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

[Knitpicker]

Yeah I think she tried to flippantly claim there may have been a police car. It was a homicide, there would have been a plethora of LE cars, a hive of activity. If she wants to carry on playing this game it will end the same way it has for all the other co-conspirators who have failed to grasp the basic concept that testimony has to be plausible.

DA will get up on the stand and spout a whole bunch of garbage and will get convicted. Then WA will be charged, spout the same rubbish, followed by HA. Once they're all rotting in prison, I wonder if any of them will reflect on their behaviour, actions and strategy surrounding their arrests and trials.

At this stage, the only thing that can save them from doing less than 30 years is co-operation. Are their lawyers telling them this? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

If I remember correctly, she mentioned the police car because Georgia asked her if she saw one. So she had to admit it in case the officer ID’s her (but she would probably have known he didn’t. If she mentioned the police car on her own, then my memory is wrong,

 

[Knitpicker]

I can only speculate that Wendi answered in a way in which she felt was the best response and was likely being purposely ambiguous based on what was known and given her previous statements AND will continue to do so. As I said, she was never asked to clarify the specific details after her responses were either confusing, not clear, or not lining up. It’s pretty standard practice to ask clarifying questions and / or refer a witness to previous statements when / if something isn’t lining up OR is not clear. When June had temporary amnesia in Charlie’s trial about the stapled money – what did Cappleman do? She referred June to her deposition to refresh her memory and June miraculously remembered. It happens all the time during witness testimony - whether done on purpose or not. I really have no issue if you or anyone disagrees with me, I just see this as a big nothing burger - that my opinion. Yes, I understand she was probably purposely ambiguous but Cappleman should have / could have easily cleared this up but she chose not to.

I wonder if she knows how much you care for her! You seem to always give her the benefit of the doubt,

 

[Going Rogue]

I wonder if she knows how much you care for her! You seem to always give her the benefit of the doubt,

I know you are half joking and I know you know I’ve been accused of defending her (in other places) and of being part of a PR team trying to persuade the prosecution not to move forward with charges – which is a ridiculous thought. I always found that comical. I’m just providing what I believe is a realistic and objective analysis. I never wavered from my POV that the evidence against Wend is not strong enough to meet the burden of proof if they charge her as a direct conspirator based on the information available to the public.

It seems most aren’t willing to explore other perspectives and possibilities and some take offense to theory’s that don’t align with their perspective. It’s a funny thing in true crime. Look at how so many loyal followers immediately turned on the number one personality of the Wendi is guilty camp after he took the position that Karen Read is innocent. I don’t understand the mentality of a lot of folks that follow true crime.

 

[Zedzded]

I fully acknowledge she lied about MANY things, but the fact that she lied does not mean she was directly involved.

Yup. It could be that as a pathological liar she's so used to lying that she does it without thinking. There might not be any logical reason for it. I dated a woman who was a pathological liar and she would lie about weird stuff, telling lies she did not have to. She told me her Dad was an accountant when he was an engineer. She told me she was born in one town, but was actually born in a very similar neighbouring town, she'd lie about what movie she went to see. If someone asked her something and she forgot or didn't know, she'd make it up. Like, "What bar did you go to last night." She couldn't remember so would make up a name of a bar that didn't exist. Very, very strange.

 

[Zedzded]

I know you are half joking and I know you know I’ve been accused of defending her (in other places) and of being part of a PR team trying to persuade the prosecution not to move forward with charges – which is a ridiculous thought..

Well we were all pointing out the discrepancies in WA's statement, demonstrating she was clearly lying and the best we could get out of you was "she was telling a half-truth." No, she was lying. Not a half truth, or an exaggeration or an embellishment or a distortion or the truth, it was a bare-faced lie. I'm unsure of WA's level of complicity and question a lot of the evidence that people have said incriminates her, but I sure as hell am not going to call her lies, half-truths! It might help if you choose you words a bit better, it's almost like you're relishing people calling you a WA supporter.

 

[Zedzded]

If I remember correctly, she mentioned the police car because Georgia asked her if she saw one. So she had to admit it in case the officer ID’s her (but she would probably have known he didn’t. If she mentioned the police car on her own, then my memory is wrong,

That was an opportunity for GC to really question WA about her drive down Trescott and get her to admit she was at Dans house, she saw the tape, she saw 9+ emergency vehicles, she did not see a downed tree, she could see multiple people on Dans drive and would have known something had happened there. GC will get her to admit to that. And then comes the $64'000 question - why did you not call anyone? Why did you not call Dan? Why did you not stop and speak to the police? Why did you not call the daycare and check on the kids? Instead, knowing something serious had happened at your ex-husband's house you trotted off to buy grog and then went to lunch with your besties...

WA needs answers to those questions. "I thought it was a tree that fell down and the homicide detectives were there investigating because the tree was dead" ain't gonna cut the mustard..

If the jury are asked to determine if WA knew Dan had been shot based on that drive to the crime scene, they will conclude she knew. They don't need her to admit it. She lied about the route she took 4 times, but then lied about other things or will lie about other things when asked e.g she stated she saw one police officer. The place would have been a hive of activity. She said she thought it might have been a downed tree. Well where in God's name was the tree??

 

[Going Rogue]

Well we were all pointing out the discrepancies in WA's statement, demonstrating she was clearly lying and the best we could get out of you was "she was telling a half-truth." No, she was lying. Not a half truth, or an exaggeration or an embellishment or a distortion or the truth, it was a bare-faced lie. I'm unsure of WA's level of complicity and question a lot of the evidence that people have said incriminates her, but I sure as hell am not going to call her lies, half-truths!

I literally said in several of my latest comments (and many in the past) that ‘Wendi lied about MANY things... I agree 100% she lies..... she also regularly tells half-truths and that’s per Jeff Lacasse.

 

[Zedzded]

Interesting statement by Jeff Lacasse about a friend of his who sat next to WA at a friends bar mitzvah. Apparently she joked for 4 hours about Dan getting his head blown off. I'd love for that guy to be deposed. Can you imagine WA being questioned about this on the stand... and then there's the colleague of JL's who he told about WA's statement re CA hiring hitmen.. I'm sure WA will claim they're all lying, but why??

 

[Zedzded]

I literally said in several of my latest comments (and many in the past) that ‘Wendi lied about MANY things... I agree 100% she lies..... she also regularly tells half-truths and that’s per Jeff Lacasse.

It doesn't matter, I'm not going to get fixated on this issue. It's irrelevant. I was giving you some advice, feel free to ignore it.

 

[BearWatcher]

Interesting statement by Jeff Lacasse about a friend of his who sat next to WA at a friends bar mitzvah. Apparently she joked for 4 hours about Dan getting his head blown off. I'd love for that guy to be deposed. Can you imagine WA being questioned about this on the stand... and then there's the colleague of JL's who he told about WA's statement re CA hiring hitmen.. I'm sure WA will claim they're all lying, but why??

Z- or others- this is new information to me. Where can I find out more information about this situation.

 

[IQuestion]

Z- or others- this is new information to me. Where can I find out more information about this situation.

Hi BearWatcher, The comments are on the LAST 4 MINUTES of this video which is the unredacted
interview video with Jeff Lacasse and Det. Isom, March 6, 2015. (I thought I would spare you having to listen to the entire interview, although it is/was enlightening.)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[legalmomma]

In preparation for Donna Adelson trial this is a rewatch of some of they key witnesses and their testimony. Live now

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Knitpicker]

Hi BearWatcher, The comments are on the LAST 4 MINUTES of this video which is the unredacted
interview video with Jeff Lacasse and Det. Isom, March 6, 2015. (I thought I would spare you having to listen to the entire interview, although it is/was enlightening.)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This was eye opening. And makes you wonder why so much was left outl

 

[61Montcalm]

In preparation for Donna Adelson trial this is a rewatch of some of they key witnesses and their testimony. Live now

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Wow in the preview photo of Donna that comes up on my screen on this video before clicking play, she look totally unhinged, panicked and deranged!

 

[Knitpicker]

If the day ever comes where Wendi is on trial, the state can very easily convince any jury that Wendi hated Dan, had motive and lacks credibility. The way she answered the question in the previous trials about the 'turn on Trescott' will not even be introduced in her trial IF that day comes.

The state doesn’t need to convince a jury that WA hated her husband. She does that perfectly when on the stand. So does her book, conversations with others, her mother’s emails to her, her decisions in her marriage, how she served him papers, stealing heirlooms from him, etc etc.

And why would you think GC wouldn’t ask her a 3rd time on the stand about her drive to Trescott?
Do you think she thought about it and realized the other 3 times she made a grave error in doing so?
This is one of your more curious opinions-stated as fact.

 

[Going Rogue]

The state doesn’t need to convince a jury that WA hated her husband. She does that perfectly when on the stand. So does her book, conversations with others, her mother’s emails to her, her decisions in her marriage, how she served him papers, stealing heirlooms from him, etc etc.

And why would you think GC wouldn’t ask her a 3rd time on the stand about her drive to Trescott?
Do you think she thought about it and realized the other 3 times she made a grave error in doing so?
This is one of your more curious opinions-stated as fact.

The point I’m making re painting the picture to the jury re Wendi’s pure disdain for Dan is its easy to prove and all the things you mentioned will be used and introduced by the state – so it is essentially the state convincing the jury with evidence – right?

