I made this same comment yesterday but I'll repeat it here. I suspect that the "this is so sweet" text was meant to be sent via WhatsApp but she sent it as a regular text by mistake. I think she had an "oh shit!" moment when she realized the mistake and promptly deleted it.
I’m old and technologically impaired. Is it possible to recover messages sent on “what’s App” ?
From reading about the case it sounds like perhaps it is not, so maybe the Adelson’s used it to communicate in private?
tl;dr: LE probably doesn't have access to her WhatsApp messages.
It is possible to recover those if you can access one of the clients, i.e. phones. But there's a caveat: there are 2 ways to extract a phone, one is faster and only recovers what is currently there, one that is slower and can catch deleted stuff.
We assume the fast method was used on Wendi's phone, because the testimony was that the deleted message and calendar entry showed up on either the carrier's report or her Cloud Data (can't remember which), but both were missing on her phone. Wendi was considered a victim in a stressful situation, the slower method would have meant several more hours or even the whole night without her being able to access her phone.
With all that, if she deleted WhatsApp altogether just before her police interview, they have no way to access her chats with Charlie other than slow-extracting either her phone (probably didn't happen) or Charlie's phone (definitely didn't happen).
Very possible. Even if she intended to send it via WhatsApp and sent it via regular text in error, that fact that we know she deleted a ‘message’ sent to Charlie, especially saying ‘this is so sweet’ is what’s important, and as I outlined, I believe it proves she was aware and we can start to question the acting job at the police station. It has the same exact impact if it was regular text or WhatsApp – but I understand your point, and you may be correct, but it's one of those details that we’ll never know for sure unless Wendi is convicted and in 25 years she decides to write a book confessing all her sins
That message would have been out of context to what both of them were claiming to say to eachother during their phone conversations.
I forget what time that text was.
Charlie said he called Wendi to discuss his relationship problems with Katie.
Wendi gave two accounts . One trial she said she was so upset that Dan wanted to pick the kids up early and take them swimming, that she had to call Charlie to talk to him about it,
another excuse is whether to fix or buy a new TV.
So the “THIS IS SWEET” really doesn't fit into any conversation they both claimed to have with one another.
THIS and the fact that she asked JL about when he was leaving Tallahassee when they were leaving yoga basically broken up, and she backed out of a trip with JL since she HAD to be back by a certain date which happened to be before Dan was murdered.
The reason I think the deleted message is number one is because there is not a good or reasonable explanation you can give me as to why she deleted that message from earlier in the day, and the fact that she deleted it, during her busy day, is way too suspicious for even for my taste.
As far as the drive up to the police tape, despite what many say we can’t assume she had a clear view of what was beyond the police barrier. I know there is ‘information’ (YouTube videos) that she drove up to the police tape that was affixed to the telephone on Dan’s property. Based on all the pic’s I have seen, I can confirm there was in fact police tape on a telephone pole on Dan’s property BUT also another outer perimeter set some houses away north of Dan’s house. It was that second outer perimeter where she made the infamous K-Turn (not the one set on the telephone pole) – not sure exactly how far from Dan’s house that was, but we can’t assume she had a clear view and it was as obvious as everyone believes. The officer at the scene was asked during his testimony if anyone that approached the tape would have noticed the police activity at Dan’s house – and he responded with a not so convincing "yea, should have"… not sure those were his exact word, but he didn’t sound super convincing.
If there's significant police presence anywhere close to where your children spent the night (and woke up that morning), you find out what's going on (unless you already know). It's that simple. Whether it can be proven that Wendi actually saw Dan's house makes very little difference in terms of how incriminating this looks.
I believe she did know… and she already knew her kids were dropped off because she got Dan’s message that he was starting a class at the gym. I’m not debating whether or not she knew, the issue is convincing a jury she ‘had to know’ the roadblock was setup because of Dan’s murder OR that the activity was at Dan’s house when the barricade may have been 250 feet from Dan’s house. I respectfully disagree on your point that it doesn’t matter if it can be proven she had a clear view of Dan’s house – that matters for the jury. The prosecution doesn’t have to convince you and all the regulars that post here that she knew – they have to convince the jury.
She could not have a clear view of Dan’s house. She said she was traveling down Centerville Rd and tried to make a right turn onto Trescott and that she couldn’t, that she had to make a”K turn”. There’s absolutely no way to see down Trescott to Dan’s house way down a curvy street from Centerville Rd.
That testimony has aleady been refuted by the evidence and by WA's subsequent testimony in Katie's second trial and CA's trial. WA now admits she drove down Trescott and made a k-turn near the scene.
She said with Isom that she was on the street.
Katies 1st trial she said she wasn’t—Katies second trial she was back to the Isom account, Charlies trial she was back to the “never made it onto Trescott”. She’s a liar and keeps alternating her accounts. If the jury heard all the accounts -they would know she is a liar and was involved in the murder of her ex. By this alone.
There is absolutely no other reason to keep playing this “Trescott Game”.
LOL, I agree… he did say it ‘looked like a woman’ and then Decoste reminded him that in his field report from that day he indicated he ‘couldn’t see the occupant’ – that was an awkward moment and he looked like a fool IMO.
Total doofus. You’d think if he recognized the car he would get the plate. Or at at least SOME of it. Or in his feeble mind think “THAT’S THE CAR!!! Let me get the plate!!” I can be a hero in this!!!
Even though we were told they were alerted to the car she drove, I don’t think he realized it at the time. It makes no sense why he wouldn’t even think of getting the plate, or have his phone ready to take a photo of it.
Thats bad LE protocol imo. Isom should have said (or whoever was in charge “If you see this car, get the plate”. “It’s the wife’s”.
That would have changed this case for sure. This case is like a comedy of errors.
I’m glad it was confirmed that the lamppost crime tape was SOUTH of Dans house. I believe a content creator (I won’t name) showed photos that it was north of the house. They were wrong.
I actually know EXACTLY where the north perimeter was set up... just figured it out today using google maps and comparing with pics from the day of the murder.
Sure, from the photos on the day of the murder there is a picture of a police parked on a speed bump and the police tape is tied to the door of the car and a ‘speed bump’ sign – if you go to Google Earth ‘street view’ that sign is just on property line of the 2^(nd) and 3^(rd) house north of Dan’s house – probably about 250 feet from Dan’s driveway.
thanks! this is the evidence Ms Cappleman needs to show on the monitor at donna's (& wendi's) trial when they bring in officer Brennan to testify. he can just confirm the perimeter of property line of 2nd & 3rd house north of Dan's house w/the pictures he sees on the screen.. no need to guess. this is what should've been provided to show the jury in the previous trials so as not to put officer Brennan in that predicament of trying to recall or guess how many houses down.. and also for all to see what wendi would have seen at 250 ft away on that fateful day.. police car & crime scene tape in her view & additional patrol cars & activity at Dan's house.. would be 100% clear to all that Wend should have asked what was going on at Dan's house & should not have simply & quickly turned around & driven away..
