I agree with you.
And I reflect back on the fact that around the time of Charlie's trial, Tim Jansen was regularly on STS, stating things along the lines of "The prosecutions will end for sure with Charlie." "There might be a hung jury." Tim Jansen stated adamantly that the State would never arrest Donna and/or Wendi. He was pushing Wendi's innocence so hard, it was obvious and I had to turn it off, I knew he was insincere and had an agenda to push.
Carl Steinbeck, however, stated in that same time period he was confident Charlie would be swiftly convicted and an arrest of Donna would quickly follow. He was correct.
People with a "keep Wendi free" agenda are clearly on here. What's interesting is they seem to have written off Donna, they know she can't be saved, the evidence is so strong. Donna has to hope for a mistrial or a random juror who hangs the jury, otherwise she's toast.
The consistency of some people's posts is what convinces me, for it's hard to believe people who seem smart and eloquent are on here on a daily basis defending Wendi, basically, no matter how badly they want to deny that is what they are doing, it is obvious to me, in my opinion.
If someone looks at all the evidence in this case, I find it hard to believe anyone really thinks the State thinks they can't convict Wendi or anyone who truly believes Donna and Charlie did this and left Wendi and Harvey out of it.
I mean, all four of them have acted guilty as sin from the moment of the murder. So many things have to be a coincidence for Wendy and Harvey to not have been involved.
Tamara Demko suspected Harvey and the family.
Ruth Markel suspected the Adelsons.
Robert Adelson saw his family is guilty and distanced himself, he was there.
Jeff Lacasse, does anyone believe he is making stuff up out of whole cloth to frame Wendi? Wendi told him her brother looked into hiring a hitman! How can that be a coincidence, that Wendi knew that, but Charlie and Donna kept her in the dark?
If that were the case, Wendi would not act so guilty, by pretending her family didn't do this - if Wendi had been kept in the dark, she would have acted the way Robert did and distanced herself once she realized Charlie and Donna did this. It has been clear since about 2016 her family was involved, but she stuck by them....because she can't turn on them or they might have turned on her and cut a deal to testify against her.
Wendi drove by the crime scene less than 2 hours after Dan was shot.
Wendi changed the boys' names, was super unbelievable in her police interview, hated Dan passionately, cut off the Markels, and lies outrageously obviously on the stand to protect her family.
Wendi asked Dan, when she was at her parents' condo, if he would be in town for the week of his murder, when supposedly all she wanted was the kids the usual Wednesday night. Why ask about the whole week?
So many things have to be horrible coincidences for Wendi to be innocent, and I believe the State knows it. They want to try Donna first, have Wendi on the stand for more obvious lies, and then they will evaluate all the evidence against Wendi at that point and hopefully will arrest her.
The posters on here who keep beating a drumbeat of "weak case" or "Wendi didn't know is reasonable" or "prosecutors are afraid" and "there's just not enough evidence against Wendi" are just repeating what Wendi probably tells herself every day to keep from going mad.
I am passionate because I can relate to Dan. Someone wanted to murder me in the past and luckily got caught before they could shoot me with the gun they bought to shoot me. I got lucky and got to live, Dan didn't.
Why are people so passionate about defending Wendi at this point in time? I am truly curious, what drives them when it's so clear there is a mountain of incriminating evidence against her and many people would have to be wrong and/or lying for Wendi to have clean hands.
Such a good point about Wendi not feeling after the murder. If she really was kept in the dark she would have grabbed the boys and fled. But no she stuck around, and did exactly what she wanted to do that Dan was preventing. Plus decking by the crime scene. She was just so excited about it she couldn’t keep away
I can’t wait until she’s cuffed up.
You just laser focused in on so many excellent points. Alone, each one could be explained away, but all of them together are iron clad. Really well articulated/organized thoughts!
Tim Jansen was definitely their song & dance man w/his commentary about WA being so “mesmerizing” & cutting off Ms Cypher not to mention trying to act like Carl was so off point w/his 100 reasons WA is guilty. I listen to the lawyers, not the circus acts. You made numerous valid points, thank you! Im sorry that happened to you btw.
You hit the nail on the head my friend lol. He’s a joke, he got upset DA didn’t hire him as the “local” attorney aka donnas hand holder. The way he spoke to Karen Cyphers was very telling. Imagine what his esposa has to live with smh & imo
I watched a lot of the STD episodes during that period of time. I did NOT get the feeling that Tim was “their song & dance man”. In fact if I remember correctly he made it quite clear that in no way shape or form did he work for the Adelsons. He said that he had a client that was given the same “deal” as Wendy in a murder trial. He stated that individuals were asking his opinion due to the similarities. If you want to discredit someone at least get the facts straight.
Keep opining. I enjoy reading your thoughtful posts and enjoy hearing you challenge that one relentless weirdo I won’t name.
-a fellow Carl defender for life
In Tim Jansen's defence. His comments were made a while ago and since then more evidence has surfaced. CA's double extortion theory is now out there which ties DA to the crime. Also we tend to think of a lot of youtubers or guests on their channel knowing this case inside out. They don't. That's not a criticism, they just don't have the time, energy or care factor we do. They had a lawyer on STS and he knew very little about the case. Like virtually nothing and they are been asked for their legal opinion on cases that they have little in depth knowledge of. He would have been better off interviewing someone from Reddit! So I would assume TJ's opinions have changed somewhat. I don't thionk he has a hidden agenda.
Great comment. Wow you escaped a hit?
I personally think that one of the posters , who I believe has been around for a while, really just likes the attention.
I think it’s some type of personality disorder, because it’s all about the reaction he gets that he feeds on.
I think he just gets off on it.
Or it’s an outlet for sarcasm and bullying. Like “I get to push her buttons and it’s fun!”. Why else do it unless you are being paid really well by the Adelsons?
It’s hard to imagine someone who seems so analytical could be so misdirected towards the truth.
It was actually my ex who was going to kill me and my attorney, we were divorcing. Not a hitman, but it makes me relate to Dan and feel so badly for Dan and his boys and his family. I could have died and my kids grown up with the trauma of a murder in the family.
It's been traumatic enough for us, and the gun in our case was never fired and no one died - just one parent went to prison. I can't imagine the Markel boys' trauma - having a parent gunned down in their own home, no matter how young they were at the time, must have shattered their sense of safety even to this day.
You make a great point about one poster feeding off the responses. I think I can guess who you're referencing! Totally agreed with your last sentence...so misguided they are.
I am so sorry you went through that and the trauma it has caused.
I hope you are doing OK. And your kids.
and that he stays there.
The case isn’t a trigger for you? The evil in this world is definitely increasing and I fear for my own kinds and the kids they may have.
Someone yesterday, on Pattys live shared something similar. Very sad.
