FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #22

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that by law, she gets to decide where the kids are placed, even if she is arrested. I believe that the state cannot take away her parental rights or make any determination as to the children if she has not been convicted, and possibly not even then.
The kids would have more of a say at their age. i.e if they objected, the judge would place heavy weight on their objection.
 
I believe that by law, she gets to decide where the kids are placed, even if she is arrested. I believe that the state cannot take away her parental rights or make any determination as to the children if she has not been convicted, and possibly not even then.
As minors, I believe the boys would be assigned a GAL by the Court. The job of the GAL is to serve as an evaluator, not a decision maker. Generally, they listen to all the interested parties including the defendant and report to the Court what action they believe is in the best interests of the children.

Florida is a Best Interests of the Children State

In Florida, the courts prioritize the best interests of the child when making decisions in custody and visitation cases (Florida Statutes § 61.13). The standard is meant to ensure that the child’s welfare —physically, emotionally, and developmentally—is given top priority. When the court needs to gain a clearer understanding of the child’s needs and desires, a Guardian ad Litem may be appointed.

In the CA murder case of Maya Millete, allegedly killed by her husband when she wanted to divorce him, their three minor children were assigned a GAL by the Court.

After Larry, the husband/father was not granted pretrial bail release, the Court granted temporary guardianship to his parents who were already living in the family home with them at the time their mother vanished.

In this case, the Court also prohibited the father from having any contact with his children except in writing via their GAL after he abused his phone/facetime privileges from jail. The only contact dad has with his children from jail is letters they write each other that go through the GAL.

The victim's family also petitioned for temporary guardianship and custody but three years later, the trial date for both murder and custody has been pushed out.


Florida is a "Best Interests of the Children" State.
 
The kids would have more of a say at their age. i.e if they objected, the judge would place heavy weight on their objection.
I doubt that they would object, just my opinion, but again, this is the only family they have known, and though they may have looked themselves up on the internet they may not fully be able to come to terms with what they have found. In my opinion they most likely have been told a story about the double extortion, and they may believe it, for now. In my opinion the family’s story is that Charlie got in with some bad people and got them all involved, and Donna was just helping him.
 
As minors, I believe the boys would be assigned a GAL by the Court. The job of the GAL is to serve as an evaluator, not a decision maker. Generally, they listen to all the interested parties including the defendant and report to the Court what action they believe is in the best interests of the children.

Florida is a Best Interests of the Children State

In Florida, the courts prioritize the best interests of the child when making decisions in custody and visitation cases (Florida Statutes § 61.13). The standard is meant to ensure that the child’s welfare —physically, emotionally, and developmentally—is given top priority. When the court needs to gain a clearer understanding of the child’s needs and desires, a Guardian ad Litem may be appointed.

In the CA murder case of Maya Millete, allegedly killed by her husband when she wanted to divorce him, their three minor children were assigned a GAL by the Court.

After Larry, the husband/father was not granted pretrial bail release, the Court granted temporary guardianship to his parents who were already living in the family home with them at the time their mother vanished.

In this case, the Court also prohibited the father from having any contact with his children except in writing via their GAL after he abused his phone/facetime privileges from jail. The only contact dad has with his children from jail is letters they write each other that go through the GAL.

The victim's family also petitioned for temporary guardianship and custody but three years later, the trial date for both murder and custody has been pushed out.


Florida is a "Best Interests of the Children" State.
This is after the husband in that case was arrested. Wendi has not been arrested.
 
This is after the husband in that case was arrested. Wendi has not been arrested.
Huh? I was responding specifically to Quote: ... even if she is arrested. I believe that the state cannot take away her parental rights or make any determination as to the children if she has not been convicted, and possibly not even then. Closed Quote.

And the point of my quote, share what generally happens to minor children when their only surviving parent is arrested.

What's the point of discussing the children's status without an arrest as there would be no issue facing mother or child, right?
 
Huh? I was responding specifically to Quote: ... even if she is arrested. I believe that the state cannot take away her parental rights or make any determination as to the children if she has not been convicted, and possibly not even then. Closed Quote.

And the point of my quote, share what generally happens to minor children when their only surviving parent is arrested.

What's the point of discussing the children's status without an arrest as there would be no issue facing mother or child, right?
Oh, sorry, duh, I should have read more carefully. You’re right, there’s no point, but some people do express frustration that the court cannot make a determination sooner.
 
I doubt that they would object, just my opinion, but again, this is the only family they have known, and though they may have looked themselves up on the internet they may not fully be able to come to terms with what they have found. In my opinion they most likely have been told a story about the double extortion, and they may believe it, for now. In my opinion the family’s story is that Charlie got in with some bad people and got them all involved, and Donna was just helping him.
I think the kids have been brainwashed and will still that way forever or at least for next 5+ years. They probably see the Markels as the enemy.
 
I think the kids have been brainwashed and will still that way forever or at least for next 5+ years. They probably see the Markels as the enemy.
I believe they do. I think it’s probably possible they’ve been told since they were 4 or 5 , in 2016, that the Markels wanted to “take them away and put them in foster care.” This seems to me to be what Wendi wants us to believe SHE thought when she cut off visitation, no matter how preposterous it might seem to most. In my opinion nobody could possibly read Ruth’s 2016 email to the state about placement as anything other than asking about a potential plan in the event of an arrest. But, little kids probably wouldn’t have known any of that.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody think that the alleged move to Texas might be a ruse, and that she may actually be planning on fleeing to a non-extradition country? I appreciate all of the above points, and it may be true that two grand juries did not see enough to indict her. BUT- why the move, and why now? It is my opinion that something may have spooked her. I would think that her passport would be flagged, but it doesn’t appear that Donna’s was, because the only way police knew of her plans to flee was from a tip.
The move seems like it is because she has close family in Texas. Harveys cousin in Corpus Cristi, and his daughter living in Austin. Seems if she gets arrested, the kids will be cared for (guardianship) by them.
Apparently, they know this family well and have visited there a lot.
 
Does anybody think that the alleged move to Texas might be a ruse, and that she may actually be planning on fleeing to a non-extradition country? I appreciate all of the above points, and it may be true that two grand juries did not see enough to indict her. BUT- why the move, and why now? It is my opinion that something may have spooked her. I would think that her passport would be flagged, but it doesn’t appear that Donna’s was, because the only way police knew of her plans to flee was from a t
She needs someone to take care of the kids if she is arrested. Thats the only family she has and she is close to them. I can’t seem to delete this copy and paste so I’ll repeat myself lol.
 
The move seems like it is because she has close family in Texas. Harveys cousin in Corpus Cristi, and his daughter living in Austin. Seems if she gets arrested, the kids will be cared for (guardianship) by them.
Apparently, they know this family well and have visited there a lot.
I believe this to be the best explanation about the move to Texas. The run-for-the-border scenario doesn't make sense; she'd be easily found and returned.
 
I believe this to be the best explanation about the move to Texas. The run-for-the-border scenario doesn't make sense; she'd be easily found and returned.
Yeah I don't think there is any intention to flee. I think she really is a deer in the headlights. Even when she stated on the stand "I'll never be arrested" there was doubt in her voice and a lot of false bravado, but part of her still felt she would never be charged. And she's arrogant, egotistical and a narcissist , however she's still a human (kind of) who is intelligent (kind of) so she knows after her brother was convicted and Mum arrested that her being charged is a distinct possibility.

Is that why she's moved, in anticipation of her being arrested and ensuring the boys have someone to look after them? No, I don't think so. I don't think she gives two *advertiser censored*ks about those boys. The two most important things in most kids lives are their Mum and Dad and she destroyed one of those things. And she's potentially destroyed their lives too. They lost their Dad, and now have no contact with either of their uncles, Grandma and most likely Grandad. They'll soon lose their Mum. So Wendi moved to Austin for Wendi. Probably to escape the fishbowl that is Miami, to distance herself from her Dad and also as a strategy to deny the Markels access to the kids as they are no longer in Florida.
 
I think out of all the Adelsons (including HA) WA would be the one that would struggle the most in prison. She would have lost everyone. Both brothers, Mum, Dad and her boys would no longer contact her. She would have few visitors and her money would have dried up by the time her trial and appeals are done and dusted. I think if DA is convicted, WA will unalive herself. Perhaps her last moments on this planet will be soothing for her as her boys never got to find out the truth. They'll carry on living thinking that perhaps she was innocent.
 
I don’t think the daughter lives in Austin. From what I know, the man has two daughters, both in the entertainment industry in LA.
The move seems like it is because she has close family in Texas. Harveys cousin in Corpus Cristi, and his daughter living in Austin. Seems if she gets arrested, the kids will be cared for (guardianship) by them.
Apparently, they know this family well and have visited there a lot.
 
Mark Twain intuited that “Humor is the great thing, the saving thing after all.” Perhaps, it is worthy to highlight with humor some sanity in this sea of nonsensical diarrhea of absurd speculations. A dose of Texan “Say what now?” seems appropriate in this instance.

Yes, Dr. Harvey Adelson has some second and third degree extended families in Texas. No, none of those Texan extended family members attended Dr. Charles Adelson’s first degree murder trial because they are not that close as some uninformed “mécréants” want them to be.

For those literates, it is worthy of notice that Texas has the “Texas Family Code Section 153.432 & Section 153.433”, which give biological or adoptive grandparent the ability to request possession or access to a grandchild. “Possession or access” are Texan speak for “custody or visitation rights”. The requirements for a court to consider granting such a request are:

1. The grandchild has lived with the grandparent at least for 6 months, or,
2. The parent custodian is declared incompetent such as due to health, or,
3. The parent custodian is deceased, or,
4. The parent custodian is committed to jail or prison for 3 months or more.

Dan Markel has died since 2014. In case Wendi Adelson were taken in custody by the State of Florida at a time Dan Markel’s minor sons have established residency in Texas such as through school enrollment, then the Texas Family Code provides the ability to grandparents Adelson and grandparents Markel to seeking custody of these Dan Markel’s minor sons. I trust any Texan judge to discern the inappropriateness of granting Dr. Harvey Adelson custody of these children in case their mother were taken into custody, given the State of Florida's case against this Adelson family of evil doers.

And before the woke keyboard warriors start to nauseatingly speculate and argue, suffice it to say that Texas Family Code does not mention second and third degree extended families. Just saying!
 

Inconsistent Argument Regarding WA's Knowledge?​

This is a long one. See TL; DR at the bottom if you don't feel like wading all the way through this.

As noted in my prior posts, I believe that WA was aware of and assisted in the plot to kill DM. I also believe it's important to carefully scrutnize the evidence and not give undue weight to evidence that is easily subject to attack.

For example, I think the argument that WA's "owl t-shirt" and her purchase of "Bulleit" whiskey somehow indicate her guilt is just silly. Conversely, I think her participation in the sham TV repair alibi, her (deleted) text and conversation with CA on the morning of the murder, her drive to, and hasty departure from, the crime scene without asking any questions, and her behavior during her police interview are all quite damning.

I recently relistend to Jeff Lecasse's testimony from CA's trial and one thing in particular jumps out at me.

A portion of Jeff's testimony was elicited to help show that WA knew the murder was going to happen on 7/18/14 because she cancelled a trip that might have prevented her from being in Tallahassee that day. Jeff's tesimony was also elicited to help show WA likely knew about the killers' first trip to Tallahassee on 6/4/14, because, according to JL, she was so beside herself with stress she became physically ill.

Here is the problem: WA cancelled the July trip on 6/4 according to Jeff. Why would she believe -- on 6/4 -- that the murder was going to occur on 7/18 (and thus cancel her trip) if she knew the killers were in town that very day and had not yet left town without committing the crime?
It seems quite the stretch to argue that 7/18 was already picked as the "back-up" date in the event 6/4 was unsuccessful. It also seems a stetch (and inconsistent with LR's testimony) to suggest that the 6/4 trip was only intended to be a "scouting" exercise and that 7/18 was always going to be D-day.

I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this. To be clear, I do not think this discrepancy indicates that WA was not a co-conspirator. Rather, I am questioning whether WA's cancellation of her July trip (on 6/4) can actually show that she knew the murder was going to happen on 7/18.

I know some people are loathe to post types of questions that could "help" the defense but the idea that WA's counsel would not be all over this would be a major underestimation IMO.

TL; DR: On June 4, 2014, how can both things be true: (1) WA knew the killers were in town for the first trip and (2) WA cancelled her July trip because she knew the killers would be back in town on 7/18
 

Inconsistent Argument Regarding WA's Knowledge?​

This is a long one. See TL; DR at the bottom if you don't feel like wading all the way through this.

As noted in my prior posts, I believe that WA was aware of and assisted in the plot to kill DM. I also believe it's important to carefully scrutnize the evidence and not give undue weight to evidence that is easily subject to attack.

For example, I think the argument that WA's "owl t-shirt" and her purchase of "Bulleit" whiskey somehow indicate her guilt is just silly. Conversely, I think her participation in the sham TV repair alibi, her (deleted) text and conversation with CA on the morning of the murder, her drive to, and hasty departure from, the crime scene without asking any questions, and her behavior during her police interview are all quite damning.

I recently relistend to Jeff Lecasse's testimony from CA's trial and one thing in particular jumps out at me.

A portion of Jeff's testimony was elicited to help show that WA knew the murder was going to happen on 7/18/14 because she cancelled a trip that might have prevented her from being in Tallahassee that day. Jeff's tesimony was also elicited to help show WA likely knew about the killers' first trip to Tallahassee on 6/4/14, because, according to JL, she was so beside herself with stress she became physically ill.

Here is the problem: WA cancelled the July trip on 6/4 according to Jeff. Why would she believe -- on 6/4 -- that the murder was going to occur on 7/18 (and thus cancel her trip) if she knew the killers were in town that very day and had not yet left town without committing the crime?
It seems quite the stretch to argue that 7/18 was already picked as the "back-up" date in the event 6/4 was unsuccessful. It also seems a stetch (and inconsistent with LR's testimony) to suggest that the 6/4 trip was only intended to be a "scouting" exercise and that 7/18 was always going to be D-day.

I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this. To be clear, I do not think this discrepancy indicates that WA was not a co-conspirator. Rather, I am questioning whether WA's cancellation of her July trip (on 6/4) can actually show that she knew the murder was going to happen on 7/18.

I know some people are loathe to post types of questions that could "help" the defense but the idea that WA's counsel would not be all over this would be a major underestimation IMO.

TL; DR: On June 4, 2014, how can both things be true: (1) WA knew the killers were in town for the first trip and (2) WA cancelled her July trip because she knew the killers would be back in town on 7/18
Maybe she canceled her July trip (with Jeff Lacasse, correct?) because she anticipated living in South FL and no longer needed JL as a babysitter for her kids and a patsy in her scheme.
 
Maybe she canceled her July trip (with Jeff Lacasse, correct?) because she anticipated living in South FL and no longer needed JL as a babysitter for her kids and a patsy in her sch
Whatever her actual reason, I don't see how JL's testimony can be used to show it was because she knew 7/18 was going to be the day of the murder.
 
Whatever her actual reason, I don't see how JL's testimony can be used to show it was because she knew 7/18 was going to be the day of the murder.
I think she anticipated being in Florida hence the cancellation. I think she got quite excited with booking or arranging Florida related things prior to the murder like someone goes out buying stuff for their upcoming holiday. I wouldn't be surprised if she had at the very least googled Miami schools, Miami rentals, local removalists prior to the murder.
 


For example, I think the argument that WA's "owl t-shirt" and her purchase of "Bulleit" whiskey somehow indicate her guilt is just silly. Conversely, I think her participation in the sham TV repair alibi, her (deleted) text and conversation with CA on the morning of the murder, her drive to, and hasty departure from, the crime scene without asking any questions, and her behavior during her police interview are all quite damning.
The owl t-shirt theory is a bit whacky. Probably a coincidence. The Bulleit bourbon thing also possibly a coincidence, although I've seen 2 versions of the invite. One specifically said "Bulleit Bourbon" on it. The second had a list of different types of alcohol to bring, including BB. So a guest could choose from a list. If that second invite was legitimate, it makes the argument, that the choice was contrived, a bit more compelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
2,047
Total visitors
2,143

Forum statistics

Threads
600,476
Messages
18,109,176
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top