Just finished part 1 and it couldn't have been more obvious who was involved in this murder. The in-law wench who called their own dad "stupid" has got to be at the top of the list.
Wendi WAS very smart.......in fact her mom DONNA thought that Wendi was so very smart that she would come up w a plan to get RID of Dan. So wendi & Charlie & Katie had a plan & followed thru.
She wasn’t that bright - she went to a mid-tier law school and has been mostly unemployed since. She’s a poor speaker, a worse writer, and her mother was a no college zilch
I've followed the whole case, watched the trials & all. When you sum it up..."A murder for hire job!". The killers & middle person(Katie) are on trial but what about the brains of the matter(Wendi & brother or just Family). Murder is murder, right? Everyone involved must be punished! I think it's time the Feds go and get that damm FAMILY....like TODAY!!!
Katie's trial is slated for Feb 2022. I think she will finally quit the charade and flip and tell all. Remember everyone (possibly Katie) has been sent to prison for this crime except 🥁...The Adelsons. I think reality will set in and the chickens will come home to roost.
Tell us how incredibly bright Wendi is, really? Oh yes Wendi & her family thought they had it all! And this family of Adelsons didn't want anything or anyone to get in their way. And if murder was the answer, so be it said the Adelsons.
Lawyer says she " wicked smart" but millions of us believe she is firstly just " wicked evil"....not so smart being that things didn't go there way ..Wendi reminds me of dalia dippolito ...her horrible acting...
Part of the 20/20 spin that pointed the public's suspicion away from Wendi for years is that even ABC News describes Dan in its intro as "intense and driven." Kind of a negative way to introduce a murder victim to America and sounds like something an ex-wife would say. ABC could have started with "a warm and loving father," but they didn't. They introduce Dan talking legalese rather than as hugging his kids. . They use Wendi's words "her overacheiving husband" and then play her blog that's critical of Dan. Take note how the news puts its own spin on things and how that has affected opinions about Wendi for years now.
Donna wanted the grandkids living there w her & family end of story. No compromising w Dan the father of the kidd. Then when Donna gets an order that she has to have supervised visits, NO WAY SAYS DONNA, & then she gives her orders get rid of Dan however you do it. So her kids did it.
Katie's Innocence Defined: It's tragic, but name dropping by The Undercover set into motion a chain of misconception that eventually led to Katie's wrongful conviction Charlie can never ask Katie if Sigfredo (Tuto) has told her about the murder, because, in asking, Charlie is admitting to arranging a murder-for-hire using her children's father as his hitman (Remember, Sigfredo is Charlie's hitman, solicited directly, not through Katie) So, Katie, does she know, does she not? It's a guessing game for Charlie, from murder to bump But after visiting his mum the day after the bump and hearing "... your family has been taking care of Katie and her friend Tuto ...", Charlie made the incorrect and deadly assumption that Katie must know; that Tuto must have told her about the murder at some point Charlie heads to the meeting with Katie at Dolce Vita now convinced Katie knows about the murder. In fact, Katie knows nothing. Everything Charlie says flies over her head like a fighter jet at high altitude. She has no clue what Charlie is talking about You start to see how insidious the name dropping by The Undercover is. It makes Charlie think Sigfredo, at minimum, told Katie about the murder. And in Charlie's mind, it includes Katie in everything. It influences Charlie to talk to Katie as if she is now a witness to Sigfredo's involvement and Charlie's plot Charlie to Katie (Dolce Vita): "If they had any evidence, we would have already gone to the airport" "When everybody was there the next day, did any of you take any money? ..." In the minds of state attorneys, airport and money talk, both from Charlie's mouth, are evidence of Katie's involvement. In reality, they are only evidence of Charlie's assumption. His assumption that Katie knows is the direct result of The Undercover dropping Katie's name How does Charlie know to call Katie initially? Charlie's mum uses the TV $5k code, so Charlie knows the bump is related to the murder. Sigfredo is Charlie's hitman and, obviously, Katie is the ex-girlfriend being referred to $16k of paychecks over 18 months, plus other extras, was Charlie keeping Katie onside in case she ever found out about the murder. It also kept Sigfredo happy - Charlie helping his hitman's family State attorneys misinterpreted the money trail, considering monies and favours to