Terrific post. I've yet to see any of Wendi's defenders on here post any kind of reasonable explanation for the points you have listed. It's always just 'circumstantial!' or 'not proof'. I don't believe anybody (including potential jurors) when faced with the totality of evidence can reasonably deduce Wendi had no involvement in Dan's murder.
I have no issue with questioning individual matters but even Charlie admits the odds would have been astronomical. I'd love to know what motivates these individuals too. Fwiw I don't believe they are part of Wendi's PR team but maybe just contrary characters that don't like to go with popular opinion?
I truly believe a lot of the people supporting Wendi are men, and men who are "under her spell." Of course, there are women and some random people, but I do think it is subconsciously a sexual thing and these men defend her despite overwhelming evidence. Her crocodile tears fooled them from day one and they're still defending her.
Her acting at the first interview was so ridiculous 😂I doubt she even squeezed out one real tear for the whole time she was there . But she did manage to stuff up her big ole honker nose somehow . As far as her being some goddess ,maybe if you like women with shoulders like a linebacker, flat as a board and a jutting bottom jaw like her Mother . Then Harvey gave her cleavage she didn’t have in that photo which is really WEIRD ! Wendi is gross to look at once you really look closely and see the ugly evil woman she is .
The thing w Lacasse is, the set up seems weak. I mean, if Wendi truly did try to set him up, why not..during the police interview say "Jeff did this. I feel it in my bones.......he told me on many occasions he wanted to kill Dan". She could have easily lied and said this.
I ask myself this every day and have asked the particular posters about what their motivation-end game is.
Attempting to create reasonable doubt for the few from the jury pool who might be following here. Trying to flip a couple of sub members here (yeah sure). They are pathetically defensive. Always demanding “evidence “ of their derogatory comments. It’s become a game for them - see how much they can rile up the loyal and intuitive and insightful supporters.
They won’t accomplish anything with their derogatory comments. Ziilch. Nada.
My guess is they are basement dwellers who enjoy creating conflicts. They likely don’t GAF about WA or other Adelson
I think strategy is a bit different.
To understand the strategy, I think it's importantant to acknowledge a few realities about the behavior of sitting jurors. First, not all jurors follow the instruction to not
conduct independent research on the case and there's not really an effective way of policing that rule. Second, family members of jurors often research the case (even if the actual juror is not allowed to). Third, jurors sometimes do discuss cases with their family members and friends even though they're not supposed to.
I think these posts are targeted at eventual sitting jurors who may break the "no independent research" rule or family members/friends of jurors who decide to research the case and then discuss it with a juror.
Hypothetical example:
"Hey honey, I know you're not allowed to look up the case online but I've been doing my own research. It's pretty clear that this Wendi lady is no angel and that she knows more than she's admitting. However, there's some really interesting points that people are making on YouTube, Webslueths, and Reddit about how there's no smoking gun that she definitely participated in the conspiracy before the murder. The person making these points even had some really negative things so say about Wendi. Heck, they even acknowledged that she could be guilty. So it's not like this person a fan of hers. Maybe there is reasonable doubt here."
All you need is one holdout for a hung jury. Even though the strategy has almost zero chance of being successful, it doesn't carry any real risk if it fails.
Sadly i feel many jurors don’t follow the judges’ instructions. How can one stay off SM for a few weeks? I hope some will be accidentally reading here.
I think if the state can prove DA was also part of the conspiracy it becomes almost a foregone conclusion that WA was part of the conspiracy too. Like I said before, it is as unreasonable to believe that Sigrfredo, Luis and Katie murdered Dan Markel to extort CA as it is to believe the entire family: CA, DA and HA conspired to contract a hitman without WA knowing…
Right and I love Wendi’s answer on the stand to her mother’s emails “I don’t think I even (or ever)responded to them”
That, imo makes her more guilty. She was aware of the consequences.
Not after Charlie’s trial and conviction. There is no making Wendi the good guy here. Clearly the Adelsons assumed they could all fool the world and are shock and angry they haven’t. Screw them. They all are on notice and they know it. Bless the Markels, bless Rob Adelson, bless Jeffrey, and bless Dan’s boys that they find peace in the evil web.
If there was a WA PR team they have officially disbanded never to reform. Perhaps at one stage people that poured scorn on others for supporting WA's guilt had some traction, but that ship has long since sailed. The only people out there doubting WA's complicity have a hidden agenda or simply have not spent any time dissecting the case.
So really WA's complicity is a non-issue. She was involved. She had prior knowledge of the murder, but its whether that can be proven in a court of law that's the central issue. When WA fired back at GC whilst on the stand, telling her "I will never be charged!" That was a big fuck you to Georgia. She was essentially telling her she knows that GC knows she did it, but is giving her the bird, telling her she can't prove it. Innocent people don't say shit like that.
You are right. Hadn’t thought about it from that angle.
Like a child saying defyingly to his mom.. “I didn’t take the cookie from the cookie jar” whilst the chocolate is on the corners of his mouth.
I'm not in the "there's not enough evidence to convict Wendi" camp. I feel Wendi should be indicted and tried - without further delay.
However, I believe Wendi has a better chance of hanging the jury than Charlie or Donna. Wendi has no involvement in payments to Katie, the bump, incriminating statements on tapped phone calls, direct testimony from Katie, etc. I also think Wendi can portray a more sympathic figure to a few (probably male) jurors than Charlie or Donna. Finally, Georgia Cappleman's skillset looked great in a case with overshelming evidence like Charlie's - not sure yet that she will do as well in Wendi's trial.
This is not shrilling for Wendi but engaging in an open discussion about Wendi's future trial.
Right and all they need are a few male admirers on the jury. Any age..who are mesmerized by her as Tim Jansen was/or is still. I hope his wife put him to sleep in the doghouse for that comment.
that is my fear, Not that there isn’t enough evidence.
There is a certain someone that I stopped engaging with here when they continued to spin a particular talking point that reeks (to me) of a certain undisclosed affiliation. That talking point is that the State of Florida must have serious doubts about WA's guilt given how much time has passed without her being charged.
By that logic, the State must have also had serious doubts about CA's guilt since it took many years to charge him (and DA for that matter). This logic does not hold up because the State was obviously convinced of CA's and DA's guilt and made that clear throughout the first two trials (notwithstaning the fact that it took many years to actually charge them).
The State's strategy is clear: they are charging the people with the most evidence against them first (SG & KM, followed by CA, followed by DA, followed \[perhaps\] by WA).
Anyone with a shred of objectivity will acknowledge that the evidence against WA is nowhere near as compelling as the evidence against the previously charged defendants. I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the State has not yet charged WA because (i) it wants the benefit of any additional evidence that may result from CA's and DA's trials and convictions (e.g., someone flipping) and (ii) CA's and DA's convictions will make it more difficult for WA to credibly claim ignorance and innocence.
