FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #25

I've been in town for 25+ years and I always take Trescott instead of Betton if I'm coming from Centerville or that side of town in general.

Yet there are tons of people that continue to say ‘no one would ever go that way’. I don’t live in the area but it looks clear to me just by what I’ve seen (the map and videos on uTube) that distance wise they are equidistant. Yes, there are speedbumps on Trescott, but if you take Trsecott you are beating two traffic lights AND it looks like traffic builds up on Benton heading towards the second light so your are also beating that traffic build up.
 
Yet there are tons of people that continue to say ‘no one would ever go that way’. I don’t live in the area but it looks clear to me just by what I’ve seen (the map and videos on uTube) that distance wise they are equidistant. Yes, there are speedbumps on Trescott, but if you take Trsecott you are beating two traffic lights AND it looks like traffic builds up on Benton heading towards the second light so your are also beating that traffic build up.
Exactly. I do think WA has some level of culpability. I just don't think the liquor store or the route indicate that.
 
Yet there are tons of people that continue to say ‘no one would ever go that way’. I don’t live in the area but it looks clear to me just by what I’ve seen (the map and videos on uTube) that distance wise they are equidistant. Yes, there are speedbumps on Trescott, but if you take Trsecott you are beating two traffic lights AND it looks like traffic builds up on Benton heading towards the second light so your are also beating that traffic build up.
Georgia showed the map of the route and she suggested it wasn’t a shortcut. (Or on second thought that could have been Det. Corbins visual when he was on the stand).
Do you think she was disingenuous for including the route and making that suggestion? So, where do you think the state stands on that issue?
I think the reason why most make an issue about Trescott is because during the trial, visually it did look like a longer route.
But that doesn’t account for Wendis two versions of Trescott that she alternated with each trial. It does make her look like shes lying.So if she was innocent she wouldn’t have changed her story. She turned, she didn’t turn. I don’t have to tell you. You know that.
Lol I remember you said you make files on everyone’s comments. So you know when I repeat myself or the subject matter I’ve commented on more than I do. Lol.
 
Georgia showed the map of the route and she suggested it wasn’t a shortcut. (Or on second thought that could have been Det. Corbins visual when he was on the stand).
Do you think she was disingenuous for including the route and making that suggestion? So, where do you think the state stands on that issue?
I think the reason why most make an issue about Trescott is because during the trial, visually it did look like a longer route.
But that doesn’t account for Wendis two versions of Trescott that she alternated with each trial. It does make her look like shes lying.So if she was innocent she wouldn’t have changed her story. She turned, she didn’t turn. I don’t have to tell you. You know that.
Lol I remember you said you make files on everyone’s comments. So you know when I repeat myself or the subject matter I’ve commented on more than I do. Lol.

I once told you I keep a word doc of all my replies to because you asked the same questions often– I was joking :). I do have a file on my computer on docs and stuff on the case since I follow it – I’m sure I’m not the only one?

I don’t think Georgia ever said Trescott wasn’t a shortcut – I don’t ever recall that? IMO, the notion that Trescott is not a shortcut was force-fed down everyone’s throat by a few strong uTube personalities – I have always challenged people on that. You know for three years I’ve been saying the routes are equidistant and you know I even published a video over a year ago (my one and only video) on the topic of the route to ABC vs. Market Square. In that video I closed with detailing the difference between cutting through Trescott vs. staying on Centerville to Benton. It’s obvious to me that Trescott can easily be considered a shortcut despite what some YouTube hosts brainwashed many to believe. As I said in my other comment (and detailed in my video) Trescott has speedbumps BUT you are avoiding 2 traffic lights if you go that way. Also you avoid a potential traffic buildup that starts to build up at the second light on Benton very close to where Trescott and Benton intersect. In one of the YouTube videos I saw, you can actually see the traffic building up at the light I reference. Don’t take my word, I’m just using common sense based on my own research and information gathering, ask yazoost who said he/she lives in the area for 25 plus years and always goes the same way Wendi went and as confirmed by Lacasse.

Trescott can easily be considered a shortcut when traveling down Centerville heading south to Thomasville. The reason they put speedbumps on the road several years ago is because was and still is widely used as a shortcut / cut through from what I’ve heard.
 