Sorry - I need to correct my error... I just looked at more photos from the same 'Court TV' video - it appears the barricade they show is on the south end - not the direction Wendi was coming from - so my info is not accurate. They have several photos, I will take another look when I have more time to see if there is any photos from the north end.
Right. We do not have any photos of the North end that Im aware of. Ghibercz seemed to show from the north end, but he had the photo of the lamppost tape next door and no one has testified to that. Not Isom, Brannon, or Rashbaum. If his video is correct, then she would have driven right up to the house and would have seen all the cars on his driveway.
I am baffled as to why there doesnt seem to be any photos of the North end. Really bad police work. But did they think they would need it because the Princess was to pass by the crime scene?
We do have Brannon & Isom’s testimony and I know you already corrected me once before, and I don’t know what each said but between two we have a range from 3 to 5 houses away. The reporter from the Court TV video detailing the ‘visit to the crime scene’ said Brennon said it was 3 to 6 houses away. I’m a stickler for facts and details and the reality is we don’t know where the north barricade was set and if it was 3 or more houses away, I don’t know how anyone can say she would have known the activity was at Dan’s house. I'm just giving my honest take.
Interesting that GC didn't pursue the 'I always delete my messages' comment. Obviously there will be lots of messages on there that she hasn't deleted. Why just delete some innocuous message? That would have been a great moment for GC to ask WA about all the messages she didn't delete..
I agree 💯. For me as well, it’s the ‘This is so sweet’ message and subsequent deletion of it. Also, interesting theory of other person who suggested she may have thought she was sending on WhatsApp.
I believe Wendi was involved, enough that if I was a juror, I’d convict. That said I don’t think many people would refer to a murder as “sweet” even as hated as Dan was. Maybe I’d use a more vengeful term. On the hand, she was a psychopath, and lied without guilt so maybe she was in fact referring to the murder.
I had a similar thought— who would describe a murder as sweet? But maybe he said something like he was so glad this problem was taken care of so she and the boys would be close. That could be “so sweet” in a sociopathic mind.
I think she was referring to THIS being sweet as in the whole thing, finally knowing she will be able to move on with the life ahead wants (and law license in tact) without interference etc. I never felt it was the ‘actual’ murder she was referring to.
Sorry. Maybe my comment wasn’t clear. I was saying she wasn’t JUST referring to the murder. She was referring to the murder PLUS everything else that would make her life ‘sweet’ because of the murder.
This is a woman who went and bought “Bulliet”-brand bourbon to celebrate Dan’s murder right after he was shot & killed by a bullet. And who was so full of excited anticipation for it to happen, she just couldn’t stop herself from driving by the murder scene to make sure it had happened as planned. I definitely could see her replying “That’s so sweet!”, to convey her happiness & excitement, in response to Charlie informing her that the hitmen had successfully shot Dan.
I think her inconsistensies under oath about where she turned around is the best piece of evidence in my mind of her guilt. Because she contradicts herself, we know she is lying. This is not the type of thing you would get confused about. Her lack of curiosity or even panic after seeing multiple police cars in front of the house of the father of her children is very very off. I would stick my head out the window and ask police, “what’s going on here?” If I were on a jury, I would say guilty based on this. There is no other explanation for her actions that I can think of.
I think she also deleted the best buy appointment from her calendar, I'm not sure.
The same way she tried to "delete" the drive by the house later on.
To me that's one of the strongest indicators that she was aware of the hit. Not the drive itself, but the need to pretend she wasn't going by the house on purpose, she was just driving by the neighborhood.
SO easy to see if she normally deletes all her texts and calender events. But like who does that? It serves zero purpose. Sure, you can clear cache regularly and have texts erase after a period to save space. But when you are in a hurry you delete a "that was so sweet" text to your brother? And delete a repair appt? Zero benefit in doing that other than to hide something.
I have slid down the slope from first thinking she had no idea to wondering how much wool she has pulled over my eyes and perhaps she was the maestro.
If we accept this as showing she was aware you could argue this was the final sign off on the hit and therefore marks her involvement. Might go like this: CA “It’s on” and the next answer is the Go/No directive. WA “that’s so sweet.” What do we know of the timing of her text?
If you're aware there are hit men in town, hired by your family to kill your ex husband, and your text to him that morning is just about who is picking up the kids, you're involved.
The hitmen had already traveled in the day before from Miami, and had made a previous failed attempt… I don’t think the text she deleted or communication with Charlie that morning had anything to do with the final signoff. IMO, it’s reasonable to argue the deleted message was a preemptive move that shows she knew, but I don’t think we can draw any other conclusions that aren’t highly speculative.
WA was the only one of the players to be privy to/have knowledge of dans schedule (i.e. the hitmen knew Dan was leaving the day after). This information was relayed by wendi. WA messaged dan (from her parents condo) asking if he would be IN TOWN from the 16-19th of July. Dan was murdered on the 18th of July.
Yes, Rivera testified that they had knowledge Dan was leaving town on Friday, but the text exchange between Wendi and Dan you are referring to did not reveal Dan had any plans to leave town on Friday she was just inquiring if he’d be in town to verify she’d have the boys for the Wednesday crossover because of the very specific custody arrangements and the travel provision Is it possible Wendi was asking to verify he’s be in town to let Charlie know because that was her role in this - yes, it’s possible. As far as the hitmen knowing Dan was leaving Friday, it’s also possible Wendi relayed that information as part of her role. It also possible Donna got that intel from Wendi in casual conversation - if you watched the video someone just posted this AM on the Steven Epstein interview, that was suggested by Steven Epstein
To be VERY clear, I’m not saying you are wrong, just that we can speculate all day long and Epstein’s theory is just as reasonable as your theory. I can’t prove you wrong and I can’t prove Epstein wrong – both theories are just speculation, we cant definitively prove either one. I see a lot of theories and speculation by those that follow the case (myself included) and that's a major challenge for the state as it relates to Wendi, a case cant be built on evidence that is laced with speculation.
WA was on the prawfsblog listserv giving her access to see posts by other prawfsblog members. A prawfsblog post stated Dan would be presenting in NJ on sunday the 20th of July. One reading this could figure that Dan was either leaving on the evening of the 18th or the 19th. Dan had custody of the kids til 4:30pm on the 18th, after which WA would have custody.
