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

[Going Rogue]

Georgia thought brought it up as evidence. There’s a reason.
So you think she is just tugging at “heartstrings”?
Every piece of evidence to you is a “tactic”?
And “emotional manipulation”?
Your comments are a disrespect to the state and prosecutors in this case.
You were defending Dave Aronberg bc of a gun comment on STS, but you are trashing Georgia Cappelman?
Wow.

Wow, I guess you’re are still fasting – have a snickers . My comment is not disrespectful towards Georgia or the prosecution in any way and looking at it that way is simply absurd. I was highlighting it as an effective trial strategy – not as any wrongdoing or unethical tactic and yes, it is a trial strategy / tactic. Also, I wasn’t defending Dave Aronberg. but since you brought it up, I thought your comment of him was off base and that all I was trying to get across yesterday.

 

[Going Rogue]

It's a very risky strategy, but a lot better than trying to claim her whole family is innocent when two of them have been swiftly convicted.

The issue she will have is if she throws them under the bus, with all her communications with her family around the murder, it will be a hard sell to the jury she didn't know. Trying to demonstrate that she only discovered CA was involved when he was arrested will not fly.

I think the chances of her testifying are extremely slim. That said, she will not have to address what she personally thought about her family’s involvement if she doesn’t testify. Yes, the prosecution will argue that she maintained her family’s innocence throughout the previous trials, and that will work against her, but the main issue the state has is the one I keep bringing up that no one can answer – how do they prove she committed an over act or willing entered into a conspiratorial agreement? Open to anyone.

 

[Weki]

I think the chances of her testifying are extremely slim. That said, she will not have to address what she personally thought about her family’s involvement if she doesn’t testify. Yes, the prosecution will argue that she maintained her family’s innocence throughout the previous trials, and that will work against her, but the main issue the state has is the one I keep bringing up that no one can answer – how do they prove she committed an over act or willing entered into a conspiratorial agreement? Open to anyone.

I think perhaps one person’s conjecture is another’s inference and that’s where we’re all talking past each other. If you see these points you mentioned as inferences, then it’s circumstantial evidence. Carl has done a good job of stacking up a lot of assumptions and conjecture into inferences for a strong circumstantial case in his mind.

Like I said, in the harsh fluorescent light of a courtroom in front of 14-16 ppl who know nothing about this case and haven’t obsessed about it like many of us, these conjectures aka inferences will be paltry.

JMO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I think the chances of her testifying are extremely slim. That said, she will not have to address what she personally thought about her family’s involvement if she doesn’t testify. Yes, the prosecution will argue that she maintained her family’s innocence throughout the previous trials, and that will work against her, but the main issue the state has is the one I keep bringing up that no one can answer – how do they prove she committed an over act or willing entered into a conspiratorial agreement? Open to anyone.

Thank you for the thoughts…… and not directed to anyone specifically. But since an open asked question for the thread ……

Only way I could answer ….. it depends on what evidence the state or investigators might have against her. And I presume we are speaking WA? And or possibly HA?

IANAL. And can only hope that somewhere there is some perhaps new evidence, or a review of existing evidence…… combined with other information from any of the trials and investigations to date that might rise to the occasion. And/or those already prosecuted ponder their fate and circumstances and decide to say something.

Until then or that is announced, seems this is concluded for a bit. And since there is IIUC no statute of limitations to murder, time will tell. No rush IMO. I can wait until GC or anyone else from the FL state attorney’s office gives information or an update. As The Rolling Stones famously quipped in their fall 1964 song ….. ‘Time Is On My Side’*. Question might be, is it on theirs? And by that I mean…… anyone else not yet charged or prosecuted.

*Song written by Norman Meade a.k.a. Jerry Ragovoy, with additional lyrics by Jimmy Norman IIUC. MOO

 

[Going Rogue]

I think perhaps one person’s conjecture is another’s inference and that’s where we’re all talking past each other. If you see these points you mentioned as inferences, then it’s circumstantial evidence. Carl has done a good job of stacking up a lot of assumptions and conjecture into inferences for a strong circumstantial case in his mind.

Like I said, in the harsh fluorescent light of a courtroom in front of 14-16 ppl who know nothing about this case and haven’t obsessed about it like many of us, these conjectures aka inferences will be paltry.

JMO

Right, but important to note the 14-16 people sitting in front of harsh florescent light will hear a zealous defense and counterarguments to all the assumptions and conjecture and likely enough to create enough reasonable doubt or at least to make a case against her very risky. Even if the state uses Carl list as the playbook, it fails to prove she committed an over act or willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement.

 

[Going Rogue]

Thank you for the thoughts…… and not directed to anyone specifically. But since an open asked question for the thread ……

Only way I could answer ….. it depends on what evidence the state or investigators might have against her. And I presume we are speaking WA? And or possibly HA?

IANAL. And can only hope that somewhere there is some perhaps new evidence, or a review of existing evidence…… combined with other information from any of the trials and investigations to date that might rise to the occasion. And/or those already prosecuted ponder their fate and circumstances and decide to say something.

Until then or that is announced, seems this is concluded for a bit. And since there is IIUC no statute of limitations to murder, time will tell. No rush IMO. I can wait until GC or anyone else from the FL state attorney’s office gives information or an update. As The Rolling Stones famously quipped in their fall 1964 song ….. ‘Time Is On My Side’*. Question might be, is it on theirs? And by that I mean…… anyone else not yet charged or prosecuted.

*Song written by Norman Meade a.k.a. Jerry Ragovoy, with additional lyrics by Jimmy Norman IIUC. MOO

I was referring to Wendi. Also, my challenge, open to anyone, is explain how the state meets the burden of proof based on what is publicly known. I often hear the argument that we don’t know what evidence they have that wasn’t publicly disclosed and those that make that argument proceed to say (example) – “I’m sure they have more evidence that we aren’t aware of that will prove the case against her”. My simple response to that line of thinking is – “then why hasn’t she been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”? Of course ‘new’ evidence, would be a different story, but short of someone flipping, that seems unlikely at this stage.

 

[Zedzded]

WA's best option is to make a plea deal.

how do they prove she committed an over act or willing entered into a conspiratorial agreement? Open to anyone.

Been through this with you a few times. Like I said, agree to disagree.

 

[Zedzded]

My simple response to that line of thinking is – “then why hasn’t she been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”?

You could make the same claim for CA and DA.

2022 - why hasn’t Charlie been arrested more than 8 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”?

2023 why hasn’t Donna been arrested more than 9 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”?

Note new evidence has surfaced this year that has incriminated CA, DA and WA e.g drug dealers killed Dan text exchange. Plus multiple witness depositions e.g SY, RA and more.

IMO there is much more circumstantial evidence against WA than any other of the co-conspirators.

 

[Weki]

Right, but important to note the 14-16 people sitting in front of harsh florescent light will hear a zealous defense and counterarguments to all the assumptions and conjecture and likely enough to create enough reasonable doubt or at least to make a case against her very risky. Even if the state uses Carl list as the playbook, it fails to prove she committed an over act or willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement.

Yeah we need to dispense with the fantasy that because the defense lawyers so far have sucked that Wendi’s defense team will also suck. Wellllll…..the other defense lawyers sucked because they had nothing to work with. They were desperate and it showed. Any satisfactorily competent defense atty can make good hay out of the case against Wendi. Assuming we’ve seen everything, of course.

JMO

 

[Going Rogue]

You could make the same claim for CA and DA.

2022 - why hasn’t Charlie been arrested more than 8 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”?

2023 why hasn’t Donna been arrested more than 9 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”?

Note new evidence has surfaced this year that has incriminated CA, DA and WA e.g drug dealers killed Dan text exchange. Plus multiple witness depositions e.g SY, RA and more.

IMO there is much more circumstantial evidence against WA than any other of the co-conspirators.

Yes, you can make that argument, and I fully agree that the delay in Charlie's arrest is indefensible. The delay in Donna's arrest was not as bad as Charlie's, but it was arguably too late – although a case can be made that they needed more evidence. Prosecutors have an obligation to the communities they serve to pursue cases promptly to avoid undue delays which can undermine justice and erode public trust. They failed to meet this obligation in the delay in Charlie’s arrest – that’s my personal opinion. As a prosecutor, if you have enough evidence to meet he burden of proof and you don’t more forward with a formal indictment, I think a fair amount of times cases will get stronger as time passes if the state continues to work the case – so that fact more evidence had accumulated does not excuse the fact they failed to indict Charlie back in 2016. With all that said, IMO, there is no way anyone in the DA's office is protecting Wendi from arrest. Whatever ‘factors’ that existed or that played a role in the delay to arrest Charlie, do not exist in the current administration. There is no logical reason that Wendi hasn’t been arrested if the DA had the confidence their case was strong enough to meet he burden of proof.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yeah we need to dispense with the fantasy that because the defense lawyers so far have sucked that Wendi’s defense team will also suck. Wellllll…..the other defense lawyers sucked because they had nothing to work with. They were desperate and it showed. Any satisfactorily competent defense atty can make good hay out of the case against Wendi. Assuming we’ve seen everything, of course.

