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

[Knitpicker]

I’m not sure how you interpret Ruth’s statement, “it’s done and finished,” as meaning she believes there will be no future indictments? She may believe that, but her statement after Donna’s conviction specifically referred to Donna’s trial as being “done and finished.” If Ruth believes the entire case is “done and finished” after the five convictions, nothing in her statement supports that belief. Regardless of Ruth’s views on Wendi’s involvement, their relationship is likely beyond repair, even if information were to emerge that completely exonerated Wendi.

Thats why I asked you what you thought of her statement on her website.

 

[Fromeaster]

I thought Ruth mentioned somewhere that there is no complete justice until Wendi is arrested.

 

[Ferpo]

Ruth Markel will be a guest on Carl Steinbeck's YouTube Channel on Wednesday, October 22, 7 PM Eastern Standard Time. You can bet that the subject of remaining co-conspirators will come up.

 

[LinasK]

I still CA, WA and DA all had slightly different roles and motives.

I feel that WA was guilty of feeding her family this line about DM being abusive and how she was stuck in Tallahassee and hated it. Not necessarily encouraging them to commit murder, but knowing that as she had been infantilized her whole life by her family they would come to the rescue. I think DA had a deep seated hatred of Dan and had a pathological need to screw him over.

WA probably fed this hatred, by letting her Mum know how abusive Dan was. CA could see the distress in his Mum and when he suggested murdering Dan, she jumped at the idea. The plan was then conveyed to WA who didn't object.

I don't know how you apportion culpability. They all deserve the same sentence, but they all played different roles. I see DA as the mastermind. Perhaps over time WA would have adjusted to life in Tallahassee sharing custody of the kids with Dan. But I think DA's hatred of Dan would have just festered.

It sickens me, but I've seen this phony abuse card being played over and over again. Last night I watched two different true crime shows where the female mastermind manipulated some joe- schmoe male to kill her ex-husband because "he abused her". The females both got convicted as well. Just because you aren't the hitman doesn't make you any less guilty of conspiring to plan a murder.

 

[Zedzded]

"I’m inclined to think that someone removed from the podcast circuit has more objectivity."

One main reason is that channel hosts know their audience, and their audience doesn’t want to hear opinions like Orin Snyder’s. If confronted with Orin’s statement, they’ll go into spin control or try to rationalize it to soften its impact.

I believe all the Adelsons are guilty and want them all jailed, but I am still capable of objectivity and there is no confirmation bias. I take with a pinch of salt what most youtubers and legal expert say because whilst they have legal knowledge, like us, they are also just speculating. I'll have a watch of what Snyder says.

I have noticed that there is a distinct lack of deep analysis of the strength of the case against WA. i.e how can she be charged. For example the elements of the various offences have not been mentioned, just people producing "evidence." But what does that evidence show?

For example one of the elements for conspiracy to commit murder is:

There must be a mutual understanding between at least two individuals to commit murder.

Now it's all very well saying WA can be charged with conspiracy, but if legal experts are going to discuss this case, they need to address the elements. Steinbeck has list of 200 indicators of guilt. Do any of them show that WA had a mutual understanding, an agreement, with other co-conspirators to commit murder? I don't think they do. Similarly with solicitation, is there anything in the evidence to show WA solictated others to kill Dan? Did she encourage, demand or hire anyone?

She will be indicted and convicted, but it's complicated and the State have many challenges.

 

[Zedzded]

Ok read Snyders statement, he did said he thought we were at the end of the road, which isn't good, but he also says he doesn't have any insight in to this. We need to remember how long we have followed this case and how much knowledge we have on it. Joel has had lawyers on his channel, speculating on the case, and their knowledge of it is very limited. e.g a trial lawyer didn't know WA had driven to the crime scene.

We might lack their legal expertise, but we know everything about the case that is public. We know all the conspirators names, their roles, their jobs how much they were paid. We know the make, model, year, colour of the car the hitmen were driving. We know the exact time certain text messages were sent (8.59 - outside your house). We know the exact route WA took on the day of the murder and how long it took, down to the minute.