Katie as her payment for acting as "go-between" The spike in Katie's August, 2014 bank deposits was possibly, partly, Sigfredo sharing some of his payment from the murder without Katie knowing it was blood money. The majority, maybe all; night club earnings - Katie told the truth What proves Katie's innocence beyond all doubt is, up to and including the last phone calls in the wire taps, Katie does not know if The Undercover is talking about her. This is an impossibility if she is involved. You can throw every other piece of evidence for and against her in the bin. If she doesn't know she isn't involved Katie (from wire taps): ¨I don't know the rest of whatever it is, or if my name is really on anything, or if they're even talking about me ...¨ ¨... and I don't know if it's me they're really talking about¨ ¨ ... and I really feel bad if they're not even talking about me ...¨ It cannot be a ruse; it cannot be Katie feigning lack of knowledge for law enforcement's benefit. If Katie is involved and thinks law enforcement may be behind the bump, she is staying off the phone, not having multiple, long, phone conversations on the who, what and why of the bump A ruse is extremely complicated, dangerously risky, ridiculously stupid and completely unnecessary - why not just stay off the phone? Which is what she would have done ... if she was involved As for Luis Rivera; his money drop story was laughable, and not surprisingly, he made Katie the central figure in that story. Even Luis can't believe how completely The State bought his lies. He made a fool of everyone, except Katie, who stood strong in her fight
Innocence In A Nutshell What a nightmare for Katie - The Undercover drops her name, Charlie unwittingly pulls her into his mess and the FBI mistake concern for her friend's family with complicity in a murder - Nightmare! In the wiretaps Katie tells us she wasn't involved: ¨I don't know the rest of whatever it is, or if my name is really on anything, or if they're even talking about me ...¨ ¨... and I don't know if it's me they're really talking about¨ ¨ ... and I really feel bad if they're not even talking about me" You can throw every other piece of evidence for and against her in the trash. If she doesn't know if The Undercover is talking about her, she isn't involved And you hammer this point home to the jury in closing: "Deliberation should only take you five minutes because there is only one question to ask yourselves: "Why does she not know?" But surely it's not that simple!? Yeah! it is! The FBI planned The Bump meticulously. Its first goal was to make sure that anyone involved knew The Bump was about the murder. And Katie doesn't know The FBI asked the question, set up The Bump and wiretaps, then totally ignored the answer - truly unbelievable! Katie not knowing acquits her outright, just as DNA evidence has done in other cases Katie talks to Sigfredo: "I don't feel secure because you take care of everybody else. Where's my security Tuto? When are you going to step up for me? ... ... because I feel like everybody else gets the special attention. And then Katie you go figure it out, you go figure out the kids, you figure out life, you figure out your apartment" In Katie's eyes this is not Sigfredo's problem. Why? Because she wasn't involved! She has no idea her two 'boyfriends' have conspired to kill someone. She is oblivious Look at it from Katie's perspective: random strangers extorting money from Charlie's family, possibly using her name to do it. That's terrifying for her. She tells us exactly why she wants Sigfredo's support: "Look, can you do me this favour? Because it's like, I'm not a guy and I don't know if it's me they're talking about" Do we listen to her? Not a chance! We fall into the trap of assuming she's talking to Sigfredo as a co-conspirator. That's inexcusable She tells us why she is helping Charlie: "Look, you gotta understand, like someone doing this to my mum, someone doing this to your mum" "But the mere fact that I don't like anybody disrespecting your family, scaring your family ..." "I'm trying to get whoever's threatening your family, and helping you guys out" Unfortunately, like complete idiots, we ignore her. We refuse to believe the truth staring us in the face Katie simply can't understand why anyone would be using her name to extort money from Charlie's family: "Why am I being thrown into something?" "... imagine, like, look at this, I'm picking up somebody else's, you know" You would think these two sentences alone would be enough to rubber stamp her innocence. Alas, we choose to remain ignorant Katie continues with super clues for us: "For all you know, it's a patient. Maybe they've seen me in the dental office in the beach before" "Did you take his teeth out or what? ... Is he a patient? You run across so many people every day" If