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

[IQuestion]

I wonder how much money Harvey has left? Maybe it's enough to spend money on Donna's appeals anyway, there's no point because it won't help. Let him save for himself and Wendi.

The money pile is dwindling.... I listened/watched to it two days ago. But now the video is for members only, go figure. I'll post a link anyway. During the LE interview with KatieM's brother FM... Agent Sanford specifically made that point...ie paraphrasing "They (Adelson's) are beginning to have money issues." Implying FM & KM shouldn't be worried about the A's intimidation as they were not as affluent and running low on disposable cash. Ironically, it was while waiting for FM's attorney, CDecoste. (Who knew, repped K.M. Dejavu? Family members using the same attorneys seems to be a SoBe epidemic.) But I digress. Typically an affluent lifestyle is quickly eroded when a business experiences a downturn (health, death, disability.) You can't by insurance for the expense of a murder trial. What should have been a nest egg for a comfortable retirement travel or senior living needs is now being eroded by legal fees.

 

[IQuestion]

Is there a link? I missed that.

PS....especially the part alluding to past "bad deeds" by the A's. Apparently scary enough to make one wary of being in their crosshairs, even now.

 

[Luna20]

PS....especially the part alluding to past "bad deeds" by the A's. Apparently scary enough to make one wary of being in their crosshairs, even now.

Thanks. I watched the trial. Is this a new one?

 

[Going Rogue]

Dan Markel was shot while in his car at his home’s garage in Tallahassee, Florida, shortly before 11 a.m. on July 18, 2014.

Removing nits from someone's hair is generous but nitpicking ad nauseam about Wendi Adelson’s travel along Trescott Dr. on July 18, 2014 at around 12:30 is a unnecessary waste of time.

• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect of “I did not visit the crime scene”, she is telling the truth
• No matter how people dislike the varying and deceptive elaborations of her answer, TPD report clearly states that (1) she made a K turn at about the police perimeter tape and (2) that tape was not located at the house where the crime occured
• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect that “Trescott Dr seems to be a shortcut … Trescott Dr seems to be the most familiar route etc …”, these varying explanations are not evidence of conspiracy to commit first degree murder
• Within the Florida Rules of Evidence in criminal case, these are plausible alternative explanations and therefore admissible

Some “smart” people are obsessed about ASA Cappleman’s repeated questioning of Wendi Adelson’s travel along Trescott Dr. on July 18, 2014. However, these repetitions could be just interrogative techniques used in the examination of this State labeled un-indicted co-conspirator because she is obviously an “hostile witness”

• One basic such interrogative techniques is to ask sometimes innocuous questions and at other times loaded questions (asked multiple times) in order of inducing the hostile witness into making deceptive statements such that the Jurors comprehend better the behavior of the hostile witness with regards to the nature of the crime
• Such techniques are described in authoritative literature such as in this seminal source “Barland, G. H. & Raskin, D. C. Detection of Deception. In W. F. Prokasy & D. C. Raskin (Eds.) Psychological Research. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp 417-477.”
• Even if Wendi Adelson were to respond consistently (which she did not obviously do), her deceptive behavior is exposed for all (especially the Jurors) to see from her dissociative attitude
• Wendi Adelson’s dissociative attitude is illustrated by her unfocused attention and her monotonous “I do not remember” and “that sounds right” responses
• When the Jurors observed her attitude and her answers, they may have considered “this hostile witness has something to hide. Hence, the defendant is guilty. And the witness might be guilty of something ... perhaps as the defendant”, and the Prosecutor Cappleman achieved her goal!

Please, kindly forgive the somewhat academic narrative but it would be better to focus sleuthing resources in more salient and potentially rewarding items rather than picking nits in Wendi Adelson’s hair. More Justice For Dan Markel!

I agree 100% very well stated! IMO, the way certain details of this case are analyzed and considered compelling evidence of Wendi’s involvement puzzles me. You outlined great examples, and I agree with all of them. Without going point by point, I’ll highlight one simple example you referenced, which I’ve argued many times. It sparked a series of poor exchanges between Cappleman and Wendi that persisted through all four trials. It began in the first trial when Cappleman asked the question ~ “I was referring to your visit to the crime scene.” This question triggered an awkward exchange between Wendi and Cappleman. Wendi’s responded with a very literal interpretation of the question ~ “I did not visit the crime scene” and as you stated there is truth to that answer, but most don’t accept her literal response and you can’t convince them otherwise – to them that is a lie. I’ll spare my analysis of how this created a trickle down effect of the famous turn and her inconsistent testimony and how it’s been misinterpreted or misrepresented by many who follow this case. I’ll just close by saying that every word by Cappleman and Wendi has been dissected and analyzed to the nth degree and that just leads to more confusion in the community when arguments are made that have no legal merit but are thought and argued to be evidence of conspiracy to commit first degree murder – there are so many examples.

Disclaimer – the above opinion does not mean I think Wendi is innocent and I am not defending her.

 

[IQuestion]

Thanks. I watched the trial. Is this a new one?

OH YES LUNA20. You have to watch and listen to what she reveals on the Surviving the Survivor show. I found Drina to be a really engaging lady. Donna's level of emotional usury and contempt for anyone she can not control is off the charts. She'll have to develop some new skills in prison....never too old to learn. This is new info and as the first TV attorney I ever watched said:

 

[Zedzded]

Wendi’s responded with a very literal interpretation of the question ~ “I did not visit the crime scene” and as you stated there is truth to that answer,

GC is trying to say that WA turned around at the tape which bordered off a crime scene. WA is trying to argue that as she didn't know it was a crime scene and thought it was a fallen tree she didn't "technically" visit a crime scene. It's semantics and that kind of stuff doesn't fly in a court of law, all this does is damage WA's credibility further.

And as I keep on saying, what is important is what the jury believe. Do you think they will accept that WA believed there was a fallen tree despite the fact there was no bad weather, no sign of a fallen tree, crime scene tape, a plethora of emergency vehicles and personnel?

Even if they did believe that, there are the multiple lies told by WA about her trip "not down" Trescott.

 

[Knitpicker]

I agree 100% very well stated! IMO, the way certain details of this case are analyzed and considered compelling evidence of Wendi’s involvement puzzles me. You outlined great examples, and I agree with all of them. Without going point by point, I’ll highlight one simple example you referenced, which I’ve argued many times. It sparked a series of poor exchanges between Cappleman and Wendi that persisted through all four trials. It began in the first trial when Cappleman asked the question ~ “I was referring to your visit to the crime scene.” This question triggered an awkward exchange between Wendi and Cappleman. Wendi’s responded with a very literal interpretation of the question ~ “I did not visit the crime scene” and as you stated there is truth to that answer, but most don’t accept her literal response and you can’t convince them otherwise – to them that is a lie. I’ll spare my analysis of how this created a trickle down effect of the famous turn and her inconsistent testimony and how it’s been misinterpreted or misrepresented by many who follow this case. I’ll just close by saying that every word by Cappleman and Wendi has been dissected and analyzed to the nth degree and that just leads to more confusion in the community when arguments are made that have no legal merit but are thought and argued to be evidence of conspiracy to commit first degree murder – there are so many examples.

Disclaimer – the above opinion does not mean I think Wendi is innocent and I am not defending her

A crime scene is
any location, person, or object associated with a committed crime that may contain evidence. This can be the primary location where the crime occurred, or a secondary area where evidence was moved, such as an escape route or a place where a body was abandoned. Investigators secure and document these scenes to collect evidence to reconstruct events and solve the crime.
__________________________
I think that would include any area secured-up to the crime scene tape.
She was there.

 

[Going Rogue]

A crime scene is
any location, person, or object associated with a committed crime that may contain evidence. This can be the primary location where the crime occurred, or a secondary area where evidence was moved, such as an escape route or a place where a body was abandoned. Investigators secure and document these scenes to collect evidence to reconstruct events and solve the crime.
__________________________
I think that would include any area secured-up to the crime scene tape.
She was there.

You know who else said she was there?……….. Wendi! When Wendi responded ~ "I didn't visit the crime scene," she wasn't denying that she traveled or attempted to travel down Trescott. In all four trials and in her police interview, she clearly stated she saw the roadblock on Trescott and that Trescott was her intended route. Did you catch the hidden message in ‘apeXperinces' latest post suggesting people are so hyper-focused on certain details that they fail to see the forest for the trees? If anyone thinks Wendi's statement "I did not visit the crime scene" means she denied being in the area, I don't know what else to say except that you're entitled to your interpretation. I think everyone agrees that Wendi was well prepared in all four trials and she knew what was at stake and likely knew about 95% of what Cappleman was going to ask her – the trip to ABC / Trescott was probably top 3 on the list. Let's please not rehash all the "inconsistent" statements across the four trials about her "visit" and further dissect her every word to convince ourselves it's proof she was involved in the plot and that she lied and denied being in the area of the ‘crime scene’.