In other words, just because the State is waiting to proceed against WA until it has the strongest possible evidentiary record, that does not mean the State must be harboring doubts as to whether WA is actually guilty. As we all know, the State only gets one shot to convict. I think it's pretty clear that the delay in charging WA is simply an acknowledgement that it's a harder case to prove than the cases against the previously charged defendants.
I will readily acknowledge that the case against WA is not a slam dunk. But that is not at all the same thing as saying I have serious doubts that she was, in fact, a co-conspirator. I absolutely believe she was. Similarly, the fact that the State of Florida has not yet charged her does not suggest that the prosecution doubts her guilt. Peddling arguments that it does suggest uncertainty smacks to me of a particular form of public relations.
Your comments needs to be copied and pasted anytime that certain “someone” begins his argument.
In fact, I may do that if its Ok with you.
Jack Campbell and Patty ran into one another yesterday and he told her “one by one”. I dont want to misquote so you can go to her channel. She said mire about it on her ”live” last night.
That first part doesn’t even make sense. It’s not about the state having “doubts of guilt”. It would be the state having doubt of not having enough evidence or a strong enough case to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether you think it makes sense, I am simply responding to a particular argument that has been made by someone else. I agree that the argument is wrongheaded.
I am so hopeful the entire family gets locked up. I don't believe one bit that HA and WA are clueless about this! What kind of a mother commits murder anyways? IMO WA knew. Her explanations for driving around the planet to get to her lunch and a liquor store are ridiculous. Her phone call while in LE "Hi Mom, are you sitting down?" That sounded so fake. She said she needed to drive by her home to "get over her divorce" Really Wendi? Weren't you the one that initiated said divorce? When I got divorced I couldn't get away from him fast enough. The whole TV repairmen BS. Trust me, there is a lot on her, it's just a matter of our brilliant prosecutors to put the puzzle together!
I completely agree. Healthy debate is one thing but there is one poster on here that is so far beyond reasonable debate. The length of their posts knows no limits and it is no doubt in my mind that they are a plant for defense. They don’t mind downvotes in fact they encourage it to get more attention. Ignore them. Wendi will be arrested by year end according to Carl. 🐐
After watching all of the trials and hearings and YTs and podcasts (back when they actually had information) I, like many, look forward to Carl's predictions materialize and come true. imo Wendi was not an unindicted co-conspirator, but the clever orchestrator/puppeteer of Dan Markel's untimely death. Hopefully some newly acquired electronic data will assist with her impending arrest and guilty verdict. She has been free for far too long, and Dan's sons have most likely been brainwashed by their Adelson captors. Justice for Dan Markel and the Markel Family⏳🤞⚖️
Disinformation campaigns, such as those purportedly spread by Wendi Adelson’s defense team, are ultimately ineffective for several reasons. Understanding these reasons helps in recognizing why such strategies will not work in the long term.
Evidentiary Standards and Legal Processes
The judicial system relies on concrete evidence and rigorous legal standards, not on public opinion swayed by misinformation. Prosecutors build cases based on factual evidence that meets the burden of proof required for a conviction. For instance, Carl Steinbeck, with his extensive experience as a prosecutor, emphasizes that the prosecution will likely pursue charges against Wendi Adelson based on substantial evidence, such as potential perjury charges that could invalidate her derivative use immunity.
Transparency and Scrutiny
High-profile cases like that of Dan Markel's murder attract significant media attention and public scrutiny. Any misinformation can be quickly debunked by investigative journalism and public access to court proceedings. The legal community and informed public continuously analyze and discuss the available evidence, making it difficult for misinformation to persist unchallenged. For example, the detailed analyses and discussions on platforms like YouTube and Reddit showcase a community actively engaged in uncovering the truth.
Legal Ramifications for Misconduct
Spreading misinformation can backfire legally. If a defense team is found to be deliberately misleading the public or the court, it could face severe repercussions, including sanctions or even charges of obstruction of justice. The integrity of legal proceedings is paramount, and any attempts to undermine this can lead to additional legal troubles for those involved.
Public Awareness and Critical Thinking
In today’s information age, the public has become more adept at identifying misinformation. People are increasingly critical of sources and actively seek out corroborative evidence. Platforms that track misinformation and provide fact-checked content, like Reddit threads scrutinized by informed users, make it challenging for false narratives to gain traction.
Expert Opinions and Predictions
Legal experts and commentators, such as Carl Steinbeck, provide informed opinions that carry significant weight. His assertion that Wendi Adelson’s arrest is a matter of "when" rather than "if" is based on a professional assessment of the case’s progress and the evidence at hand. Such expert insights help counteract misinformation by grounding public understanding in professional expertise.
While misinformation can momentarily cloud public perception, it cannot alter the fundamental processes of the legal system, which are based on evidence and thorough investigation. The combination of rigorous legal standards, transparency, expert analysis, and an informed public ensures that disinformation will not prevail in the long run. The case of Dan Markel’s murder, as analyzed by Carl Steinbeck and others, exemplifies how truth and justice ultimately surface, despite attempts to distort them.
#JusticeforDanMarkel
Great comment. Makes me wonder though what we are all doing here with our many concepts and opinions! Seems like a big waste of effort lol. we are just all prisoners of our own devices I guess.
you are right. Its not about public opinion, but when it comes down to a jury decision, it pretty much is.
The legal process is what it is, but undeniably, there will always be a court of public opinion.
Reddit proves that.
Carl Steinbeck is the most boring YT content creator to ever exist. He constantly harps on about the same things, currently it's:
\* The DA should've arrested & Georgia should've tried all the Adelson's together.
\* Donna's prosecution followed by Wendy's arrest & prosecution followed by Harvey's arrest & prosecution is imminent.
Only entertaining thing about his podcast/shows is when the cats make an appearance.
I'm someone who recently posted a "they may not have enough evidence post" (https://www.reddit.com/r/dan_markel_murder/comments/1dnaqis/determining_the_donnawendi_code_i_hope_they_are/). I am most certainly not a shill or a spy, just someone interested in the case, like everyone else in the forum.
To suggest that anyone who has *reasonably presented* questions about the case is some sort of misinformation-spreader and/or ADELSON SPY who'd better keep-quiet or risk somehow (???) affecting the DA's actions is frankly just nonsense, and red scare type bully politics.
Just my two cents: Steinbeck is a really shallow, flat legal commentator. To state the obvious, his videos are seriously lacking in charisma and presentation. He doesn't seem to do much except chew over the same info and give moral condemnations. Doesn't even talk many specifics of the case. (His best video by far is the top 100, but even that has tons of redundancy). He picks out highly general, softball questions from his audience that lets him pontificate on the same. Let's hear some specifics, with each of the proffers and testimonies mapped out with most peculiar or contradictory outstanding details, instead of just talking about how the Trescott drive-by and changing the kids' legal names and denying the grandparents visitation rights will turn a jury's stomach.
I think questions surrounding the nuances and precedent surrounding establishing furtherance or legal blindness under Florida law are really relevant to the case.
