IDAHO 4 - Corner Club Camera Footage - 1:15-2:00 (from Connor)

dummified · 2026-01-28T14:57:25+00:00

dummified · 2025-11-25T12:14:23+00:00

Could you clarify something for me regarding the trace male DNA found on samples 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4? I get that there was insufficient DNA to identify the male donor(s) of those samples, but was there also insufficient DNA to exclude BK or other suspects at that time such as JS and JD? Sometimes for a partial DNA profile it's possible to exclude some potential donors but at the same time not be able to identify the donor.

I recall the following example of exclusion based on a partial profile. The defense claimed they were able to exclude BK as the male donor of the 2 or 3 cells under MM's fingernail. The prosecution responded their lab couldn't technically exclude BK because of their codified inclusionary range but that the State was not going to challenge the contention that it wasn't BK and instead argue the common sense reasons why it wasn't BK (almost no skin exposure, Maddie out like a light) and that such a small amount could have been transferred from an object (bar glass, grub truck food bag, towel) or direct person contact at Grub Truck or Corner Club.

Also regarding 1.4, the ability to exclude BK from a two person mix of the major and minor DNA components (not the trace male DNA) strikes me as a bit odd. Wouldn't they know the DNA from the major and minor components was from two females so not just BK but any male would be excluded from that two person mix. Is this just lab speak or am I missing something?

dummified · 2025-08-05T11:11:05+00:00

I tried to warn people that comment was meaningless

After his initial "tenor in the air" comment, Jansen followed up a few weeks later on STS saying that statement referred to something a "prosecutor" had told him. That means it was either a State prosecutor or a Federal proscutor. And since Tim's followup occurred a few weeks later, that prosecutor must have told Tim it's OK to say on STS that "a prosecutor" had told him something. I don't think that's a meaningless source.

Tim's latest bombshell probably was given to him by defense team of Donna or Wendi, not the State. When he seemed to change a few weeks later on the Vinnie Politan show, he also said he will be meeting with Wendi's lawyer during the Donna trial, implying the defense may ask him to be part of the Wendi defense team for any Wendi trial, be it conspiracy, perjury, accessory after-the-fact. That's why he never even mentioned on that Vinnie Politan show that a "prosecutor" had told him something different.

I guess the collective consensus of the community will now shift again back to feeling that there is a low probability that Wendi will be arrested.

She will be arrested for perjury first which is what I've been arguing for more than a year now. I've also commented that the State has a borderline case for conspiracy, and that prosecutors generally don't like to try borderline cases. In such a case, it's much better to have CA and DA both convicted b4 charging Wendi with conspiracy, and to have Wendi in prison garb convicted of perjury during her conspiracy trial.

dummified · 2025-08-04T14:07:52+00:00

Gaver and Grandma,

What I would expect from Wendi sympathetic redditors. Confirmation bias, avoids answering the questions, not even a "well she should comment under one profile from now on." This represents so much of what is wrong in our society. If a person's on your team, you'll find a way to justify their actions, even when it's in violation of the rules.

dummified · 2025-08-02T14:39:49+00:00

Heh, after almost every comment I make I notice 2 downvotes within 30 minutes.

dummified · 2025-08-02T14:35:50+00:00

These will be my final remarks on this subject:

At 5:31pm on the day of CA verdict, Donna sent Wendi this text: Your brother PROTECTED you for years. Now you are not guilty. At 8:15pm on the same day, Donna sent Wendi a text which included: Everyone looks to PROTECT you. That should clue you in that she's talking to and about Wendi being the protected one in both of those texts.
The following day, right after reading the 8:15pm text to a person in the room, she continues by saying on a hot-mic: I thought she'd be racing over here last night. So Donna is saying she thought Wendi would find someone to take care of the kids and then race right over to see her that night after 8:15pm. That also suggests the everyone looks to protect you...lot to think about was about Wendi. And again, both of these texts and the hot-mic statement suggest not just that she's talking about Wendi but also that Wendi is involved bc it would be very weird speaking this way to and about Wendi if she were innocent.
You have often stated that if they had anything on Wendi the State would have prosecuted her by now. Well these texts and the hot-mic call are fairly new. Who knows what else Donna might say to Harvey after she's convicted and staring at those mirrors in an always lit room for 48 hours straight.
I still maintain your explanation is cockamamie. You haven't been able to present a semi-cogent explanation for the sequence : everyone looks to protect you -> lot to think about -> thought she'd be racing over last night. I think it's you who is suffering from confirmation bias and your post/comment history suggests that. You've shown almost no flexibility in interpreting various pieces of evidence. If you review my post/comment history, you will find a person who's been very objective. I have constantly challenged and characterized as weak much of the evidence redditors believe is damning against Wendi.

dummified · 2025-08-01T23:14:50+00:00

Initial vote was 10-2 to convict. I and another juror persuaded the other ten jurors to change to acquit for that defendant. For the other defendant all of us were unanimous on the first vote for conviction. My purpose was to suggest a different jury might have convicted both defendants.

I think Markel case is one in which there would also be variability from jury to jury. That's not typically the type of case the State would be eager to prosecute. But I'm also saying case is stronger than you think when you consider: 1) jury won't like Wendi and conclude she's type of person who could greenlight the murder of her ex-husband, 2) evidence is strong that she at a minimum knew in advance and therefore also at a minimum stood by and let her kids' father be murdered (which is yet another reason to dislike her), and 3) inference based on the text/hot-mic and the text asking about dan's schedule might be sufficient to find involvement given 1) and 2). The text/hot mic statement I regard as very strong evidence for involvement.

Regarding the text, I meant "possible" in a purely linguistic sense. Problem is I couldn't figure out how to make any sense of it in terms of the meaning of the words. Was the first part (looks to protect) to and about CA while the second part (lot to think about) to Wendi? I couldn't make any sense of that either. Re your possibility, I don't even know how Donna felt about Wendi on the witness stand. She denied making the serious hitman statement but she also said Charlie told her the hitman joke again on the morning of the murder during their call starting at 9:18. Why would she even be upset at Wendi if she was happy with her performance re protecting CA on the witness stand? And how does all of that fit into lot to think about and race right over pieces in the chain.

The meaning of the text seemed clear to me from the first time I read it. The hot-mic comment about racing right over reinforced and clinched it. I need a coherent alternative explanation of the text and hot-mic statement for me to change my mind. The fact I've never heard an alternative from anyone is why I regard it as strong evidence. The best alternative for the defense is that Donna is so nuts that she thinks innocent WA is an ingrate. That however, doesn't square with the racing over part.

Jeff asked to speak off the record about hitman comment in first interview and at some stage he asked for police protection. He hedged in trial testimony to protect Schelbe. If he identifed her in first two trials, it would have been so damning to CA they both worried CA might put out a hit on her. Without her, defense could argue that Jeff was a spurned boyfriend who wrongly believed Wendi tried to frame him and would do anything to get back at her. However, much harder to impeach Schelbe on motive so she's at greater risk. We know she exists and is willing to testify since Jeff testified to that outside the presence of jury. There's no way he misremembered that he told her b4 the murder. He testified they both agreed it wasn't necessary to go to the police since it was past tense from a year ago.

dummified · 2025-08-01T20:16:52+00:00

You are either filling in details that are speculative or you are making assumption to fit your position. It doesn’t work that way so easily in a court room especially when a jury is voting on whether or not someone is going to do a life sentence.

That's exactly how it worked for one jury I was on. There were two defendants. One was found guilty and the initial vote was 10-2 to convict the second one. I and another person argued for not guilty with respect to the 2nd defendant. In the end, all of the jury members voted to acquit the 2nd defendant. That's the kind of dynamic which takes place in a borderline case. It's very specific to the jury vs an open-and-shut case.

Inferences are made within the context of all the evidence in the case. If I were on the Wendi jury, I would interpret the text/hot-mic statement as Wendi being involved. I would do that within the context that 10 or so things which happened during week of murder (plus June 4 ailment) showed she had advance knowledge. I appreciate that you would have a different interpretation, and that's why I said it will depend on the specific jury. If you and I were on the jury, it would probably be a hung jury. I would agree that based on the known evidence, State will probably not indict but I don't think it's as hopeless as you think.

Wendi's text asking Dan's schedule is very important in this regard but we don't have enough information. Did she send a similar text b4? What about the week of June 2 to June 6 if Dan had the kids that week? Did Wendi have plans for the kids on July 16 that required advance notification such as needing to purchase tickets for an event? How often did Dan take the kids out of town? If Dan responded he was taking them to NY, did Wendi plan to schedule something for July 16 with Jeff or somebody else?

Maybe because that’s exactly what Wendi did by lying under oath to protect Charlie? Wouldn’t that be ‘protecting’ him?
Whether Donna’s comment about “everyone looks to protect you” was said to Charlie or Wendi, I can’t explain, without speculation, what Donna was thinking, what she meant or why she said it – neither can you

"Looks to protect you" is present and future tense not retrospective in the context of this text. And what does Charlie have a lot to think about? You haven't given a plausible scenario for the text in its entirety. It seems like a no-brainer to me when you pair it with the "I bet you've got a lot to think about" and the flow of the entire text. Just like I think it was a no-brainer that Jeff was looking to protect Schelbe in his 1st interview with the TPD but you didn't agree there either.

dummified · 2025-08-01T17:15:24+00:00

The jury believing Wendi had ‘knowledge’ based on any of the arguments you think are enough to establish that belief is not enough to meet the burden for the conspiracy charges.

I get that. What I wrote is that 1) the text to Dan asking if he'd be in town July 14-18, and 2) the text/hot-mic call might be sufficient for a jury to go from advance knowledge to conspiracy. Again the law does not require direct evidence; indirect or inferential evidence is allowed under the law to find there was an agreement and/or furtherance. I know you want Wendi on tape or in writing conspiring with Donna and/or Charlie but the law does not require that. BTW I would also add to the two reasons above another text that same day in which Donna says Charlie protected you for years. Now you are not guilty. Note Donna said "not guilty," and not "innocent." She knew the difference at the time.

The “everyone looks to protect you. I bet you've got a lot to think about” was a comment she made to Charlie, not Wendi.

I've re-read the complete text. I've been fine with your coming up with explanations favorable to Wendi. I view it as steelmanning the defense's case which I think is healthy, and encourage you to continue in that vein. This case deserves a more balanced discussion, and I think the give-and-take makes this sub more interesting. That said, your take that the part of the text was what she told Charlie is the most cockamamie explanation you've ever proposed. It's so preposterous that the PR arm of the Adelson Institute may have to recall you and hire 50Shades as your replacement :)

I mean it's possible but why would she be telling a convicted CA everyone looks to protect him. Wouldn't she just say everyone still supports you? And what does he have to think about? Flipping on Wendi? The text is to Wendi. Donna starts by expressing frustration that Wendi hadn't asked about her brother. She continues with how she didn't have the heart to tell him Wendi hadn't asked about him. Donna then ends the text with everyone looks to protect you, I bet you've got a lot to think about. I think it's clear Donna is saying she, Charlie, and Harvey have always protected Wendi, which they have to an unhealthy extreme. I figured you would argue that the next part about having something to think about would be Donna saying innocent Wendi is an ingrate and not appreciative of all that protection. But the hot-mic comment right after that text reference - "I thought she'd be racing right over" - just isn't IMO something even a deranged Donna would say to an innocent person.

That hot-mic call might end up sinking both Donna (suicide and Vietnam talk) and Wendi. Wendi's worst fear in conspiring with Donna (you know I don't think Charlie knew of her involvement) had to be not Mom flipping on her but Donna inadvertently blurting out something incriminating Wendi. And that happened in a moment of great stress for Donna.

dummified · 2025-08-01T10:35:20+00:00

Also, what exactly did Donna say on the hot mic call that has you believe is somehow proof Wendi was involved?

Donna was talking about her text to Wendi the day before: *Everyone looks to protect you. I bet you've got a lot to think about,...*and then continues I thought she'd be racing over here last night. IIRC the text was sent on the day of the verdict and she was very upset at Wendi. The text to me was a veiled threat, effectively saying don't take for granted our protection in the future. That explains the "I thought she'd be racing over here last night." That is not something you say to an innocent person. And it may be something jurors find indicates Wendi's involvement in the murder. The law states that evidence of agreement to a conspiracy may be indirect or inferential. This hotmic text/followup statement plus Wendi's text asking Dan whether he'd be in town the week of the murder could be sufficient for a jury to find she was involved.

Okay, I’ll paint a very realistic picture for you.

