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

[Going Rogue]

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

My thoughts exactly! In my opinion, a big reason for the significant disconnect on social media and the belief that the case against Wendi is so strong is because of the extensive "indicators of guilt" list that has been created. Many on social media believe there is overwhelming evidence proving Wendi’s direct involvement and they overemphasize circumstantial details. While there’s clearly enough to raise suspicion, IMO, it’s insufficient to meet the burden of proof, which is precisely why she hasn’t been arrested. People place way too much importance on details that are inconsequential in proving the case against her. We know she attempted to drive down Trescott, and we know she and Dan were embroiled in a bitter divorce. The prosecution could easily illustrate to a jury that Wendi is not the girl next door, that she disliked Tallahassee, and that she despised Dan, but how do they prove she was part of the conspiracy? No one can answer this question without resorting to assumptions and conjecture, such as claiming she’s the only one who could have provided Dan’s schedule or that the conspiracy couldn’t have proceeded without her approval – two common and speculative responses. IMO, there’s a widespread lack of understanding of the threshold required for a prosecution to meet the burden of proof. It seems many believe the prosecution can simply rely on the "Carl playbook" and win the case – a major misconception. I could provide numerous examples of details debated on social media that are considered damning evidence that would crumble under scrutiny from competent defense counsel.

 

[Ferpo]

My thoughts exactly! In my opinion, a big reason for the significant disconnect on social media and the belief that the case against Wendi is so strong is because of the extensive "indicators of guilt" list that has been created. Many on social media believe there is overwhelming evidence proving Wendi’s direct involvement and they overemphasize circumstantial details. While there’s clearly enough to raise suspicion, IMO, it’s insufficient to meet the burden of proof, which is precisely why she hasn’t been arrested. People place way too much importance on details that are inconsequential in proving the case against her. We know she attempted to drive down Trescott, and we know she and Dan were embroiled in a bitter divorce. The prosecution could easily illustrate to a jury that Wendi is not the girl next door, that she disliked Tallahassee, and that she despised Dan, but how do they prove she was part of the conspiracy? No one can answer this question without resorting to assumptions and conjecture, such as claiming she’s the only one who could have provided Dan’s schedule or that the conspiracy couldn’t have proceeded without her approval – two common and speculative responses. IMO, there’s a widespread lack of understanding of the threshold required for a prosecution to meet the burden of proof. It seems many believe the prosecution can simply rely on the "Carl playbook" and win the case – a major misconception. I could provide numerous examples of details debated on social media that are considered damning evidence that would crumble under scrutiny from competent defense counsel.

I so agree with this. Also, everyone should keep in mind that many of the so-called media outlets for this case have a very strong financial interest in a WA arrest and trial.

 

[Going Rogue]

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

If you’re expecting Ruth to fuel the social media narrative that Wendi’s arrest is imminent, I don’t believe that will happen. In my opinion, it’s far more likely that Ruth will temper expectations or perhaps ask the community to stop the “arrest Wendi” chants entirely. I think there’s a high probability she will once again remind the community to respect the privacy of Wendi and her two grandsons. It’s sad that people are fixated on Wendi’s current boyfriend, posting all sorts of unflattering comments about him and speculating about where she lives etc. What good does that do? Ruth previously spoke publicly about the impact that the invasion of privacy was having on her grandchildren, but her words fell on deaf ears. I look forward to hearing what Ruth has to say, and I hope people respect her wishes this time, whatever they may be.

 

[Fromeaster]

I don't think Ruth will say anything new, she talks very little about Wendi because of the boys.

 

[Knitpicker]

If you’re expecting Ruth to fuel the social media narrative that Wendi’s arrest is imminent, I don’t believe that will happen. In my opinion, it’s far more likely that Ruth will temper expectations or perhaps ask the community to stop the “arrest Wendi” chants entirely. I think there’s a high probability she will once again remind the community to respect the privacy of Wendi and her two grandsons. It’s sad that people are fixated on Wendi’s current boyfriend, posting all sorts of unflattering comments about him and speculating about where she lives etc. What good does that do? Ruth previously spoke publicly about the impact that the invasion of privacy was having on her grandchildren, but her words fell on deaf ears. I look forward to hearing what Ruth has to say, and I hope people respect her wishes this time, whatever they may be.

The publicity of this case, and Ruth going on all the podcasts that are doing what you are saying, has only helped to create interest in this case, Her quest for justice, interest in her book, and I am sure helped her get a 3 part deal with Lionsgate which she deserves. She has stated she appreciates the podcasters.

