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

[Zedzded]

Did she even go to Machu Pichu?

 

[IQuestion]

Interesting. Did CA believe he was charged with conspiring with DA and WA because that's what happened?

OOOOOOoooops! Great catch!

 

[Knitpicker]

Did she even go to Machu Pichu?

It was supposed to be 8/2014.

 

[Fromeaster]

I heard that her father's cancer was her excuse for not going to Harvard.

 

[Zedzded]

I heard that her father's cancer was her excuse for not going to Harvard.

Yeah that rings a bell. And it was confirmed that she never got an offer.

 

[Knitpicker]

I heard that her father's cancer was her excuse for not going to Harvard.

Right. Which I guess is the reason no one around Wendi and Dan were supposed to mention that he went to Harvard…….

 

[Going Rogue]

This is just an observation. Rob Adelson stands out as the only member of the Adelson family with integrity and strong moral standards. When examining the rest of the family, there are numerous examples (beyond the murder itself) that suggest elitist attitudes, entitlement, and moral corruption. That said, I believe many who follow the Dan Markel case struggle to distinguish between "evidence" of criminal involvement and "incidents" that simply reflect low moral character. There are plenty of examples of actions or statements by the Adelsons, discussed across various forums, that are often presented as if they prove involvement in the crime. Wendi is the best example, as she remains uncharged. You could write a book about the unflattering details revealed by Lacasse and other public sources, both before and after the murder, that paint her as having low moral character. Many of these incidents are not necessarily evidence of her direct involvement in the crime but there is a tendency to conflate unflattering personal behaviors with criminal evidence.

I have always been transparent about my belief that the case against Wendi is weak and that it’s possible Donna and Charlie may have plotted the murder behind her back. I suspect others share this view but are hesitant to express it due to the backlash from the J4DM community, often accompanied by accusations of being part of an "Adelson PR effort" or being a Wendi supporter / in love with her etc. Many stories about Wendi are repeated in social media and framed as proof of her involvement, even though they have little to do with actual evidence of criminal activity. I won’t cite specific examples, as I don’t want to personalize my thoughts, but you don’t need to too hard to find instances where these "incidents" are highlighted and misrepresented as evidence of her direct involvement when they are simply examples of her low moral character.

 

[opt]

It's unreasonable to believe that CA and DA did this unless WA had made it clear to them that she wanted it done. Murder without her permission is almost as incredible as CA's murder on spec story.

 

[BearWatcher]

It's unreasonable to believe that CA and DA did this unless WA had made it clear to them that she wanted it done. Murder without her permission is almost as incredible as CA's murder on spec story.

Thus the 'You're so sweet' to CA from WA the morning of?

 

[Going Rogue]

It's unreasonable to believe that CA and DA did this unless WA had made it clear to them that she wanted it done. Murder without her permission is almost as incredible as CA's murder on spec story.

I know most agree that Charlie and Donna wouldn’t act without Wendi’s explicit approval, but in my opinion their psychological profiles give me reason to believe they may have plotted the murder behind her back. Both Donna and Charlie show narcissistic traits and a mix of other disorders – entitlement, control, and a belief they’re above consequences – evident in Donna’s fixation on “fixing” Wendi’s situation and Charlie’s grandiose behavior in his communications and lifestyle. Such individuals can act unilaterally, driven by a distorted sense of loyalty or problem-solving, especially in a tight-knit family where they assume they “know” what’s best. Their moral corruption could fuel a belief that such drastic action was warranted, independent of Wendi’s input. Charlie and Donna’s psychological profiles make it conceivable they may have acted alone, driven by their own warped sense of duty or control, which aligns with their elitist attitudes.

 

[Knitpicker]

It's unreasonable to believe that CA and DA did this unless WA had made it clear to them that she wanted it done. Murder without her permission is almost as incredible as CA's murder on spec story.

And when she found out (according to Charlies trial) that there was an extortion BOTH her mother and brother knew about since 2016, why would she ever want to talk to either of them again? And especially give her dad a kiss leaving the court at Donnas trial.
You would think she would be calling Robert (who she clearly never spoke to again after the murder and Donnas call to him) and discussing the situation with him. And be FURIOUS that her childrens father was killed by her mother and brother. But we know whose side she is on.

 

[Knitpicker]

My blood ran cold when I heard Wendi reading her essay and she said it was a hitman/ professional hit. This was recorded well before any arrests.

And “the media had a field day” Really? Perhaps the media cared more about who killed her latex than she did!

 

[opt]

I know most agree that Charlie and Donna wouldn’t act without Wendi’s explicit approval, but in my opinion their psychological profiles give me reason to believe they may have plotted the murder behind her back.

Thank you for explaining your opinion. I still disagree. This is orders of magnitude beyond buying your spouse a car or a house as a complete surprise, which is done but quite rarely.

Murder as a surprise gift won't fly with a jury just as murder on spec didn't.

 

[Going Rogue]

Thank you for explaining your opinion. I still disagree. This is orders of magnitude beyond buying your spouse a car or a house as a complete surprise, which is done but quite rarely.

Murder as a surprise gift won't fly with a jury just as murder on spec didn't.

Although, it’s the states theory it was a birthday gift for Harvey, if it was done behind Wendi’s back, I do not believe Donna and Charlie’s plan would have been to disclose to Wendi they were behind it. Murder is not on the same scale as a the purchase of a home or car, and anyone capable of planning a murder for hire is living by a different set of rules than someone with a normal functioning brain. Most people that follow this case agree with you. It’s hard enough to imagine how someone can put a plan in place to murder another human and I believe there is no protocol when it comes to murder for hire. I can easily see Donna and Charlie’s mentality being that they know what was best for Wendi and getting her approval wasn’t required in their warped minds – in fact, a case can be made for why they wouldn’t have wanted her to be in the know.

 

[Wishbone]

WA's conflicting testimonies and hedging in answering questions in a straightforward manner all point to her lack of credibility(add to that her phony demeanor on the stand and during her LE interview) IMO show her as nothing but a liar. She has no credibility and so many coincidences that she is completely unbelievable. Even the jury trying her unholy mother could see through her lies and evasiveness.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

WA's conflicting testimonies and hedging in answering questions in a straightforward manner all point to her lack of credibility(add to that her phony demeanor on the stand and during her LE interview) IMO show her as nothing but a liar. She has no credibility and so many coincidences that she is completely unbelievable. Even the jury trying her unholy mother could see through her lies and evasiveness.

Yes @Wishbone ….. and I still like to think we haven’t seen or heard the last of that interview she gave to investigators. The one where her ‘friend’ was allowed to sit in on it! And WA and the friend kept answering for and on top of each other. That whole thing, IMO, seemed scripted and rehearsed. And practiced and contrived. Time will tell. MOO

 

[Wishbone]

Yes @Wishbone ….. and I still like to think we haven’t seen or heard the last of that interview she gave to investigators. The one where her ‘friend’ was allowed to sit in on it! And WA and the friend kept answering for and on top of each other. That whole thing, IMO, seemed scripted and rehearsed. And practiced and contrived. Time will tell. MOO

The subject of JL came up as a possible suspect after this "friend" showed up. It seemed very contrived to me as well. Plus their giggling was disgusting considering the situation being discussed. Good catch.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

The subject of JL came up as a possible suspect after this "friend" showed up. It seemed very contrived to me as well. Plus their giggling was disgusting considering the situation being discussed. Good catch.

Thank you for confirming what I had recalled @Wishbone …… Maybe that ‘friend’ could be charged with something? To get additional information perhaps? What about obstruction of justice? Or something else? IANAL. Fortunately there is no statute of limitation on murder. And I am content to await GC, prosecutors, and the DA’s (District Attorney…… not an Adelson) next moves if any. MOO

 

[Knitpicker]

Although, it’s the states theory it was a birthday gift for Harvey, if it was done behind Wendi’s back, I do not believe Donna and Charlie’s plan would have been to disclose to Wendi they were behind it. Murder is not on the same scale as a the purchase of a home or car, and anyone capable of planning a murder for hire is living by a different set of rules than someone with a normal functioning brain. Most people that follow this case agree with you. It’s hard enough to imagine how someone can put a plan in place to murder another human and I believe there is no protocol when it comes to murder for hire. I can easily see Donna and Charlie’s mentality being that they know what was best for Wendi and getting her approval wasn’t required in their warped minds – in fact, a case can be made for why they wouldn’t have wanted her to be in the know.

Do you believe she only found out about the extortion the first day of Charlies trial?
Do you believe her hatred of the Markels is warranted?

 

[Going Rogue]

Do you believe she only found out about the extortion the first day of Charlies trial?
Do you believe her hatred of the Markels is warranted?

The second question is just silly but I’ll gladly answer the first one. I believe it’s very possible that Wendi found out about the double extortion “defense” the day it was first revealed at Charlie’s trial, but there’s no way she didn’t know her family was behind the murder well before she initially testified at the first trial in 2019, so she knew with 100% certainty that Charlie wasn’t extorted. I stand by what I’ve been saying for years: if Wendi wasn’t directly involved, she made a conscious decision to stand by her murderous family. Once she testified in the first trial and claimed she knew nothing, she was tied to that decision, and there was no backtracking without serious legal consequences. I continue to see examples that rightly prove Wendi is morally corrupt (and I agree she is), but that doesn’t mean she was directly involved. In my opinion, most people following this case can’t separate “incidents” that reflect Wendi’s low moral character from “evidence” proving she was part of the conspiracy. It’s my opinion that it’s very possible (and I’ve said this multiple times) she figured out her family’s involvement shortly after the murder, and it’s possible she was suspicious they were up to something before the murder. As I’ve said multiple times, I have a hard time believing some common theories, like the strategic use of reverse psychology to justify her comments about Charlie in the police interview. I also think the Lacasse setup narrative is a major stretch, to name two widely believed theories.

Most people find my opinions nonsensical, and I honestly don’t have an issue with anyone challenging my thought process as long as it’s done respectfully and, at least in this forum, it is. My opinions in other places might get you kicked out of the club.