I’m not saying Cappleman won’t ask Wendi a 3rd time. I’m saying ‘IF’ Wendi is ever charged, at ‘her’ trial, the way she answered the question about the ‘turn’ in the previous trials will not be introduced in ‘her’ trial and will not be scrutinized the way it is in social media. Which is why I’ve been saying its a big nothing burger. Cappleman will definitely ask Wendi in Donna’s trial about the ‘visit’ to the crime scene and we will get the same or similar response / outcome UNLESS Cappleman asks Wendi to be more specific as I have previously mentioned. ‘IF’ Cappleman asks Wendi to be more specific the follow up questions Cappleman asks will depend on how Wendi answers the initial question in the next trial - e.g. Cappleman may follow up with ~ “how far down Trescott did you travel until you reached the roadblock and saw the police car?”. Wendi will be forced to clarify and will likely say ~ “It was over 10 years ago, I don’t remember”. At that point Cappleman can offer to refresh her memory by introducing the transcript from the police interview. If you listen to the police interview, Wendi never was specific about where the roadblock was. She said ~ “I tried to drive down Trescott and I saw that it was blocked.... so I just turned around and drove up the other way”. If she is refreshed, there was nothing there that will force her to testify that she drove ¾ the way down Trescott OR that contradicts any of he previous statements.

 

[legalmomma]

Was Wendi Adelson Involved in the Murder-for-Hire Plot of Her Ex-Husband? Inside Dan Markel's Killing — and Where She Is Now

Wendi Adelson's ex-husband, Dan Markel, was murdered in his home in July 2014. Here’s everything to know about Wendi Adelson, who has been called a 'conspirator' in Dan Markel’s murder.

people.com

"Wendi and her two sons now live in South Florida and she continues to maintain that she was not involved in Dan’s murder."

Nope. She moved to Austin, Texas and was deposed

 

[Knitpicker]

The point I’m making re painting the picture to the jury re Wendi’s pure disdain for Dan is its easy to prove and all the things you mentioned will be used and introduced by the state – so it is essentially the state convincing the jury with evidence – right?

I’m not saying Cappleman won’t ask Wendi a 3rd time. I’m saying ‘IF’ Wendi is ever charged, at ‘her’ trial, the way she answered the question about the ‘turn’ in the previous trials will not be introduced in ‘her’ trial and will not be scrutinized the way it is in social media. Which is why I’ve been saying its a big nothing burger. Cappleman will definitely ask Wendi in Donna’s trial about the ‘visit’ to the crime scene and we will get the same or similar response / outcome UNLESS Cappleman asks Wendi to be more specific as I have previously mentioned. ‘IF’ Cappleman asks Wendi to be more specific the follow up questions Cappleman asks will depend on how Wendi answers the initial question in the next trial - e.g. Cappleman may follow up with ~ “how far down Trescott did you travel until you reached the roadblock and saw the police car?”. Wendi will be forced to clarify and will likely say ~ “It was over 10 years ago, I don’t remember”. At that point Cappleman can offer to refresh her memory by introducing the transcript from the police interview. If you listen to the police interview, Wendi never was specific about where the roadblock was. She said ~ “I tried to drive down Trescott and I saw that it was blocked.... so I just turned around and drove up the other way”. If she is refreshed, there was nothing there that will force her to testify that she drove ¾ the way down Trescott OR that contradicts any of he previous statements.

How do you know what will be introduced in W’s trial? Or whether it will be scrutinized?

 

[Going Rogue]

How do you know what will be introduced in W’s trial? Or whether it will be scrutinized?

I’m basing that ‘opinion’ on my belief that it will not be impeachable testimony because she was never asked to clarify any of her past testimony that was either unclear OR inconsistent with past statements specifically on the ‘turn’. Example, (third trial), I think we all agree its impossible for her to have ‘not turned’ on Trescott and then ‘make a k-turn’ at the roadblock. As I keep saying, Cappleman should have / could have asked follow up questions to get Wendi to clarify this ‘misstatement’ OR unclear statement – its impossible to do what she said. I know you and other’s don’t like hearing this but the ‘Trescott turn’ and her inconsistent statements were blown out of proportion in social media and made into something big when it was really not from any legal procedural angle (e.g. perjury). Please don’t confuse my statement with me arguing whether or not her statements were inconsistent, purposeful lies, or simply her misspeaking. None of which can be proven other than they were ‘inconsistent’. The opportunity was lost to pin her down when Cappleman decided not to ask follow up questions. I will even predict in Donna’s trial, Cappleman drills further into the ‘Trescott turn’ and how far Wendi traveled down Trescott and Wendi will simply respond ~ “it was over ten years ago, I don’t remember”. Review her police interview and all three trials once she says that, please let me know exactly what statements fall under any reasonable category of impeachable statements? That is why I’m relatively confident it will not come up in her trial – if there is one.

 

[Zedzded]

Enough about Trescott I think...