What makes murderers think they're smarter than police detectives?

[Leaffan]

I'm not sure how to phrase this.

Certain high-profile murder cases have made me wonder (particularly as I'm trying to fall asleep at night) how in the hell these people could possibly have thought they would get away with it.

Mark Hacking
Scott Peterson
Casey Anthony

I sometimes lay awake in bed wondering how in the hell these "normal" people can commit such brutal crimes and then think that they are somehow smarter than the police who are inevitably going to come and question every possible thing about them.

I don't watch CSI too often, and I completely realize the absurdness of the program, but it does highlight the many, many techniques that are available to police detectives. By God, these guys can look at finger prints, DNA evidence, fibres, cell phone records, transaction records, bill payments, Internet browsing history, movie rental records, and on and on and on.

Anyone who thinks that committing a murder can be covered up by pleading ignorance and washing their hands is a fool. The police are way too sophisticated and it really blows my mind that these sociopaths think they have a leg up.

Does anyone else think about these jerks and what their minds must work like? Maybe it's just me, but the whole plotted murder of a loved one scenario is especially intriguing. How the hell do you expect to get away with it?

[ParentalAdvisory]

To see whether or not if they think they can get away with it, we would first have to see the success rate of not getting caught. How many cases in a given area are solved vs. those that are not? If there's a lot of unsolved murder cases, it's not that much of a stretch to think you could get away with it. IMO, a lot do get away with it. Couldn't quantify it though.

[MEBuckner]

The clearance rate for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was 61.2% as of 2007. That number is not further broken down, though; you've got to figure it's going to be harder to get away with it if you off your own spouse, collect on the insurance money, and then marry your secretary or the pool boy three weeks later; as opposed to rival gang members killing each other in drive-by shootings; or a serial killer who murders victims who had no prior connection to him at all.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Leaffan

Certain high-profile murder cases have made me wonder (particularly as I'm trying to fall asleep at night) how in the hell these people could possibly have thought they would get away with it.

Arrogance

Originally Posted by Leaffan

I sometimes lay awake in bed wondering how in the hell these "normal" people can commit such brutal crimes and then think that they are somehow smarter than the police who are inevitably going to come and question every possible thing about them.

I dont think I would call them normal, other than that most crimes are usually resolved in 72 hours, after that the trail gets cold and the officers case files start getting longer, then the DA or Crown wants a high turnover, so stuff gets backburnered till new information comes in. So ultimately its a race.

Originally Posted by Leaffan

I don't watch CSI too often, and I completely realize the absurdness of the program, but it does highlight the many, many techniques that are available to police detectives. By God, these guys can look at finger prints, DNA evidence, fibres, cell phone records, transaction records, bill payments, Internet browsing history, movie rental records, and on and on and on.

For someone like Jon Bonet Ramsay etal, I believe ya the cops will vaccum up every shred of evidence, but thats normally not the case. Real cops are saying that results on televison programs v real life are about ten days difference and of limited utility.

Originally Posted by Leaffan

Anyone who thinks that committing a murder can be covered up by pleading ignorance and washing their hands is a fool. The police are way too sophisticated and it really blows my mind that these sociopaths think they have a leg up.

And they showed it at OJ's trial, the original trial that is

Originally Posted by Leaffan

Does anyone else think about these jerks and what their minds must work like? Maybe it's just me, but the whole plotted murder of a loved one scenario is especially intriguing. How the hell do you expect to get away with it?

Not to condone or promote such activities and everything else is for educational purposes, you want to give the cops and open and shut case that they wont even bother doing more than a cursory check.

SPOILER:

For our hypothetical case , on a weekend night the victim is visibly inebriated in various clubs goes walking home or out for fresh air , and passes out in sub zero weather or falls through thin ice on a lake , depending on where you want to do the dirty deed.

What you desire is that the cops deem it death by misadventure

However most of em , seem like they want to be caught so they can proclaim how smart they were, even if its unvoiced.

[Bacon Salt]

When you engage in deception, you have to constantly remember what information the relevant parties do and don't know. You have to worry about if people are going to be suspicious and go prodding for more information. You have to worry about if something will come to light that will damage your story. All this and the deceit itself cause stress. When you're stressed about something, you're more likely to make mistakes doing it.