Yeah, and also the speed bumps would have slowed down the Trescott route.
I do agree that we have whats called neuroplasticity operating when we drive.
That means that if we have taken a certain route to get somewhere, we tend to always use that route.
I also thought that her appointment with the friend Renee may have been at FSU, so originally she may have chosen ABC and taken Trescott because that was the route she also went when she was teaching.
What is a problem is Jeffreys admission that She took Trescott a lot as a shortcut.
There is a way I can get to my office at about the same time as another way, but I prefer the route that takes me through subdivisions rather than a main, Commerical route.
My memory definitely declined since I got covid lol. Working on that. So when you say “Do you remember” chances are I don’t. Which is frustrating for me since I always had a keen memory (plus old age).

Yup. People don't always choose a quicker route. I drive a longer way to work because its a nicer drive up the coast vs a freeway. And I drive past my ex-wifes house!

So I don't think WA's drive down Trescott means much by itself. It's when you add other bits of info that it looks odd.
 
I've just realised something. WA went to ABC liquor to buy liquor for the party in the evening. Why didn't she get it after lunch? She was late for lunch, so late that she didn't even have time to shower or change, yet she took a slightly longer route, bought the alcohol and went to get petrol. She could have done that after lunch. She could have driven straight to Mozaik.
 
I think the reason why most make an issue about Trescott is because during the trial, visually it did look like a longer route.
But that doesn’t account for Wendis two versions of Trescott that she alternated with each trial. It does make her look like shes lying.So if she was innocent she wouldn’t have changed her story. She turned, she didn’t turn. I don’t have to tell you. You know that.
Yup that's the issue for her really. Driving down Trescott was something she did from time to time. But lying about it with 3 different versions is bad. I feel if WA is on the stand in her own trial, GC will harangue her until she has no choice, but to admit the truth.

She kind of has admitted she went to the crime scene. She maintains she did not go to the crime scene, but then says she saw a police car and police tape and couldn't go any further. There will be a multitude of people that will confirm the police tape was outside DanM's house including LE, residents and no doubt photos. A police officer saw a car matching WAs, so really when pushed she will have no choice but to admit she was lying and did turn at the crime scene. That will look bad in front of the jury. A prime suspect (by default) with a strong motive appearing at the crime scene is bad enough, lying about it is so much worse. The fact GC did not pursue this was so frustrating, but gives a hint as to her future intentions re WA. I mean, why not pursue it! She had WA in her sights, but then neglected to pull the trigger...
 
Yup that's the issue for her really. Driving down Trescott was something she did from time to time. But lying about it with 3 different versions is bad. I feel if WA is on the stand in her own trial, GC will harangue her until she has no choice, but to admit the truth.

She kind of has admitted she went to the crime scene. She maintains she did not go to the crime scene, but then says she saw a police car and police tape and couldn't go any further. There will be a multitude of people that will confirm the police tape was outside DanM's house including LE, residents and no doubt photos. A police officer saw a car matching WAs, so really when pushed she will have no choice but to admit she was lying and did turn at the crime scene. That will look bad in front of the jury. A prime suspect (by default) with a strong motive appearing at the crime scene is bad enough, lying about it is so much worse. The fact GC did not pursue this was so frustrating, but gives a hint as to her future intentions re WA. I mean, why not pursue it! She had WA in her sights, but then neglected to pull the trigger...

Mentour Lawyer did a great video on the topic of her varying testimony re the ‘visit’ to the crime scene a while ago. He probably put it behind his pay wall, so I can’t refer you to it. Essentially, he classified her varying testimony re the ‘visit’ to the crime scene as a nothing burger and I agree.

She was initially asked (trial one) about her ‘visit’ to the crime scene and responded that she “didn’t visit the crime scene”. You can see the confusion in Wendi’s response. From my perspective, it was as simple as Wendi not agreeing with the use of the word ‘visit’ which implies she stopped and inspected the location. In trial one, Cappleman then followed up with - "you didn’t approach the roadblock on Trsecott"? Wendi responded – ‘yes I saw the tape and turned around’. In the following two trials Cappleman kept referring to the ‘visit’ to the crime scene. Staying consistent, Wendi kept saying she didn’t ‘visit’ the crime scene and definitely gave slightly different versions about turning on Trescott and not turning on Trescott. The responses were very ‘wordy’ and I agree weren’t consistent, BUT she never denied in ANY version seeing the roadblock and intending on traveling down Trescott.

I know you are passionate about the case, but I respectfully think her varying testimony about the ‘visit’ to the crime scene is not going anywhere - yes, I could be wrong, its just my opinion. I know it gets ton’s of attention in social media, but I think its one of those details that is overanalyzed for the reasons I outlined. IMO, it was just a combination of poor word choices on both sides that led to some miscommunication / and slightly inconsistent testimony.
 
I know you are passionate about the case, but I respectfully think her varying testimony about the ‘visit’ to the crime scene is not going anywhere - yes, I could be wrong, its just my opinion. I know it gets ton’s of attention in social media, but I think its one of those details that is overanalyzed for the reasons I outlined. IMO, it was just a combination of poor word choices on both sides that led to some miscommunication / and slightly inconsistent testimony.

At risk of contradicting myself here, her actual drive down Trescott is not necessarily significant and some of her erroneous statements regarding her route can also be dismissed, putting it down to confusion, memory loss etc However I think GC can use this to help destroy WA's credibility.

WA did state she did not turn onto Trescott, but carried on going straight down Centreville in one version, then it was she turned on to Trescott, but then saw tape so did a k-turn straight away. But DM's house was 1 mile down the road. The 3rd version was she drove further down Trescott and then saw the tape, but that was not at DM's house.
 
She was initially asked (trial one) about her ‘visit’ to the crime scene and responded that she “didn’t visit the crime scene”. You can see the confusion in Wendi’s response. From my perspective, it was as simple as Wendi not agreeing with the use of the word ‘visit’ which implies she stopped and inspected the location. .

I don't think a court of law is going to indulge that level of semantics where people are not comprehending or claiming they misunderstand questions because of potential double meanings. What a complete nightmare it would be for LE doing interviews and court testimony where people are flat out lying and then using the nuances of the English language to explain their lie. "So you were jogging on Main beach?" "No I was not." Turns out they were walking... a court is going to expect and demand a person be open, honest and transparent not piss around with the definition of specific words otherwise they would have carte blanche to deny everything. 'You went to Perry High school?" Technically "went" means you moved from one place to another. So one could deny that. A court would be forced to say "you studied at Perry High school?" But then the individual was not a conscientious student and never studied so they could deny that. The court would be forced to ask a very specific question, "You were enrolled at Perry High school?"

Perhaps if someone had a learning difficulty or English was not their first language they could claim they did not understand the question, but WA is educated and a lawyer, she understood the question was essentially did you have a visual with the crime scene. Could you see the tape, police cars, LE etc Denying she visited the crime scene based on the definition of "visit" is not going to be something that works for her. It certainly won't endear her to the judge or jury. When it comes to debating her guilt, the jury will be considering her lack of transparency, her constant deception, the difficulty with which she answers simple questions, relying on semantics to offer up an inconclusive answer. It's not going to work for her, she'll just dig herself deeper and deeper. She could be a sympathetic figure, attractive (to some) intelligent, articulate, a Mum. But then her constant deception destroys that. Any jury is going to see straight through that, not getting suckered in by those baby blues..
 
At risk of contradicting myself here, her actual drive down Trescott is not necessarily significant and some of her erroneous statements regarding her route can also be dismissed, putting it down to confusion, memory loss etc However I think GC can use this to help destroy WA's credibility.

WA did state she did not turn onto Trescott, but carried on going straight down Centreville in one version, then it was she turned on to Trescott, but then saw tape so did a k-turn straight away. But DM's house was 1 mile down the road. The 3rd version was she drove further down Trescott and then saw the tape, but that was not at DM's house.

Yes, in the last trial she said – “I saw the roadblock so I didn’t turn”, then followed up with (same trial) ‘I made a k-turn at the tape”. Its contradictory – how can you ‘not turn, then make a k-turn? If they ever decide to impeach her on that testimony she will have an opportunity to clarify and clear it up – and I guarantee she will be prepped and prepared - simply because of the attention this has gotten in social media. I acknowledge her testimony was inconsistent / confusing. Again, there was a big deal made about this in social media that started after the first trial when she said she ‘didn’t visit the crime scene’ and it spiraled from there. I don’t see how this will amount to anything, its simply inconstant / wordy/ confusing testimony. If you watch enough trials, this stuff happens often but generally prosecutors drill down to make sure the responses are crystal clear in a case where a response is confusing / inconsistent with a previous statement. Mentor Lawyer’s opinion was Georgia purposely didn’t give Wendi the opportunity to clarify because she knew it made her look bad – his exact words and I agree.
 