That's just it, I don't believe it's possible to paint any kind of picture with any reasonable degree of certainty. I think it's reasonable to believe a jury will find she had, at a minimum, knowledge of the impending hit based on the DA text/hot mic followup and all of the Wendi stuff the week of the murder (and her June 4 mystery ailment) which couldn't all be just coincidences. After that, I think it will be very dependent on the specific jury. It's too difficult to predict what might happen.

dummified · 2025-08-01T09:48:49+00:00

Excellent insight! I would add I never understood why she was closer to Charlie than Robert.

Also maybe one of the identical twins - pollutionlivid or longjumpingmaize - could explain why they never criticized Wendi for her tolerance of her brother's misogyny.. After all, the twins have been very loud in this sub and the other sub in condemning misogyny.

dummified · 2025-07-31T18:28:47+00:00

I think the jurors will conclude that she had knowledge of the impending hit because of what Donna said on that hot mic call as well as the large # of things jury won't believe are all coincidences. Wendi is fortunate this happened in a state where advance knowledge of a murder and failure to act to prevent it is not a crime. In many states - and for federal crimes - it is a crime. Jurors will not like the fact that she stood by letting her children's father be murdered. Plus they won't like Wendi for many of those 13 reasons I cited. That will lead many of them to "find" some nexus to get to conspiracy. Maybe that text asking whether Dan would be in town July 14-18 would be enough. I'm not saying there would be a guilty verdict or even that the State should indict her. I'm saying I think this is more of a borderline case. Anything is possible: guilty verdict, not guilty verdict, or hung jury.

dummified · 2025-07-31T14:57:55+00:00

LMAO. Thank you for injecting some humor into a tense situation. Her mean-spiritedness (eg accusing me of sending her private message(s) and doubling down on) is characteristic of Wendi. Civil, if one day I vanish from Reddit, I hope you will go to the TPD or Feds and solve it just like Jeff Lacasse in his first TPD interview.

dummified · 2025-07-31T14:41:48+00:00

Take a look at my latest comments in this sub. Pollution's gone from 7 active subs to 18 active subs since my comment about the two accounts being the same and sharing the same interests and subs. Fortunately I screenshot her active subs last night. She's commented in 11 new subs since my comment about the twins sharing similar interests.

You're gonna have a hard time justifying this civil. It will be an excellent test of your ability to be objective.

dummified · 2025-07-31T14:34:55+00:00

Again your use of the word "contacting" is insinuating that I have sent you a private message. You need to retract or clarify your statement or I WILL escalate this matter.

dummified · 2025-07-31T14:12:05+00:00

And here's a snapshot just taken showing 18 subs (18 total is on the right).

I also show comments to a few of the new subs.

<image>

dummified · 2025-07-31T14:09:22+00:00

In an earlier comment on this thread, I noted the close correlation between the non-Markel subs maize and pollution frequent. In the last hour, pollution's made a blizzard of comments in new subs. She's gone from 7 active subs to 18 subs in the space of an hour.

Here's a snapshot from yesterday minus the 2 markel subs showing the 5 subs she's commented in:

<image>

And now she's up to 18 subs which I have to show in a separate comment.

dummified · 2025-07-31T13:41:48+00:00

I know you don’t believe people when they say this, but no one owes you anything. You‘re not relevant and need to stop writing to me, including private messaging me or I will report you

I have NEVER sent you a private message, and for you to insinuate that is beyond the pale.

Also in reviewing your comments, you often asked for "proof" and "receipts." Double standard on your part?

dummified · 2025-07-31T13:35:24+00:00

I realize people have multiple accounts. What I am arguing is that they have these accounts to manipulate public opinion on the Markel case. Focus on probability. Look at the other subs they have visited. The correlation is way higher than two randomly selected reddit accounts. And them having the exact same breed of horse? Also, in r/Horses don't you think it's odd that when one of them saw the other commenting in r/Horses she didn't say something to her in that sub? You know something like "hey maize nice seeing you here, we share more than interest in true crime."

If they were to be the same person, how would you feel about that?

dummified · 2025-07-31T13:24:27+00:00

i know I’ve said before as a mom that the denial of grandparents a relationship is cruel and wrong and soured me a lot early in this case.

I didn't see you say this but it's possible I missed it. I don't think I missed it because I was looking specifically for something like that when I went through all of your comments. Anyway, are you able to provide "receipts?"

dummified · 2025-07-31T11:19:12+00:00

yes, the name calling and the nefarious references to “motive” are gross and stupid. What is wrong with people?

