GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen 18 July 2014 - *5 Guilty* #28

[rescuemom]

I don’t know how intelligent WA may be on some more absolute scale, I’ll just comment on her apparent relative intelligence compared to other actors in this sordid case. That is, among the three; CA, DA, and WA, it would appear WA is the smartest of the bunch.

Or dumb like a fox. IMO, she knew to some degree that could have stopped the actions of others.

 

[apeXperience]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition defines: “Intelligence / noun: The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.”

In addition to knowledge, ability, and skills, ordinary expression of intelligence in meritocratic work place in the US such as academia and corporation goes a little further to include “standing among peers.”

• Knowledge is measured by schooling achievements. Wendi Adelson has knowledge of Florida Laws as proven by a JD degree
• Ability is measured by performing some actions. Wendi Adelson has the ability of articulately speaking English and Spanish as displayed by recorded videos such as interviews at Telemundo Series y TV en vivo
• Academic standing among peers is measured by annual evaluations such as in teaching and publication, which are recorded at the Academic Affairs of FSU in the case of Wendi Adelson
• Law practice ability and standing are yearly evaluated by State boards such as the Florida Board where Wendi Adelson is listed as “member in good standing” over many years
• Despite the reasonable State label as un-indicted co-conspirator in a first degree murder proceedings, Wendi Adelson has the skills to remain scot free, thus far ... Yes, that is an extraordinary display of skills given the damning facts listed in the Probable Cause Affidavits and transcripts of 4 first degree murder trials leading to 4 convictions and 4 LWOP penalties!

Tune down the ... (insert a negative attribute). More Justice For Dan Markel will come from relevant direct evidence instead of the mistaken remote evaluation and demerit of Wendi Adelson’s intelligence, knowledge, ability, skills, or standing among her peers.

 

[Going Rogue]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition defines: “Intelligence / noun: The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.”

In addition to knowledge, ability, and skills, ordinary expression of intelligence in meritocratic work place in the US such as academia and corporation goes a little further to include “standing among peers.”

• Knowledge is measured by schooling achievements. Wendi Adelson has knowledge of Florida Laws as proven by a JD degree
• Ability is measured by performing some actions. Wendi Adelson has the ability of articulately speaking English and Spanish as displayed by recorded videos such as interviews at Telemundo Series y TV en vivo
• Academic standing among peers is measured by annual evaluations such as in teaching and publication, which are recorded at the Academic Affairs of FSU in the case of Wendi Adelson
• Law practice ability and standing are yearly evaluated by State boards such as the Florida Board where Wendi Adelson is listed as “member in good standing” over many years
• Despite the reasonable State label as un-indicted co-conspirator in a first degree murder proceedings, Wendi Adelson has the skills to remain scot free, thus far ... Yes, that is an extraordinary display of skills given the damning facts listed in the Probable Cause Affidavits and transcripts of 4 first degree murder trials leading to 4 convictions and 4 LWOP penalties!

Tune down the ... (insert a negative attribute). More Justice For Dan Markel will come from relevant direct evidence instead of the mistaken remote evaluation and demerit of Wendi Adelson’s intelligence, knowledge, ability, skills, or standing among her peers.

Great post. This is a perfect example of the 'Horn Effect' - where strong dislike for a person causes people to subconsciously downgrade their achievements and intelligence. The public record and her academic history make it objectively clear she is intelligent.

In the case against Wendi, the inability to separate emotion from fact is ‘dangerous territory’. I see the exact same pattern in how people weigh the evidence against her. Confirmation bias leads people to interpret every single movement she makes as definitive proof of guilt, rather than looking at the case facts objectively. We can believe she is guilty without underestimating or refusing to acknowledge her intellect… in fact, that very intelligence is likely one of the biggest hurdles the prosecution faces.

 

[ilovewings]

Or dumb like a fox. IMO, she knew to some degree that could have stopped the actions of others.

She is smart enough not to be charged with a crime

 

[Zedzded]

Yet despite all her brilliance and so called intelligence she has become a prime suspect in the murder of her ex-husband. And she's a lawyer. Genius.

 

[Going Rogue]

Yet despite all her brilliance and so called intelligence she has become a prime suspect in the murder of her ex-husband. And she's a lawyer. Genius.

Yet, she remains unindicted over a decade later and has managed to insulate herself in a way that her brother and mother did not. According to urban legend, there are over 125 indicators of guilt, yet she is unindicted? Does that not imply a high level of legal and strategic intelligence?

Conflating 'intelligence' with 'morality' or 'wisdom' is exactly where your examples and analysis gets muddy. A person can be brilliant and still make catastrophic life choices. Intelligence is a measurement of cognitive ability, not character. Thinking that 'smart people don't become suspects' is just another form of the bias.

 

[ilovewings]

Yet, she remains unindicted over a decade later and has managed to insulate herself in a way that her brother and mother did not. According to urban legend, there are over 125 indicators of guilt, yet she is unindicted? Does that not imply a high level of legal and strategic intelligence?

Conflating 'intelligence' with 'morality' or 'wisdom' is exactly where your examples and analysis gets muddy. A person can be brilliant and still make catastrophic life choices. Intelligence is a measurement of cognitive ability, not character. Thinking that 'smart people don't become suspects' is just another form of the bias.

Agree--she has,managed to escape justice so far!!!!

 

[Zedzded]

Does that not imply a high level of legal and strategic intelligence?

Absolutely not. She continues to do things to this day that demonstrate she was most likely involved. Most intelligent people would be cognisant of how bad it would come across in court that they have taken actions to deny paternal grandparents access to their grandkids. Even if WA hated them, she should know how bad it would look in court. She should be falling over herself to enable the Markels to see the grandkids.

