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

[Knitpicker]

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.

I went into Best Buy 3 yrs ago and spoke to the person who scheduled the service calls.
She said that the screen damage is not covered regardless of the warranty.
Wendi paid I believe 150. For the service call.
She also said there is no charge for a service call when the TV is under the warranty.
So theres a lot of loose ends here.

When There Might Be No Fee

• Free Consultation: Best Buy may offer a free consultation to diagnose a problem.
  
  
• In-Warranty Repairs: If the issue is still under the manufacturer's warranty, the repair itself may be covered without a fee, though a service call fee might still apply depending on the plan.

The divorce was final 7/31/2013.

So the TV would have still been under warranty 7/2014.(assuming Charlie bought it AFTER the divorce as stated)

It wasn’t stated exactly what the plan was so it will be interesting to see it come up.

I’d think immediately the guy would say it cant be fixed and there wouldn’t have been a charge for the service call.
Maybe it was different 11 years ago

 

[Knitpicker]

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.

Steinbeck yesterday on one of his shorts, mentioned the call from SG to KM driving back to Miami when she said “I know” and doesnt realize that call was after W left the house. He’s a bit behind on that subject.

 

[Going Rogue]

I'm not sure if you're a parent, but 99.99999% of parents upon seeing this scene would jump from their car and run screaming towards the police demanding to know what was going on. WA - casually does a "K-turn" buys booze and goes for a nice lunch date. Zero Fs given...

Yes, I’m a parent and I agree, any parent who believes their children are in danger will spring into action, but Wendi didn’t – why? There must be a reason? Even if Wendi was involved in the plot, when she approached the roadblock, she would had the same fear: ‘are my kids okay?’. Yet she took no action to verify they were okay. Did she already know there were already safely dropped off as school? I say yes, she got an earlier call from Dan that he was about to start a class at the gym. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the kids were at preschool – because that message "about to start a class" would have been very different had they not been safely dropped off. If she wasn’t in on the plot, she still had the same understanding he kids were already at preschool – so if the roadblock was thought to be something more serious than a downed tree, she still knew he kids were at preschool. Not rocket science.

Answer to your previous post:

I think in a room of 12 jurors, after they hear all the evidence, will make the right decision based on the evidence. Why does my opinion, or yours, matter? You are asking a simple question but my response is just going to create a series of circular posts. I asked yesterday – when the defense asks the question where EXACTLY was the roadblock set up and there is no CLEAR answer and the jury is left with the impression that maybe Wendi didn’t see Dan’s house – does that change anything? Also if you approach a roadblock at a bend in the road (there is a CLEAR bend at the 4th & 5th house) and you think a tree has fallen BUT you can’t see around the bend you wont see the fallen tree.

 

[Going Rogue]

This has been discussed in the past here.
The issue is not whether Trescott is a shortcut to ABC, the issue is that she went out of her way to ABC AND passed the house, when she was short on time and could have gotten the bourbon where she was going to have lunch a SHORT distance from her home.
Why would anyone make a 25 minute loop out of their way when they can buy something in a center they are going to be at? It makes no sense, So its not about Trescott being a shortcut.

Her answer to this on the stand ..”Because it was the first one that CAME UP”(or POPPED up)
What does that mean?

So if she needed the Google search ,(popped up as in showed on her search), then it wasn’t that she was familiar with this particular store. You can’t have it both ways.

People have defended her by saying it was the one she was familiar with, living in that neighborhood.

But SHE HERSELF never said that!

I am no lawyer, it is about “Just use your common sense”!

Yes, it been discussed the past, and, in my personal experience, most look at the Trescott trip in a very damming way and the theories and misinformation about the trip are astounding to me.

Let start with an easy one – Trescott can 100% can be considered a shortcut and it it seems to have been Wendi’s way of going to points south of the Trescott home. The fact that you are saying that the issue is NOT whether it’s a shortcut is not consistent with the views of 95% of those that follow this case, but I’m glad you said that – maybe you can tell the others?

Your 25-minute out of the way comment is MUCH better than Carl’s 40-minutes out of the way, but you are still way off. I have probably mentioned this DOZENS of times and it falls on deaf ears. The DIFFERENCE in mileage between the route she took (Home – ABC – Lunch) and the ‘preferred’ route (Home – Market Square Liquors – Lunch) was slightly more than 4 miles! That is a FACT and anyone can look up in 5 minutes. What is an extra 4 miles – between 6 to 9 minutes? Why is the narrative in social media that she drove this incredibly long ‘circuitous route’ that was so far out of the way? It’s MAJOR exaggeration and most don’t agree with you that Trescott not being a shortcut is NOT an issue – you are in the minority w/ me on that.

It doesn’t matter that she said ‘it popped up’ – many that analyze this case have a habit of microanalyzing EVERY word and action as if the is always some hidden meaning or clue in ever single statement or action. When she first testified she 100% knew that the trip to Trescott was under the microscope and she would need to address it – so YES, that was a sort of a prepared comment and MANY other comments and statements she made were well-thought out because she already knew about 99% of what was going to be asked and addressed under direct examination. She was WELL prepared. Maybe the fact that she decided to make the purchase at ABC is BLOWN out of proportion because of what happened that day? Has that ever crossed your mind?

“People have defended her by saying” - no one is defending her by arguing logic and giving a different perspective than what the 95% in social media are saying because they are micro analyzing very single word and action (credit to user ‘Cedars’) and falling into the causal fallacy trap. Example – she said she didn’t have time to shower = she is GUILTY because anyone else would have gone to different liquor store closer to the restaurant rather than the one ‘40-minutes’ (according to Carl) away.

Her decision to go to ABC is ONLY a MAJOR talking point because it sent her in the direction of Dan’s house. There is an ABC north of the restaurant that would have made her trip longer by about the exact same distance as the route she took – would anyone be questioning her decision to go the ABC north of the restaurant rather than Market Square if she went to that one? Absolutely not, as I said its only a MAJOR issue for her because Dan was murdered that day and it placed her near the scene of the crime.

I have said this multiple times before – if the plan was to set up the BestBuy appointment as an alibi, and Wendi was in on that plan, isn’t it normal to raise the question that her decision to INTENTIONALLY drive to the crime scene is VERY bizarre and counterintuitive to what someone so intelligent (according to most) would do? So bizarre that it defies logic – is it okay to suggest that that specific action would suggest she didn’t know it was happening? Or is the “defending Wendi”?

 

[Tortoise]

Do you mean Katie?

No, I mean Wendi. Wendi called Donna from the police station. I'm surmising that Donna knew already (from Wendi's drive by the house), because by the time the call with Wendi ended, she wouldn't have had time to wash the money and pack and leave to take the money to Charlie's. Donna wouldn't have taken the money to Charlie based on the killers telling Katie that it was done, Charlie would have needed confirmation from Wendi that it had indeed been done.

It's not the fact of when Charlie gave the money to Katie that matters, it's that the money train was already set in motion when Donna left Miami.

 

[Going Rogue]

I will attest that it takes much longer to cook Old Fashioned Oats than grits…Now I know where Wendi got the idea from. Lol.

It's been so long since I saw that movie – I forgot, was the getaway car a 2008 Prius? Funny how they were driving a car and the actual killer pulled up to the gas station after they left in a similar car. Maybe Charlie and Wendi's idea to set up Lacasse by renting a similar car as Jeff was inspired by this movie? I think Wendi went off script when she said she we stirring her oatmeal – I think she was supposed to say she was making grits.

 

[Knitpicker]

It's been so long since I saw that movie – I forgot, was the getaway car a 2008 Prius? Funny how they were driving a car and the actual killer pulled up to the gas station after they left in a similar car. Maybe Charlie and Wendi's idea to set up Lacasse by renting a similar car as Jeff was inspired by this movie? I think Wendi went off script when she said she we stirring her oatmeal – I think she was supposed to say she was making grits.

No the whole point of the oatmeal mention was that it too SO LONG to make.

Did you notice at Donnas trail she didn’t remember if she ate breakfast?
C’mon Miss Valedictorian.

 

[Knitpicker]

No, I mean Wendi. Wendi called Donna from the police station. I'm surmising that Donna knew already (from Wendi's drive by the house), because by the time the call with Wendi ended, she wouldn't have had time to wash the money and pack and leave to take the money to Charlie's. Donna wouldn't have taken the money to Charlie based on the killers telling Katie that it was done, Charlie would have needed confirmation from Wendi that it had indeed been done.

