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.

 

[Knitpicker]

I don’t mind the feedback at all. My critique of how Carl has persuaded and fed the community with false optimism about the strength of the case against Wendi and has the entire community believing her arrest is imminent is my honest opinion. I don’t like to sugarcoat things, and truth be told, I don’t always feel great about sharing that perspective because I don’t think Carl is a bad person. I just believe he has significant blind spots in how he analyzes this case and has reported misleading facts that are too big to be little. Do you think my statement that people should stop listening to Carl is offensive to his followers? I’m not calling his followers sheep, Carl is not a regular anonymous moron like me posting on the internet, he has legal credentials, and should be more responsible than someone like me. He has literally undermined (on several occasions) the tally DA’s office. Personally, I believe someone with his credentials should not go there especially when his is not privy to inside information.

Catching up on comments I missed.
It began bothering me when Carl started criticizing Georgia as being incompetent -and how he would handle the case differently if he were the prosecutor.
I think he referred to the SO as “those prosecutors in Tallahassee” or something similar-in a derogatory way.

Then he showed up in Georgias (the states) courtroom, and is filmed after DA’s conviction by Joel outside on a bench sitting there with his brother and new wife, as if he now supports the justice system in Tallahassee.

Perhaps he is just supporting the Markels , but to suport the Markels he ought to be supporting the states efforts.
I know Phil has been on his channel in chat (bless his heart), and since the Markels support the state and have even thanked them after DA’s conviction, you just wonder if the family is as in tune with Carls criticism as we who closely follow all info on the case are.

 

[opt]

My opinion is that when the State has as much evidence as it's going to get, it should proceed. Roll the dice. Donna's quick verdict proves that the odds are in the State's favor even with a largely circumstantial case. If the State hopes to have more evidence after Charlie exhausts his appeal, then wait for that.

 

[Zedzded]

Perhaps he is just supporting the Markels , but to suport the Markels he ought to be supporting the states efforts.

I guess like a lot of us, he's frustrated. I understand why there are delays, but it shouldn't work like it does. The process needs to be better.

 

[Going Rogue]

Catching up on comments I missed.
It began bothering me when Carl started criticizing Georgia as being incompetent -and how he would handle the case differently if he were the prosecutor.
I think he referred to the SO as “those prosecutors in Tallahassee” or something similar-in a derogatory way.

Then he showed up in Georgias (the states) courtroom, and is filmed after DA’s conviction by Joel outside on a bench sitting there with his brother and new wife, as if he now supports the justice system in Tallahassee.

Perhaps he is just supporting the Markels , but to suport the Markels he ought to be supporting the states efforts.
I know Phil has been on his channel in chat (bless his heart), and since the Markels support the state and have even thanked them after DA’s conviction, you just wonder if the family is as in tune with Carls criticism as we who closely follow all info on the case are.

I agree and I believe certain creators have inserted themselves into the narrative in a very real way. When their coverage includes strong opinions about guilt/innocence, theories about evidence or predictions about trial outcomes and future arrests, analyzing the accuracy, bias, or impact of those public statements becomes directly relevant to understanding how this case has unfolded in the public sphere and in the courtroom.

True-crime coverage / commentary is now part of the modern justice-story ecosystem – we’ve seen it in this case, Murdaugh, Karen Read, Kohberger, etc. IMO, discussing it factually and respectfully, especially when it has already been raised in official proceedings, should fall within fair discussion of the case itself, not be treated as off-limits podcaster drama. I just wanted to clarify why I believe thoughtful critique of influential coverage is legitimately part of discussing the Markel case because it seems to be frowned upon. I say that with the utmost respect to any of the mods that may disagree. JMO

 

[Knitpicker]

I agree and I believe certain creators have inserted themselves into the narrative in a very real way. When their coverage includes strong opinions about guilt/innocence, theories about evidence or predictions about trial outcomes and future arrests, analyzing the accuracy, bias, or impact of those public statements becomes directly relevant to understanding how this case has unfolded in the public sphere and in the courtroom.

True-crime coverage / commentary is now part of the modern justice-story ecosystem – we’ve seen it in this case, Murdaugh, Karen Read, Kohberger, etc. IMO, discussing it factually and respectfully, especially when it has already been raised in official proceedings, should fall within fair discussion of the case itself, not be treated as off-limits podcaster drama. I just wanted to clarify why I believe thoughtful critique of influential coverage is legitimately part of discussing the Markel case because it seems to be frowned upon. I say that with the utmost respect to any of the mods that may disagree. JMO

It’s the way the criticism is handled and presented, not the criticism itself.

 

[Knitpicker]

I guess like a lot of us, he's frustrated. I understand why there are delays, but it shouldn't work like it does. The process needs t

I guess like a lot of us, he's frustrated. I understand why there are delays, but it shouldn't work like it does. The process needs to be better.

We have had the benefit of hearing her testify through 4 trials, lying through her teeth. Her jury will never see her testify or be privy to those trials. She will never take the stand.

 

[Weki]

I finally figured out the best actor/comedian to play Charlie Adelson and I had to share. Tell me this is not perfect??? If you know this guy’s background, he’s Charlie’s twin!

Chris D’Elia

 

[AuDHD]

I finally figured out the best actor/comedian to play Charlie Adelson and I had to share. Tell me this is not perfect??? If you know this guy’s background, he’s Charlie’s twin!

Chris D’Elia


View attachment 628999

omg totally see the resemblance JMO