[Scissorjack]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

To see whether or not if they think they can get away with it, we would first have to see the success rate of not getting caught. How many cases in a given area are solved vs. those that are not?

And if you're a really smart murderer, no-one knows there even was a case...

[The Second Stone]

A person who is killed is usually killed (I've heard 80 percent) by the husband/boyfriend, or Betty White. It's a lot easier when you already know who did it.

Do not off your SO. Do not hire someone else to do it, and especially, don't let it happen randomly, because the they will wrongfully convict your ass for it and not let you out when some serial killer confesses just before his execution and knows details.

Any home murder scene can probably be made to look like the husband/boyfriend did it. His prints are everywhere (he lives there!), and his blood is on the bathroom sink (from shaving), case closed.

[Sleeps With Butterflies]

In Scott Peterson's case it's simple stupidity. This is a man who told his mistress that he was spending New Year's at the Eiffel Tower with his new friends Francoise and Pasquel. Of course she saw him on the news at a candlelight vigil in Modesto about 10 minutes later

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

In Scott Peterson's case it's simple stupidity. This is a man who told his mistress that he was spending New Year's at the Eiffel Tower with his new friends Francoise and Pasquel. Of course she saw him on the news at a candlelight vigil in Modesto about 10 minutes later

Well, that's basically my point. How in the hell do these people think they can get away with it by simply avoiding the truth. Avoiding the truth like police detectives are idiots. Avoiding the truth like a 6 year old who broke the crystal ornament and decides to deny it from Mommy and Daddy.

Honestly, I think about these things way more than I should, but it really boggles my mind. The police are very, very , very adept and these clowns seem to think they're smarter.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Declan

However most of em , seem like they want to be caught so they can proclaim how smart they were, even if its unvoiced.

Or perhaps not "unvoiced", but subconscious. There's a theory that a great deal of male murderers' behavior is driven by a leftover instinct from the Stone Age to kill rival males and show off how dangerous you are. Supposedly one of the more common ways the cops find murderers is because sooner or later they boast to someone about it, and statistically a man is more likely to commit murder impulsively if witnesses are present than if not.

It's known that people are prone to make errors that favor inclinations and prejudices they have; if there's some leftover instinct that makes a man want to show off how dangerous he is to the "tribe", it'll be pushing him constantly to make errors that favor him getting caught. The fact that getting caught isn't a good idea in a modern society is going to be lost on an instinct.

[Audrey Levins]

This question reminds me of some Alfred Hitchcock movie (sorry can't remember which one) wherein a dinner party discusses how to kill someone and get away with it....

And as I recall, the point was that nobody knows about all the "perfect murders" that have occurred. IOW, if you're smart, nobody knows it was a murder so you're not part of a statistic. You can't be.

Which I found (and still find) quite creepy. Like, if you're some old lady with no obviously valuable assets, and it appears that you died in your sleep, or from a heart attack...from "natural causes...." nobody's going to do an autopsy and nobody's going to care. If money isn't involved, neither is the interest of the proper authorities. Autopsies are only performed AFAIK when there's a question mark as to the obvious cause of death. And/or if there's a reason somebody would want you dead.

I could be totally wrong on that, but the fact remains that there are no statistics on flawless murders. We simply have no idea.

Only the stupid murderers get busted.

[willthekittensurvive?]

Originally Posted by Audrey Levins

This question reminds me of some Alfred Hitchcock movie (sorry can't remember which one) wherein a dinner party discusses how to kill someone and get away with it....
.

wasn’t that they came to the conclusion that the perfect murder would be to bash the victims head in with a lead pipe and put the victims fingerprints on it too make it look a suicide?

[Annie-Xmas]

Everyone who commits a crime starts with the idea "Well, I won't get caught." We all know people who think any explanation, no matter how implausible, will be taken at face value. (I was chipping golf balls at the time my wife was being cut up like a filet). And who think "they deserved it" is as good a defense as any.

[KnitWit]

I had a very uncomfortable "conversation" in a local pub yesterday afternoon about murder. It wasn't so much a conversation as an insane (maybe right so) rant.