 

[Knitpicker]

You know who else said she was there?……….. Wendi! When Wendi responded ~ "I didn't visit the crime scene," she wasn't denying that she traveled or attempted to travel down Trescott. In all four trials and in her police interview, she clearly stated she saw the roadblock on Trescott and that Trescott was her intended route. Did you catch the hidden message in ‘apeXperinces' latest post suggesting people are so hyper-focused on certain details that they fail to see the forest for the trees? If anyone thinks Wendi's statement "I did not visit the crime scene" means she denied being in the area, I don't know what else to say except that you're entitled to your interpretation. I think everyone agrees that Wendi was well prepared in all four trials and she knew what was at stake and likely knew about 95% of what Cappleman was going to ask her – the trip to ABC / Trescott was probably top 3 on the list. Let's please not rehash all the "inconsistent" statements across the four trials about her "visit" and further dissect her every word to convince ourselves it's proof she was involved in the plot and that she lied and denied being in the area of the ‘crime scene’.

I think you have participated more in this conversation than most.

 

[Zedzded]

I think what seems to be getting missed off is

When Wendi responded ~ "I didn't visit the crime scene," she wasn't denying that she traveled or attempted to travel down Trescott.

Yes she did.

Her words pretty much verbatim:

"I tried to turn on to Trescott, but couldn't because there was tape blocking off the intersection, so I carried straight on Centreville."

Do you think a jury will interpret that to mean that she travelled 1 mile down Trescott and then did a K-turn and then went back down Trescott and turned right on to Centreville?

That was a blatant lie which will be a problem for her when she is arrested.

 

[Going Rogue]

I think what seems to be getting missed off is


Yes she did.

Her words pretty much verbatim:

"I tried to turn on to Trescott, but couldn't because there was tape blocking off the intersection, so I carried straight on Centreville."

Do you think a jury will interpret that to mean that she travelled 1 mile down Trescott and then did a K-turn and then went back down Trescott and turned right on to Centreville?

That was a blatant lie which will be a problem for her when she is arrested.

I respect your opinion and I realize you look at things very literally. When I said “she wasn't denying that she traveled or attempted to travel down Trescott” I had you in mind If you want to look at her words verbatim, in the one trial when she said ~ "I tried to turn on to Trescott…” please explain how that means she is denying ‘attempting’ to take Trescott”? Respectfully, you are looking for a gotcha on Wendi that isn’t there. She never denied that she either drove down Trescott or it was her intended route – you are correct that it’s just semantics… I fully agree with you on that.

I think the part that might be getting lost on many, is if there is ever a Wendi trial, the varying and inconsistent statements she made about the famous turn will never be part of her trial – the odds of her testifying are less than zero. The inconsistent statements she made are just an over-hyped storyline that exists in social media. It will have zero relevance in a potential trial – if there ever is one.

I hope we can put this to bed and just agree to disagree

 

[Zedzded]

I hope we can put this to bed and just agree to disagree

Yup lets just do that

 

[IQuestion]

I've done a guesstimate from when CA was arrested to now and figure it to be close to $7 million. We know for example that Rashbaum was charging a flat fee of $75k/month, so just from CA's arrest to his conviction he paid $1.5 million. (april 2022 - Nov 2023). Plus he made a reportedly $1 million for the jury consultant Josh Dubin and the associated costs with the mock trial. So CA's total costs from arrest to conviction = $2.5 million. He then has ongoing legal costs with his appeal etc.

DA was arrested Nov 2023 and convicted Oct 2025 and she would have been on a similar flat fee of $75k per month with DR, so close to $2 million.

HA and WA have had lawyers on and off for the last few years. WA paid close to $500k for a Kastigar specialist, plus her previous lawyer and now John Lauro. His 2 week stint in Tallahassee cost close to a rumoured $30k.

DA now has to pay $750k in restitution.

Note in 2014 the family net worth was $8 million (see below), but that does not include their property portfolios, which would be extensive. I would imagine most of their savings have gone and they are down to selling properties, but $$ from property sales could last them a few more years.


View attachment 623524

ZZ...another brilliant post! Those legal fees don't even include all their (the A's) monthly overhead: HOA/insurance/prop taxes/utility fees/medical/meals/vehicle/travel/temp housing, 9K plus. Funding inmate commissary accounts and phone bills for two incarcerated family members...easily another 3K per month. (Napkin math= 300K in the last 2 years alone.) DA's social security benefits stopped, too.

 

[IQuestion]

You know who else said she was there?……….. Wendi! When Wendi responded ~ "I didn't visit the crime scene," she wasn't denying that she traveled or attempted to travel down Trescott. In all four trials and in her police interview, she clearly stated she saw the roadblock on Trescott and that Trescott was her intended route. Did you catch the hidden message in ‘apeXperinces' latest post suggesting people are so hyper-focused on certain details that they fail to see the forest for the trees? If anyone thinks Wendi's statement "I did not visit the crime scene" means she denied being in the area, I don't know what else to say except that you're entitled to your interpretation. I think everyone agrees that Wendi was well prepared in all four trials and she knew what was at stake and likely knew about 95% of what Cappleman was going to ask her – the trip to ABC / Trescott was probably top 3 on the list. Let's please not rehash all the "inconsistent" statements across the four trials about her "visit" and further dissect her every word to convince ourselves it's proof she was involved in the plot and that she lied and denied being in the area of the ‘crime scene’.

BBMabove, Thanks for the reminder. Charlie Adelson, her brother, LWOP convicted murderer, co-conspirator rehashed it a lot on jail house phone calls with DA (another convicted co-conspirator.) I wonder why it bothers Charlie so much?

 

[Weki]

Dan Markel was shot while in his car at his home’s garage in Tallahassee, Florida, shortly before 11 a.m. on July 18, 2014.

Removing nits from someone's hair is generous but nitpicking ad nauseam about Wendi Adelson’s travel along Trescott Dr. on July 18, 2014 at around 12:30 is a unnecessary waste of time.

• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect of “I did not visit the crime scene”, she is telling the truth
• No matter how people dislike the varying and deceptive elaborations of her answer, TPD report clearly states that (1) she made a K turn at about the police perimeter tape and (2) that tape was not located at the house where the crime occured
• When Wendi Adelson said to the effect that “Trescott Dr seems to be a shortcut … Trescott Dr seems to be the most familiar route etc …”, these varying explanations are not evidence of conspiracy to commit first degree murder
• Within the Florida Rules of Evidence in criminal case, these are plausible alternative explanations and therefore admissible

Some “smart” people are obsessed about ASA Cappleman’s repeated questioning of Wendi Adelson’s travel along Trescott Dr. on July 18, 2014. However, these repetitions could be just interrogative techniques used in the examination of this State labeled un-indicted co-conspirator because she is obviously an “hostile witness”

• One basic such interrogative techniques is to ask sometimes innocuous questions and at other times loaded questions (asked multiple times) in order of inducing the hostile witness into making deceptive statements such that the Jurors comprehend better the behavior of the hostile witness with regards to the nature of the crime
• Such techniques are described in authoritative literature such as in this seminal source “Barland, G. H. & Raskin, D. C. Detection of Deception. In W. F. Prokasy & D. C. Raskin (Eds.) Psychological Research. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp 417-477.”
• Even if Wendi Adelson were to respond consistently (which she did not obviously do), her deceptive behavior is exposed for all (especially the Jurors) to see from her dissociative attitude
• Wendi Adelson’s dissociative attitude is illustrated by her unfocused attention and her monotonous “I do not remember” and “that sounds right” responses
• When the Jurors observed her attitude and her answers, they may have considered “this hostile witness has something to hide. Hence, the defendant is guilty. And the witness might be guilty of something ... perhaps as the defendant”, and the Prosecutor Cappleman achieved her goal!

Please, kindly forgive the somewhat academic narrative but it would be better to focus sleuthing resources in more salient and potentially rewarding items rather than picking nits in Wendi Adelson’s hair. More Justice For Dan Markel!

 

[Going Rogue]

BBMabove, Thanks for the reminder. Charlie Adelson, her brother, LWOP convicted murderer, co-conspirator rehashed it a lot on jail house phone calls with DA (another convicted co-conspirator.) I wonder why it bothers Charlie so much?