She has been very vocal in how devastated and broken she has been from the death of DanM. Her Mum and brother have been swiftly convicted of being involved yet she continues to defend them and maintain contact with their Dad who vehemently defends his wife. Any intelligent person would recognise the conflict and ensure all contact their family was severed. Another sign of her dimwittery.

 

[Going Rogue]

Absolutely not. She continues to do things to this day that demonstrate she was most likely involved. Most intelligent people would be cognisant of how bad it would come across in court that they have taken actions to deny paternal grandparents access to their grandkids. Even if WA hated them, she should know how bad it would look in court. She should be falling over herself to enable the Markels to see the grandkids.

She has been very vocal in how devastated and broken she has been from the death of DanM. Her Mum and brother have been swiftly convicted of being involved yet she continues to defend them and maintain contact with their Dad who vehemently defends his wife. Any intelligent person would recognise the conflict and ensure all contact their family was severed. Another sign of her dimwittery.

Respectfully, I think your strong dislike for Wendi may be bleeding into how you assess her intelligence. When every action is interpreted as stupidity, it suggests the conclusion may be driving the analysis rather than the other way around. I understand that emotions run high in this case… but it’s worth asking whether your strong feelings about her are influencing how her intelligence is being evaluated. IMO, you’re still conflating intelligence with morality – and now with optics. Intelligence is not synonymous with empathy, good judgment, or making choices that play well in court. Let’s separate the variables.

If she were guilty:
Maintaining family relationships was risk containment and was a necessity for her legal survival. People acting in self-preservation mode don’t optimize for public optics – they optimize for survival. Those are different incentives and optimizing for survival does not mean she is not intelligent.

If she were innocent:
Supporting family members could simply be loyalty. Even if that loyalty is misplaced or morally questionable, that speaks to character – not intelligence.

You argue that “any intelligent person” would behave in ways that look good to a jury... but intelligent people don’t necessarily optimize for appearance. They optimize for what they perceive as their greatest long-term benefit. Sometimes that means control over optics.

The same applies to the grandparents. Denying access may be cruel and a bad look. but limiting exposure to individuals actively aligned against you is not evidence of low intelligence. It may be morally questionable and it may be unpopular, but it is not cognitively irrational.

Smart people become suspects. Smart people make catastrophic decisions. Smart people can be morally corrupt. None of that negates intelligence. Intelligence measures capacity – not virtue, not likability, and not whether strangers approve of someone’s strategy.

 

[Weki]

Nearly every criminal defendant's family supports them. Even when the victim is their mother or father, you often see adult children come to court and lie to help their murdering parent. We often argue these adult children are being manipulated, which is likely the case, but there are other relatives who also behave the same way. We don't wonder if these adult children or relatives conspired in the murder. Wendi is actually unique in that she has abandoned her family. She immediately threw them under the bus in her first interview and she has cut off contact with them. She wasn't at any of their trials in a support role. She didn't help the state in her testimony and why should she? Besides, that's a risky thing for her to do as she could be implicated. The smart move on her part is to play dumb. But she has cut off Charlie. And Donna was beside herself before her arrest at how easily Wendi discarded her. She told her mother to calm down or she would commit her!

Cutting off contact with the Markels makes sense after the murder. She despised Danny. She wanted nothing to do with him and by extension his family. Yes, it's an ugly thing to do to cut off the kids from their grandparents and to erase their father from their lives. No one is arguing that she is justified in doing that. What is the number of divorced parents who are just so happy to facilitate contact between their children and their ex-in laws after a nasty divorce?? That number has to be very low. It should come as no shock to anyone that grown adults behave in cruel and childish ways when relationships end badly. Parents have wrongly accused the other parent of abuse in order to gain the upperhand in custody battles. I know everything is heightened here because of the murder but maturity is the exception not the norm in divorce battles.

 

[Going Rogue]

Nearly every criminal defendant's family supports them. Even when the victim is their mother or father, you often see adult children come to court and lie to help their murdering parent. We often argue these adult children are being manipulated, which is likely the case, but there are other relatives who also behave the same way. We don't wonder if these adult children or relatives conspired in the murder. Wendi is actually unique in that she has abandoned her family. She immediately threw them under the bus in her first interview and she has cut off contact with them. She wasn't at any of their trials in a support role. She didn't help the state in her testimony and why should she? Besides, that's a risky thing for her to do as she could be implicated. The smart move on her part is to play dumb. But she has cut off Charlie. And Donna was beside herself before her arrest at how easily Wendi discarded her. She told her mother to calm down or she would commit her!

Cutting off contact with the Markels makes sense after the murder. She despised Danny. She wanted nothing to do with him and by extension his family. Yes, it's an ugly thing to do to cut off the kids from their grandparents and to erase their father from their lives. No one is arguing that she is justified in doing that. What is the number of divorced parents who are just so happy to facilitate contact between their children and their ex-in laws after a nasty divorce?? That number has to be very low. It should come as no shock to anyone that grown adults behave in cruel and childish ways when relationships end badly. Parents have wrongly accused the other parent of abuse in order to gain the upperhand in custody battles. I know everything is heightened here because of the murder but maturity is the exception not the norm in divorce battles.

Very well stated. Guilty or innocent, Wendi’s post murder behavior can be argued as cruel but it isn’t necessarily unusual when we realistically analyze the complex dynamics leading up to and following the divorce and this senseless murder. To be clear, I am not supporting her actions, but rather offering a realistic analysis of human behavior with all things considered. With that said, the real anomaly here is Rob Adelson. It is very rare that someone testifies against their family as a witness for the prosecution. Maturity is indeed “the exception not the norm”.