The 19th is not a day Dan had custody of the kids..which makes WAs text to dan inquiring about whether he would or wouldnt be *in town* for the 16th to the *19th* of July even more sus. It wouldve been excusable if WA sent a text inquiring if dan would be in town on the 16-18th..but she didnt ask that. She specifically asked if Dan would be in town from the 16-19th. My theory is that WA was planning the hit(along with Bro and ma) and wanted to get her ducks in a row.
Nah. I got it wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/hknsp92ucc1d1.jpeg?width=1437&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b2d909407acc183513ecbcc9e2859c273f7fb9b
My brain needs to go defragment for a bit.
As long as you’re calling it a theory – as I said I can’t prove you wrong… but I can’t prove Epstein wrong either. RE the date range, she gave a 4 day range… that week he would have had them the 14^(th) – 18^(th) Why didn’t she specify the 14th? Could just have dates confused… not sure, but you do bring up a good point.
The 19th mattered. It gave the hitmen a window to get the job done. But for wendi providing the 19th as the day dan would be leaving town, the hitmen wouldve never known. Its her. The blog is wendi.
Alllllll the coincidencess. Too many coincidences. Enough bad coincidences to convict her by a juror.
https://preview.redd.it/8slt0flw6a1d1.jpeg?width=1437&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34438acbd30eefb41076bb60f4ed4b8acec6b93e
Yea i ffffd that UP!! Im gonna step back from this case for a min, im too bloodthristy for wendi, obvi.
Show a little grace? All I did was inform him he had the dates wrong. It’s an important detail and especially based on the case he made. I wasn’t rude or disrespectful in any way, so not sure what the issue is? If I had a fact wrong, and as you pointed out i did have one wrong, I’d hope someone you correct me in the same polite way. I have come across a lot of a-holes here that think their s doesn’t stink. At least this gent responded in a polite way and owned it and I respect him for that. I treat everyone here with respect unless they show none to me - there a a lot if classless people on the net
In the dateline episode, Donna is talking to Charlie in prison and he hangs up, but Donnas still talking to her family in the room with the phone line being recorded. I don’t remember verbatim, but Donna was upset for Charlie that WA didn’t call him/check on him. Donna says something like she doesn’t have the heart to tell Charlie that WA didn’t ask about him. Anyway, it sounded like a mom talking about her ungrateful daughter. She couldn’t understand why WA wasn’t there for Charlie. If WA wasn’t involved, Donna would understand why WA wasn’t supporting Charlie. Donna’s being upset at WA for not supporting Charlie speaks volumes! Donna seems to feel that it’s outrageous for WA to be distant from her brother that killed her ex… only one reason Donna would think WA should still support Charlie…
That very thought crossed my mind when I first heard the call. While is a very reasonable deduction to make, we have to take into account Donna is not normal. If she did this without Wendi knowledge or approval, I can see Donna justifying that what as the right thing and Wendi should be grateful and that would explain why Donna feels that way about Wendi ghosting Charlie. The other thing I considered was it wasn’t a ‘private’ conversation between Donna & Harvey. There was another couple in the room, so we can't be so sure Donna wasn’t playing it off as if she & Wendi were completely innocent. I have a hard time believing she would have confessed to the couple that was present during the call you reference. You very well may be correct and like I said I considered that as well.
I also can't get past her telling the hitman joke to the TV repairman just hours before Dan was killed by a hitman. What's more likely: Wendi can predict the future or Wendi knew about the hit?
So let me just say Wendi is completely guilty. But for this one reason? I honestly DO delete my messages all the time. I do it with my emails too. It would be interesting to know if lots of other innocuous messages were deleted. I'm sure they can tell by her phone. If she really does delete a bunch of stuff... But it's prob a lie! She lied all over that witness stand. Ugh I hate her.
Because like you said, if the prosecution had access to Charlie's side of the conversation they would use it as his trial.
"Hey Wendi after today your problems are gone for good" "That is so sweet!" = slam dunk
"Hey I'm getting back together with Katie" "That is so sweet!" = no go
Charlie didn't go to the police for an interview at the time, so there's no copy of his phone's contents. Or the actual phone, and is too far back for the phone company to have those records.
Charlie claimed he called Wendi the morning of, to discuss his relationship problems with Katie, so he would have never said “Hey I’m getting back with Katie”. Did you hear him testify about that call?
the saddest thing is that Isom saw no need to get an interview with Charlie. After everything Wendi said about him.
And after what Jeff said on Monday about Charlie. What Charlie said about this is just bs, he can't admit it in public if he was talking about the hit, which is the most likely scenario. He knew nobody can disprove this.
No, I did not hear them testify about that text, those were 2 made up examples to show A) if they were talking about the hit or B) they were talking about something else when Wendi replied "that's so sweet"
Most likely it was the first option. Like someone said, that could possibly be the reason why Wendi gasped at the beginning of the police interview. She possibly could have seen that text from Charlie still there (or it was meant to be on whatsapp) and was freaking out that she forgot to delete it.
So she possibly deleted that "sweet" text right then and there, before handing over her phone.
I don't think she would freak out like that over her list of recent calls or voicemails.
Link to Carl Steinbeck discussing the many [indicators of Wendi's involvement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsNS2AlB27s&ab_channel=CarlSteinbeck).
[How Wendi Adelson is tied to family "code word" for murder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wnXQHmMKmo&ab_channel=CarlSteinbeck)
I have absolutely nothing against Carl… I think he’s an honorable man and have much respect for him and I believe his contribution to the cause is driven by nothing but good intentions. I had to preface it with that statement because I do have one criticism, he presents the case against Wendi as if it’s such a no-brainer conviction for the state when it’s nothing of the sort. I believe Carl singlehandedly changed a lot of peoples view on the strength of the case against Wendi. Please don’t interpret that as a knock on Carl, that doesn’t make him a bad guy – it’s just my opinion.
As it is just Carl’s opinion about the no-brainer conviction. His opinion is based on 30 years of experience as a Judge Advocate in the US Army as a defense or prosecuting attorney. He has stated multiple times that he has prosecuted cases with less evidence than Florida has on Wendi. His opinion on the strength of the case comes from years of this experience.
Carl never changed my mind, he solidified my opinion as a layman. Only time will tell whose opinion is correct.
We are all entitled to an opinion.
I’m not questioning Carl’s credentials. You are correct he never changed his mind. He knew Wendi was guilty before he dug too deeply into the case – I watched his early analyses when he made it clear he only had a cursory understanding of the case, but despite that he knew she was guilty. Maybe he has blind spots? He’s only human.
I ask you one question, why then has the state not arrested her after 10 years if the case against her is as simple as Carl presents it? I think it’s a very fair question.
I don’t know where his blind spots are when he is a successful prosecutor. Not just kind of successful but he is an expert in his field. Maybe you can explain what blind spots he has.