Our combined knowledge is phenomenal. Snyder has no interest in dissecting and discussing the minutiae of this case and therefore probably has just a cursory interest in it, reinforced by his statement saying he has no insight. Same goes for many other lawyers speculation on the case. Their ability to interpret evidence and determine whether someone can be charged far surpasses ours, but we know more about the case than most of them do.

None of them to my knowledge have discussed the timings of WA's calls/messages from the call log for example. Which IMO could be important. I know what calls she made, to whom and where she was located when she made those calls. Sad I know haha... IMO Trescott is important, but if you don't know about the calls she made driving to Trescott, the distance to ABC, the lies she told, the fact the police saw her etc then how can you accurately comment on the case? A lawyer could dismiss Trescott as evidence because they don't know all the tiny details. To accurately analyse this case you need legal knowledge AND a deep knowledge of the crime.

And that applies to not only Snyder, but Singer, Jansen and everyone else. Most of them either lack knowledge, have hidden agendas or both.

 

[Going Rogue]

Ok read Snyders statement, he did said he thought we were at the end of the road, which isn't good, but he also says he doesn't have any insight in to this. We need to remember how long we have followed this case and how much knowledge we have on it. Joel has had lawyers on his channel, speculating on the case, and their knowledge of it is very limited. e.g a trial lawyer didn't know WA had driven to the crime scene.

We might lack their legal expertise, but we know everything about the case that is public. We know all the conspirators names, their roles, their jobs how much they were paid. We know the make, model, year, colour of the car the hitmen were driving. We know the exact time certain text messages were sent (8.59 - outside your house). We know the exact route WA took on the day of the murder and how long it took, down to the minute.

Our combined knowledge is phenomenal. Snyder has no interest in dissecting and discussing the minutiae of this case and therefore probably has just a cursory interest in it, reinforced by his statement saying he has no insight. Same goes for many other lawyers speculation on the case. Their ability to interpret evidence and determine whether someone can be charged far surpasses ours, but we know more about the case than most of them do.

None of them to my knowledge have discussed the timings of WA's calls/messages from the call log for example. Which IMO could be important. I know what calls she made, to whom and where she was located when she made those calls. Sad I know haha... IMO Trescott is important, but if you don't know about the calls she made driving to Trescott, the distance to ABC, the lies she told, the fact the police saw her etc then how can you accurately comment on the case? A lawyer could dismiss Trescott as evidence because they don't know all the tiny details. To accurately analyse this case you need legal knowledge AND a deep knowledge of the crime.

And that applies to not only Snyder, but Singer, Jansen and everyone else. Most of them either lack knowledge, have hidden agendas or both.

After David asked him the question, he said he “didn’t have any insight into that” (future indictments), meaning he wasn’t speaking for the Tallahassee DA’s office. That was a responsible statement, reflecting only his personal opinion. He likely doesn’t have insight into the Tallahassee DA’s office’s intentions regarding future indictments, and even if he did, he wouldn’t share it on a public podcast. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that he lacks in-depth knowledge of the case - he has been involved from the early stages. He even stated, “we (his firm) provided support to local authorities in their investigation.” His opinion that “it’s likely the end of the road” doesn’t surprise me. My post history supports why I feel this way. I know you see it differently, and that’s okay. I don’t view it the same way you, Carl, and others do who believe the evidence is so overwhelming. The may eventually arrest Wendi, and if they do unless they have something in their back pocket, or something new develops, it’s a very risky case.

 

[Zedzded]

I wouldn’t necessarily agree that he lacks in-depth knowledge of the case - he has been involved from the early stages.

I base that statement on the fact that none of the lawyers speculating on this case seem to have a particularly deep knowledge of the crime. e.g I have never heard one of them mention Accessory after. Little mention of SY, who I believe is as critical as Rob was. I mean they have knowledge, but its the main facts. It might have been Tim Jansen who had never heard of the drug dealer text exchange. Not knowing that whilst speculating on the case is a little bit of a legal faux pas.

This is a complex case with little direct evidence and as such understanding every tiny detail is imperative to being able to accurately hypothesis on the case. e.g WA making a call at 12.27 could prove to be critical (it may not). But not knowing she called someone at 12.27 on the day of the murder means you are not as informed as you should be.

