Anyone ever read Bill James' book on true crime? Really interesting, and being the cerebral type he has a very compelling typology of evidence from most to least persuasive. Most persuasive would be probative physical evidence, like blood or DNA from the accused at the crime scene. Least persuasive are what he calls conclusions from type. Classic example is "X is guilty bc they reacted Y way and an innocent person would react not-Y way." The latter is usually not useful bc human reactions so there are always inferences you could make in either direction. This approach usually just imports the observer's preexisting bias about a situation.
A lot of the discussion of WA has been in the latter vein. "She knew bc she was a control freak." "She didn't know bc she was a princess and the family would have protected her." "The police video proves she knew." "The police video proves she didn't know." I don't think this is a useful approach bc of the above: You can come up with inferences to support both conclusions.
The good news is that we no longer need to make these kinds of unreliable inferences from type on the issue whether WA was involved because we have a pretty strong factual record to support this conclusion. Consider the facts we now have about her involvement:
1. Days before the murder, she asked Lacasse about his whereabouts on the 18th, and confirmed that he was leaving town on the day and around the time of the murder. Why would she have cared about the timing of Lacasse's trip at all, especially when she was (apparently) breaking up with him?
2. She cancelled the trip to California with Lacasse to meet his parents because of the remote chance that the flight (due to return on the 17th) would be cancelled and she'd miss getting her kids on the 18th because (per his testimony) she *had* to get her kids that day. Why would this have been so important unless she suspected Dan would not have been available to get the kids himself?
3. In the weeks leading up to the murder, she exhibited inexplicable anxiety so extreme she had diarrhea. At the "celebration dinner" after Dan was killed (which btw--how effed up is it that they had a celebration dinner about someone's murder, even if they weren't involved?), she was so out of it she vomited at the table. This one is more inferential but why would she have exhibited symptoms of severe nerves/anxiety/guilt at these precise times (including before the event) if it wasn't related to Dan's murder?
4. The killers drove a car very similar to Lacasse's. The only person involved in this who knew what car Lacasse drove was WA. How else could they have known to get a very specific make and model if she didn't provide the information?
There's likely more that others can supply, but these are facts that aren't susceptible of equally plausible competing inferences that show either her foreknowledge (2 and 3) or her involvement (1 and 4) the killing. With these facts, the question is not whether Wendi knew, it's whether she merely knew what was happening, or was actively involved as well.
A lot of the discussion of WA has been in the latter vein. "She knew bc she was a control freak." "She didn't know bc she was a princess and the family would have protected her." "The police video proves she knew." "The police video proves she didn't know." I don't think this is a useful approach bc of the above: You can come up with inferences to support both conclusions.
The good news is that we no longer need to make these kinds of unreliable inferences from type on the issue whether WA was involved because we have a pretty strong factual record to support this conclusion. Consider the facts we now have about her involvement:
1. Days before the murder, she asked Lacasse about his whereabouts on the 18th, and confirmed that he was leaving town on the day and around the time of the murder. Why would she have cared about the timing of Lacasse's trip at all, especially when she was (apparently) breaking up with him?
2. She cancelled the trip to California with Lacasse to meet his parents because of the remote chance that the flight (due to return on the 17th) would be cancelled and she'd miss getting her kids on the 18th because (per his testimony) she *had* to get her kids that day. Why would this have been so important unless she suspected Dan would not have been available to get the kids himself?
3. In the weeks leading up to the murder, she exhibited inexplicable anxiety so extreme she had diarrhea. At the "celebration dinner" after Dan was killed (which btw--how effed up is it that they had a celebration dinner about someone's murder, even if they weren't involved?), she was so out of it she vomited at the table. This one is more inferential but why would she have exhibited symptoms of severe nerves/anxiety/guilt at these precise times (including before the event) if it wasn't related to Dan's murder?
4. The killers drove a car very similar to Lacasse's. The only person involved in this who knew what car Lacasse drove was WA. How else could they have known to get a very specific make and model if she didn't provide the information?
There's likely more that others can supply, but these are facts that aren't susceptible of equally plausible competing inferences that show either her foreknowledge (2 and 3) or her involvement (1 and 4) the killing. With these facts, the question is not whether Wendi knew, it's whether she merely knew what was happening, or was actively involved as well.