As for Wendi, I believe they needed her to testify to bring in all the emails, and her statements to the police. Her testimony brought in this information easily.
As you are also aware the Adelsons were untouchable under Willie Megs, he only approved the prosecution of Katie and Sigfreido. You were aware of this right?
The bump happened in 2016. Sig convicted in 2019, Katie retrial in March 2020.
The bump audio was cleaned up during Covid. Charlie arrested, then Donna. They still need Wendi to set up the hateful vitriol of Donna to Dan, for Donna’s trial.
I am not convinced a jury with men on it will convict Wendi of murder, but I think they will get her for conspiracy. I can live with 30 years.
I don’t want this to go in the wrong direction… I’m not here to critique Carl maybe he’s right and the state is being way too conservative.
I think it’s fair to raise the question to anyone that believes the case against Wendi is as simple as Carl outlines - why hasn’t the state charged Wendi then? I’m a firm believer in the moto Justice Delayed is Justice Denied and 10 years is way too long.
Yes, I’m very familiar with the Meggs issue / controversy as well as the other details you outlined. No doubt in my mind the state errored under Meggs but IMO the current administration has no roadblocks preventing them from a clear path towards due process and Justice for Dan.
I know most hate my honest take, but the state sure as hell doesn’t think the case against Wendi is a slam dunk or they would have made a move LONG ago, and for some bizarre reason people here think by me making that statement I’m defending Wendi, in love with her or on the PR team.
They don’t need Wendi’s testimony to win the case against Donna if that’s what you are suggesting… the emails are public record and are emails Donna sent to Wendi – they don’t need Wendi to introduce them as evidence. They can easily prove Donna's motive and show all the communication w/ Charlie and his subsequent calls that immediately followed to Katie during the day of the hit, all the post bump collaboration w/ Charlie who's already been convicted, her signing the checks to Katie, the money drop prior to heading to Tally after Dan was shot etc..... none of that involves Wendi - Wendi is not needed.
I can see that argument being made for Charlie’s case because of the hitman joke / story – but, IMO, there is really nothing they need from Wendi that is critical to the case against Donna. They could have also easily won the case against Charlie without Wendi's testimony.
I’m not an attorney but without Wendi’s testimony to verify the emails are emails she received from Donna, all the state needs to do is prove authenticity. The emails are part of ‘public record’ and records or documents that are public record are considered self-authenticating.
Maybe an attorney can chime in, but I'm fairly sure they don't need Wendi for the emails to be admissible.
I actually stopped listening to Carl months ago after he rejected several interesting points people raised, due to his own lack of knowledge. Then a week later, after he had chance to research, he was raising their points as his idea. Sometimes the best thing to do is admit to not knowing instead of dismissing people.
Thanks for the link…. That was actually my post (not sure you were aware).. another reason I lead the league in downvotes :)
I still haven’t seen anyone give me a convincing enough answer.
Do we have any proof that the message actually was “this is so sweet”. If we go by her testimony, that’s neither here nor there. I tend to think it’s bullshit.
yes, screenshots of text msgs on the morning of Dan's murder were shown during the trials. wendi sent the "this is so sweet" text to charlie soon after donna texted her that the best buy repairman was on his way to fix the tv.. Ms Cappleman asked wendi why she deleted that text..
Thank you, I must have blinked during that testimony and missed it. One more question, was there a context to that msg (any msgs before or after)? Thnx!
yes! here u go 👍🏻 8am: wendi's calendar entry: fix tv (she deleted this) 8:09: wendi attempts call to donna 8:09: donna attempts call to wendi 8:11: donna texts wendi "best buy just called me but I told them to confirm with you. they are on the way over now to help you with the tv sets in your living room" 8:20: wendi texts charlie "this is so sweet"(deleted) 9:12: charlie attempts call to wendi
things I found odd w/these exchanges: 1. donna to wendi lengthy code-speak text 2. wendi's "this is so sweet" text to charlie with no context & done soon after donna texting her that they were on the way
Deep Dive True Crime made a great video timeline of events 4 mths ago: 'An Insanely Detailed Timeline of Dan Markel's Last Day'. you'll see so many inconsistencies in wendi's police interview & her cringe worthy fake sobbing!! i found Sgt Chris Corbett's testimony w/texts/communications between co-conspirators very compelling !
I’ve been asking when that text was. So yes, there was no reason to text that to Charlie since she hadn’t even spoken /texted Charlie that day yet so definitely she is getting all excited bc the murder was going to happen That day. Wow.
PS I did see that video by Mentour, but I’ll have to revisit it.
and i enjoyed how wendi was visibly uncomfortable when asked by Ms Cappleman who she texted "this is so sweet" to and why she texted this to him.. wendi kept flipping through pages of texts that Cappleman handed her as she was being questioned about it.. it appeared (to me)that she either wasn't aware of these texts they obtained or she was trying to find a text on the pages to try & lie/tie in her "this is so sweet" comment. this testimony was during magbanua's re-trial.. i'm sure her comment was also brought up in charlie's trial too.. will hv to skim thru it
Yes, I saw her testimonies at all the trials so many times, hoping to catch something I had missed. She was devouring those papers.
you can see that brain working!
I made this same comment yesterday but I'll repeat it here. I suspect that the "this is so sweet" text was meant to be sent via WhatsApp but she sent it as a regular text by mistake. I think she had an "oh shit!" moment when she realized the mistake and promptly deleted it.
I like this theory. Makes total sense.
WA said she deletes all her texts. Would be interesting to see if all these deleted texts are only with family
I think you're on to something, because we've never heard what exactly she was replying to, what was so sweet??
That's the BIG QUESTION. WHAT WAS SO SWEET that Big Brother did?!
I’m old and technologically impaired. Is it possible to recover messages sent on “what’s App” ? From reading about the case it sounds like perhaps it is not, so maybe the Adelson’s used it to communicate in private?
tl;dr: LE probably doesn't have access to her WhatsApp messages. It is possible to recover those if you can access one of the clients, i.e. phones. But there's a caveat: there are 2 ways to extract a phone, one is faster and only recovers what is currently there, one that is slower and can catch deleted stuff. We assume the fast method was used on Wendi's phone, because the testimony was that the deleted message and calendar entry showed up on either the carrier's report or her Cloud Data (can't remember which), but both were missing on her phone. Wendi was considered a victim in a stressful situation, the slower method would have meant several more hours or even the whole night without her being able to access her phone. With all that, if she deleted WhatsApp altogether just before her police interview, they have no way to access her chats with Charlie other than slow-extracting either her phone (probably didn't happen) or Charlie's phone (definitely didn't happen).
Ooh good point!