JMO

Yes, every case thus far has been unwinnable. I could have literally recruited a few members of this board and assembled a team that could have successfully prosecuted those cases. I agree a Wendi case will be much different.

 

[Zedzded]

Right, but important to note the 14-16 people sitting in front of harsh florescent light will hear a zealous defense and counterarguments to all the assumptions and conjecture and likely enough to create enough reasonable doubt or at least to make a case against her very risky. Even if the state uses Carl list as the playbook, it fails to prove she committed an over act or willingly entered into a conspiratorial agreement.

There is much more evidence against WA, albeit circumstantial. Whilst the evidence against DA and CA was much less, it was direct "it involves the two of us." So arguably a weaker case against WA, but paradoxically, there is much more evidence that will need plausible explanations. And as each piece of evidence is dismissed by the defence with increasingly farcical excuses, the doubt in the juries mind will grow.

We've seen in CA and more recenty DA's trial how willingly the jury will accept circumstantial evidence and will dismiss ridiculous excuses. Hence the reason I think WA will make a plea deal (if offered). If Lauro is worth his salt, he will print out the 200+ "indicators of guilt" or whatever Steinbeck referred to the as, and cross off (with WA) the ones that can defend/argue. What will remain is a significant of evidence that cannot be explained away and will pose a huge issue for WA.

 

[apeXperience]

[...] Of course ‘new’ evidence, would be a different story, but short of someone flipping, that seems unlikely at this stage.

It appears Charles Adelson has something about Filipina and other Austronesian looking women such as these pictured famous three.
A great sleuthing would be for an Austronesian looking woman to pen pal Charles, and coach him into spilling the beans on R.V. and Windy.
Else, wait and see until his appeal hits the wall, and thereafter he would spill the beans on his own volition.

 

[Weki]

Yes, you can make that argument, and I fully agree that the delay in Charlie's arrest is indefensible. The delay in Donna's arrest was not as bad as Charlie's, but it was arguably too late – although a case can be made that they needed more evidence. Prosecutors have an obligation to the communities they serve to pursue cases promptly to avoid undue delays which can undermine justice and erode public trust. They failed to meet this obligation in the delay in Charlie’s arrest – that’s my personal opinion. As a prosecutor, if you have enough evidence to meet he burden of proof and you don’t more forward with a formal indictment, I think a fair amount of times cases will get stronger as time passes if the state continues to work the case – so that fact more evidence had accumulated does not excuse the fact they failed to indict Charlie back in 2016. With all that said, IMO, there is no way anyone in the DA's office is protecting Wendi from arrest. Whatever ‘factors’ that existed or that played a role in the delay to arrest Charlie, do not exist in the current administration. There is no logical reason that Wendi hasn’t been arrested if the DA had the confidence their case was strong enough to meet he burden of proof.

The delay in Charlie’s trial was purportedly due to them needing to clean the Dolce Vita audio.

My theory and what makes sense to me is that they delayed in coming for the Adelsons because they thought Katie Magbanua had a few brain cells and would take the immunity deal. I’m sure once her jury hung that hope was renewed.

I still don’t understand why Charlie and Donna couldn’t have been tried together.

JMO

 

[Wishbone]

I was referring to Wendi. Also, my challenge, open to anyone, is explain how the state meets the burden of proof based on what is publicly known. I often hear the argument that we don’t know what evidence they have that wasn’t publicly disclosed and those that make that argument proceed to say (example) – “I’m sure they have more evidence that we aren’t aware of that will prove the case against her”. My simple response to that line of thinking is – “then why hasn’t she been arrested more than 11 years after Dan’s murder if that were the case”? Of course ‘new’ evidence, would be a different story, but short of someone flipping, that seems unlikely at this stage.

"Of course ‘new’ evidence, would be a different story"

Wondering what, if any, new evidence has been gleaned from DA's cell phone since she was arrested that would further implicate WA?