Katie is involved she knows it's not a patient! Evidence of innocence everywhere, and we continue to deny, deny, deny! Sigfredo to Katie: "... the less you know the better ..." Katie is alleged to be the "go-between" in this murder-for-hire. She would know a lot more than Sigfredo about everything. The above is something you say to someone who has no knowledge of the real situation and you want it to stay that way Charlie to Katie (Dolce Vita): "When everybody was there the next day, did any of you take any money? ..." This question must be taken in context. From murder to bump Charlie wonders if Sigfredo tells Katie about the murder. But Charlie can never ask Katie because, in asking, he's admitting to murder, using the father of her children as his hitman After the bump, all bets are off. The Undercover drops Katie's name, confirming to Charlie that Katie knows. Now he can talk to Katie semi-freely - she a witness to Sigfredo's involvement You start to see how insidious the name dropping is. It is everything in this case because it allows Charlie to use an innocent friend in his investigation of just who is behind The Bump Katie's innocence is established further when we compare the conflicting stories of Charlie and Luis regarding the day after. Charlie talks of people taking money, whereas Luis tells of Katie distributing money. Charlie's candid words to Katie decimate Luis' lies It's heartbreaking to see Katie in court being double teamed by the equally blind FBI and state attorneys. As Chris DeCoste, her attorney, so aptly described it: "They can't see it, they can't understand it, that she's innocent, she wasn't involved" They can't see because they don't wish to see. They had Katie pinned as guilty and tunnel vision crippled logical thought The only thing standing between Katie and freedom is state attorneys being humble enough to admit they missed crucial indicators to her innocence
Just finished part 1 and it couldn't have been more obvious who was involved in this murder. The in-law wench who called their own dad "stupid" has got to be at the top of the list.
Wendi is so creepy and her accounting of anything is twisted.
Wendi WAS very smart.......in fact her mom DONNA thought that Wendi was so very smart that she would come up w a plan to get RID of Dan. So wendi & Charlie & Katie had a plan & followed thru.
She wasn’t that bright - she went to a mid-tier law school and has been mostly unemployed since. She’s a poor speaker, a worse writer, and her mother was a no college zilch
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13)
The reason Wendi felt inferior to Danny is because she was.
I've followed the whole case, watched the trials & all. When you sum it up..."A murder for hire job!". The killers & middle person(Katie) are on trial but what about the brains of the matter(Wendi & brother or just Family). Murder is murder, right? Everyone involved must be punished! I think it's time the Feds go and get that damm FAMILY....like TODAY!!!
Katie's trial is slated for Feb 2022. I think she will finally quit the charade and flip and tell all. Remember everyone (possibly Katie) has been sent to prison for this crime except 🥁...The Adelsons. I think reality will set in and the chickens will come home to roost.
Tell us how incredibly bright Wendi is, really? Oh yes Wendi & her family thought they had it all! And this family of Adelsons didn't want anything or anyone to get in their way. And if murder was the answer, so be it said the Adelsons.
Lawyer says she " wicked smart" but millions of us believe she is firstly just " wicked evil"....not so smart being that things didn't go there way ..Wendi reminds me of dalia dippolito ...her horrible acting...
Part of the 20/20 spin that pointed the public's suspicion away from Wendi for years is that even ABC News describes Dan in its intro as "intense and driven." Kind of a negative way to introduce a murder victim to America and sounds like something an ex-wife would say. ABC could have started with "a warm and loving father," but they didn't. They introduce Dan talking legalese rather than as hugging his kids. . They use Wendi's words "her overacheiving husband" and then play her blog that's critical of Dan. Take note how the news puts its own spin on things and how that has affected opinions about Wendi for years now.
ABC's coverage of Dan didn't sway me one bit. Wendi and her family are guilty as hell.
Tell me about it
@@ТоняЗаліська Agree 100%
Simply outrageous
Snake in the grass!...a law, n mower will you someday!...sooner or later!
Donna wanted the grandkids living there w her & family end of story. No compromising w Dan the father of the kidd. Then when Donna gets an order that she has to have supervised visits, NO WAY SAYS DONNA, & then she gives her orders get rid of Dan however you do it. So her kids did it.