I ran into the local to see if my Irish boys were there. They weren't, so I sat down next to two friends and ordered a soda. The man on my other side, turned to me and suddenly and loudly informed me that "the bitch" who was involved in his daughters murder was going to spend at least 3 more years behind bars. Apparently, her parole came up some time recently and was denied.

I didn't know this man and wasn't sure what to say about such a horrible thing. I mean, it's GOOD that parole denied, but I didn't know how to react a stranger discussing his daughter's murder with me. However, my discomfort did not dissuade him. He continued to fill me in on all the details of the murder. Three men and a woman picked his daughter up in an alley and raped and killed her while they were on meth.

What really scared me about this is that the rant disintigrated into his telling me what expense he and his family had gone to in order to catch the killers. The DA hadn't taken an interest. He made it sound like the police and other authorities had zero interest in finding out what had happened to his daughter. He claims that he spent his OWN money to do such things as hiring private investigators, doing research, travelling, in order to track down the killers. His claim is that until he handed it to them on a silver platter, no real investigation was done and it was all due to his OWN legwork and finances that the criminals were brought to justice.

Refrain here: listened to his complete "victim's statement" rant that he gave in court, bragging about how victims had rights in the area all due to his efforts, drooling and crying, etc. I just sat there looking horrified.

Anyway, I wondered how likely it really was that an investigation got left to civilians in this manner and why that might happen. I mostly assumed the story was full of half-truths. But if any of it IS true, killers might have gone free while the DA played golf. And they weren't smart killers at all, according to the story. Just a bunch of hopped up kids. Weird.

[astorian]

I'm not sure how much forethought goes into most killings in the first place.

"Columbo" style murders, in which a guy devises a master plan that he's sure will give him an airtight alibi and confound the police, are extremely rare. Most murders are committed in the heat of the moment, and the killer has a relatively short time in which to cover his tracks and try to come up with a B.S. cover story.

It's not that killers think they're geniuses- they're just improvising, and HOPING they get lucky.

[muldoonthief]

Well, to be "fair" to Scott Peterson, he did put some effort into disposing of the bodies. They didn't arrest him until after they washed ashore a few miles from where he'd been fishing. I'd theorize the DA would have had a much tougher case if the bodies had never turned up.

[astorian]

Also, while the police do have all kinds of impressive tools at their disposal, not all cops are particularly hard-working, diligent or (sad to say) smart.

Some are lazy, some are clock-punchers, some form snap judgements and are too slow to let go of their first impressions even if evidence seems to contradict them. Others can be oblivious to what's right under their noses (like the Milwaukee cops who handed a frightened teenage boy over to Jeffrey Dahmer).

Diligent cops who use all the crime-solving tools at their disposal are formidable, but they're not all diligent and often DON'T use all the tools at their disposal.

[ralph124c]

I agree, most murders are spur of the moment affairs. They are mostly family affairs, and usually, the killer has no plan to dispose of the body.In contrat, a Mafia "hit" is usally professionally carried out, and the body is usally destroyed in a way that laves no evidence. Why is this so hard? The reason: if someone iskilled and a lot of blood is spilled, the blood can be detected years later. The moral: killing is best eft to professionals.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Declan

I dont think I would call them normal, other than that most crimes are usually resolved in 72 hours, after that the trail gets cold and the officers case files start getting longer, then the DA or Crown wants a high turnover, so stuff gets backburnered till new information comes in. So ultimately its a race.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Crown prosecutors in Canada don't have any supervisory role over the police and can't tell them which cases to work on.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

The moral: killing is best eft to professionals.

Oddly enough, I was just recently talking to my dad, a retired police officer with nearly 50 years of LE experience, about getting away with murder. He offered the following:
1. Whatever you do, do it yourself.
2. Don't talk about it to anybody, either before or after the fact.
3. Outdoors is best.
4. He also gave me a method for the quick and untraceable disposal of the body that was_extremely_clever. I won't recount it here because I don't want some criminal scumbag getting useful tips on beating the law from me or dad.

Anyway, the first two points are the most important, according to dad. Most criminals in general get tripped up either by their own mouths or accomplices who rat them out trying to beat legal problems of their own. Or both.