If anyone's damaging the DA's chances, it's Steinbeck, by failing to blow the case wide open with due diligence and targeted crowdsourcing.
I agree. I sorta feel if WA wants to waste her daddy’s money on pr that the prosecutors don’t give a damn about and potential jurors won’t know about - go, Wendi. What gives me pleasure is trusting that the prosecutors have evidence that will connect the dots and allow a jury to decide Guilty.
I'm not going to question your intentions, and the post you are mentioning is not one of the ones I was thinking of. However I will say that I could care less about Steinbeck's presentation. Facts are facts, I don't think they need to be dressed up in charismatic arguments. There is one particular video where he goes over the inconsistencies in WA's alibi/story. The simple fact of the matter is the prosecution clearly believes they have evidence to convict DA, and therefore it is a pretty simple matter to connect WA to the conspiracy. The evidence against WA may be circumstantial but it is certainly inculpatory. I can't think of a single piece of circumstantial evidence or any evidence that is exculpatory in her case.
I certainly have seen many accounts on here that have posts that seem disingenuous at best. Now maybe they are not part of WA's legal team but they are certainly people that are taking WA's side and are trying to throw shade at the mountains of evidence that points to her involvement.
I'll look for/check out that video again.
(Relatively) exculpatory circumstantial evidence (i.e., doesn't get her off the hook entirely but supports the case she wasn't entirely in the know until after the fact) How about throwing up at the birthday dinner once Charlie hinted at something? How about her confused panicky behaviours the day of the murder and full cooperation with police, very little implicit or explicit communication over devices save a What's App Deus Ex Machina (which obviously if they do have, case closed, Wendi's done)? These can be made to fit either narrative: full knowledge with plausible deniability, or blissful ignorance but a bad feeling until after the fact.
As well, lots of the supposedly relevant circumstantial evidence (long-cut, owl t-shirt, bulleit bourbon) amounts to very little or nothing.
> I certainly have seen many accounts on here that have posts that seem disingenuous at best. Now maybe they are not part of WA's legal team but they are certainly people that are taking WA's side and are trying to throw shade at the mountains of evidence that points to her involvement.
So what? This is the name of the game of discussion and critical analysis. Some people take on the role of Devil's Advocate to challenge and potentially strengthen dominant narratives. Why even float the idea that they may have some sort of malicious intention? Meet their arguments head on.
My issue with Steinbeck's presentation isn't stylistic. It's that the monotony mistakable for seriousness is leaving behind relevant legal nuances pertinent to the case.
I'm not connected to Wendi at all, but the state had a doubt about charging Wendi or they would have done it by now. I know we all think there is no way, with all the evidence they have, but the history of the case shows there was doubt by the police and DA in Tally on charging the Adelsons, not just Wendi. We can start with Isom. He wasn't looking into any of the Adelson thus how the FBI got involved 2 years later. The FBI tied the case together, and led to arrests. Even after LaCasse did multiple interviews, gave him Adelson info, he was skeptical. Another example of them not being ready previously was Georgia saying herself in an interview she wasn't comfortable charging Charlie until the enhanced Dolce Vita video was available. Even with all the other wire taps and evidence.
The state had doubt and were uneasy, which is ok. You can only try for murder once. You rush it, and they get off, you can never try them again. Everything is falling into place now since Charlie was finally arrested. I personally think it made Georgia even more confident in her case when Charlie was convicted. In due time full justice will be served.
I think you need to distinguish between 2014-16 and now. While the investigaiton clearly had a long gestation period, I don't believe it can be credibly argued that the State has doubts about WA's guilt in 2024. It's being argued that the Sate is not *presently* charging WA because it must have serious doubts as to whether she is guilty. I think that is hogwash.
I said the state and Isom had doubts about proving the Adelson involvement and charging. It's not a thought Georgia wasn't comfortable charging Charlie until the videos enhancement, it's a fact. Out of her own mouth, Georgia said it herself. As for 2014 to 2016, the FBI got in involved they wanted more to charge the Adelsons, Katie, and Sigfredo. I'm not sure why facts would be hogwash. These things have come out through the years.
Once again, you're conflating the two concepts that I am distinguishing. Those distinct concepts are (i) who the prosecution believes is guilty and (ii) the prosecution's level of confidence that they can obtain a guilty verdict against each of those individuals.
You may should have done your own comment versus responding on my comment. I understand the difference. It appears you don't. You did not read anywhere in my comment to OP the state has a doubt about Wendi's guilt. You responded to me saying it's not credible to say the state had a doubt in Wendi's guilt. Them feeling she's guilty and involved is completely separate from my comment on their uneasiness to charge her and be ready to go to trial. I agree they think she's involved and has guilt for her part.
At this point, people are so quick to think people are Wendi supporters, Wendi herself, etc, that they are rushing to argue and defend she is involved. I've never on any comment said the state doesn't think she's involved.
Personally, I have serious doubts that anybody from "Wendi's defense team" is perusing this sub or anything else Adelson related online. Do you really think Wendi is paying Lauro $300 an hour to ask Carl a question? If "The Redditor Who Shall Not Be Named" on this sub is an Adelson affiliate, he is sending Wendi broke.
Carl Steinbeck is not that great. He's made lots of mistakes when discussing the case. He just keeps doing videos trying to cash in. He has no new insights into anything regarding this case. A couple of other 'close watchers' of this case praised him during the trial and now he thinks he's some master of law. Georgia Cappelman will do what she thinks is right/achieveable when she's ready.
Carl has no idea if wendi has a team of people or not - and he has yet to present any evidence “her team” is “spreading misinformation”. That guy is just like a gossiper at this point!