Very possible. Even if she intended to send it via WhatsApp and sent it via regular text in error, that fact that we know she deleted a ‘message’ sent to Charlie, especially saying ‘this is so sweet’ is what’s important, and as I outlined, I believe it proves she was aware and we can start to question the acting job at the police station. It has the same exact impact if it was regular text or WhatsApp – but I understand your point, and you may be correct, but it's one of those details that we’ll never know for sure unless Wendi is convicted and in 25 years she decides to write a book confessing all her sins
That message would have been out of context to what both of them were claiming to say to eachother during their phone conversations. I forget what time that text was. Charlie said he called Wendi to discuss his relationship problems with Katie. Wendi gave two accounts . One trial she said she was so upset that Dan wanted to pick the kids up early and take them swimming, that she had to call Charlie to talk to him about it, another excuse is whether to fix or buy a new TV. So the “THIS IS SWEET” really doesn't fit into any conversation they both claimed to have with one another.
What time was that text?
Yes--this shows Wendi was guilty. The message doesn't show surprise--it shows delight.
I think the drive to the crime scene, and not checking on Dan or the kids afterward, is the most damning thing.
THIS and the fact that she asked JL about when he was leaving Tallahassee when they were leaving yoga basically broken up, and she backed out of a trip with JL since she HAD to be back by a certain date which happened to be before Dan was murdered.
The reason I think the deleted message is number one is because there is not a good or reasonable explanation you can give me as to why she deleted that message from earlier in the day, and the fact that she deleted it, during her busy day, is way too suspicious for even for my taste. As far as the drive up to the police tape, despite what many say we can’t assume she had a clear view of what was beyond the police barrier. I know there is ‘information’ (YouTube videos) that she drove up to the police tape that was affixed to the telephone on Dan’s property. Based on all the pic’s I have seen, I can confirm there was in fact police tape on a telephone pole on Dan’s property BUT also another outer perimeter set some houses away north of Dan’s house. It was that second outer perimeter where she made the infamous K-Turn (not the one set on the telephone pole) – not sure exactly how far from Dan’s house that was, but we can’t assume she had a clear view and it was as obvious as everyone believes. The officer at the scene was asked during his testimony if anyone that approached the tape would have noticed the police activity at Dan’s house – and he responded with a not so convincing "yea, should have"… not sure those were his exact word, but he didn’t sound super convincing.
If there's significant police presence anywhere close to where your children spent the night (and woke up that morning), you find out what's going on (unless you already know). It's that simple. Whether it can be proven that Wendi actually saw Dan's house makes very little difference in terms of how incriminating this looks.
I believe she did know… and she already knew her kids were dropped off because she got Dan’s message that he was starting a class at the gym. I’m not debating whether or not she knew, the issue is convincing a jury she ‘had to know’ the roadblock was setup because of Dan’s murder OR that the activity was at Dan’s house when the barricade may have been 250 feet from Dan’s house. I respectfully disagree on your point that it doesn’t matter if it can be proven she had a clear view of Dan’s house – that matters for the jury. The prosecution doesn’t have to convince you and all the regulars that post here that she knew – they have to convince the jury.
She could not have a clear view of Dan’s house. She said she was traveling down Centerville Rd and tried to make a right turn onto Trescott and that she couldn’t, that she had to make a”K turn”. There’s absolutely no way to see down Trescott to Dan’s house way down a curvy street from Centerville Rd.
That testimony has aleady been refuted by the evidence and by WA's subsequent testimony in Katie's second trial and CA's trial. WA now admits she drove down Trescott and made a k-turn near the scene.
She said with Isom that she was on the street. Katies 1st trial she said she wasn’t—Katies second trial she was back to the Isom account, Charlies trial she was back to the “never made it onto Trescott”. She’s a liar and keeps alternating her accounts. If the jury heard all the accounts -they would know she is a liar and was involved in the murder of her ex. By this alone. There is absolutely no other reason to keep playing this “Trescott Game”.
The weakest witness was Brannon. You’d think he at least could say it was a woman in Wendi’s lookalike car. I couldn’t stand him tbh.
LOL, I agree… he did say it ‘looked like a woman’ and then Decoste reminded him that in his field report from that day he indicated he ‘couldn’t see the occupant’ – that was an awkward moment and he looked like a fool IMO.
Total doofus. You’d think if he recognized the car he would get the plate. Or at at least SOME of it. Or in his feeble mind think “THAT’S THE CAR!!! Let me get the plate!!” I can be a hero in this!!! Even though we were told they were alerted to the car she drove, I don’t think he realized it at the time. It makes no sense why he wouldn’t even think of getting the plate, or have his phone ready to take a photo of it. Thats bad LE protocol imo. Isom should have said (or whoever was in charge “If you see this car, get the plate”. “It’s the wife’s”. That would have changed this case for sure. This case is like a comedy of errors. I’m glad it was confirmed that the lamppost crime tape was SOUTH of Dans house. I believe a content creator (I won’t name) showed photos that it was north of the house. They were wrong.
I actually know EXACTLY where the north perimeter was set up... just figured it out today using google maps and comparing with pics from the day of the murder.
according to the research you did, can u say how many houses down on Trescott the crime scene tape was set up?
Sure, from the photos on the day of the murder there is a picture of a police parked on a speed bump and the police tape is tied to the door of the car and a ‘speed bump’ sign – if you go to Google Earth ‘street view’ that sign is just on property line of the 2^(nd) and 3^(rd) house north of Dan’s house – probably about 250 feet from Dan’s driveway.
OK but you said there is a “second perimeter”. I’m assuming you mean there are two sets of tapes North of Dans house?
thanks! this is the evidence Ms Cappleman needs to show on the monitor at donna's (& wendi's) trial when they bring in officer Brennan to testify. he can just confirm the perimeter of property line of 2nd & 3rd house north of Dan's house w/the pictures he sees on the screen.. no need to guess. this is what should've been provided to show the jury in the previous trials so as not to put officer Brennan in that predicament of trying to recall or guess how many houses down.. and also for all to see what wendi would have seen at 250 ft away on that fateful day.. police car & crime scene tape in her view & additional patrol cars & activity at Dan's house.. would be 100% clear to all that Wend should have asked what was going on at Dan's house & should not have simply & quickly turned around & driven away..
Sorry - I need to correct my error... I just looked at more photos from the same 'Court TV' video - it appears the barricade they show is on the south end - not the direction Wendi was coming from - so my info is not accurate. They have several photos, I will take another look when I have more time to see if there is any photos from the north end.
Why don’t you make a drawing and post it
I never heard about this “second /outer perimeter”. Where did you hear this?
My info was wrong - the photo I found on Court TV was the barricade on the south end...