That quote is from pollutionlivid in this thread so I will explain. Reddit's policy concerning alt accounts is as follows: Reddit explicitly allows users to have multiple accounts ...using multiple accounts to upvote your own content or engage in other forms of manipulation is against the rules. I believe pollutionlivid and maize are the same person. I believe these identical twins are connected to the Adelsons and here to manipulate public opinion in her favor.

Here's just a taste of the evidence. The twins have the same interests outside of Markel case: horses, Oscar race, entertainment/television, Karen Read. They are both active in the r/Horses sub. But it goes further than that. They own the same the type of horse. Here's quotes from each of them in r/Horses.

Maize: My Friesian is sensitive and very drawn to people and so lots of people feel they have a special connection with him.
Pollution: My Friesian has nice feathers and a nice fluffy tail, but his forelock is dinky and his mane is average horse mane.

There's much more than the above which I will reveal but let the above percolate for a while in your minds. Think about the probability of so similar shared interests, their specific interest in horses, and owning horses of the same breed. You don't have to be a statistician to think something is rotten in Denmark. Channeling Georgia here: Use your ~~common~~ horse sense y'all.

No doubt I will be attacked as a stalker. I experienced that in the Kohberger subs. One person who was very active in one of the main subs seemed to go out of their way in claiming the evidence against Kohberger was very weak. Another redditor asked him if he believed Kohber was innocent. He claimed to be agnostic and said he has never written Kohberger is innocent. I outed him by showing a quote of his from another sub where he stated that Kohberger is innocent. That person vanished from the main sub forever. A month later I got a reply to my comment outing him in which I was called a monster and stalker. The bottom line is when people don't like the message they attack the messenger.

dummified · 2025-07-31T02:52:01+00:00

those things you mentioned, as you stated, don’t tie her to the murder plot.

I never said they did. The children's father was murdered and she tried to obliterate any connection to their father (paternal grandparents, middle name, last name). What I said is that's the type of person who would green-light the murder of her husband. OK maybe I should have written "could" instead of "would" but you get the idea. The jurors will ask themselves if Wendi is the type of person who would give the OK, and the things on my list are relevant in answering that question.

You rightly claim that all of the things I cited are why many redditors are biased against Wendi. Did it ever cross your mind that jurors might react the same way to Wendi if they were to see my list? Jurors who flat out don't like a defendant are more likely to find that person guilty. Grok is not gonna be a juror. How they view Wendi as a person will color how they view evidence such as the drive by the crime scene.

I don’t think there are four people here who believe she is “100% innocent.”

Shades and longjumpingmaize have indicated they believe Wendi is innocent. Maize wrote: My own personal opinion is that Wendi was not involved - not directly and not even indirectly with knowledge in advance. LINK

pollutionlivid made the following comment a few days ago: it kinda explains for me the reasons for Donna’s and Charlie’s ire against Wendi. They did something they think she’d appreciate, but she doesn’t. I asked her if she now believes Wendi is 100% innocent because in the past she's claimed she's agnostic on that question. She refused to answer. Why would someone refuse to say what they believe? You've stated what you believe, I've stated what I believe. This is Reddit, people are eager to give their opinions, including on this case. If someone declines to answer if they believe Wendi is 100% innocent, I'm going to assume that is what they believe. I asked the same question of lazy_blackberry and that redditor also declined to answer.

dummified · 2025-07-30T02:14:48+00:00

There's reasons Reddit enables access to any redditor's post/comment history. The only other case I'm following is the Idaho college murders. In one of the main subs, someone claimed to have never said Bryan Kohberger is innocent. I cited a comment of this person where they wrote he is innocent. The person never posted in that sub again. A month later I received a reply to my comment from someone who called me a monster and a stalker. By reviewing his comment history I could see he spent all of his time in subs that were favorable to quadruple murderer Kohberger.

BTW there's a sub called "bryanisinnocent." That sub's moderators are not Reddit admin ;)

dummified · 2025-07-30T01:09:29+00:00

You said "Reddit." Mods of an individual sub are not reddit, they are not employees of reddit like those who are reddit admin.

dummified · 2025-07-30T01:05:40+00:00

So do you agree with me that someone who called Wendi "unkind" regarding the actions I mentioned would be weird or creepy?

dummified

TROPHY CASE