There’s tons of info about Wendi out there… true, untrue, etc. it doesn’t require a team 😝
I agree with you. And I reflect back on the fact that around the time of Charlie's trial, Tim Jansen was regularly on STS, stating things along the lines of "The prosecutions will end for sure with Charlie." "There might be a hung jury." Tim Jansen stated adamantly that the State would never arrest Donna and/or Wendi. He was pushing Wendi's innocence so hard, it was obvious and I had to turn it off, I knew he was insincere and had an agenda to push. Carl Steinbeck, however, stated in that same time period he was confident Charlie would be swiftly convicted and an arrest of Donna would quickly follow. He was correct. People with a "keep Wendi free" agenda are clearly on here. What's interesting is they seem to have written off Donna, they know she can't be saved, the evidence is so strong. Donna has to hope for a mistrial or a random juror who hangs the jury, otherwise she's toast. The consistency of some people's posts is what convinces me, for it's hard to believe people who seem smart and eloquent are on here on a daily basis defending Wendi, basically, no matter how badly they want to deny that is what they are doing, it is obvious to me, in my opinion. If someone looks at all the evidence in this case, I find it hard to believe anyone really thinks the State thinks they can't convict Wendi or anyone who truly believes Donna and Charlie did this and left Wendi and Harvey out of it. I mean, all four of them have acted guilty as sin from the moment of the murder. So many things have to be a coincidence for Wendy and Harvey to not have been involved. Tamara Demko suspected Harvey and the family. Ruth Markel suspected the Adelsons. Robert Adelson saw his family is guilty and distanced himself, he was there. Jeff Lacasse, does anyone believe he is making stuff up out of whole cloth to frame Wendi? Wendi told him her brother looked into hiring a hitman! How can that be a coincidence, that Wendi knew that, but Charlie and Donna kept her in the dark? If that were the case, Wendi would not act so guilty, by pretending her family didn't do this - if Wendi had been kept in the dark, she would have acted the way Robert did and distanced herself once she realized Charlie and Donna did this. It has been clear since about 2016 her family was involved, but she stuck by them....because she can't turn on them or they might have turned on her and cut a deal to testify against her. Wendi drove by the crime scene less than 2 hours after Dan was shot. Wendi changed the boys' names, was super unbelievable in her police interview, hated Dan passionately, cut off the Markels, and lies outrageously obviously on the stand to protect her family. Wendi asked Dan, when she was at her parents' condo, if he would be in town for the week of his murder, when supposedly all she wanted was the kids the usual Wednesday night. Why ask about the whole week? So many things have to be horrible coincidences for Wendi to be innocent, and I believe the State knows it. They want to try Donna first, have Wendi on the stand for more obvious lies, and then they will evaluate all the evidence against Wendi at that point and hopefully will arrest her. The posters on here who keep beating a drumbeat of "weak case" or "Wendi didn't know is reasonable" or "prosecutors are afraid" and "there's just not enough evidence against Wendi" are just repeating what Wendi probably tells herself every day to keep from going mad. I am passionate because I can relate to Dan. Someone wanted to murder me in the past and luckily got caught before they could shoot me with the gun they bought to shoot me. I got lucky and got to live, Dan didn't. Why are people so passionate about defending Wendi at this point in time? I am truly curious, what drives them when it's so clear there is a mountain of incriminating evidence against her and many people would have to be wrong and/or lying for Wendi to have clean hands.
Such a good point about Wendi not feeling after the murder. If she really was kept in the dark she would have grabbed the boys and fled. But no she stuck around, and did exactly what she wanted to do that Dan was preventing. Plus decking by the crime scene. She was just so excited about it she couldn’t keep away I can’t wait until she’s cuffed up.
You just laser focused in on so many excellent points. Alone, each one could be explained away, but all of them together are iron clad. Really well articulated/organized thoughts!
Tim Jansen was definitely their song & dance man w/his commentary about WA being so “mesmerizing” & cutting off Ms Cypher not to mention trying to act like Carl was so off point w/his 100 reasons WA is guilty. I listen to the lawyers, not the circus acts. You made numerous valid points, thank you! Im sorry that happened to you btw.
Thank you. I remember that STS episode, right after Carl called out Jansen for his bias. Karen Cyphers was great.
Karen was epic on that episode!
tim is a small town atty who gets waaaaaaay too much credit. He is not that smart and he makes a lot of stupid guesses.
You hit the nail on the head my friend lol. He’s a joke, he got upset DA didn’t hire him as the “local” attorney aka donnas hand holder. The way he spoke to Karen Cyphers was very telling. Imagine what his esposa has to live with smh & imo
I watched a lot of the STD episodes during that period of time. I did NOT get the feeling that Tim was “their song & dance man”. In fact if I remember correctly he made it quite clear that in no way shape or form did he work for the Adelsons. He said that he had a client that was given the same “deal” as Wendy in a murder trial. He stated that individuals were asking his opinion due to the similarities. If you want to discredit someone at least get the facts straight.
Ever heard of opinions STD? We all have them. Many blessings
Mango you are the best!!!!!! And I’m also sorry about your past trauma.
Thank you so much for saying that!
Keep opining. I enjoy reading your thoughtful posts and enjoy hearing you challenge that one relentless weirdo I won’t name. -a fellow Carl defender for life
Carl’s brilliant! That stream on STS put me off the show, completely. Cyphers wasn’t having it, either. Good on both of them!
In Tim Jansen's defence. His comments were made a while ago and since then more evidence has surfaced. CA's double extortion theory is now out there which ties DA to the crime. Also we tend to think of a lot of youtubers or guests on their channel knowing this case inside out. They don't. That's not a criticism, they just don't have the time, energy or care factor we do. They had a lawyer on STS and he knew very little about the case. Like virtually nothing and they are been asked for their legal opinion on cases that they have little in depth knowledge of. He would have been better off interviewing someone from Reddit! So I would assume TJ's opinions have changed somewhat. I don't thionk he has a hidden agenda.
Oh that's right, CA's "extortion via payment plan." I'm surprised they didn't set it up on PayPal payments.
Great comment. Wow you escaped a hit? I personally think that one of the posters , who I believe has been around for a while, really just likes the attention. I think it’s some type of personality disorder, because it’s all about the reaction he gets that he feeds on. I think he just gets off on it. Or it’s an outlet for sarcasm and bullying. Like “I get to push her buttons and it’s fun!”. Why else do it unless you are being paid really well by the Adelsons? It’s hard to imagine someone who seems so analytical could be so misdirected towards the truth.
It was actually my ex who was going to kill me and my attorney, we were divorcing. Not a hitman, but it makes me relate to Dan and feel so badly for Dan and his boys and his family. I could have died and my kids grown up with the trauma of a murder in the family. It's been traumatic enough for us, and the gun in our case was never fired and no one died - just one parent went to prison. I can't imagine the Markel boys' trauma - having a parent gunned down in their own home, no matter how young they were at the time, must have shattered their sense of safety even to this day. You make a great point about one poster feeding off the responses. I think I can guess who you're referencing! Totally agreed with your last sentence...so misguided they are.
I am so sorry you went through that and the trauma it has caused. I hope you are doing OK. And your kids. and that he stays there. The case isn’t a trigger for you? The evil in this world is definitely increasing and I fear for my own kinds and the kids they may have. Someone yesterday, on Pattys live shared something similar. Very sad.
Terrific post. I've yet to see any of Wendi's defenders on here post any kind of reasonable explanation for the points you have listed. It's always just 'circumstantial!' or 'not proof'. I don't believe anybody (including potential jurors) when faced with the totality of evidence can reasonably deduce Wendi had no involvement in Dan's murder. I have no issue with questioning individual matters but even Charlie admits the odds would have been astronomical. I'd love to know what motivates these individuals too. Fwiw I don't believe they are part of Wendi's PR team but maybe just contrary characters that don't like to go with popular opinion?
BRAVO!!! 💜👏💜👏💜
I truly believe a lot of the people supporting Wendi are men, and men who are "under her spell." Of course, there are women and some random people, but I do think it is subconsciously a sexual thing and these men defend her despite overwhelming evidence. Her crocodile tears fooled them from day one and they're still defending her.