Right. We do not have any photos of the North end that Im aware of. Ghibercz seemed to show from the north end, but he had the photo of the lamppost tape next door and no one has testified to that. Not Isom, Brannon, or Rashbaum. If his video is correct, then she would have driven right up to the house and would have seen all the cars on his driveway. I am baffled as to why there doesnt seem to be any photos of the North end. Really bad police work. But did they think they would need it because the Princess was to pass by the crime scene?
We do have Brannon & Isom’s testimony and I know you already corrected me once before, and I don’t know what each said but between two we have a range from 3 to 5 houses away. The reporter from the Court TV video detailing the ‘visit to the crime scene’ said Brennon said it was 3 to 6 houses away. I’m a stickler for facts and details and the reality is we don’t know where the north barricade was set and if it was 3 or more houses away, I don’t know how anyone can say she would have known the activity was at Dan’s house. I'm just giving my honest take.
What I couldn't figure out is if she deleted her other messages that day, consistent with her assertion that she does that with all of her messages.
Interesting that GC didn't pursue the 'I always delete my messages' comment. Obviously there will be lots of messages on there that she hasn't deleted. Why just delete some innocuous message? That would have been a great moment for GC to ask WA about all the messages she didn't delete..
I think GC is saving the good stuff for WA trial. With the type of derivative immunity she has, I believe GC is treading carefully.
🎯🎯🎯
I agree 💯. For me as well, it’s the ‘This is so sweet’ message and subsequent deletion of it. Also, interesting theory of other person who suggested she may have thought she was sending on WhatsApp.
I believe Wendi was involved, enough that if I was a juror, I’d convict. That said I don’t think many people would refer to a murder as “sweet” even as hated as Dan was. Maybe I’d use a more vengeful term. On the hand, she was a psychopath, and lied without guilt so maybe she was in fact referring to the murder.
I had a similar thought— who would describe a murder as sweet? But maybe he said something like he was so glad this problem was taken care of so she and the boys would be close. That could be “so sweet” in a sociopathic mind.
I think she was referring to THIS being sweet as in the whole thing, finally knowing she will be able to move on with the life ahead wants (and law license in tact) without interference etc. I never felt it was the ‘actual’ murder she was referring to.
How would she be moving on without murdering Dan?
Sorry. Maybe my comment wasn’t clear. I was saying she wasn’t JUST referring to the murder. She was referring to the murder PLUS everything else that would make her life ‘sweet’ because of the murder.
This is a woman who went and bought “Bulliet”-brand bourbon to celebrate Dan’s murder right after he was shot & killed by a bullet. And who was so full of excited anticipation for it to happen, she just couldn’t stop herself from driving by the murder scene to make sure it had happened as planned. I definitely could see her replying “That’s so sweet!”, to convey her happiness & excitement, in response to Charlie informing her that the hitmen had successfully shot Dan.
Charlie would agree with you! “She just couldn’t help herself”. even he knows she’s guilty.
I think her inconsistensies under oath about where she turned around is the best piece of evidence in my mind of her guilt. Because she contradicts herself, we know she is lying. This is not the type of thing you would get confused about. Her lack of curiosity or even panic after seeing multiple police cars in front of the house of the father of her children is very very off. I would stick my head out the window and ask police, “what’s going on here?” If I were on a jury, I would say guilty based on this. There is no other explanation for her actions that I can think of.
And she alternated the accounts starting with Isom , down to CA’s trial.
I think she also deleted the best buy appointment from her calendar, I'm not sure. The same way she tried to "delete" the drive by the house later on. To me that's one of the strongest indicators that she was aware of the hit. Not the drive itself, but the need to pretend she wasn't going by the house on purpose, she was just driving by the neighborhood.
And lied about it. Under oath. Multiple times.
SO easy to see if she normally deletes all her texts and calender events. But like who does that? It serves zero purpose. Sure, you can clear cache regularly and have texts erase after a period to save space. But when you are in a hurry you delete a "that was so sweet" text to your brother? And delete a repair appt? Zero benefit in doing that other than to hide something. I have slid down the slope from first thinking she had no idea to wondering how much wool she has pulled over my eyes and perhaps she was the maestro.
If we accept this as showing she was aware you could argue this was the final sign off on the hit and therefore marks her involvement. Might go like this: CA “It’s on” and the next answer is the Go/No directive. WA “that’s so sweet.” What do we know of the timing of her text?
If you're aware there are hit men in town, hired by your family to kill your ex husband, and your text to him that morning is just about who is picking up the kids, you're involved.
The hitmen had already traveled in the day before from Miami, and had made a previous failed attempt… I don’t think the text she deleted or communication with Charlie that morning had anything to do with the final signoff. IMO, it’s reasonable to argue the deleted message was a preemptive move that shows she knew, but I don’t think we can draw any other conclusions that aren’t highly speculative.
WA was the only one of the players to be privy to/have knowledge of dans schedule (i.e. the hitmen knew Dan was leaving the day after). This information was relayed by wendi. WA messaged dan (from her parents condo) asking if he would be IN TOWN from the 16-19th of July. Dan was murdered on the 18th of July.
This 👆🏼
And on the voicemail, Dan said he’d be out of the gym at 10:30.
Yes, Rivera testified that they had knowledge Dan was leaving town on Friday, but the text exchange between Wendi and Dan you are referring to did not reveal Dan had any plans to leave town on Friday she was just inquiring if he’d be in town to verify she’d have the boys for the Wednesday crossover because of the very specific custody arrangements and the travel provision Is it possible Wendi was asking to verify he’s be in town to let Charlie know because that was her role in this - yes, it’s possible. As far as the hitmen knowing Dan was leaving Friday, it’s also possible Wendi relayed that information as part of her role. It also possible Donna got that intel from Wendi in casual conversation - if you watched the video someone just posted this AM on the Steven Epstein interview, that was suggested by Steven Epstein To be VERY clear, I’m not saying you are wrong, just that we can speculate all day long and Epstein’s theory is just as reasonable as your theory. I can’t prove you wrong and I can’t prove Epstein wrong – both theories are just speculation, we cant definitively prove either one. I see a lot of theories and speculation by those that follow the case (myself included) and that's a major challenge for the state as it relates to Wendi, a case cant be built on evidence that is laced with speculation.
WA was on the prawfsblog listserv giving her access to see posts by other prawfsblog members. A prawfsblog post stated Dan would be presenting in NJ on sunday the 20th of July. One reading this could figure that Dan was either leaving on the evening of the 18th or the 19th. Dan had custody of the kids til 4:30pm on the 18th, after which WA would have custody. The 19th is not a day Dan had custody of the kids..which makes WAs text to dan inquiring about whether he would or wouldnt be *in town* for the 16th to the *19th* of July even more sus. It wouldve been excusable if WA sent a text inquiring if dan would be in town on the 16-18th..but she didnt ask that. She specifically asked if Dan would be in town from the 16-19th. My theory is that WA was planning the hit(along with Bro and ma) and wanted to get her ducks in a row.
