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

[Zedzded]

<modsnip>

• Yes, most people would view the attempt at repairing a broken TV instead of simply trash and replace it as a stupidity. However, to be stupid is not a crime according to Florida’s rules of evidence. The TV repair attempt only shows that Florida bar admitted in good standing Wendi Adelson was at her home with the Best Buy employee at the time of the murder
• Yes, prowling on Trescott Dr. few hours after the murder is suspicious. However, driving on a familiar route, even if it is not a shortcut, is not a proof of guilt. A TPD officer (trustworthy witness) testified that the crime scene was tapped, and Wendi Adelson made a K turn few houses before the tapes. This prowling only shows that Florida bar admitted in good standing Wendi Adelson did not go to the crime scene ... because a police officer noticed her make a K turn away before reaching the crime scene!

Evidence is not crime. If someone buys a knife, they have not committed a crime. If they use it to stab someone, then that is a crime, and the knife purchase becomes relevant as evidence. If Bob tells John he hates Sally, that is irrelevant; it is not a crime. If he then goes on to kill Sally, Bob’s statement becomes pertinent.


Regarding the TV repair: it was not stupid; it was nonsensical, a subtle but important difference. People often do things that don’t make sense, which is not necessarily an issue. But it becomes an issue when that person is a prime suspect in a murder. Their behaviours, actions, and words become extremely relevant, and unusual or nonsensical behaviour will create suspicion. It is behaviour that will require plausible explanations to satisfy the jury.


For example, in the DA’s trial, her explanation about the text saying “outside your house” was that she was actually two miles away. That was not a plausible explanation and did not satisfy the jury. Likewise, with WA, she needs to explain a multitude of issues relating to the broken TV that will require plausible explanations.


She was told within the first few minutes by the Geek Squad technician that the TV could not be replaced. Why did she continue discussing its possible repair? She texted CA and spoke to him for 18 minutes regarding this. It was an old, cheap TV. She could have thrown it in the bin; no communication with family would have been required.


She is a lawyer. She studied consumer law at university and understands that warranties do not cover breakages and only last one year. Why was this not clarified over the phone? They paid $140 for the Geek Squad technician to come to their house, probably worth more than the TV itself.


Why did she look sad when told the TV could not be repaired? Why did the Geek Squad technician stay for 45 minutes? Why were four of the co-conspirators involved in the visit? Why did WA not accept JL’s offer of a new TV? Why did WA insist on watching a movie on the broken TV when they had a good TV in the other room?


This is all evidence. Do you really think a jury is going to sit there listening to this bizarre TV repair incicent and accept it with a shrug of their shoulders?

 

[Zedzded]

<modsnip> ...

• Yes, prowling on Trescott Dr. few hours after the murder is suspicious. However, driving on a familiar route, even if it is not a shortcut, is not a proof of guilt.

It is extremely important, when you are a prime suspect in a murder, to tell the truth in order not to implicate yourself, assuming you are innocent. If your friend robs a bank and you are a suspect but you were at home and can alibi yourself, then you are in the clear. But if you lie to the police and say you were at the shops, then that is an issue. Credibility is so important in a court room.


WA lied to the police about the route she took during her police interview. The story changed three or four times. This is a big problem for her. If she lied about the colour of her pants that day, it is not an issue. Lying about driving to the crime scene when you are a suspect is an issue and absolutely implies guilt. A jury will look at that deception and treat it for what it is: an attempt to deceive the police to conceal incriminating actions.


Why else would she lie? Why did she lie multiple times with different versions? In DA's trial she still lied. These are questions that need plausible answers. I think in KM's trial she claimed it was because she was bad with directions. In other trials she has claimed it was because she forgot. These are not excuses a jury will accept.

 

[Zedzded]

Does anyone have any thoughts why Sara Yousef did not testify in Donna's trial?

 

[Knitpicker]

Does anyone have any thoughts why Sara Yousef did not testify in Donna's trial?

Saving for Wendi? Had enough for Donna?

 

[Zedzded]

Saving for Wendi? Had enough for Donna?

You read my mind.