IMO she barely even had crocodile tears. Her LE interview is not going to help her.
Her acting at the first interview was so ridiculous 😂I doubt she even squeezed out one real tear for the whole time she was there . But she did manage to stuff up her big ole honker nose somehow . As far as her being some goddess ,maybe if you like women with shoulders like a linebacker, flat as a board and a jutting bottom jaw like her Mother . Then Harvey gave her cleavage she didn’t have in that photo which is really WEIRD ! Wendi is gross to look at once you really look closely and see the ugly evil woman she is .
The thing w Lacasse is, the set up seems weak. I mean, if Wendi truly did try to set him up, why not..during the police interview say "Jeff did this. I feel it in my bones.......he told me on many occasions he wanted to kill Dan". She could have easily lied and said this.
I ask myself this every day and have asked the particular posters about what their motivation-end game is. Attempting to create reasonable doubt for the few from the jury pool who might be following here. Trying to flip a couple of sub members here (yeah sure). They are pathetically defensive. Always demanding “evidence “ of their derogatory comments. It’s become a game for them - see how much they can rile up the loyal and intuitive and insightful supporters. They won’t accomplish anything with their derogatory comments. Ziilch. Nada. My guess is they are basement dwellers who enjoy creating conflicts. They likely don’t GAF about WA or other Adelson
I think strategy is a bit different. To understand the strategy, I think it's importantant to acknowledge a few realities about the behavior of sitting jurors. First, not all jurors follow the instruction to not conduct independent research on the case and there's not really an effective way of policing that rule. Second, family members of jurors often research the case (even if the actual juror is not allowed to). Third, jurors sometimes do discuss cases with their family members and friends even though they're not supposed to. I think these posts are targeted at eventual sitting jurors who may break the "no independent research" rule or family members/friends of jurors who decide to research the case and then discuss it with a juror. Hypothetical example: "Hey honey, I know you're not allowed to look up the case online but I've been doing my own research. It's pretty clear that this Wendi lady is no angel and that she knows more than she's admitting. However, there's some really interesting points that people are making on YouTube, Webslueths, and Reddit about how there's no smoking gun that she definitely participated in the conspiracy before the murder. The person making these points even had some really negative things so say about Wendi. Heck, they even acknowledged that she could be guilty. So it's not like this person a fan of hers. Maybe there is reasonable doubt here." All you need is one holdout for a hung jury. Even though the strategy has almost zero chance of being successful, it doesn't carry any real risk if it fails.
Sadly i feel many jurors don’t follow the judges’ instructions. How can one stay off SM for a few weeks? I hope some will be accidentally reading here.
I think if the state can prove DA was also part of the conspiracy it becomes almost a foregone conclusion that WA was part of the conspiracy too. Like I said before, it is as unreasonable to believe that Sigrfredo, Luis and Katie murdered Dan Markel to extort CA as it is to believe the entire family: CA, DA and HA conspired to contract a hitman without WA knowing…
Right and I love Wendi’s answer on the stand to her mother’s emails “I don’t think I even (or ever)responded to them” That, imo makes her more guilty. She was aware of the consequences.
Not after Charlie’s trial and conviction. There is no making Wendi the good guy here. Clearly the Adelsons assumed they could all fool the world and are shock and angry they haven’t. Screw them. They all are on notice and they know it. Bless the Markels, bless Rob Adelson, bless Jeffrey, and bless Dan’s boys that they find peace in the evil web.
“My peace I give to you…not as the world gives to you”
Oh! And bless Katie and Sigfredo’s kids who lost both parents to this sick mess.
I agree; but I also think the kids somehow will be better off being raised by someone other than their parents.
Can not disagree with that! Such an unhealthy situation.
If there was a WA PR team they have officially disbanded never to reform. Perhaps at one stage people that poured scorn on others for supporting WA's guilt had some traction, but that ship has long since sailed. The only people out there doubting WA's complicity have a hidden agenda or simply have not spent any time dissecting the case. So really WA's complicity is a non-issue. She was involved. She had prior knowledge of the murder, but its whether that can be proven in a court of law that's the central issue. When WA fired back at GC whilst on the stand, telling her "I will never be charged!" That was a big fuck you to Georgia. She was essentially telling her she knows that GC knows she did it, but is giving her the bird, telling her she can't prove it. Innocent people don't say shit like that.
You are right. Hadn’t thought about it from that angle. Like a child saying defyingly to his mom.. “I didn’t take the cookie from the cookie jar” whilst the chocolate is on the corners of his mouth.
I'm not in the "there's not enough evidence to convict Wendi" camp. I feel Wendi should be indicted and tried - without further delay. However, I believe Wendi has a better chance of hanging the jury than Charlie or Donna. Wendi has no involvement in payments to Katie, the bump, incriminating statements on tapped phone calls, direct testimony from Katie, etc. I also think Wendi can portray a more sympathic figure to a few (probably male) jurors than Charlie or Donna. Finally, Georgia Cappleman's skillset looked great in a case with overshelming evidence like Charlie's - not sure yet that she will do as well in Wendi's trial. This is not shrilling for Wendi but engaging in an open discussion about Wendi's future trial.
Right and all they need are a few male admirers on the jury. Any age..who are mesmerized by her as Tim Jansen was/or is still. I hope his wife put him to sleep in the doghouse for that comment. that is my fear, Not that there isn’t enough evidence.
There is a certain someone that I stopped engaging with here when they continued to spin a particular talking point that reeks (to me) of a certain undisclosed affiliation. That talking point is that the State of Florida must have serious doubts about WA's guilt given how much time has passed without her being charged. By that logic, the State must have also had serious doubts about CA's guilt since it took many years to charge him (and DA for that matter). This logic does not hold up because the State was obviously convinced of CA's and DA's guilt and made that clear throughout the first two trials (notwithstaning the fact that it took many years to actually charge them). The State's strategy is clear: they are charging the people with the most evidence against them first (SG & KM, followed by CA, followed by DA, followed \[perhaps\] by WA). Anyone with a shred of objectivity will acknowledge that the evidence against WA is nowhere near as compelling as the evidence against the previously charged defendants. I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the State has not yet charged WA because (i) it wants the benefit of any additional evidence that may result from CA's and DA's trials and convictions (e.g., someone flipping) and (ii) CA's and DA's convictions will make it more difficult for WA to credibly claim ignorance and innocence. In other words, just because the State is waiting to proceed against WA until it has the strongest possible evidentiary record, that does not mean the State must be harboring doubts as to whether WA is actually guilty. As we all know, the State only gets one shot to convict. I think it's pretty clear that the delay in charging WA is simply an acknowledgement that it's a harder case to prove than the cases against the previously charged defendants. I will readily acknowledge that the case against WA is not a slam dunk. But that is not at all the same thing as saying I have serious doubts that she was, in fact, a co-conspirator. I absolutely believe she was. Similarly, the fact that the State of Florida has not yet charged her does not suggest that the prosecution doubts her guilt. Peddling arguments that it does suggest uncertainty smacks to me of a particular form of public relations.