If only he had read her book nothing of this would have happened LOL
Clinton?
Yep
Where MR Bear now
Did he know the Clintons at all?
Fake reaction.
He did seem like a real jerk, but murder is not an option.
Katie's Innocence Defined:
It's tragic, but name dropping by The Undercover set into motion a chain of misconception that eventually led to Katie's wrongful conviction
Charlie can never ask Katie if Sigfredo (Tuto) has told her about the murder, because, in asking, Charlie is admitting to arranging a murder-for-hire using her children's father as his hitman
(Remember, Sigfredo is Charlie's hitman, solicited directly, not through Katie)
So, Katie, does she know, does she not? It's a guessing game for Charlie, from murder to bump
But after visiting his mum the day after the bump and hearing "... your family has been taking care of Katie and her friend Tuto ...", Charlie made the incorrect and deadly assumption that Katie must know; that Tuto must have told her about the murder at some point
Charlie heads to the meeting with Katie at Dolce Vita now convinced Katie knows about the murder. In fact, Katie knows nothing. Everything Charlie says flies over her head like a fighter jet at high altitude. She has no clue what Charlie is talking about
You start to see how insidious the name dropping by The Undercover is. It makes Charlie think Sigfredo, at minimum, told Katie about the murder. And in Charlie's mind, it includes Katie in everything. It influences Charlie to talk to Katie as if she is now a witness to Sigfredo's involvement and Charlie's plot
Charlie to Katie (Dolce Vita):
"If they had any evidence, we would have already gone to the airport"
"When everybody was there the next day, did any of you take any money? ..."
In the minds of state attorneys, airport and money talk, both from Charlie's mouth, are evidence of Katie's involvement. In reality, they are only evidence of Charlie's assumption. His assumption that Katie knows is the direct result of The Undercover dropping Katie's name
How does Charlie know to call Katie initially?
Charlie's mum uses the TV $5k code, so Charlie knows the bump is related to the murder. Sigfredo is Charlie's hitman and, obviously, Katie is the ex-girlfriend being referred to
$16k of paychecks over 18 months, plus other extras, was Charlie keeping Katie onside in case she ever found out about the murder. It also kept Sigfredo happy - Charlie helping his hitman's family
State attorneys misinterpreted the money trail, considering monies and favours to Katie as her payment for acting as "go-between"
The spike in Katie's August, 2014 bank deposits was possibly, partly, Sigfredo sharing some of his payment from the murder without Katie knowing it was blood money. The majority, maybe all; night club earnings - Katie told the truth
What proves Katie's innocence beyond all doubt is, up to and including the last phone calls in the wire taps, Katie does not know if The Undercover is talking about her. This is an impossibility if she is involved. You can throw every other piece of evidence for and against her in the bin. If she doesn't know she isn't involved
Katie (from wire taps):
¨I don't know the rest of whatever it is, or if my name is really on anything, or if they're even talking about me ...¨
¨... and I don't know if it's me they're really talking about¨
¨ ... and I really feel bad if they're not even talking about me ...¨
It cannot be a ruse; it cannot be Katie feigning lack of knowledge for law enforcement's benefit. If Katie is involved and thinks law enforcement may be behind the bump, she is staying off the phone, not having multiple, long, phone conversations on the who, what and why of the bump
A ruse is extremely complicated, dangerously risky, ridiculously stupid and completely unnecessary - why not just stay off the phone? Which is what she would have done ... if she was involved
As for Luis Rivera; his money drop story was laughable, and not surprisingly, he made Katie the central figure in that story. Even Luis can't believe how completely The State bought his lies. He made a fool of everyone, except Katie, who stood strong in her fight
I have a nice bridge in Arizona, overlooking the Great Lakes for sell.
Innocence In A Nutshell
What a nightmare for Katie - The Undercover drops her name, Charlie unwittingly pulls her into his mess and the FBI mistake concern for her friend's family with complicity in a murder - Nightmare!
In the wiretaps Katie tells us she wasn't involved:
¨I don't know the rest of whatever it is, or if my name is really on anything, or if they're even talking about me ...¨
¨... and I don't know if it's me they're really talking about¨
¨ ... and I really feel bad if they're not even talking about me"
You can throw every other piece of evidence for and against her in the trash. If she doesn't know if The Undercover is talking about her, she isn't involved
And you hammer this point home to the jury in closing:
"Deliberation should only take you five minutes because there is only one question to ask yourselves:
"Why does she not know?"
But surely it's not that simple!?
Yeah! it is!
The FBI planned The Bump meticulously. Its first goal was to make sure that anyone involved knew The Bump was about the murder. And Katie doesn't know
The FBI asked the question, set up The Bump and wiretaps, then totally ignored the answer - truly unbelievable!
Katie not knowing acquits her outright, just as DNA evidence has done in other cases
Katie talks to Sigfredo:
"I don't feel secure because you take care of everybody else. Where's my security Tuto? When are you going to step up for me? ...
... because I feel like everybody else gets the special attention. And then Katie you go figure it out, you go figure out the kids, you figure out life, you figure out your apartment"
In Katie's eyes this is not Sigfredo's problem. Why? Because she wasn't involved! She has no idea her two 'boyfriends' have conspired to kill someone. She is oblivious
Look at it from Katie's perspective: random strangers extorting money from Charlie's family, possibly using her name to do it. That's terrifying for her. She tells us exactly why she wants Sigfredo's support:
"Look, can you do me this favour? Because it's like, I'm not a guy and I don't know if it's me they're talking about"
Do we listen to her? Not a chance! We fall into the trap of assuming she's talking to Sigfredo as a co-conspirator. That's inexcusable
She tells us why she is helping Charlie:
"Look, you gotta understand, like someone doing this to my mum, someone doing this to your mum"
"But the mere fact that I don't like anybody disrespecting your family, scaring your family ..."
"I'm trying to get whoever's threatening your family, and helping you guys out"
Unfortunately, like complete idiots, we ignore her. We refuse to believe the truth staring us in the face
Katie simply can't understand why anyone would be using her name to extort money from Charlie's family:
"Why am I being thrown into something?"
"... imagine, like, look at this, I'm picking up somebody else's, you know"
You would think these two sentences alone would be enough to rubber stamp her innocence. Alas, we choose to remain ignorant
Katie continues with super clues for us:
"For all you know, it's a patient. Maybe they've seen me in the dental office in the beach before"
"Did you take his teeth out or what? ... Is he a patient? You run across so many people every day"
If Katie is involved she knows it's not a patient! Evidence of innocence everywhere, and we continue to deny, deny, deny!
Sigfredo to Katie:
"... the less you know the better ..."
Katie is alleged to be the "go-between" in this murder-for-hire. She would know a lot more than Sigfredo about everything. The above is something you say to someone who has no knowledge of the real situation and you want it to stay that way
Charlie to Katie (Dolce Vita):
"When everybody was there the next day, did any of you take any money? ..."
This question must be taken in context. From murder to bump Charlie wonders if Sigfredo tells Katie about the murder. But Charlie can never ask Katie because, in asking, he's admitting to murder, using the father of her children as his hitman
After the bump, all bets are off. The Undercover drops Katie's name, confirming to Charlie that Katie knows. Now he can talk to Katie semi-freely - she a witness to Sigfredo's involvement
You start to see how insidious the name dropping is. It is everything in this case because it allows Charlie to use an innocent friend in his investigation of just who is behind The Bump
Katie's innocence is established further when we compare the conflicting stories of Charlie and Luis regarding the day after. Charlie talks of people taking money, whereas Luis tells of Katie distributing money. Charlie's candid words to Katie decimate Luis' lies
It's heartbreaking to see Katie in court being double teamed by the equally blind FBI and state attorneys. As Chris DeCoste, her attorney, so aptly described it:
"They can't see it, they can't understand it, that she's innocent, she wasn't involved"
They can't see because they don't wish to see. They had Katie pinned as guilty and tunnel vision crippled logical thought
The only thing standing between Katie and freedom is state attorneys being humble enough to admit they missed crucial indicators to her innocence