 

[Wishbone]

Everyone's Obsessing Over This Wild Murder Case Where 5 People Are Already Convicted And The Ex-Wife Might Be Going Down Next

Speculation is rampant that Wendi Adelson will be the sixth person arrested in connection to the 2014 murder-for-hire of Dan Markel.

www.yahoo.com

Interesting article......and especially interesting reading all the Principal statute entails.

snipped
“I think there is a strong possibility that she will get charged,” former prosecutor Melba Pearson, a legal analyst and faculty member at Florida International University, told BuzzFeed in a phone interview.
In fact, Pearson said she believes “prosecutors have been angling towards [her] from the beginning because, truthfully, she's the person that benefited the most out of all of this.”
And there might already be enough evidence to charge Wendi Adelson with murder, Pearson said, under Florida’s principal statute

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 777
PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY

View Entire Chapter
777.011 Principal in first degree.—Whoever commits any criminal offense against the state, whether felony or misdemeanor, or aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures such offense to be committed, and such offense is committed or is attempted to be committed, is a principal in the first degree and may be charged, convicted, and punished as such, whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present at the commission of such offense.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Going Rogue]

I base that statement on the fact that none of the lawyers speculating on this case seem to have a particularly deep knowledge of the crime. e.g I have never heard one of them mention Accessory after. Little mention of SY, who I believe is as critical as Rob was. I mean they have knowledge, but its the main facts. It might have been Tim Jansen who had never heard of the drug dealer text exchange. Not knowing that whilst speculating on the case is a little bit of a legal faux pas.

This is a complex case with little direct evidence and as such understanding every tiny detail is imperative to being able to accurately hypothesis on the case. e.g WA making a call at 12.27 could prove to be critical (it may not). But not knowing she called someone at 12.27 on the day of the murder means you are not as informed as you should be.

I agree it’s a complex case with a lot of data. It’s not just those who host YouTube channels or are ‘best guests’ who don’t know all the details – it’s also many others who offer opinions across multiple forums on a daily. Additionally, numerous narratives are discussed and analyzed in a highly biased manner. Many of these narratives are based on wishful thinking and cherry-picking data to support the narrative while completely dismissing data that works against the narrative – I could provide numerous examples. In my opinion, there’s a widespread misconception in the community about the strength of the state’s case against Wendi. Maybe its not fair that I always blame Carl S for this, but in my honest opinion he has spread more optimism in the community that Wendi will be arrested than anyone and has convinced many in the community that the case is so strong.

I know people don’t like hearing what I stated above and I’ll add my disclaimer that I am not saying I believe Wendi is innocent, because people take the above as I’m advocating for her or I have some hidden agenda when all I’m doing is giving is what I believe is a realistic perspective. Some might take issue with my comment about the widespread misconception regarding the strength of the case against her, but it’s my honest opinion. I’ve been saying this for years, and I want to emphasize that I’m basing my opinion on the case against Wendi solely on publicly available information, for all those who might remind me that “we don’t know what other evidence the state has.”

 

[Zedzded]

Many of these narratives are based on wishful thinking and cherry-picking data to support the narrative while completely dismissing data that works against the narrative

It works both ways:

Trescott drive:
- WA was bad with directions
- that was her favourite ABC
- it was only a few minutes longer
- she didnt see all the emergency vehicles
- she didn't lie about her route, it was a long time ago
- she was running late so didn't shower
- she had to get fuel as she was about to run out


So when one argues that Trescott is incriminating, people cite those, quite frankly, ridiculous, excuses. It's all about bending the evidence or lack thereof to suit a narrative. What counts is what a jury believes. Are they going to believe that she drove to the crime scene on a legitimate trip to a liquor store especially when she lied about said trip? Based on how quickly DA's credibility was found out in her trial, the answer is no.

 

[Weki]

There is no such thing as ‘it works both ways’ when it comes to criminal trials. If there is a reasonable alternate explanation for Wendi’s behavior, that is called reasonable doubt. In addition to the elements that need to be proven, people need to also familiarize themselves with the jury instructions.