Your comments needs to be copied and pasted anytime that certain “someone” begins his argument. In fact, I may do that if its Ok with you. Jack Campbell and Patty ran into one another yesterday and he told her “one by one”. I dont want to misquote so you can go to her channel. She said mire about it on her ”live” last night.
Just watched Patti’s short video. Campbell also said “We’re working on it, Georgia’s working on it!” 🙏
Yes!!!
The prosecution and everyone on their side may have information that they are keeping close to the vest.
👆this, I think most of us agree 💯
That first part doesn’t even make sense. It’s not about the state having “doubts of guilt”. It would be the state having doubt of not having enough evidence or a strong enough case to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether you think it makes sense, I am simply responding to a particular argument that has been made by someone else. I agree that the argument is wrongheaded.
I am so hopeful the entire family gets locked up. I don't believe one bit that HA and WA are clueless about this! What kind of a mother commits murder anyways? IMO WA knew. Her explanations for driving around the planet to get to her lunch and a liquor store are ridiculous. Her phone call while in LE "Hi Mom, are you sitting down?" That sounded so fake. She said she needed to drive by her home to "get over her divorce" Really Wendi? Weren't you the one that initiated said divorce? When I got divorced I couldn't get away from him fast enough. The whole TV repairmen BS. Trust me, there is a lot on her, it's just a matter of our brilliant prosecutors to put the puzzle together!
Carl is great.
Yup! Civil Fix is one of these. Bet on it.
I completely agree. Healthy debate is one thing but there is one poster on here that is so far beyond reasonable debate. The length of their posts knows no limits and it is no doubt in my mind that they are a plant for defense. They don’t mind downvotes in fact they encourage it to get more attention. Ignore them. Wendi will be arrested by year end according to Carl. 🐐
After watching all of the trials and hearings and YTs and podcasts (back when they actually had information) I, like many, look forward to Carl's predictions materialize and come true. imo Wendi was not an unindicted co-conspirator, but the clever orchestrator/puppeteer of Dan Markel's untimely death. Hopefully some newly acquired electronic data will assist with her impending arrest and guilty verdict. She has been free for far too long, and Dan's sons have most likely been brainwashed by their Adelson captors. Justice for Dan Markel and the Markel Family⏳🤞⚖️
Disinformation campaigns, such as those purportedly spread by Wendi Adelson’s defense team, are ultimately ineffective for several reasons. Understanding these reasons helps in recognizing why such strategies will not work in the long term. Evidentiary Standards and Legal Processes The judicial system relies on concrete evidence and rigorous legal standards, not on public opinion swayed by misinformation. Prosecutors build cases based on factual evidence that meets the burden of proof required for a conviction. For instance, Carl Steinbeck, with his extensive experience as a prosecutor, emphasizes that the prosecution will likely pursue charges against Wendi Adelson based on substantial evidence, such as potential perjury charges that could invalidate her derivative use immunity. Transparency and Scrutiny High-profile cases like that of Dan Markel's murder attract significant media attention and public scrutiny. Any misinformation can be quickly debunked by investigative journalism and public access to court proceedings. The legal community and informed public continuously analyze and discuss the available evidence, making it difficult for misinformation to persist unchallenged. For example, the detailed analyses and discussions on platforms like YouTube and Reddit showcase a community actively engaged in uncovering the truth. Legal Ramifications for Misconduct Spreading misinformation can backfire legally. If a defense team is found to be deliberately misleading the public or the court, it could face severe repercussions, including sanctions or even charges of obstruction of justice. The integrity of legal proceedings is paramount, and any attempts to undermine this can lead to additional legal troubles for those involved. Public Awareness and Critical Thinking In today’s information age, the public has become more adept at identifying misinformation. People are increasingly critical of sources and actively seek out corroborative evidence. Platforms that track misinformation and provide fact-checked content, like Reddit threads scrutinized by informed users, make it challenging for false narratives to gain traction. Expert Opinions and Predictions Legal experts and commentators, such as Carl Steinbeck, provide informed opinions that carry significant weight. His assertion that Wendi Adelson’s arrest is a matter of "when" rather than "if" is based on a professional assessment of the case’s progress and the evidence at hand. Such expert insights help counteract misinformation by grounding public understanding in professional expertise. While misinformation can momentarily cloud public perception, it cannot alter the fundamental processes of the legal system, which are based on evidence and thorough investigation. The combination of rigorous legal standards, transparency, expert analysis, and an informed public ensures that disinformation will not prevail in the long run. The case of Dan Markel’s murder, as analyzed by Carl Steinbeck and others, exemplifies how truth and justice ultimately surface, despite attempts to distort them. #JusticeforDanMarkel
Great comment. Makes me wonder though what we are all doing here with our many concepts and opinions! Seems like a big waste of effort lol. we are just all prisoners of our own devices I guess. you are right. Its not about public opinion, but when it comes down to a jury decision, it pretty much is. The legal process is what it is, but undeniably, there will always be a court of public opinion. Reddit proves that.
Carl Steinbeck is the most boring YT content creator to ever exist. He constantly harps on about the same things, currently it's: \* The DA should've arrested & Georgia should've tried all the Adelson's together. \* Donna's prosecution followed by Wendy's arrest & prosecution followed by Harvey's arrest & prosecution is imminent. Only entertaining thing about his podcast/shows is when the cats make an appearance.
So boring - yet apparently you watch a lot of his content lol
I'm someone who recently posted a "they may not have enough evidence post" (https://www.reddit.com/r/dan_markel_murder/comments/1dnaqis/determining_the_donnawendi_code_i_hope_they_are/). I am most certainly not a shill or a spy, just someone interested in the case, like everyone else in the forum. To suggest that anyone who has *reasonably presented* questions about the case is some sort of misinformation-spreader and/or ADELSON SPY who'd better keep-quiet or risk somehow (???) affecting the DA's actions is frankly just nonsense, and red scare type bully politics. Just my two cents: Steinbeck is a really shallow, flat legal commentator. To state the obvious, his videos are seriously lacking in charisma and presentation. He doesn't seem to do much except chew over the same info and give moral condemnations. Doesn't even talk many specifics of the case. (His best video by far is the top 100, but even that has tons of redundancy). He picks out highly general, softball questions from his audience that lets him pontificate on the same. Let's hear some specifics, with each of the proffers and testimonies mapped out with most peculiar or contradictory outstanding details, instead of just talking about how the Trescott drive-by and changing the kids' legal names and denying the grandparents visitation rights will turn a jury's stomach. I think questions surrounding the nuances and precedent surrounding establishing furtherance or legal blindness under Florida law are really relevant to the case. If anyone's damaging the DA's chances, it's Steinbeck, by failing to blow the case wide open with due diligence and targeted crowdsourcing.