I don't think a court of law is going to indulge that level of semantics where people are not comprehending or claiming they misunderstand questions because of potential double meanings. What a complete nightmare it would be for LE doing interviews and court testimony where people are flat out lying and then using the nuances of the English language to explain their lie. "So you were jogging on Main beach?" "No I was not." Turns out they were walking... a court is going to expect and demand a person be open, honest and transparent not piss around with the definition of specific words otherwise they would have carte blanche to deny everything. 'You went to Perry High school?" Technically "went" means you moved from one place to another. So one could deny that. A court would be forced to say "you studied at Perry High school?" But then the individual was not a conscientious student and never studied so they could deny that. The court would be forced to ask a very specific question, "You were enrolled at Perry High school?"

Perhaps if someone had a learning difficulty or English was not their first language they could claim they did not understand the question, but WA is educated and a lawyer, she understood the question was essentially did you have a visual with the crime scene. Could you see the tape, police cars, LE etc Denying she visited the crime scene based on the definition of "visit" is not going to be something that works for her. It certainly won't endear her to the judge or jury. When it comes to debating her guilt, the jury will be considering her lack of transparency, her constant deception, the difficulty with which she answers simple questions, relying on semantics to offer up an inconclusive answer. It's not going to work for her, she'll just dig herself deeper and deeper. She could be a sympathetic figure, attractive (to some) intelligent, articulate, a Mum. But then her constant deception destroys that. Any jury is going to see straight through that, not getting suckered in by those baby blues..

Watch the initial trial again... It’s also important to note the question that preceded the question about ‘the visit to the crime scene was “before you went you lunch did you make any stops”? Wendi said – “maybe I stopped for gas”? Do you think in Wendi’s mind she was considering her attempt to travel down Trescott a ‘stop’? I don’t think its semantics, after she answered about the stop for gas, Cappleman said - “I was referring to your visit to the crime scene”. The word ‘visit’ was simply a poor choice of words by Cappleman in the context it was used especially since she was referring to ‘stops’ which was the initial question. IMO, if you look at it objectively, it was a very poor / confusing phraseology by Cappleman which lead to the equally confusing response by Wendi.
 
Yup that's the issue for her really. Driving down Trescott was something she did from time to time. But lying about it with 3 different versions is bad. I feel if WA is on the stand in her own trial, GC will harangue her until she has no choice, but to admit the truth.

She kind of has admitted she went to the crime scene. She maintains she did not go to the crime scene, but then says she saw a police car and police tape and couldn't go any further. There will be a multitude of people that will confirm the police tape was outside DanM's house including LE, residents and no doubt photos. A police officer saw a car matching WAs, so really when pushed she will have no choice but to admit she was lying and did turn at the crime scene. That will look bad in front of the jury. A prime suspect (by default) with a strong motive appearing at the crime scene is bad enough, lying about it is so much worse. The fact GC did not pursue this was so frustrating, but gives a hint as to her future intentions re WA. I mean, why not pursue it! She had WA in her sights, but then neglected to pull the trigger...
Yes,her car was seen. Too bad Brannon didn’t take a photo with his phone. Or remember the plate #. I have to say that officer frustrated me to no end. But if they had the plate number, she could have concocted some other story. He said the person had long hair inside but he couldnt tell if it was a man or woman. It’s still unclear about how far away the tape was. A CC said it was basically between DM and the neighbor. Isom said 4-5 cars away but didn’t specificy it wa son both sides of the road. Or which side was that distance. I think Brannon said a similar # of cars. So where exactly was the tape? The visual GC showed at trial, showed tape at Centerville too which was baffling. I hope they do better with this at Donnas trial.
She of course lied. There is no way you could have seen that crime tape at the intersection of Centerville and Trescott.
 
I once told you I keep a word doc of all my replies to because you asked the same questions often– I was joking :). I do have a file on my computer on docs and stuff on the case since I follow it – I’m sure I’m not the only one?

I don’t think Georgia ever said Trescott wasn’t a shortcut – I don’t ever recall that? IMO, the notion that Trescott is not a shortcut was force-fed down everyone’s throat by a few strong uTube personalities – I have always challenged people on that. You know for three years I’ve been saying the routes are equidistant and you know I even published a video over a year ago (my one and only video) on the topic of the route to ABC vs. Market Square. In that video I closed with detailing the difference between cutting through Trescott vs. staying on Centerville to Benton. It’s obvious to me that Trescott can easily be considered a shortcut despite what some YouTube hosts brainwashed many to believe. As I said in my other comment (and detailed in my video) Trescott has speedbumps BUT you are avoiding 2 traffic lights if you go that way. Also you avoid a potential traffic buildup that starts to build up at the second light on Benton very close to where Trescott and Benton intersect. In one of the YouTube videos I saw, you can actually see the traffic building up at the light I reference. Don’t take my word, I’m just using common sense based on my own research and information gathering, ask yazoost who said he/she lives in the area for 25 plus years and always goes the same way Wendi went and as confirmed by Lacasse.

Trescott can easily be considered a shortcut when traveling down Centerville heading south to Thomasville. The reason they put speedbumps on the road several years ago is because was and still is widely used as a shortcut / cut through from what I’ve heard.
You bring up a good point and something I thought about. How long ago did they put the speed bumps? I had them put in my subdivision while they were still in construction bc my kids played in the front and there was too much speeding. I asked the President. Of the HOA to please put them in our neighborhood,
Do you know if they were put after the murder?
Well, I think GC meant for everyone to think it was NOT a shortcut, and the sole reason she put that map up, right? Why else?
Lol I asked the same questions often. Well who knows , may be early dementia. I hope not.
Just wait..hopefully your brain stays more intact than mine!
 
At risk of contradicting myself here, her actual drive down Trescott is not necessarily significant and some of her erroneous statements regarding her route can also be dismissed, putting it down to confusion, memory loss etc However I think GC can use this to help destroy WA's credibility.

WA did state she did not turn onto Trescott, but carried on going straight down Centreville in one version, then it was she turned on to Trescott, but then saw tape so did a k-turn straight away. But DM's house was 1 mile down the road. The 3rd version was she drove further down Trescott and then saw the tape, but that was not at DM's house.
I think it’s only 2 version. We talked abotu this before here (I think),
With Isom she made it seem she was on Dans street by his house. Then she turned.
At KMs first trial she said she never even turned onto Trescott, but did a K turn where Centerville meets Trescott. She claims she saw tape at that point, which is impossible-as you said his house was a mile away and the road bends halfway.
At KM’s second trial she went back to the Isom. account.
At Charlies trial she went back to the account of KMs’s 1st trial.
So I see two accounts.
 
You bring up a good point and something I thought about. How long ago did they put the speed bumps? I had them put in my subdivision while they were still in construction bc my kids played in the front and there was too much speeding. I asked the President. Of the HOA to please put them in our neighborhood,
Do you know if they were put after the murder?
Well, I think GC meant for everyone to think it was NOT a shortcut, and the sole reason she put that map up, right? Why else?
Lol I asked the same questions often. Well who knows , may be early dementia. I hope not.
Just wait..hopefully your brain stays more intact than mine!

The speedbumps were there prior to the murder. You can see them in the photos of the roadblock on the day of the murder. The fact that Wendi traveled Trescott as her normal way / route to travel to Thomasville from Centerville when heading south was brought up by Rashbaun in his cross-examination of both Wendi and Jeff. I don’t recall any other references to it being a ‘shortcut’ in any of the trials. I seriously doubt the prosecution made an argument is ‘wasn’t a shortcut’ – the level of lunacy only lived in uTube La La Land.
 
Yes,her car was seen. Too bad Brannon didn’t take a photo with his phone. Or remember the plate #. I have to say that officer frustrated me to no end. But if they had the plate number, she could have concocted some other story. He said the person had long hair inside but he couldnt tell if it was a man or woman. It’s still unclear about how far away the tape was. A CC said it was basically between DM and the neighbor. Isom said 4-5 cars away but didn’t specificy it wa son both sides of the road. Or which side was that distance. I think Brannon said a similar # of cars. So where exactly was the tape? The visual GC showed at trial, showed tape at Centerville too which was baffling. I hope they do better with this at Donnas trial.
She of course lied. There is no way you could have seen that crime tape at the intersection of Centerville and Trescott.

Brannon not positively identifying her vehicle is a moot point. She never denied in any trial or her initial police interview seeing / approaching / or being in the vicinity of the police tape / roadblock. She never denied being there or seeing the roadblock / police tape. The issue is the what I mentioned previously – her wordy / confusing explanation of the turn not turn and the general inconsistent nature of her testimony relating where she turned / didn’t turn etc. If she flat out denied being in the area, that would be an issue for her - but that is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Brannon not positively identifying her vehicle is a moot point. She never denied in any trial or her initial police interview seeing / approaching / or being in the vicinity of the police tape / roadblock. She never denied being there or seeing the roadblock / police tape.
Yup. More or less it's taken as fact he saw WA. That has not really been questioned.
 

DNASolves

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
1,343
Total visitors
1,445

Forum statistics

Threads
616,390
Messages
18,349,705
Members
237,045
Latest member
Chatgros2010
Back
Top