Charlie wasn’t rehashing Wendi’s sworn testimony or dissecting and overanalyzing her "inconsistent statements across the four trials about her visit.” He was rehashing the fact that she was there and the optics of her being there. It bothered him so much because he is clearly guilty, and I’d be willing to bet a million dollars (even if Wendi was involved in the plot) that the plan (at least Charlie's plan) never intended for Wendi to be near the murder scene. The fact that she was there was the issue for Charlie NOT how she testified across the four trials. What was the purpose of setting up the BestBuy appointment if that was related to the murder and her alibi? In fact, I don’t believe the plan was to murder Dan at any specific location – it just happened to occur at his home. I base that on Luis Rivera’s sworn proffers. According to Rivera, the plan was to murder Dan when the right opportunity arose, and there is no evidence to support the idea that the plan was to specifically murder Dan at his home. Yes, its possible Wendi's trip that morning is unrelated to her participation in the plot and a true coincidence.... its also possible she was aware of the plans and took that route for many of the reasons argued in social media - maybe she just couldn't help herself.... Its also possible the plan was for Wendi to be the local boots on the ground and scout things out.

This friendly debate in the last several posts (that we can hopefully move on from ), in my opinion, has nothing to do with the clear challenge posed by the established fact that Wendi was in the area on the morning of the murder and attempted to drive down Trescott. The fact that she was there is (and was) problematic for Wendi and the Adelson family. I am not downplaying the significance of her being in the area has on the case against Wendi – it is likely the strongest piece of evidence the state has on a case against Wendi. However, a case against Wendi cannot and will not be won based on social media arguments about her inconsistent testimony regarding the turn or claims that she lied about visiting the crime scene. She admitted to driving or attempting to drive down Trescott, but that alone is also insufficient to meet the burden of proof, no matter how often people belabor the same points in social media.

 

[opt]

OH YES LUNA20. You have to watch and listen to what she reveals on the Surviving the Survivor show. I found Drina to be a really engaging lady.

Drina's interview was beyond gold. I congratulate Joel on another win.

Consider that everything Drina said and much more has been known to the State since before Donna's trial. Imagine all the dirt the State has on this crime family.

 

[Weki]

Charlie wasn’t rehashing Wendi’s sworn testimony or dissecting and overanalyzing her "inconsistent statements across the four trials about her visit.” He was rehashing the fact that she was there and the optics of her being there. It bothered him so much because he is clearly guilty, and I’d be willing to bet a million dollars (even if Wendi was involved in the plot) that the plan (at least Charlie's plan) never intended for Wendi to be near the murder scene. The fact that she was there was the issue for Charlie NOT how she testified across the four trials. What was the purpose of setting up the BestBuy appointment if that was related to the murder and her alibi? In fact, I don’t believe the plan was to murder Dan at any specific location – it just happened to occur at his home. I base that on Luis Rivera’s sworn proffers. According to Rivera, the plan was to murder Dan when the right opportunity arose, and there is no evidence to support the idea that the plan was to specifically murder Dan at his home. Yes, its possible Wendi's trip that morning is unrelated to her participation in the plot and a true coincidence.... its also possible she was aware of the plans and took that route for many of the reasons argued in social media - maybe she just couldn't help herself.... Its also possible the plan was for Wendi to be the local boots on the ground and scout things out.

This friendly debate in the last several posts (that we can hopefully move on from ), in my opinion, has nothing to do with the clear challenge posed by the established fact that Wendi was in the area on the morning of the murder and attempted to drive down Trescott. The fact that she was there is (and was) problematic for Wendi and the Adelson family. I am not downplaying the significance of her being in the area has on the case against Wendi – it is likely the strongest piece of evidence the state has on a case against Wendi. However, a case against Wendi cannot and will not be won based on social media arguments about her inconsistent testimony regarding the turn or claims that she lied about visiting the crime scene. She admitted to driving or attempting to drive down Trescott, but that alone is also insufficient to meet the burden of proof, no matter how often people belabor the same points in social media.

Luis Rivera knew that Dan was going out of town the next day and the murder had to happen that day. Do you believe that the best buy appointment was an alibi for Wendi? If so, doesn't that suggest that all the Adelsons were pretty sure the murder would happen on that day/time? At the very least it suggets they knew it was a strong possibility the murder would take place that day/time and were prepared. They didn't know exactly where it would take place, probably --- I agree with that.

On the other hand, how could the Adelsons predict what time the killers would arrive at Tally and what time they would be able to do the murder such that they made a Best Buy appt in advance to serve as an alibi? There are so many factors, it seems to me, that could've derailed the killers' plan. So even if the Adelsons knew the date, how could they be so sure of the time of day? Which leads me to... how could Wendi drive by Trescott to, allegedly, check things out at that specific time? How could she know it was done already and how could she know where it was done?

JMO, just musing out loud

 

[Going Rogue]

Luis Rivera knew that Dan was going out of town the next day and the murder had to happen that day. Do you believe that the best buy appointment was an alibi for Wendi? If so, doesn't that suggest that all the Adelsons were pretty sure the murder would happen on that day/time? At the very least it suggets they knew it was a strong possibility the murder would take place that day/time and were prepared. They didn't know exactly where it would take place, probably --- I agree with that.

On the other hand, how could the Adelsons predict what time the killers would arrive at Tally and what time they would be able to do the murder such that they made a Best Buy appt in advance to serve as an alibi? There are so many factors, it seems to me, that could've derailed the killers' plan. So even if the Adelsons knew the date, how could they be so sure of the time of day? Which leads me to... how could Wendi drive by Trescott to, allegedly, check things out at that specific time? How could she know it was done already and how could she know where it was done?

JMO, just musing out loud

In my opinion, if Wendi was directly involved, she was shielded off from the details. Since so many love to quote Cappleman, and draw conclusions from her questions, I’ll do the same – why did she ask Wendi on more than one occasion ~ “was the plan for you to have plausible deniability?”. Maybe Cappleman knows something that is a strong indicator Wendi wasn’t directly involved but was aware? I’m not sure if the BestBuy appointment was an alibi. Since it was setup by Donna, I’m leaning towards it was part of Donna’s plan to keep Wendi grounded at home that morning – I wonder what Wendi did Thursday? I don’t think we have a lot of detail on Wendi’s activities on Thursday – perhaps Donna had similar ‘tasks’ lined up for Wendi on Thursday morning / afternoon? There is really no evidence to support there was an exact time / day for the murder to take place. In fact, Rivera’s testimony that it had to be done before Dan left town is all the information we have to work off of – I’m leaning towards there was no exact time day to carry out the hit – it simply had to be done before Dan left town. It seems very clear the Charlie and Sigfredo never directly communicated, so I think the odds are low they strategized directly on a specific time and place to murder Dan. Rivera’s statements in his proffer further supports my belief that the plan was to do it when the opportunity presented itself rather than a specific time and place.

 

[Weki]

In my opinion, if Wendi was directly involved, she was shielded off from the details. Since so many love to quote Cappleman, and draw conclusions from her questions, I’ll do the same – why did she ask Wendi on more than one occasion ~ “was the plan for you to have plausible deniability?”. Maybe Cappleman knows something that is a strong indicator Wendi wasn’t directly involved but was aware? I’m not sure if the BestBuy appointment was an alibi. Since it was setup by Donna, I’m leaning towards it was part of Donna’s plan to keep Wendi grounded at home that morning – I wonder what Wendi did Thursday? I don’t think we have a lot of detail on Wendi’s activities on Thursday – perhaps Donna had similar ‘tasks’ lined up for Wendi on Thursday morning / afternoon? There is really no evidence to support there was an exact time / day for the murder to take place. In fact, Rivera’s testimony that it had to be done before Dan left town is all the information we have to work off of – I’m leaning towards there was no exact time day to carry out the hit – it simply had to be done before Dan left town. It seems very clear the Charlie and Sigfredo never directly communicated, so I think the odds are low they strategized directly on a specific time and place to murder Dan. Rivera’s statements in his proffer further supports my belief that the plan was to do it when the opportunity presented itself rather than a specific time and place.

While we're on the subject of things Cappelman has said, I have yet to see a quote from her indicating that Wendi conspired with Charlie and Donna in the planning of this murder. In fact, let me just do a quick throwback here, during Cappelman's cross examination of Charlie, she brings up the fact that his defense lawyer talked about how the state thinks he conspired with Wendi to commit this murder, and she asks Charlie whether he has read his charging documents and knows the charges against him. Charlie responds that he was charged for conspiring with his sister and his mother. And Cappelman brings out the charging documents and refreshes his memory that actually he's charged with conspiring with Katie Magbanua.

Go to the 58:20 minute mark: