Or dumb like a fox. IMO, she knew to some degree that could have stopped the actions of others.
GUILTY FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen 18 July 2014 - *5 Guilty* #28
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 1,733
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.”
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!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 2,308
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.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,845
- Reaction score
- 82,552
She is smart enough not to be charged with a crime
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 2,308
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.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,845
- Reaction score
- 82,552
Agree--she has,managed to escape justice so far!!!!
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.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 2,308
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 2,308
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”.
I don't have a strong dislike for her nor am I emotional. She passed some exams, has some qualifications, but is a failure and is highly incompetent in many areas of life. Maybe there's no specific label we can give her, but I'll just stick with she's a dimwit and a loser. She was given everything to her on a plate and still managed to screw up her life.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,845
- Reaction score
- 82,552
I believe she hated Dan Markel and wanted him dead-- her hatred spread to her family and his murder became a family affair- so far she has managed to elude being charged- I don't expect that to change -sadly. I believe she has turned the children against their father, to the point of changing their last names. She disgusts me.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 1,733
Why is Wendi Adelson scot free thus far?
- “From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof, as the English proverb says, but that’s only from the rational point of view—you can’t help being partial, for after all a lawyer is only human”
- Source: Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1866) Crime and Punishment (Преступление и наказание) Part 6, Chapter 2. Moscow, Russia: The Russian Messenger
- This is not of the type of your ordinary reading but it might elevate the critical thinking of the contrarian. Before enlarging knowledge, ability, and skills from reading it, you may find more about it here: Crime and Punishment - Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is not a suspicion. She drove to the crime scene and then lied about in an obvious attempt to deceive LE. That is evidence. Lauro would argue the drive was simply a shortcut, a route she regularly took, the State would counter with it was a crime scene drive by to ensure the act had been completed.
If that’s all there was to it, the jury would most likely determine that there was too much doubt and would conclude she was most likely just driving to the liquor store.
However WA's lies about her route change the dynamic of that piece of evidence. What innocent person would lie about something as trivial as a drive to the liquor store? There was clearly an attempt to deceive LE and impede the investigation. In order to prevent the jury concluding she was indeed driving to the crime scene knowing Dan had been shot, Lauro would have to come up with a plausible reason as to why WA lied 3 times about her route.
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 2,589
It was assigned to me to read in middle school. Great work.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 2,308
But can you make a horse from one hundred twenty-five rabbits?
The challenge with online discourse in the case against Wendi is the blurred lines between suspicion, speculation, assumptions, and actual evidence or proof. I think those lines became severely blurred after the infamous, and often cited, “125 indicators of guilt” video. Circumstantial evidence can absolutely be powerful, but the “125 indicators of guilt” list is mostly redundant data points and biased interpretations that are argued with a lot of emotion about how cruel or manipulative Wendi is. I agree that Wendi had motive and a lot to gain – proving that part is easy, but once you strip from the list the motive-based points, the ways she gained from Dan’s murder, and her arguably flawed character, what remains? Very little, if anything, that speaks to the legal elements the state would actually need to prove to meet the burden of proof.
The list falls short of showing that Wendi entered into a conspiratorial agreement or committed an overt act in furtherance of the crime. That is the burden of proof the state will need present to a jury – not simply that she had motive, disliked Dan, or is morally corrupt and benefited from his death. Based on what I’ve personally been exposed to (opinions may vary), the three most commonly argued “proof points” of Wendi’s involvement on social media are:
1) Dan’s schedule – The claim that Wendi ‘must’ have given the conspirators Dan’s schedule is speculation, not evidence. There is no record, no communication, no witness, and no forensic trail tying her to that information transfer.
2) Wendi’s “approval” - The argument that “the family wouldn’t have done it without her sign‑off or approval” is an assumption dressed up as logic. That argument may seem intuitively persuasive to some people, but it is not evidence of an agreement.
3) The Trescott drive – Her drive toward the crime scene is suspicious and raises questions about what she may have suspected or feared. Even if one assumes she knew something was happening, knowledge is not the same as participation. Awareness is not an overt act, nor is it an agreement to the conspiracy.
I’ll also give an honorable mention to the ‘theory’ of a coordinated attempt to the frame-up of Jeff Lacasse. IMO, based on the case facts, that narrative is implausible and, as Jeff himself said, “far‑flung.” A competent defense attorney would easily dismantle that theory, and it would likely backfire on the state. I’m aware the state indirectly introduced this idea by eliciting Jeff’s testimony about what his friends told him, but in a hypothetical Wendi trial, I’d bet the state avoids that theory entirely.
Anything that looks odd or suspicious or coincidental is not circumstantial evidence.
Let’s look at the snow example that prosecutors use often. You wake up in the morning and there’s 3 inches of snow on the ground. You didn’t see it snow but you can reasonably INFER that it snowed. There’s no other reasonable explanation for why the snow is there.
Now let’s take the Trescott drive on the murder day. Wendi drove by Trescott coincidentally close to the murder time. The ONLY reasonable inference is that she was in on the conspiracy and she went by to confirm??? Of course not. That’s absurd. It’s certainly suspicious. Its odd. It’s coincidental. It’s a theory but it’s not the only reasonable inference. Especially when you have no evidence that she knew when and where the murder would take place. Like with the snow example, there’s literally no other explanation for it. Here there’s a couple other reasonable inferences that can be made, which is the definition of reasonable doubt.
The TV repair is another theory not circumstantial evidence of guilt. It’s suspicious. It’s coincidental. Is it the only reasonable inference? Just like the snow on the ground? Of course not. Again, you have no evidence that she or Donna knew exactly when the murder would take place. Even the killers didn’t know.
When it comes to rules of evidence direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equals. One is not better than the other. That means you can’t slap “circumstantial evidence” on any theory or suspicion you have. It has to be a darn good inference. Just like the snow on the ground.
Let’s look at the snow example that prosecutors use often. You wake up in the morning and there’s 3 inches of snow on the ground. You didn’t see it snow but you can reasonably INFER that it snowed. There’s no other reasonable explanation for why the snow is there.
Now let’s take the Trescott drive on the murder day. Wendi drove by Trescott coincidentally close to the murder time. The ONLY reasonable inference is that she was in on the conspiracy and she went by to confirm??? Of course not. That’s absurd. It’s certainly suspicious. Its odd. It’s coincidental. It’s a theory but it’s not the only reasonable inference. Especially when you have no evidence that she knew when and where the murder would take place. Like with the snow example, there’s literally no other explanation for it. Here there’s a couple other reasonable inferences that can be made, which is the definition of reasonable doubt.
The TV repair is another theory not circumstantial evidence of guilt. It’s suspicious. It’s coincidental. Is it the only reasonable inference? Just like the snow on the ground? Of course not. Again, you have no evidence that she or Donna knew exactly when the murder would take place. Even the killers didn’t know.
When it comes to rules of evidence direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are equals. One is not better than the other. That means you can’t slap “circumstantial evidence” on any theory or suspicion you have. It has to be a darn good inference. Just like the snow on the ground.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2024
- Messages
- 811
- Reaction score
- 2,308
Exactly. How many times have we heard ~ “The evidence against Wendi is so overwhelming... there are just too many coincidences”? As you stated, the problem is that much of what gets labeled as “circumstantial evidence” isn’t actually evidence at all. It’s a collection of data points interpreted through a heavy bias, framed with speculation, and rarely subjected to any objective legal analysis. I can point to countless examples of flawed reasoning or pseudo‑legal arguments, even from people who present themselves as “experts.”
Now that months have passed since Donna’s conviction and all the predictions of Wendi’s “imminent arrest” have failed to materialize, we’re seeing the predictable next phase – the goalposts quietly shifting to a new date, a new theory why the delay, and a new justification. This cycle will likely repeat indefinitely because it’s driven by expectation, not evidence.
At some point, it’s worth acknowledging the reality – the state does not believe it can meet the burden of proof in a case against Wendi based on what they currently have. They are unlikely to make a move unless something changes and that “something” would need to be a genuine breakthrough. Something that gives prosecutors confidence, not hope, that they can reach the 95%+ certainty required to take a conspiracy case to trial.
Could they still roll the dice under public pressure? Sure, but based solely on publicly available information, the case is extremely risky. IMO, the average person on social media would be in for a rude awakening if a Wendi trial ever unfolded under the current evidentiary landscape. It would look nothing like the other trials - unless new, substantive evidence emerges.
As far as I’m concerned you and I have been vindicated. We are right.
The state doesn’t have enough evidence to take Wendi to trial. There isn’t enough evidence to prove up that Wendi conspired and furthered Danny’s murder. Period!
But,
Stay tuned, I guess.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Guardians Monthly Goal
Online statistics
- Members online
- 208
- Guests online
- 4,522
- Total visitors
- 4,730