It's not the fact of when Charlie gave the money to Katie that matters, it's that the money train was already set in motion when Donna left Miami.

Donna knew after the murder which is why she began preparing the money. They all knew.

 

[Tortoise]

Donna knew after the murder which is why she began preparing the money. They all knew.

I'm looking at evidence that can be used to lay charges against Wendi. Evidence Wendi was in the conspiracy because she communicated that it had happened before she was notified at the police station and rang Donna.

 

[Knitpicker]

Yes, it been discussed the past, and, in my personal experience, most look at the Trescott trip in a very damming way and the theories and misinformation about the trip are astounding to me.

Let start with an easy one – Trescott can 100% can be considered a shortcut and it it seems to have been Wendi’s way of going to points south of the Trescott home. The fact that you are saying that the issue is NOT whether it’s a shortcut is not consistent with the views of 95% of those that follow this case, but I’m glad you said that – maybe you can tell the others?

Your 25-minute out of the way comment is MUCH better than Carl’s 40-minutes out of the way, but you are still way off. I have probably mentioned this DOZENS of times and it falls on deaf ears. The DIFFERENCE in mileage between the route she took (Home – ABC – Lunch) and the ‘preferred’ route (Home – Market Square Liquors – Lunch) was slightly more than 4 miles! That is a FACT and anyone can look up in 5 minutes. What is an extra 4 miles – between 6 to 9 minutes? Why is the narrative in social media that she drove this incredibly long ‘circuitous route’ that was so far out of the way? It’s MAJOR exaggeration and most don’t agree with you that Trescott not being a shortcut is NOT an issue – you are in the minority w/ me on that.

It doesn’t matter that she said ‘it popped up’ – many that analyze this case have a habit of microanalyzing EVERY word and action as if the is always some hidden meaning or clue in ever single statement or action. When she first testified she 100% knew that the trip to Trescott was under the microscope and she would need to address it – so YES, that was a sort of a prepared comment and MANY other comments and statements she made were well-thought out because she already knew about 99% of what was going to be asked and addressed under direct examination. She was WELL prepared. Maybe the fact that she decided to make the purchase at ABC is BLOWN out of proportion because of what happened that day? Has that ever crossed your mind?

“People have defended her by saying” - no one is defending her by arguing logic and giving a different perspective than what the 95% in social media are saying because they are micro analyzing very single word and action (credit to user ‘Cedars’) and falling into the causal fallacy trap. Example – she said she didn’t have time to shower = she is GUILTY because anyone else would have gone to different liquor store closer to the restaurant rather than the one ‘40-minutes’ (according to Carl) away.

Her decision to go to ABC is ONLY a MAJOR talking point because it sent her in the direction of Dan’s house. There is an ABC north of the restaurant that would have made her trip longer by about the exact same distance as the route she took – would anyone be questioning her decision to go the ABC north of the restaurant rather than Market Square if she went to that one? Absolutely not, as I said its only a MAJOR issue for her because Dan was murdered that day and it placed her near the scene of the crime.

I have said this multiple times before – if the plan was to set up the BestBuy appointment as an alibi, and Wendi was in on that plan, isn’t it normal to raise the question that her decision to INTENTIONALLY drive to the crime scene is VERY bizarre and counterintuitive to what someone so intelligent (according to most) would do? So bizarre that it defies logic – is it okay to suggest that that specific action would suggest she didn’t know it was happening? Or is the “defending Wendi”?

Well that comes down to my 2 trip theory. She only went to ABC after she was seen by Brannon on Trescott

You are making a fuss over the time. Anyone would buy liquor where they plan on having lunch. And not go our of their way past the crime scene.

What is your reasoning for why she went out of her way?

 

[Knitpicker]

I'm looking at evidence that can be used to lay charges against Wendi. Evidence Wendi was in the conspiracy because she communicated that it had happened before she was notified at the police station and rang Donna.

Well yes the money was already washed by the time Wendi called her. That could have been brought up at Donnas trial but they didn’t really need it after Katie said Charlie told her the parents were there earlier and dropped off stapled money.

Not sure how that would relate to Wendi. Unless Wendi contacted Donna directly through Whatsapp and told her to get the money ready. But I think that would have been through Charlie. Wendi was needed to let them all know when Dan died.

I don’t think we have that info yet. Exactly when anyone was contacted. Or if the hospital contacted Wendi at 1 Am or so on the 19th. Or if one of the friends sitting with him or the Rabbi contacted her. At that point her parents were probably on the road, or she contacted them on their stop in Orlando bc they got there around the same time as he died.(around 1:30 AM)

 

[Niner]

@PayrollNerd -when you get time - can you see if it still a case management hearing on 10/14 or has it been changed to sentencing hearing?? TIA!
Leon County #23CF3226A for Donna

 

[Tortoise]

Well yes the money was already washed by the time Wendi called her. That could have been brought up at Donnas trial but they didn’t really need it after Katie said Charlie told her the parents were there earlier and dropped off stapled money.

Not sure how that would relate to Wendi. Unless Wendi contacted Donna directly through Whatsapp and told her to get the money ready. But I think that would have been through Charlie. Wendi was needed to let them all know when Dan died.

I don’t think we have that info yet. Exactly when anyone was contacted. Or if the hospital contacted Wendi at 1 Am or so on the 19th. Or if one of the friends sitting with him or the Rabbi contacted her. At that point her parents were probably on the road, or she contacted them on their stop in Orlando bc they got there around the same time as he died.(around 1:30 AM)

It wasn't relevant to proving Donna was in on it - the money drop was all that was relevant for her trial. But Charlie would have needed confirmation outside of the killers and Katie who was told by the killers (in case they were stitching him and Katie up), to tell Donna to start preparing the money. As I said, it's not when the money was dropped off, or given to Katie, or when Dan actually died, it was the wheels being set in motion that day to wash the money before Wendi called Donna from the police station.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well that comes down to my 2 trip theory. She only went to ABC after she was seen by Brannon on Trescott

You are making a fuss over the time. Anyone would buy liquor where they plan on having lunch. And not go our of their way past the crime scene.

What is your reasoning for why she went out of her way?

I’m not making a ‘fuss’ over the time – I’m correcting what I believe is an egregious error that continues to be spread all across social media. Is a total of 4 extra miles so significant? Its not to me, so when you ask the question -”what is your reasoning for why she went out of her way?” My answer is simple, I don’t think she went "out of her way". Her plan that morning was to make her purchase for he stock the bar party BEFORE going to lunch. It was NEVER odd to me the she decided to make her purchase at ABC. I have said MULTIPLE times ABC is the biggest chain liquor store in Florida and I have gone there personally many times while in FL. and I would choose it over any local liquor store all day long. ABC is like the Walmart of liquor stores – you know you aren’t getting ripped off. Her decision to go to ABC only seems odd to those that believe Carl Steinbeck’s narrative that she climbed Mt. Everest that morning to get to that store. Its extra 6 to 9 minutes – its that really a big deal? I say no… isn’t also a fact she had a stock the bar party to attend that evening? And yes, I know she didn’t take a shower.

 

[Knitpicker]

I’m not making a ‘fuss’ over the time – I’m correcting what I believe is an egregious error that continues to be spread all across social media. Is a total of 4 extra miles so significant? Its not to me, so when you ask the question -”what is your reasoning for why she went out of her way?” My answer is simple, I don’t think she went "out of her way". Her plan that morning was to make her purchase for he stock the bar party BEFORE going to lunch. It was NEVER odd to me the she decided to make her purchase at ABC. I have said MULTIPLE times ABC is the biggest chain liquor store in Florida and I have gone there personally many times while in FL. and I would choose it over any local liquor store all day long. ABC is like the Walmart of liquor stores – you know you aren’t getting ripped off. Her decision to go to ABC only seems odd to those that believe Carl Steinbeck’s narrative that she climbed Mt. Everest that morning to get to that store. Its extra 6 to 9 minutes – its that really a big deal? I say no… isn’t also a fact she had a stock the bar party to attend that evening? And yes, I know she didn’t take a shower.

9 minutes could have given her a quick shower.
LOL climbing Mount Everest. Thats a good one

 

[Going Rogue]

9 minutes could have given her a quick shower.
LOL climbing Mount Everest. Thats a good one

Review all the previous trials and pay close attention to Wendi’s hair. Trust me, if she takes a shower, she needs more than 9 minutes to get that rats nest under control. 9 minutes is not enough time. Now if it was 40 extra minutes as Carl continues to falsely claim, I’d understand the argument.

 

[Wishbone]

Yes, it been discussed the past, and, in my personal experience, most look at the Trescott trip in a very damming way and the theories and misinformation about the trip are astounding to me.

Let start with an easy one – Trescott can 100% can be considered a shortcut and it it seems to have been Wendi’s way of going to points south of the Trescott home. The fact that you are saying that the issue is NOT whether it’s a shortcut is not consistent with the views of 95% of those that follow this case, but I’m glad you said that – maybe you can tell the others?

Your 25-minute out of the way comment is MUCH better than Carl’s 40-minutes out of the way, but you are still way off. I have probably mentioned this DOZENS of times and it falls on deaf ears. The DIFFERENCE in mileage between the route she took (Home – ABC – Lunch) and the ‘preferred’ route (Home – Market Square Liquors – Lunch) was slightly more than 4 miles! That is a FACT and anyone can look up in 5 minutes. What is an extra 4 miles – between 6 to 9 minutes? Why is the narrative in social media that she drove this incredibly long ‘circuitous route’ that was so far out of the way? It’s MAJOR exaggeration and most don’t agree with you that Trescott not being a shortcut is NOT an issue – you are in the minority w/ me on that.

It doesn’t matter that she said ‘it popped up’ – many that analyze this case have a habit of microanalyzing EVERY word and action as if the is always some hidden meaning or clue in ever single statement or action. When she first testified she 100% knew that the trip to Trescott was under the microscope and she would need to address it – so YES, that was a sort of a prepared comment and MANY other comments and statements she made were well-thought out because she already knew about 99% of what was going to be asked and addressed under direct examination. She was WELL prepared. Maybe the fact that she decided to make the purchase at ABC is BLOWN out of proportion because of what happened that day? Has that ever crossed your mind?

“People have defended her by saying” - no one is defending her by arguing logic and giving a different perspective than what the 95% in social media are saying because they are micro analyzing very single word and action (credit to user ‘Cedars’) and falling into the causal fallacy trap. Example – she said she didn’t have time to shower = she is GUILTY because anyone else would have gone to different liquor store closer to the restaurant rather than the one ‘40-minutes’ (according to Carl) away.

Her decision to go to ABC is ONLY a MAJOR talking point because it sent her in the direction of Dan’s house. There is an ABC north of the restaurant that would have made her trip longer by about the exact same distance as the route she took – would anyone be questioning her decision to go the ABC north of the restaurant rather than Market Square if she went to that one? Absolutely not, as I said its only a MAJOR issue for her because Dan was murdered that day and it placed her near the scene of the crime.

I have said this multiple times before – if the plan was to set up the BestBuy appointment as an alibi, and Wendi was in on that plan, isn’t it normal to raise the question that her decision to INTENTIONALLY drive to the crime scene is VERY bizarre and counterintuitive to what someone so intelligent (according to most) would do? So bizarre that it defies logic – is it okay to suggest that that specific action would suggest she didn’t know it was happening? Or is the “defending Wendi”?

I just don't see anything bizarre about WA checking to see if her hit on DM had taken place. Not the smartest move to return to the scene of the crime but it happens frequently.Like CA said, she just couldn't help herself. JMOO

 

[Knitpicker]

Review all the previous trials and pay close attention to Wendi’s hair. Trust me, if she takes a shower, she needs more than 9 minutes to get that rats nest under control. 9 minutes is not enough time. Now if it was 40 extra minutes as Carl continues to falsely claim, I’d understand the argument.

Lol a messy bun takes 5 seconds. It was the hottest week of the year according to JL.

 

[opt]

Donna plans everything. She probably washed the money the day before in anticipation of the delivery.

 

[Knitpicker]

Donna plans everything. She probably washed the money the day before in anticipation of the delivery.

Some thought she washed it for the June hit. And thought it may have been damp and why it was moldy.
It takes awhile for mold to form