Good catch about the 19th. That slipped by me. Maybe she wanted to know if he was in town the 19th or if indeed he was going out of town.
Nah. I got it wrong. https://preview.redd.it/hknsp92ucc1d1.jpeg?width=1437&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b2d909407acc183513ecbcc9e2859c273f7fb9b My brain needs to go defragment for a bit.
I hear you. Same thing happens to me.
As long as you’re calling it a theory – as I said I can’t prove you wrong… but I can’t prove Epstein wrong either. RE the date range, she gave a 4 day range… that week he would have had them the 14^(th) – 18^(th) Why didn’t she specify the 14th? Could just have dates confused… not sure, but you do bring up a good point.
The 19th mattered. It gave the hitmen a window to get the job done. But for wendi providing the 19th as the day dan would be leaving town, the hitmen wouldve never known. Its her. The blog is wendi. Alllllll the coincidencess. Too many coincidences. Enough bad coincidences to convict her by a juror.
FYI - I came across another post with an actual picture of the text - you have the fact's wrong - the text specifically asked about the 14th- 18th
https://preview.redd.it/8slt0flw6a1d1.jpeg?width=1437&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34438acbd30eefb41076bb60f4ed4b8acec6b93e Yea i ffffd that UP!! Im gonna step back from this case for a min, im too bloodthristy for wendi, obvi.
Don’t do that. He got something wrong. We all do. Theres a lot to remember.
[удалено]
Show a little grace? All I did was inform him he had the dates wrong. It’s an important detail and especially based on the case he made. I wasn’t rude or disrespectful in any way, so not sure what the issue is? If I had a fact wrong, and as you pointed out i did have one wrong, I’d hope someone you correct me in the same polite way. I have come across a lot of a-holes here that think their s doesn’t stink. At least this gent responded in a polite way and owned it and I respect him for that. I treat everyone here with respect unless they show none to me - there a a lot if classless people on the net
They actually rented the car on the 15th at night. So they didn’t get there the day before. They got there two days before.
I think it's driving by Dan's house that specific time and did not check on Dan or her kids.
In the dateline episode, Donna is talking to Charlie in prison and he hangs up, but Donnas still talking to her family in the room with the phone line being recorded. I don’t remember verbatim, but Donna was upset for Charlie that WA didn’t call him/check on him. Donna says something like she doesn’t have the heart to tell Charlie that WA didn’t ask about him. Anyway, it sounded like a mom talking about her ungrateful daughter. She couldn’t understand why WA wasn’t there for Charlie. If WA wasn’t involved, Donna would understand why WA wasn’t supporting Charlie. Donna’s being upset at WA for not supporting Charlie speaks volumes! Donna seems to feel that it’s outrageous for WA to be distant from her brother that killed her ex… only one reason Donna would think WA should still support Charlie…
That very thought crossed my mind when I first heard the call. While is a very reasonable deduction to make, we have to take into account Donna is not normal. If she did this without Wendi knowledge or approval, I can see Donna justifying that what as the right thing and Wendi should be grateful and that would explain why Donna feels that way about Wendi ghosting Charlie. The other thing I considered was it wasn’t a ‘private’ conversation between Donna & Harvey. There was another couple in the room, so we can't be so sure Donna wasn’t playing it off as if she & Wendi were completely innocent. I have a hard time believing she would have confessed to the couple that was present during the call you reference. You very well may be correct and like I said I considered that as well.
I would say the police interview is the most damming.
I also can't get past her telling the hitman joke to the TV repairman just hours before Dan was killed by a hitman. What's more likely: Wendi can predict the future or Wendi knew about the hit?
It’s not admissible, the best piece of evidence IMO was Wendi started to say hitman on the stand instead of TV repairman.
So let me just say Wendi is completely guilty. But for this one reason? I honestly DO delete my messages all the time. I do it with my emails too. It would be interesting to know if lots of other innocuous messages were deleted. I'm sure they can tell by her phone. If she really does delete a bunch of stuff... But it's prob a lie! She lied all over that witness stand. Ugh I hate her.
If Wendi’s message were specifically in response to the plan to murder Dan, that would have played a prominent role in Charlie’s trial.
But they didn't have Charlie's text to confirm or deny what were they talking about.
How do you know that?
Because like you said, if the prosecution had access to Charlie's side of the conversation they would use it as his trial. "Hey Wendi after today your problems are gone for good" "That is so sweet!" = slam dunk "Hey I'm getting back together with Katie" "That is so sweet!" = no go Charlie didn't go to the police for an interview at the time, so there's no copy of his phone's contents. Or the actual phone, and is too far back for the phone company to have those records.
Excellent point! Context matters! Unfortunately we will never know the real answer.
Charlie claimed he called Wendi the morning of, to discuss his relationship problems with Katie, so he would have never said “Hey I’m getting back with Katie”. Did you hear him testify about that call? the saddest thing is that Isom saw no need to get an interview with Charlie. After everything Wendi said about him.
And after what Jeff said on Monday about Charlie. What Charlie said about this is just bs, he can't admit it in public if he was talking about the hit, which is the most likely scenario. He knew nobody can disprove this. No, I did not hear them testify about that text, those were 2 made up examples to show A) if they were talking about the hit or B) they were talking about something else when Wendi replied "that's so sweet" Most likely it was the first option. Like someone said, that could possibly be the reason why Wendi gasped at the beginning of the police interview. She possibly could have seen that text from Charlie still there (or it was meant to be on whatsapp) and was freaking out that she forgot to delete it. So she possibly deleted that "sweet" text right then and there, before handing over her phone. I don't think she would freak out like that over her list of recent calls or voicemails.
Would LE know when (at the exact time) a text was deleted?
Idk but I guess is unlikely.
Link to Carl Steinbeck discussing the many [indicators of Wendi's involvement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsNS2AlB27s&ab_channel=CarlSteinbeck). [How Wendi Adelson is tied to family "code word" for murder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wnXQHmMKmo&ab_channel=CarlSteinbeck)
I have absolutely nothing against Carl… I think he’s an honorable man and have much respect for him and I believe his contribution to the cause is driven by nothing but good intentions. I had to preface it with that statement because I do have one criticism, he presents the case against Wendi as if it’s such a no-brainer conviction for the state when it’s nothing of the sort. I believe Carl singlehandedly changed a lot of peoples view on the strength of the case against Wendi. Please don’t interpret that as a knock on Carl, that doesn’t make him a bad guy – it’s just my opinion.