[KnitWit]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

4. He also gave me a method for the quick and untraceable disposal of the body that was_extremely_clever. I won't recount it here because I don't want some criminal scumbag getting useful tips on beating the law from me or dad.

See, I'm not a dangerous person. In fact, I once removed a live rat from my home rather than squish it. No seriously, I did. But now I'm really, really curious.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by KnitWit

See, I'm not a dangerous person. In fact, I once removed a live rat from my home rather than squish it. No seriously, I did. But now I'm really, really curious.

If you're really that curious I can pm you the details.

[KnitWit]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

If you're really that curious I can pm you the details.

I am! But I don't want you to think I'm a sicko.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Oddly enough, I was just recently talking to my dad, a retired police officer with nearly 50 years of LE experience, about getting away with murder. He offered the following:
1. Whatever you do, do it yourself.
2. Don't talk about it to anybody, either before or after the fact.
3. Outdoors is best.
4. He also gave me a method for the quick and untraceable disposal of the body that was_extremely_clever. I won't recount it here because I don't want some criminal scumbag getting useful tips on beating the law from me or dad.

Anyway, the first two points are the most important, according to dad. Most criminals in general get tripped up either by their own mouths or accomplices who rat them out trying to beat legal problems of their own. Or both.

You could also get a dumb jury. That works.

In a very famous trial just wrapping up here, two teenagers stand accused of arranging the murder of a 14-year-old girl. There are over TEN THOUSAND MSN and text messages between them with the current defendant, the girl who demanded the murder take place, openly saying things like "u have 2 kill her tonite" and "i won tfuck you until shes dead" and helping in arranging the hit. Pages and pages and pages and pages of it. Even assuming they're dumb kids, I mean, you've got to be ESPECIALLY dumb to leave a trail of thousands of written admissions of guilt.

And yet the jury's now on its third day of deliberations. The defense called no witnesses and had no evidence; their entire rebuttal amounted to "Well, yes, she said hundreds and hundreds of times she wanted the girl murdered and participated in planning her murder, and it's all documented going on for months, but she didn't mean it. Yeah, that's it."

And still the jury weighs the evidence. So maybe one dumbass on a jury's all you need.

[TruCelt]

Originally Posted by KnitWit

See, I'm not a dangerous person. In fact, I once removed a live rat from my home rather than squish it. No seriously, I did. But now I'm really, really curious.

I'm glad you said it first, LOL!

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Declan

I dont think I would call them normal, other than that most crimes are usually resolved in 72 hours,

One of my brothers, a LEO who used to work on serious crimes, told me once that most criminals are complete idiots, and most cases solved in a couple days. The example he gave at the time was a murderer who had forgotten a ticket with his name and address on the crime scene, let them in when they knocked at his door, and had drenched with blood clothes piled up in the room.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

If you're really that curious I can pm you the details.

You should know that the board is chock full of curious people. Everybody is going to want to know the "extremely clever body disposal method".

I'm going to mention that I throw insects out of the house rather than squashing them. My very rich aunt Margie, whose only heir is me and who is in an abnormally good health even when she accidentally ingest toxic substances, always commend me on that.

[Shamozzle]

I've always thought that if I (hypothetically) was going to commit premeditated murder, that I better have one hell of a plan seeing that I would be pitting my wits against seasoned homicide detectives who have spent the last 20 years honing their skills.

The murderers we see having been caught for not taking such factors into proper account always make me laugh. I wonder if they think they can grab a set of golf clubs for the first time and give PGA members a run for their money.

[Damfino]

Originally Posted by Audrey Levins

This question reminds me of some Alfred Hitchcock movie (sorry can't remember which one) wherein a dinner party discusses how to kill someone and get away with it....

And as I recall, the point was that nobody knows about all the "perfect murders" that have occurred. IOW, if you're smart, nobody knows it was a murder so you're not part of a statistic. You can't be.
<snip>
.

A similar scene takes place in the Agatha Christie novel Cards on the Table.

[Moirai]

Hubby used to be a DA, and he used to thank whatever gods there were that most criminals are REALLY stupid. That helps a lot, because the cops generally catch the slow and the stupid.

Also, I imagine that most people who kill another person (outside of armed conflict or organized criminal activity) probably only have one murder in them- for example, it's a passion killing or an accident. They aren't serial killers or dangerous psychos, and they probably won't ever kill anybody again. So if they aren't caught, it isn't necessarily that we have a dangerous, hardened criminal on the loose.

But yeah, there are simply too many variable for the average murderer to think of and plan for, and most people either can't do it alone or can't shut the fuck up (guilt or bragging).

I heard not long ago (maybe on this very board) that a university had done some experiments with OxyClean and determined that, unlike bleach, it would eradicate blood stains, to the point that Luminol or similar chemicals couldn't find traces of it. Damn, Billy Mays was right- that shit will clean ANYTHING!

[Mojo Pin]

This movie was a huge hit here in Korea (I heard leo Di is looking to hollywoodize it). What I took away from that movie was that korean cops are blundering idiots, except for the occasional hero. It's an amazing movie btw, and although the violence is much less explicit than torture porn, it's much more affecting and truly shocking. At the end of the movie I was physically spent and the catharsis was almost euphoric. At the bottom of the page it also links to Memories of Murder, another Korean crime movie, this time featuring the serial killer who got away. Both these are based on a true story and one killer still hasn't been caught yet. The statute of limitations for murder in Korea is ridiculously low, like 25 years, so it's not impossible for some to get away.
Come to think of it, there are a ton of Korean movies with insane crimes of violence in which the police are pathetic and play little to no part. OldBoy, Lady Vengeance, Mr. Vengeance...

Ok I'm getting a little carried away, I want to add to Scumpup, I'm also really curious what the secret body disposal method is...for strictly academic reasons of course. If you're not willing to say it outright, can you just answer yes/no if any movies you've seen have actually gotten the secret right? And which decade the movie was released in? or pm me

[Telcontar]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

The clearance rate for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was 61.2% as of 2007. That number is not further broken down, though; you've got to figure it's going to be harder to get away with it if you off your own spouse, collect on the insurance money, and then marry your secretary or the pool boy three weeks later; as opposed to rival gang members killing each other in drive-by shootings; or a serial killer who murders victims who had no prior connection to him at all.

I think this is the understated answer. Say Joe Blow lives alone. I watch Joe's house one evening and am sure joe is the only one there. I know on Joe's door, Joe opens it, i shoot Joe with a gun and a homemade silencer (non ideal, but probably good enough). I close the door and leave.

How do the police catch me? well, if they're really lucky, someone saw me or my car and, this is key REMEMBERS well enough to actually nab me (as opposed to every other face and car we see every day). I think the better answer is they don't catch me, especially if i take a few precautions and am not horribly unlucky.

The important thing to realize is that I have absolutely no reason to kill Joe Blow, and that's why this works; I can only be caught in the act by happenstance. Do the same thing to my worse enemy and the police will come by, ask me a few questions, check to see if i have a gun registered, maybe get a warrant to search my basement and turn up silencer supplies....the list goes on.

[even sven]

I read a pretty detailed book (A Deadly Game) about the Scott Peterson case.

It's basic premise was the Scott is a narcissistic sociopath. He simply has no empathy for other people, and only see them as a means to an end. Thus, he has an inflated view of his own power, since in his mind it's almost as if he is the only "real" person.

[PeskiPiksi]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

In Scott Peterson's case it's simple stupidity. This is a man who told his mistress that he was spending New Year's at the Eiffel Tower with his new friends Francoise and Pasquel. Of course she saw him on the news at a candlelight vigil in Modesto about 10 minutes later

Casey Anthony exhibits this kind of behavior, too, only worse. She just lies and lies, even when she knows everyone knows she lying. Example: at some point, she had told police she worked at Universal (or maybe Epcot? One of the big theme parks in Orlando, anyway...) and had an office and a cell phone and everything. To the point where she went with the police to where her office supposedly was, lying all the way, and only admitted the truth when they got there and lo and behold, she didn't work there after all!

I mean, what did she think was going to happen? They were going to get there and suddenly, somehow magically, it was going to work out they hey! she does have a job here, oh, and here's my office...

