GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU law professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #3 *Arrests*

[clearskies1]

I'm a little rusty on the Fed rules of evidence, but isn't this technically an out of court of statement, which would be hearsay? Maybe there's a glaring exception I'm forgetting about, but otherwise, I could see the defense making a motion in limine to exclude or raising an objection if brought up at trial. Nonetheless, Florida rules of evidence may differ, and I know there are a lot of exceptions to the general rule against hearsay.

Yes, but I believe that out of court statements by a defendant (if DA becomes a defendant) are not hearsay and can be used against the defendant. Now whether they could use it against CA is another story.

 

[TTF14]

The way I understand the article, it was just CA and WA at dinner. She then told friends and Lacasse later about her vomitting event while at the dinner table and then explained why she vomitted: My brother admitted to hiring the hit. Hmmmm..... I don't see it unless she's setting bro up for the fall. Certainly she's not that naive to think friends and Lacasse would keep that little tidbit a secret.

Are people just assuming that's what happened? Because if someone heard it directly from her mouth regarding her bro, then certainly CA would be sitting in jail right now.

Thanks Richmonder for wading in but I'm afraid I'm more confused than ever. It doesn't make sense unless I'm not understanding correctly.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Pretty sure this was just a theory.

 

[miamiheat]

Yes, but I believe that out of court statements by a defendant (if DA becomes a defendant) are not hearsay and can be used against the defendant. Now whether they could use it against CA is another story.

Also if I understand correctly it's not hearsay if it's not being presented to establish the "truth of the matter asserted" by DA in the call. So for example, if DA said "CA ordered the hit" it could be hearsay as to CA, if prosecutors introduce it to establish that CA ordered the hit. Would not be hearsay as to DA if introduced in her trial. But if she were to say something like "thanks for letting me know, I need to get my hair done" that would NOT be hearsay as to CA or DA if presented to show her nonchalance or disinterest but would be hearsay if presented to show that DA needs to get her hair done. Do I have that right? IMHO, speculation.

 

[clearskies1]

Also if I understand correctly it's not hearsay if it's not being presented to establish the "truth of the matter asserted" by DA in the call. So for example, if DA said "CA ordered the hit" it could be hearsay as to CA, if prosecutors introduce it to establish that CA ordered the hit. Would not be hearsay as to DA if introduced in her trial. But if she were to say something like "thanks for letting me know, I need to get my hair done" that would NOT be hearsay as to CA or DA if presented to show her nonchalance or disinterest but would be hearsay if presented to show that DA needs to get her hair done. Do I have that right? IMHO, speculation.

I agree with you miamiheat.

 

[Dolphin]

WA told the investigators that she got along with the victim for the sake of the children. That seems false as they litigated their divorce intensely regardless of any impact those proceedings might have on their kids. How she thinks she could have gotten away with such an obvious lie is simply beyond me. Also, the statement that she​ couldn't handle the horrible possibility that her parent's might be involved in the victim's death seems narcissistic to put it mildly.

 

[Razz]

Pretty sure this was just a theory.

Yes, and I'm trying to disprove that theory for the reasons I listed. There's a reason they let this info out. I want to know why.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Razz]

I agree with you miamiheat.

Thanks. I'm thinking she said something of interest that by itself is not incriminating but when all things are factored in, it may be a doozie.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[86Violet]

WA told the investigators that she got along with the victim for the sake of the children. That seems false as they litigated their divorce intensely regardless of any impact those proceedings might have on their kids. How she thinks she could have gotten away with such an obvious lie is simply beyond me. Also, the statement that she​ couldn't handle the horrible possibility that her parent's might be involved in the victim's death seems narcissistic to put it mildly.

Agreed - I noticed the same comment. They weren't getting a long AT ALL, notwithstanding the "sake of the children."

 

[86Violet]

At the moment, I am still in the camp of people who do not believe WA had any prior knowledge of the hit on DM. One theory is that it was at that dinner with CA that he first made it clear to WA that he was one who arranged the hit. Hence, the vomiting. Vomiting has been my own reaction to being put in a very stressful situation. I could be totally wrong though.

I agree this could potentially have been the situation, if WA didn't know. I'm of the camp of people who believe that WA knew. The article said Lacasse said that WA's brother suggested they go out to celebrate, just weeks after Dan's death. Another potential scenario is that CA and WA "celebrated" and she got so drunk she threw up on the table.

Admittedly, the context in which she told Lacasse or other friends that she threw up on the table, or how they found out, has not been revealed to us. That leaves a lot of room for confusion and speculation.

 

[dotr]

Yes, and I'm trying to disprove that theory for the reasons I listed. There's a reason they let this info out. I want to know why.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

rbbm.
If we are discussing the alleged vomiting at the table, then what comes to mind is that stomach turning details of the shooting might have been revealed at that dinner. It took a long time for the info that DM was actually shot twice to be released. Maybe WA learned about that info at dinner, one shot might sound terrible, but "clean", two shots to the head sounds particularly gruesome.
If W did tell friends and b.f. about getting sick, maybe it was to demonstrate how deeply upset she was about DM's death?
imo, speculation.

 

[SeesSeas]

rbbm.
If we are discussing the alleged vomiting at the table, then what comes to mind is that stomach turning details of the shooting might have been revealed at that dinner. It took a long time for the info that DM was actually shot twice to be released. Maybe WA learned about that info at dinner, one shot might sound terrible, but "clean", two shots to the head sounds particularly gruesome.
If W did tell friends and b.f. about getting sick, maybe it was to demonstrate how deeply upset she was about DM's death?
imo, speculation.

On the day of the murder, WA knew the murder was gruesome.
When WA was being interviewed by TPD that afternoon, the detective told WA “Daniel has been taken to the hospital. He’s not going to survive.”
One shot or two shots…. Either way, Dan was still ALIVE after the shooting.

 

[dotr]

On the day of the murder, WA knew the murder was gruesome.
When WA was being interviewed by TPD that afternoon, the detective told WA “Daniel has been taken to the hospital. He’s not going to survive.”
One shot or two shots…. Either way, Dan was still ALIVE after the shooting.

The whole thing is beyond horrific, the poor man sitting in his own garage talking about his children, two bullets to the head and still alive.
It is hard to see anyone who cares about the children, being capable of inflicting that kind of he** on DM, the father, his children and family, in spite of present appearances.
Actually hoping that the person/s responsible for this brutal murder is a stranger, and not someone he knew and/or loved.
imo, speculation.

 

[SeesSeas]

Luis Rivera – Where is he?

LR could be cooperating with a plea deal which includes protective custody.

LR is serving a federal prison sentence. If he becomes a snitch, he is at risk of harm while housed with general population, especially given his gang affiliation.

As part of a plea deal arrangement between the state and feds, LR may be provided federal witness protection which means that his federal incarceration location will not be disclosed.

If he is in WITSEC, he won’t be found on the BOP Find An Inmate website. https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/

Witness Security Program (WITSEC) https://www.usmarshals.gov/witsec/

More information:
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/BOP/a0901/final.pdf
Page ii - . . . the BOP’s WITSEC inmates are housed in 1 of 7 Protective Custody Units (PCU) located in BOP facilities throughout the country. Although located within BOP institutions housing non-WITSEC inmates, the PCUs are separate facilities, each of which houses only WITSEC inmates.

 

[jdrive]

Also if I understand correctly it's not hearsay if it's not being presented to establish the "truth of the matter asserted" by DA in the call. So for example, if DA said "CA ordered the hit" it could be hearsay as to CA, if prosecutors introduce it to establish that CA ordered the hit. Would not be hearsay as to DA if introduced in her trial. But if she were to say something like "thanks for letting me know, I need to get my hair done" that would NOT be hearsay as to CA or DA if presented to show her nonchalance or disinterest but would be hearsay if presented to show that DA needs to get her hair done. Do I have that right? IMHO, speculation.

Yes, I agree with this, too. As for constitutional issues, someone previously noted that DA was not in custody and not compelled to speak, so no Fifth Amendment issues. Also no Fourth Amendment violation. Though the police would need a warrant to eavesdrop electronically on the call, DA essentially assumed the risk of WA not taking sufficient precautions regarding the risks of being overheard.

 

[Razz]

All of you in the Tallahassee area stay safe!!

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[DeeMarie]

 

[SeesSeas]

CA might have travelled out of the country… if he is part of the “we” who travelled yesterday to Cancun. Referring to JU FB page with a :heartbeat: emoticon.

 

[Razz]

CA might have travelled out of the country… if he is part of the “we” who travelled yesterday to Cancun. Referring to JU FB page with a [emoji813]beat: emoticon.

Oh Dear. I wonder if TPD is aware of that.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[wildebeest]

CA might have travelled out of the country… if he is part of the “we” who travelled yesterday to Cancun. Referring to JU FB page with a :heartbeat: emoticon.

Not surprised at all.

 

[Razz]

Not surprised at all.

Why are you not surprised?

I hope he didn't dye his hair and have a bunch of $$ (Ala Scott Petersen). If they felt the need, I guess they could have the Mexican authorities pick them up. 😨 And keep them for awhile.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk