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

Why is that?
I prefer to look at the houses on Trescott to those on Betton. The light at Betton and Thomasville does get backed up (someone mentioned that above). Trescott lets out closer to Thomasville and I can often end up spending a lot less time at that light. And, it is less traveled, which makes it a more pleasant few minutes. I wouldn't describe it as a short cut, but it is my preferred route. I also take 19 to St. Pete as opposed to 75, for many of the same reasons.
 
I prefer to look at the houses on Trescott to those on Betton. The light at Betton and Thomasville does get backed up (someone mentioned that above). Trescott lets out closer to Thomasville and I can often end up spending a lot less time at that light. And, it is less traveled, which makes it a more pleasant few minutes. I wouldn't describe it as a short cut, but it is my preferred route. I also take 19 to St. Pete as opposed to 75, for many of the same reasons.
Yes I do the same thing going to work. I prefer to go through a residential area, rather than a main road. It takes about the same time though.The speed bumps would be a deterrent to me. I don’t go through any on my route.
So, it would have been better for WA to be advised by her attorney that when that came up, she would have said what you said. Rather than that she likes to take Trescott because she comes to terms with the divorce when she drives by. Or that it is a shortcut.
 
Last edited:
Yup. More or less it's taken as fact he saw WA. That has not really been questioned.
Right which is why I said he said the person had long hair but he couldnt tell if it was a male or female. Its just assumed it was her by the car and the way she went so fast to turn away. He said unlike other people approaching ( Unless I dreamed that )
 
Right which is why I said he said the person had long hair but he couldnt tell if it was a male or female. Its just assumed it was her by the car and the way she went so fast to turn away. He said unlike other people approaching ( Unless I dreamed that )
Yup. WA will admit it was her.
 
Sorry I didn't explain that very well.

GC didn't pursue WA's various statements re her trip down Trescott Drive. But if/when WA is next on the stand, GC may decide to question WA a bit more thoroughly regarding her various versions of her Trescott story. And I think GC should be able to push WA into admitting it was her that the police officer saw. She has said she saw police tape and turned, she said she saw a police car when she turned and when GC asks if it's possible that it was her car the police officer saw then I believe she has no other choice than to admit in all likelihood it was her car. Denying it just damages her credibility even further.

But her admitting she was at the crime scene doesn't mean much IMO.
 
Last edited:
I prefer to look at the houses on Trescott to those on Betton. The light at Betton and Thomasville does get backed up (someone mentioned that above). Trescott lets out closer to Thomasville and I can often end up spending a lot less time at that light. And, it is less traveled, which makes it a more pleasant few minutes. I wouldn't describe it as a short cut, but it is my preferred route. I also take 19 to St. Pete as opposed to 75, for many of the same reasons.

Thanks for providing your perspective as someone that is a local and actually travels the route. After reading your response, I realize the second light on Benton can’t be avoided either way but its so close to where Trescott meets Benton that you can avoid any potential backup at the light if you take the Trescott route. As I said in another comment, in a video I watched it looks like traffic tends to build up at that light.

From my perspective the issue of Wendi attempting to take Trescott has been so overblown in social media and it’s a very important detail to the case. Many believe the ‘attempted’ drive down Trescott is the single most important piece of evidence (or top 3) and I believe the weight of that ‘evidence’ is not measured properly for multiple reasons.

1) There is a belief based on the way the evidence was presented at trial and discussed in social media that the decision to go to ABC Liquor is a decision no one would make based on the location of the restaurant and Market Square Liquors being closer to the restaurant. As I have said previously she traveled a total of approximately 4 additional miles to go to ABC. Yet we still hear she went 20 or 40 minutes out of the way. Just misinformation that many hear and repeat and in my opinion that changes the way many evaluate her decision to go to ABC.

2) The decision to take Trescott rather than staying on Centerville to Benton is also looked at as something no one would ever do. There are multiple videos / discussions on uTube reinforcing how taking Trescott as a cut through is a decision no one would ever make. What’s important to highlight (for those that might not know) is the two routes are equidistant – they are so close distance wise that I’d say the difference is probably no more than the length of a football field. I think many believe taking Trescott is a MUCH longer route when both routes are just slightly longer than 1 mile. I would bet if you traveled both routes 10 times each, the results would be 50/50 on which route got you there faster and the average difference in time would be less than a minute.

3) Wendi’s slightly inconsistent testimony about the ‘visit’ to the crime scene is also so overblown in social media when it’s really just a case of bad / poor communication as I outlined an another comment and wont rehash all my thoughts on how the breakdown developed. I will add that based on the way the exchange between Cappleman & Wendi first started (trial one) Wendi was very coy in the way she testified in the next two trials regarding the ‘visit’. The notion that what many categorize as the the ‘lie’ by Wendi about the ‘visit’ and her inconsistent testimony will develop into anything is very wishful thinking. I think its just another example of the way its been discussed in social media that has people believing it’s some important detail when is a just very overblown and literally will have zero consequence / impact.

All of the about does not mean I believe Wendi is innocent - just want to be clear on that. I’m just breaking down what I honestly believe are details to this case that are overblown or interpreted in a way that is misleading to the average or casual case follower. In my opinion there are many details to the case that are exaggerated or interpreted in a way that is not realistic based on the data. That largely contributes to the big disconnect between the way the case and 'strength' of the evidence against Wendi is viewed by the prosecution and the general public. Its very obvious to me the the prosecution does not believe the evidence against Wendi is as strong as the average case follower.
 
Its very obvious to me the the prosecution does not believe the evidence against Wendi is as strong as the average case follower.
Ultimately there is not much that really shows WA's complicity. The State need to be able to show she not only knew about the crime, but assisted the principal parties. They need a communication from her to one of the other co-conspirators that is connected to the planning of the murder e.g her divulging to CA DanM's movements the week of the murder. Her simply asking DanM about his movements is insufficient. Suspicious, yes, but insufficient.

All the circumstantial evidence such as Trescott become pertinent if stronger evidence is produced. Until then it just does not carry much weight. Even if you add it all together, it just looks like she knew about it and that's it. And that's why it took so long to arrest CA and DA. They had plenty of suspicious activities and behaviours, but nothing solid until the bump. Much has been made of Harvey's 70th birthday present. All these communications about his present, spanning many months, yet no-one could really remember what it was. Possibly Paella? Very suspicious, clearly they're talking in code, but unless it can be proven what they're actually talking about it's meaningless.
 
Ultimately there is not much that really shows WA's complicity. The State need to be able to show she not only knew about the crime, but assisted the principal parties. They need a communication from her to one of the other co-conspirators that is connected to the planning of the murder e.g her divulging to CA DanM's movements the week of the murder. Her simply asking DanM about his movements is insufficient. Suspicious, yes, but insufficient.

All the circumstantial evidence such as Trescott become pertinent if stronger evidence is produced. Until then it just does not carry much weight. Even if you add it all together, it just looks like she knew about it and that's it. And that's why it took so long to arrest CA and DA. They had plenty of suspicious activities and behaviours, but nothing solid until the bump. Much has been made of Harvey's 70th birthday present. All these communications about his present, spanning many months, yet no-one could really remember what it was. Possibly Paella? Very suspicious, clearly they're talking in code, but unless it can be proven what they're actually talking about it's meaningless.
How about the friend? The one who contacted the state? Sarah. Must be some evidence there.
 
Sorry I didn't explain that very well.

GC didn't pursue WA's various statements re her trip down Trescott Drive. But if/when WA is next on the stand, GC may decide to question WA a bit more thoroughly regarding her various versions of her Trescott story. And I think GC should be able to push WA into admitting it was her that the police officer saw. She has said she saw police tape and turned, she said she saw a police car when she turned and when GC asks if it's possible that it was her car the police officer saw then I believe she has no other choice than to admit in all likelihood it was her car. Denying it just damages her credibility even further.

But her admitting she was at the crime scene doesn't mean much IMO.
Can GC bring up her past testimonies/inconsistencies on the other trials And the Isom interview?
 
Ultimately there is not much that really shows WA's complicity. The State need to be able to show she not only knew about the crime, but assisted the principal parties. They need a communication from her to one of the other co-conspirators that is connected to the planning of the murder e.g her divulging to CA DanM's movements the week of the murder. Her simply asking DanM about his movements is insufficient. Suspicious, yes, but insufficient.

All the circumstantial evidence such as Trescott become pertinent if stronger evidence is produced. Until then it just does not carry much weight. Even if you add it all together, it just looks like she knew about it and that's it. And that's why it took so long to arrest CA and DA. They had plenty of suspicious activities and behaviours, but nothing solid until the bump. Much has been made of Harvey's 70th birthday present. All these communications about his present, spanning many months, yet no-one could really remember what it was. Possibly Paella? Very suspicious, clearly they're talking in code, but unless it can be proven what they're actually talking about it's meaningless.

I know we are in agreement that the evidence that is public is not enough and I respect that you are one of the few that is willing to acknowledge they need more evidence. I have always felt I was on an island expressing those thoughts and I had stepped away from the case because nothing was new and when I expressed my opinion on the case against Wendi being weak, it usually wasn’t received well and my motives were often questioned. I will add that my experience here in the forum has definitely been the most pleasant and my preferred place to post an observation or opinion because I wasn’t accused or having nefarious intentions like other places. I mentioned a couple days ago, it seems that more people are realizing the case against Wendi is not strong enough to realistically meet the burden of proof but still see many comments where misinformation and inaccurate details are mentioned. As a general statement, for as long as I followed the case, whenever I have seen comments that are either an exaggeration, misinformation or poor / misleading interpretation of an ‘event’, it generally goes unchecked ‘IF’ it is somehow is favorable towards the case against Wendi. In my opinion, that is a major contributing factor to the overwhelming belief by the average case follower that the case against Wendi is much stronger than it actually is.

With the above said, its been 10 ½ years since the murder, and its seems unlikely to me that at this stage that they are going to find a communication trail between Wendi and one of the coconspirators connected to the planning. Of course if they found something, anything that tied Wendi to the planning she is toast – a simple text like “Danny is in town that week, let’s move forward with the plan”. If that was the case, the attempted drive down Trescott wouldn’t even matter – the case would be ironclad. Other than someone flipping, thinking something else exists that the state isn't already aware of more than 10 years later is very wishful thinking. I thought there was a possibility that Donna and Harvey’s IOS devices might have some incriminating evidence and if Wendi was involved, that might have cracked the case. Since they have had those devices for a solid year, I no longer hold any hope there is anything incriminating towards Wendi on the IOS devices. In fact, it’s probably more likely they found something exculpatory than incriminating – perhaps a text between Donna and Charlie “Wendi can never know we did this”. Why do I say that? – Because the minute they found something like what you are suggesting or wishing for (proof Wendi communicated something connected to the planning) she would have been arrested within 48 hours. If they found nothing or something exculpatory, there would be no action by the prosecution.
 
I know we are in agreement that the evidence that is public is not enough and I respect that you are one of the few that is willing to acknowledge they need more evidence. I have always felt I was on an island expressing those thoughts and I had stepped away from the case because nothing was new and when I expressed my opinion on the case against Wendi being weak, it usually wasn’t received well and my motives were often questioned. I will add that my experience here in the forum has definitely been the most pleasant and my preferred place to post an observation or opinion because I wasn’t accused or having nefarious intentions like other places. I mentioned a couple days ago, it seems that more people are realizing the case against Wendi is not strong enough to realistically meet the burden of proof but still see many comments where misinformation and inaccurate details are mentioned. As a general statement, for as long as I followed the case, whenever I have seen comments that are either an exaggeration, misinformation or poor / misleading interpretation of an ‘event’, it generally goes unchecked ‘IF’ it is somehow is favorable towards the case against Wendi. In my opinion, that is a major contributing factor to the overwhelming belief by the average case follower that the case against Wendi is much stronger than it actually is.

With the above said, its been 10 ½ years since the murder, and its seems unlikely to me that at this stage that they are going to find a communication trail between Wendi and one of the coconspirators connected to the planning. Of course if they found something, anything that tied Wendi to the planning she is toast – a simple text like “Danny is in town that week, let’s move forward with the plan”. If that was the case, the attempted drive down Trescott wouldn’t even matter – the case would be ironclad. Other than someone flipping, thinking something else exists that the state isn't already aware of more than 10 years later is very wishful thinking. I thought there was a possibility that Donna and Harvey’s IOS devices might have some incriminating evidence and if Wendi was involved, that might have cracked the case. Since they have had those devices for a solid year, I no longer hold any hope there is anything incriminating towards Wendi on the IOS devices. In fact, it’s probably more likely they found something exculpatory than incriminating – perhaps a text between Donna and Charlie “Wendi can never know we did this”. Why do I say that? – Because the minute they found something like what you are suggesting or wishing for (proof Wendi communicated something connected to the planning) she would have been arrested within 48 hours. If they found nothing or something exculpatory, there would be no action by the prosecution.
I know you didn’t address me, but I think people like Carl had a lot to do with peoples thoughts on Wendis imminent arrest either prior to DA’s trial,or before the end of 2024.
When you think of it, that pov keeps people watching and makes the chance of her arrest “at any time” more exciting. In the world of YT, it’s all about subs and views..although I think Carl may have realized you really have to invest a lot of your time and create content constantly, to make YT profitable. He’s probably at a time now in his life when YT doesn’t matter for him. Just guessing.
Also, with GC saying “One at a time” and Campbell confirming that and also the “wendi Wendi Wendi”, and people seeing how she was really holding back on calling her out on a lot of her responses at CA’s trial..made it appear she has more on her, or maybe GC just wasn’t firing back as she should have.
Im curious about your take on how GC treated her.
 
How about the friend? The one who contacted the state? Sarah. Must be some evidence there.

Until we hear what Sara says, I wouldn’t hold my breath its much of anything. All we know is she contacted the Markel’s attorney who directed her to the prosecution because said she has information they might find ‘useful’. If I were to guess its opinion based testimony that probably has some truth BUT is not proof Wendi was involved – probably things we already know like Wendi lied about being relieved when the relocation motion was denied. I bet you it’s something along those lines. Don’t get your hopes up.
 
I know you didn’t address me, but I think people like Carl had a lot to do with peoples thoughts on Wendis imminent arrest either prior to DA’s trial,or before the end of 2024.
When you think of it, that pov keeps people watching and makes the chance of her arrest “at any time” more exciting. In the world of YT, it’s all about subs and views..although I think Carl may have realized you really have to invest a lot of your time and create content constantly, to make YT profitable. He’s probably at a time now in his life when YT doesn’t matter for him. Just guessing.
Also, with GC saying “One at a time” and Campbell confirming that and also the “wendi Wendi Wendi”, and people seeing how she was really holding back on calling her out on a lot of her responses at CA’s trial..made it appear she has more on her, or maybe GC just wasn’t firing back as she should have.
Im curious about your take on how GC treated her.

Simple, Cappleman completely despises Wendi.... Georgia wears her emotions on her sleeves. The ‘one-at-a time’ statement and the ‘Wendi, Wendi, Wendi’ comment is meaningless. I have said many times that the belief that the strategy is ‘one-at-a time’ is silly. Saying that just appeases the public because the prosecution knows they can’t meet the burden of proof AND (spoiler alert controversial statement coming) they do NOT have clean hands as a collective unit. There is no excuse for not arresting Charlie in 2016 and waiting so long on Donna. That is NOT Cappleman’s fault and she is probably frustrated at how this has been mishandled going back to 2016. Regardless of whether Wendi was directly involved or it was planned behind her back, it is still ALL about Wendi, Wendi, Wendi. Unless we can get inside Cappleman’s head (we can’t) we don’t know what she was thinking when said that other than we know she completely dislikes Wendi whether or not she believes she was directly involved. Lets say the state has exculpatory evidence that proves Wendi was not involved, they still want to bury her because she lied to protect her family and it is ALL about Wendi, Wendi, Wendi - she told many lies they can't prove. I am not talking about the inconsistent testimony about the Trescott trip that is so blown out of portion in social media and big nothing burger. They know she lied about what she knew but can’t prove it. Re Carl, I have said that from day one. He blocked me from his channel very early and accused me of being on the Adelson PR Team because I challenged him on many statements he made and yes, I do believe he created A LOT of false optimism on the strength of the case against Wendi.
 
Can GC bring up her past testimonies/inconsistencies on the other trials And the Isom interview?

In the next trial, anything Wendi said in her police interview that may not be consistent with her trial testimony in that ‘current’ trial, can be brought up by Cappleman. I do not think Cappleman can bring up the varying or ‘inconsistent’ accounts of the Trescott trip from the previous trials – need someone with knowledge on Florida law to confirm. Regardless, even if Cappleman could bring it up, all of Wendi’s statements re the Trescott trip can easily be clarified if she was ever directly impeached on the varying statements and given an opportunity to explain.

All she would need to say is - “It’s been 10 years and to the best of my memory I approached the roadblock on Trescott but I don’t recall how far down Trescott I traveled before reaching roadblock and turning around”. I know I’m beating a dead horse when I continue to say she never denied intending on traveling down Trescott and never denied seeing the roadblock or turning around at the roadblock. This is a big fat nothing burger and in my opinion it is only a story because it grew legs in social media and for some reason it is believed to be something of great importance when its really nothing material.
 
I know we are in agreement that the evidence that is public is not enough and I respect that you are one of the few that is willing to acknowledge they need more evidence. I have always felt I was on an island expressing those thoughts and I had stepped away from the case because nothing was new and when I expressed my opinion on the case against Wendi being weak, it usually wasn’t received well and my motives were often questioned. I will add that my experience here in the forum has definitely been the most pleasant and my preferred place to post an observation or opinion because I wasn’t accused or having nefarious intentions like other places. I mentioned a couple days ago, it seems that more people are realizing the case against Wendi is not strong enough to realistically meet the burden of proof but still see many comments where misinformation and inaccurate details are mentioned. As a general statement, for as long as I followed the case, whenever I have seen comments that are either an exaggeration, misinformation or poor / misleading interpretation of an ‘event’, it generally goes unchecked ‘IF’ it is somehow is favorable towards the case against Wendi. In my opinion, that is a major contributing factor to the overwhelming belief by the average case follower that the case against Wendi is much stronger than it actually is.

With the above said, its been 10 ½ years since the murder, and its seems unlikely to me that at this stage that they are going to find a communication trail between Wendi and one of the coconspirators connected to the planning. Of course if they found something, anything that tied Wendi to the planning she is toast – a simple text like “Danny is in town that week, let’s move forward with the plan”. If that was the case, the attempted drive down Trescott wouldn’t even matter – the case would be ironclad. Other than someone flipping, thinking something else exists that the state isn't already aware of more than 10 years later is very wishful thinking. I thought there was a possibility that Donna and Harvey’s IOS devices might have some incriminating evidence and if Wendi was involved, that might have cracked the case. Since they have had those devices for a solid year, I no longer hold any hope there is anything incriminating towards Wendi on the IOS devices. In fact, it’s probably more likely they found something exculpatory than incriminating – perhaps a text between Donna and Charlie “Wendi can never know we did this”. Why do I say that? – Because the minute they found something like what you are suggesting or wishing for (proof Wendi communicated something connected to the planning) she would have been arrested within 48 hours. If they found nothing or something exculpatory, there would be no action by the prosecution.
I'm glad you have held onto your convictions and they are absolutely fact based and well informed. And also glad that you have found this forum to be the most pleasant to post in - besides a very few threads and commentators I have found the same!
 
How about the friend? The one who contacted the state? Sarah. Must be some evidence there.

I did think that. It seemed to make sense that there was something incriminating there, but as GoingRogue reminded me, SY contacted LE years after the email and was prompted by some feelings of guilt or sadness after seeing Phil Markel being interviewed. So I don't think it's much. At the very most it's WA alluding to the fact that perhaps her family was involved, but she definitely was not. Even that's a stretch.
 
Simple, Cappleman completely despises Wendi.... Georgia wears her emotions on her sleeves. The ‘one-at-a time’ statement and the ‘Wendi, Wendi, Wendi’ comment is meaningless. I have said many times that the belief that the strategy is ‘one-at-a time’ is silly. .
One at a time, seemed to make sense. But in reality if they had enough evidence to indict WA, she would have been pinched long ago.

Although I will say, the case against WA is not strong. You would think during DA's trial more evidence will be produced that incriminates WA, especially if DA testifies. So in that sense it would make sense to wait till after DA's trial.

Also if CA gets a new trial there's another opportunity there for the State. I would be very surprised if CA does not cooperate if he gets a new trial. It would be madness for him not to. I would imagine his legal team would be highly encouraging him to do so. I mean there isn't a defence open to him that stands any chance in court. The double extortion defence is gonski.
 
Last edited:
In the next trial, anything Wendi said in her police interview that may not be consistent with her trial testimony in that ‘current’ trial, can be brought up by Cappleman. I do not think Cappleman can bring up the varying or ‘inconsistent’ accounts of the Trescott trip from the previous trials – need someone with knowledge on Florida law to confirm. Regardless, even if Cappleman could bring it up, all of Wendi’s statements re the Trescott trip can easily be clarified if she was ever directly impeached on the varying statements and given an opportunity to explain.

All she would need to say is - “It’s been 10 years and to the best of my memory I approached the roadblock on Trescott but I don’t recall how far down Trescott I traveled before reaching roadblock and turning around”. I know I’m beating a dead horse when I continue to say she never denied intending on traveling down Trescott and never denied seeing the roadblock or turning around at the roadblock. This is a big fat nothing burger and in my opinion it is only a story because it grew legs in social media and for some reason it is believed to be something of great importance when its really nothing material.

I believe WA's immunity can only protect her from statements she makes that are truthful. If she lies, then those statements can be used against her in a later trial.

But as I said earlier, Trescott and her lies are can only be used to bolster strong evidence that inculpates WA and that doesn't exist. It can be used, along with all her other inconsistent statements, to destroy her credibility, but then all the State have is a person who is a pathological liar, not someone who conspired to commit first degree murder...
 
In the next trial, anything Wendi said in her police interview that may not be consistent with her trial testimony in that ‘current’ trial, can be brought up by Cappleman. I do not think Cappleman can bring up the varying or ‘inconsistent’ accounts of the Trescott trip from the previous trials – need someone with knowledge on Florida law to confirm. Regardless, even if Cappleman could bring it up, all of Wendi’s statements re the Trescott trip can easily be clarified if she was ever directly impeached on the varying statements and given an opportunity to explain.

All she would need to say is - “It’s been 10 years and to the best of my memory I approached the roadblock on Trescott but I don’t recall how far down Trescott I traveled before reaching roadblock and turning around”. I know I’m beating a dead horse when I continue to say she never denied intending on traveling down Trescott and never denied seeing the roadblock or turning around at the roadblock. This is a big fat nothing burger and in my opinion it is only a story because it grew legs in social media and for some reason it is believed to be something of great importance when its really nothing material.
Thanks for the response. Yes now I’m remembering that it was stated by I think TJ that GC can bring up the Isom interview but not past trial testimony. It’s been interesting how perhaps we have been misreading GC. But she may want to go with arresting W but is held back by Campbell. We just don’t know.
 

DNASolves

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
896
Total visitors
998

Forum statistics

Threads
616,356
Messages
18,349,175
Members
237,027
Latest member
Jlcisler
Back
Top