 

[Weki]

If you’re expecting Ruth to fuel the social media narrative that Wendi’s arrest is imminent, I don’t believe that will happen. In my opinion, it’s far more likely that Ruth will temper expectations or perhaps ask the community to stop the “arrest Wendi” chants entirely. I think there’s a high probability she will once again remind the community to respect the privacy of Wendi and her two grandsons. It’s sad that people are fixated on Wendi’s current boyfriend, posting all sorts of unflattering comments about him and speculating about where she lives etc. What good does that do? Ruth previously spoke publicly about the impact that the invasion of privacy was having on her grandchildren, but her words fell on deaf ears. I look forward to hearing what Ruth has to say, and I hope people respect her wishes this time, whatever they may be.

Don’t get me started. Before Charlie’s trial, there was none of this insanity. After the bloodthirsty YouTubers jumped on the Adelson trial train the narrative of this crime has been distorted and there’s a lot of obsessive behavior from the listening audience. I think it’s pretty gross that YouTubers and some of their audiences are engaging in stalkerish behavior. Posting real estate holdings/rental info, pictures, tracking people’s movements, harassing/insulting witnesses on social media, revealing the criminal record of those related to the defendants, etc.

And don’t worry, no matter what Ruth says, the YouTubers will come on in a couple days and say they talked to her and insinuate she supports everything they’re doing. That’s pretty gross too.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

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.

I don't see what's weird about that, as they're both versions of the same name. Anglicising your name to make life easier in an Anglophone society full of micro aggressions is something literally millions of people do.

MOO

 

[Zedzded]

there’s a widespread lack of understanding of the threshold required for a prosecution to meet the burden of proof.

Well look at the scant evidence that was used to convict DA of murder, conspiracy and solicitation. There wasn't a whole lot. There's definitely enough to charge Jill Estrada with Accessory after and I think conspiracy now with her Trescott drive serving as primary evidence in proving that offence.

 

[opt]

There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence against DA. Each small but pointing the same way, adding up to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Just like you can glue together bits of wood to make a board they build houses with, you can assemble a large number of coincidences and odd facts to prove guilt.

 

[Going Rogue]

Well look at the scant evidence that was used to convict DA of murder, conspiracy and solicitation. There wasn't a whole lot. There's definitely enough to charge Jill Estrada with Accessory after and I think conspiracy now with her Trescott drive serving as primary evidence in proving that offence.

We must have watched different trials. The prosecution easily met the burden of proof in Donna's case. The checks to Katie, the bump activity, and the money drop, combined with the wiretapped calls where she spoke in code with Charlie, sealed her fate. I don’t place much weight on her attempt to flee – her claim that it was to "clear their heads" was ridiculous. Even without the one-way tickets to a non-extradition country, the burden of proof was met. It was evident from the post-bump phone calls with Charlie that she had some level of involvement. Add to that the fact that she wrote the checks to Katie and stopped by Charlie’s on the way to Tallahassee for what was was framed as ‘the money drop’ where Katie testified that Charlie said the money was damp because Donna had washed it – did we really need more than that?

In full disclosure, I have a major issue with Katie’s claim that Charlie told her Donna washed the money. While it was presented as sworn testimony and went unchallenged, forming part of the trial record, it is what the jury heard. I believe there’s a high probability she lied, as it was inconsistent with her prior testimony. Nevertheless, the evidence they had on Donna isn’t even a close comparison to what they have on Wendi that has been made public.

 

[Zedzded]

In full disclosure, I have a major issue with Katie’s claim that Charlie told her Donna washed the money. While it was presented as sworn testimony and went unchallenged, forming part of the trial record, it is what the jury heard. I believe there’s a high probability she lied, as it was inconsistent with her prior testimony. Nevertheless, the evidence they had on Donna isn’t even a close comparison to what they have on Wendi that has been made public.

That's what I'm driving at. There is evidence in DA's trial that was never really challenged. WA will have the same issue. Evidence will be produced that is currently being argued on public forums that will go unchallenged in court.

When GC tells the court that WA stated to SY:
1.I'm going to prison for the rest of my life
2. What if my crazy brother hired hitmen to kill Danny?

How will her lawyer respond to those statements?
1. Oh WA feared she would go to prison as the ex is always the prime suspect
2. she heard a rumour that her brother may have hired hitmen

A jury will just laugh at that.

 

[Going Rogue]

That's what I'm driving at. There is evidence in DA's trial that was never really challenged. WA will have the same issue. Evidence will be produced that is currently being argued on public forums that will go unchallenged in court.

When GC tells the court that WA stated to SY:
1.I'm going to prison for the rest of my life
2. What if my crazy brother hired hitmen to kill Danny?

How will her lawyer respond to those statements?
1. Oh WA feared she would go to prison as the ex is always the prime suspect
2. she heard a rumour that her brother may have hired hitmen

A jury will just laugh at that.