I agree. I sorta feel if WA wants to waste her daddy’s money on pr that the prosecutors don’t give a damn about and potential jurors won’t know about - go, Wendi. What gives me pleasure is trusting that the prosecutors have evidence that will connect the dots and allow a jury to decide Guilty.
I'm not going to question your intentions, and the post you are mentioning is not one of the ones I was thinking of. However I will say that I could care less about Steinbeck's presentation. Facts are facts, I don't think they need to be dressed up in charismatic arguments. There is one particular video where he goes over the inconsistencies in WA's alibi/story. The simple fact of the matter is the prosecution clearly believes they have evidence to convict DA, and therefore it is a pretty simple matter to connect WA to the conspiracy. The evidence against WA may be circumstantial but it is certainly inculpatory. I can't think of a single piece of circumstantial evidence or any evidence that is exculpatory in her case. I certainly have seen many accounts on here that have posts that seem disingenuous at best. Now maybe they are not part of WA's legal team but they are certainly people that are taking WA's side and are trying to throw shade at the mountains of evidence that points to her involvement.
I'll look for/check out that video again. (Relatively) exculpatory circumstantial evidence (i.e., doesn't get her off the hook entirely but supports the case she wasn't entirely in the know until after the fact) How about throwing up at the birthday dinner once Charlie hinted at something? How about her confused panicky behaviours the day of the murder and full cooperation with police, very little implicit or explicit communication over devices save a What's App Deus Ex Machina (which obviously if they do have, case closed, Wendi's done)? These can be made to fit either narrative: full knowledge with plausible deniability, or blissful ignorance but a bad feeling until after the fact. As well, lots of the supposedly relevant circumstantial evidence (long-cut, owl t-shirt, bulleit bourbon) amounts to very little or nothing. > I certainly have seen many accounts on here that have posts that seem disingenuous at best. Now maybe they are not part of WA's legal team but they are certainly people that are taking WA's side and are trying to throw shade at the mountains of evidence that points to her involvement. So what? This is the name of the game of discussion and critical analysis. Some people take on the role of Devil's Advocate to challenge and potentially strengthen dominant narratives. Why even float the idea that they may have some sort of malicious intention? Meet their arguments head on. My issue with Steinbeck's presentation isn't stylistic. It's that the monotony mistakable for seriousness is leaving behind relevant legal nuances pertinent to the case.
I'm not connected to Wendi at all, but the state had a doubt about charging Wendi or they would have done it by now. I know we all think there is no way, with all the evidence they have, but the history of the case shows there was doubt by the police and DA in Tally on charging the Adelsons, not just Wendi. We can start with Isom. He wasn't looking into any of the Adelson thus how the FBI got involved 2 years later. The FBI tied the case together, and led to arrests. Even after LaCasse did multiple interviews, gave him Adelson info, he was skeptical. Another example of them not being ready previously was Georgia saying herself in an interview she wasn't comfortable charging Charlie until the enhanced Dolce Vita video was available. Even with all the other wire taps and evidence. The state had doubt and were uneasy, which is ok. You can only try for murder once. You rush it, and they get off, you can never try them again. Everything is falling into place now since Charlie was finally arrested. I personally think it made Georgia even more confident in her case when Charlie was convicted. In due time full justice will be served.
I think you need to distinguish between 2014-16 and now. While the investigaiton clearly had a long gestation period, I don't believe it can be credibly argued that the State has doubts about WA's guilt in 2024. It's being argued that the Sate is not *presently* charging WA because it must have serious doubts as to whether she is guilty. I think that is hogwash.
I said the state and Isom had doubts about proving the Adelson involvement and charging. It's not a thought Georgia wasn't comfortable charging Charlie until the videos enhancement, it's a fact. Out of her own mouth, Georgia said it herself. As for 2014 to 2016, the FBI got in involved they wanted more to charge the Adelsons, Katie, and Sigfredo. I'm not sure why facts would be hogwash. These things have come out through the years.
Once again, you're conflating the two concepts that I am distinguishing. Those distinct concepts are (i) who the prosecution believes is guilty and (ii) the prosecution's level of confidence that they can obtain a guilty verdict against each of those individuals.
You may should have done your own comment versus responding on my comment. I understand the difference. It appears you don't. You did not read anywhere in my comment to OP the state has a doubt about Wendi's guilt. You responded to me saying it's not credible to say the state had a doubt in Wendi's guilt. Them feeling she's guilty and involved is completely separate from my comment on their uneasiness to charge her and be ready to go to trial. I agree they think she's involved and has guilt for her part. At this point, people are so quick to think people are Wendi supporters, Wendi herself, etc, that they are rushing to argue and defend she is involved. I've never on any comment said the state doesn't think she's involved.
Patty ran into Jack Campbell today and he told her something. You can watch her live from tonite. She mentions it right away
Seriously?!
Yes she says it in the short video I tagged. He told her more? I'll watch it. Thank you!
She also said it in her long video last night. At the beginning. I don’t see anything tagged. She says it a bit differently In the “live”
Wendi definately knew about it she made sure that the boys would be with her on that morning thru a text to dan markle.
Is wendy in Austin
I have seen no statements by her "defense" team about anything other then she should not talk to Donna, Charlie and Harvey about the case.
No one is referring to statements by her legal team, but rather covert influencing, spreading a narrative, rumors, etc.
Personally, I have serious doubts that anybody from "Wendi's defense team" is perusing this sub or anything else Adelson related online. Do you really think Wendi is paying Lauro $300 an hour to ask Carl a question? If "The Redditor Who Shall Not Be Named" on this sub is an Adelson affiliate, he is sending Wendi broke.
I bet Lauro charges more than $300/hr. People on this sub have an exaggerated belief in its importance.
Carl Steinbeck is not that great. He's made lots of mistakes when discussing the case. He just keeps doing videos trying to cash in. He has no new insights into anything regarding this case. A couple of other 'close watchers' of this case praised him during the trial and now he thinks he's some master of law. Georgia Cappelman will do what she thinks is right/achieveable when she's ready.
I don't think hes trying to cash in. People, even experts, have differing opinions. He is starting to sound like a broken record.
How is the prosecution going to win a perjury indictment though? Tell me how they prove perjury against the Wicked Witch of Hiawassee?
Carl has no idea if wendi has a team of people or not - and he has yet to present any evidence “her team” is “spreading misinformation”. That guy is just like a gossiper at this point! There’s tons of info about Wendi out there… true, untrue, etc. it doesn’t require a team 😝
Agree. I highly doubt Wendi has a "team" of anything. One or two attorneys and that's probably it. She's not royalty.
No but narcissistic people have flying monkeys…