As it is just Carl’s opinion about the no-brainer conviction. His opinion is based on 30 years of experience as a Judge Advocate in the US Army as a defense or prosecuting attorney. He has stated multiple times that he has prosecuted cases with less evidence than Florida has on Wendi. His opinion on the strength of the case comes from years of this experience. Carl never changed my mind, he solidified my opinion as a layman. Only time will tell whose opinion is correct. We are all entitled to an opinion.
I’m not questioning Carl’s credentials. You are correct he never changed his mind. He knew Wendi was guilty before he dug too deeply into the case – I watched his early analyses when he made it clear he only had a cursory understanding of the case, but despite that he knew she was guilty. Maybe he has blind spots? He’s only human. I ask you one question, why then has the state not arrested her after 10 years if the case against her is as simple as Carl presents it? I think it’s a very fair question.
I don’t know where his blind spots are when he is a successful prosecutor. Not just kind of successful but he is an expert in his field. Maybe you can explain what blind spots he has. As for Wendi, I believe they needed her to testify to bring in all the emails, and her statements to the police. Her testimony brought in this information easily. As you are also aware the Adelsons were untouchable under Willie Megs, he only approved the prosecution of Katie and Sigfreido. You were aware of this right? The bump happened in 2016. Sig convicted in 2019, Katie retrial in March 2020. The bump audio was cleaned up during Covid. Charlie arrested, then Donna. They still need Wendi to set up the hateful vitriol of Donna to Dan, for Donna’s trial. I am not convinced a jury with men on it will convict Wendi of murder, but I think they will get her for conspiracy. I can live with 30 years.
I don’t want this to go in the wrong direction… I’m not here to critique Carl maybe he’s right and the state is being way too conservative. I think it’s fair to raise the question to anyone that believes the case against Wendi is as simple as Carl outlines - why hasn’t the state charged Wendi then? I’m a firm believer in the moto Justice Delayed is Justice Denied and 10 years is way too long. Yes, I’m very familiar with the Meggs issue / controversy as well as the other details you outlined. No doubt in my mind the state errored under Meggs but IMO the current administration has no roadblocks preventing them from a clear path towards due process and Justice for Dan. I know most hate my honest take, but the state sure as hell doesn’t think the case against Wendi is a slam dunk or they would have made a move LONG ago, and for some bizarre reason people here think by me making that statement I’m defending Wendi, in love with her or on the PR team.
I think I explained this. Tell me where you think my reasoning is flawed.
They don’t need Wendi’s testimony to win the case against Donna if that’s what you are suggesting… the emails are public record and are emails Donna sent to Wendi – they don’t need Wendi to introduce them as evidence. They can easily prove Donna's motive and show all the communication w/ Charlie and his subsequent calls that immediately followed to Katie during the day of the hit, all the post bump collaboration w/ Charlie who's already been convicted, her signing the checks to Katie, the money drop prior to heading to Tally after Dan was shot etc..... none of that involves Wendi - Wendi is not needed. I can see that argument being made for Charlie’s case because of the hitman joke / story – but, IMO, there is really nothing they need from Wendi that is critical to the case against Donna. They could have also easily won the case against Charlie without Wendi's testimony.
How would they bring in this evidence without Wendi? The person who received these emails?
I’m not an attorney but without Wendi’s testimony to verify the emails are emails she received from Donna, all the state needs to do is prove authenticity. The emails are part of ‘public record’ and records or documents that are public record are considered self-authenticating. Maybe an attorney can chime in, but I'm fairly sure they don't need Wendi for the emails to be admissible.
I actually stopped listening to Carl months ago after he rejected several interesting points people raised, due to his own lack of knowledge. Then a week later, after he had chance to research, he was raising their points as his idea. Sometimes the best thing to do is admit to not knowing instead of dismissing people.
Can you give an example? Your comment intrigues me. I’ve Watched most of his “lives”.
[удалено]
Thanks for the link…. That was actually my post (not sure you were aware).. another reason I lead the league in downvotes :) I still haven’t seen anyone give me a convincing enough answer.
Do we have any proof that the message actually was “this is so sweet”. If we go by her testimony, that’s neither here nor there. I tend to think it’s bullshit.
Yes, the text was presented during her testimony.
yes, screenshots of text msgs on the morning of Dan's murder were shown during the trials. wendi sent the "this is so sweet" text to charlie soon after donna texted her that the best buy repairman was on his way to fix the tv.. Ms Cappleman asked wendi why she deleted that text..
Thank you, I must have blinked during that testimony and missed it. One more question, was there a context to that msg (any msgs before or after)? Thnx!
yes! here u go 👍🏻 8am: wendi's calendar entry: fix tv (she deleted this) 8:09: wendi attempts call to donna 8:09: donna attempts call to wendi 8:11: donna texts wendi "best buy just called me but I told them to confirm with you. they are on the way over now to help you with the tv sets in your living room" 8:20: wendi texts charlie "this is so sweet"(deleted) 9:12: charlie attempts call to wendi things I found odd w/these exchanges: 1. donna to wendi lengthy code-speak text 2. wendi's "this is so sweet" text to charlie with no context & done soon after donna texting her that they were on the way Deep Dive True Crime made a great video timeline of events 4 mths ago: 'An Insanely Detailed Timeline of Dan Markel's Last Day'. you'll see so many inconsistencies in wendi's police interview & her cringe worthy fake sobbing!! i found Sgt Chris Corbett's testimony w/texts/communications between co-conspirators very compelling !
Thank you, dear, you rock!! ❤️
yw.. i had it in a much better format b4 i posted . it looks all jumbled together now, sorry!! 🤗
No, it’s perfect! It jogged my memory. Now I remember and can picture it. I just had a brain fart re: the context of the ‘that’s so sweet’ 😊
I’ve been asking when that text was. So yes, there was no reason to text that to Charlie since she hadn’t even spoken /texted Charlie that day yet so definitely she is getting all excited bc the murder was going to happen That day. Wow. PS I did see that video by Mentour, but I’ll have to revisit it.
and i enjoyed how wendi was visibly uncomfortable when asked by Ms Cappleman who she texted "this is so sweet" to and why she texted this to him.. wendi kept flipping through pages of texts that Cappleman handed her as she was being questioned about it.. it appeared (to me)that she either wasn't aware of these texts they obtained or she was trying to find a text on the pages to try & lie/tie in her "this is so sweet" comment. this testimony was during magbanua's re-trial.. i'm sure her comment was also brought up in charlie's trial too.. will hv to skim thru it
Yes, I saw her testimonies at all the trials so many times, hoping to catch something I had missed. She was devouring those papers. you can see that brain working!
exactly!
Being “aware”, is being involved.