JMO

 

[Zedzded]

If there is a reasonable alternate explanation for Wendi’s behavior, t

You've pretty much highlighted WA's primary issue. She needs reasonable explanations for a ton of incriminating behaviours and actions. And she just doesn't have them, hence the reason virtually everyone is insisting she's guilty. You don't drive past your ex's house shortly after he was shot because you're "bad with directions" after living on that street and in that area for 7+ years. Yes she did say that. That's just not going to work in a court of law, fluttering her baby blues, flicking her hair and thinking a jury will accept her outlandish lies. That ship sailed long ago.

 

[Knitpicker]

You've pretty much highlighted WA's primary issue. She needs reasonable explanations for a ton of incriminating behaviours and actions. And she just doesn't have them, hence the reason virtually everyone is insisting she's guilty. You don't drive past your ex's house shortly after he was shot because you're "bad with directions" after living on that street and in that area for 7+ years. Yes she did say that. That's just not going to work in a court of law, fluttering her baby blues, flicking her hair and thinking a jury will accept her outlandish lies. That ship sailed long ago.

Since Ruth is going on Carls tomorrow, I think we will have more insight into a Wendi arrest. I re-listened to both Ruth and Phils victim statements again and Phil makes it clear it ain’t over.

“This is also addressed to the Adelson family..Harvey, Charlie, WENDI and particularly Donna. The deep and irreparable damage THEY have caused….” Phil Markel

 

[Fromeaster]

Wendi should be punished for child abuse because this is the third time she has changed her children's last names, at least socially. The only one who has to hide is her with her dirty last name, now she is Estrada.

 

[Knitpicker]

Wendi should be punished for child abuse because this is the third time she has changed her children's last names, at least socially. The only one who has to hide is her with her dirty last name, now she is Estrada.

I understand the boys call him “dad”. Those poor boys. He has rescued them.
In many ways George E has been a refuge for them -probably attending all their sporting events, etc.-a father presence they never had.
Other than Harvey and Charlie. And in the beginning Dave. Oh and what about Jeffrey? Over almost daily when she had them. Playing with them, reading to them, watching them while Wendi was dating other men on the side.

If you remember the boys wanted to stay over Daves with his kids.
So much torn out of their lives. Ben loving Charlie. Thankfully he was never an influence in their teens.

On the flip side it is hard to imagine he hasn't watched the trials and heard Wendi’s lies.
But she is so good and has perfected her charm with men. Even PHD’s trained in the field of mental health. It shows just how effective her persona is with men. (And even women- Jane, Tova, etc. everyone being her rescuer and protector.)

 

[Knitpicker]

Wendi should be punished for child abuse because this is the third time she has changed her children's last names, at least socially. The only one who has to hide is her with her dirty last name, now she is Estrada.

I understand she is all over social media with that name. I’m not on X, tic Tok, instagram so I don’t know.

 

[Fromeaster]

I understand the boys call him “dad”. Those poor boys. He has rescued them.
In many ways George E has been a refuge for them -probably attending all their sporting events, etc.-a father presence they never had.
Other than Harvey and Charlie. And in the beginning Dave. Oh and what about Jeffrey? Over almost daily when she had them. Playing with them, reading to them, watching them while Wendi was dating other men on the side.

If you remember the boys wanted to stay over Daves with his kids.
So much torn out of their lives. Ben loving Charlie. Thankfully he was never an influence in their teens.

On the flip side it is hard to imagine he hasn't watched the trials and heard Wendi’s lies.
But she is so good and has perfected her charm with men. Even PHD’s trained in the field of mental health. It shows just how effective her persona is with men. (And even women- Jane, Tova, etc. everyone being her rescuer and protector.)

Estrada is also weird, sometimes he's George, sometimes Jorge. After Donna's trial, he made his Instagram private, removed Linkedin, and removed his photos from his workplace website.

 

[Fromeaster]

I saw his instagram, so I worked as a detective for a while Until he took it private after Wendi's court appearance. He started dating Wendi only a year after his wife's death.Men can't be alone.His family members and friends follow Wendi on instagram.

 

[opt]

There is no such thing as ‘it works both ways’ when it comes to criminal trials. If there is a reasonable alternate explanation for Wendi’s behavior, that is called reasonable doubt. In addition to the elements that need to be proven, people need to also familiarize themselves with the jury instructions.

JMO

Doubt can become unreasonable when you aggregate enough implausible explanations. You don't always need one big implausibility like Charlie's claim of murder on spec.