You are placing way too much value on Wendi’s two quotes to Sara that you keep referencing. If Wendi is innocent, her "prison comment" likely reflects fear of being falsely accused – a natural reaction for someone in that position. At the time of Sigfredo’s arrest, when Wendi made the "crazy brother" comment, she was well aware of the speculation surrounding her family’s potential involvement. In that context, why is her comment so surprising to you, especially since it turned out to be true? As I’ve said previously, when Wendi made that comment, she likely had a strong suspicion or even knew of her brother’s involvement. I personally believe she knew at the time of her comment, and there could be several psychological reasons for her "crazy brother" statement. However, that statement does not prove her direct involvement in the crime. If you want to argue she was an accessory after the fact, the comment doesn’t definitively prove that either, though it could be used as supporting evidence for such a charge.

 

[Zedzded]

You are placing way too much value on Wendi’s two quotes to Sara that you keep referencing. If Wendi is innocent, her "prison comment" likely reflects fear of being falsely accused – a natural reaction for someone in that position.

No this is not a natural reaction when your partner or ex partner is murdered. Most people are very upset. They don't become hysterical and start screaming that they are going to prison for the rest of their lives. Note WA is a lawyer which means she would understand more than anyone that:

if she is innocent there is little chance of an unfair conviction
it's not a good idea to say this in front of a defence attorney (SY)

I repeat. This a completely abnormal response and indicative of guilt. A jury certainly would not regard this as "normal behaviour." Words mean something in police interviews and in court. You can't just say what you want and attempt to dismiss it. e.g A lot of attention has been given to something CA apparently said as a joke (hiring a hitman).

Unfortunately for WA, even if she was innocent, her screaming she was going to prison would not be regarded by a jury as an innocent comment, rightly or wrongly. This is why it's important to seek legal advice when being interviewed by the police as an innocent comment can be misconstrued and used against you in court.

Note - we could always do a poll if you like?

 

[Knitpicker]

No this is not a natural reaction when your partner or ex partner is murdered. Most people are very upset. They don't become hysterical and start screaming that they are going to prison for the rest of their lives. Note WA is a lawyer which means she would understand more than anyone that:

if she is innocent there is little chance of an unfair conviction
it's not a good idea to say this in front of a defence attorney (SY)

I repeat. This a completely abnormal response and indicative of guilt.

Just like she said to Tamara “I’m so sorry” when she saw her. Very strange.

 

[Going Rogue]

No this is not a natural reaction when your partner or ex partner is murdered. Most people are very upset. They don't become hysterical and start screaming that they are going to prison for the rest of their lives. Note WA is a lawyer which means she would understand more than anyone that:

if she is innocent there is little chance of an unfair conviction
it's not a good idea to say this in front of a defence attorney (SY)

I repeat. This a completely abnormal response and indicative of guilt.

Its so abnormal that Sara herself said that her initial reaction was that she believed Wendi feared she be falsely accused. Sara didn’t frame it as a ‘completely abnormal reaction’. Per Sara she didn’t form her opinion of Wendi’s guilt until much later and it had to do with evidence that came out in the trials not the statements you reference,

 

[Zedzded]

Its so abnormal that Sara herself said that her initial reaction was that she believed Wendi feared she be falsely accused.

That was SY explaining WA's reaction, not justifying it. WA was trying to articulate to SY that she could go to prison for the rest of her life as she would be falsely accused of killing her ex. This is not normal for anyone to behave or respond like that. And people that do respond like that often have this evidence used against them.

Irrespectively it's not what Joe Public thinks, it's what the jury thinks. A jury will not construe WA's reaction as that of an innocent person just like that never accepted CA's joke or DA's interpretation of "outside your house." Which apparently means driving past 2 miles away. Maybe that's actually what DA meant, but that's irrelevant its all about how a jury interprets those words.

 

[Wishbone]

Its so abnormal that Sara herself said that her initial reaction was that she believed Wendi feared she be falsely accused. Sara didn’t frame it as a ‘completely abnormal reaction’. Per Sara she didn’t form her opinion of Wendi’s guilt until much later and it had to do with evidence that came out in the trials not the statements you reference,

Her latest interview on sts is a real eye opener and she was so scared after her that encounter with WA and HA and DA that she spent three hours with a priest and purchased a GUN that very day. This encounter happened at WA's house on the 19th right after the murder.

 

[Zedzded]

Her latest interview on sts is a real eye opener and she was so scared after her that encounter with WA and HA and DA that she spent three hours with a priest and purchased a GUN that very day. This encounter happened at WA's house on the 19th right after the murder.

Wasn't that Tara Demenko?

 

[Wishbone]

Wasn't that Tara Demenko?

right, it was Tamara Demko

 

[Tortoise]

I find it particularly remarkable that Georgia asked Wendi if she was crying and upset when the TV repair guy was there. Wendi testified she didn't think so.

It makes me think Georgia has more up her sleeve about this.