronics equipment like a flat panel display, MANY times the consumer plays dumb, files a warranty claim and it goes through. Does it really surprise you the Adelson’s would attempt to file a warranty claim on a damaged display? I known the Markels wouldn’t do that but the Adelsons aren’t exactly a family that is a model of good ethical standards. The fact that they tried to get one over and file the claim NEVER surprised me… and yes, it could have been a silly alibi or simply an attempt to get a new flat panel before Wendi’s big move.

In WA's defence it could have been an accidental breakage warranty. Not sure if you have those in the US. You buy a new phone for example, you can pay extra ($40/year) to have it protected against breakage i.e it's covered if you drop it. Obviously a standard manufacturers warranty does not cover this.

But if she did not have this additional cover, then it is suspicious. She's a lawyer, she's covered consumer law in university and has an understanding of how warranties work. She would know a big break on the screen would not be covered and getting a technician out would be a complete waste of time.