To me, that seems like something more than stupidity. It's some kind of mental defect...compulsive lying, maybe?

[gwendee]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Do not off your SO. Do not hire someone else to do it, and especially, don't let it happen randomly, because the they will wrongfully convict your ass for it and not let you out when some serial killer confesses just before his execution and knows details.

(bolding mine)

And if you do decide to hire someone to do it and he calls and says he wants another meeting to go over the details...dont' get in his pickup truck. This scenario seems common in the "Musrder for hire" cases. The scorned person contacts someone they think might be dangerous, but he's never dangerous enough and he goes to the cops, who wire his truck for sound.

Oh, and don't forge your SO's signature on a life insurance policy 2 weeks before you do the deed. How badly do you have to have messed up to think profitting from murder would be a good alternative?

For a long time the only TV my SO and I watched together was true crime shows. Luminol and gas chromatic mass spectrometers make me all tingly. I would ask him the exact question posed in the thread title. His response was always that we only know the stories of the people who got caught. He's convinced that people are getting away with murder a lot more than we imagine.

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by PeskiPiksi

Casey Anthony exhibits this kind of behavior, too, only worse. She just lies and lies, even when she knows everyone knows she lying. Example: at some point, she had told police she worked at Universal (or maybe Epcot? One of the big theme parks in Orlando, anyway...) and had an office and a cell phone and everything. To the point where she went with the police to where her office supposedly was, lying all the way, and only admitted the truth when they got there and lo and behold, she didn't work there after all!

I mean, what did she think was going to happen? They were going to get there and suddenly, somehow magically, it was going to work out they hey! she does have a job here, oh, and here's my office...

To me, that seems like something more than stupidity. It's some kind of mental defect...compulsive lying, maybe?

Well, and Mark Hacking too, who told his wife and entire family that he'd been accepted into Medical School and went along with it right up to the point where they were packing up their apartment to move! She called the school to find out where, on residence, they would be staying, and that's when the house of cards started to tumble. He even perpetuated it by telling her that he'd called the school and it was all a computer error and that things were back on track. Realizing he had no other options, he of course had to kill her.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Oddly enough, I was just recently talking to my dad, a retired police officer with nearly 50 years of LE experience, about getting away with murder. He offered the following:
1. Whatever you do, do it yourself.
2. Don't talk about it to anybody, either before or after the fact.
3. Outdoors is best.
4. He also gave me a method for the quick and untraceable disposal of the body that was_extremely_clever. I won't recount it here because I don't want some criminal scumbag getting useful tips on beating the law from me or dad.

#4 contradicts #1-3, don't ya think?

[Rigamarole]

As MEBuckner points out with his cite, many murders do in fact go unsolved. And extensive investigations require a lot of money and resources. If you think the police put the same kind of effort behind an investigation into the murder of a 20 year-old African-American male in Compton as they do for a white girl from the suburbs, you're fooling yourself.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The Crown prosecutors in Canada don't have any supervisory role over the police and can't tell them which cases to work on.

Im not sure how it works in Canada then , or specifically Ontario if there no set way of doing this across the country.

Hypothetically some crime is committed and the cops are called or respond. They take a look at the scene and record evidence. Hopefully they have deduced persons of interest and after further investigation, they are charged and brought before the court to plead.

At that point the crown has to have enough to actually commit to a trial , otherwise whats the point.

Either ministry of justice issues guidlines to the cops , or the cops are very much aware of when a particular case hits the bingo mark. Anything below the bingo mark would go cold case till further evidence appears.

Or am I missing something

Declan

[Northern Piper]

Now I understand. I think I misunderstood your original comment - sorry. I thought you were saying that the Crown wants to get a high rate of cases cleared through the courts, so tells the police not to work on weak or difficult cases. That doesn't happen - it's up to the police to decide how to allocate their resources, particularly on difficult cases.

I now understand that you were saying that the Crown gets involved in approving charges, to ensure there's enough evidence to warrant going to court - is that right? The answer to that is both yes and no.

The elements of each offence are set out in the Criminal Code. Police officers are trained in the requirements of the offences, and are expected to know what kind of evidence they need in order to warrant laying an information against a person. It's the officer's decision whether to lay a charge, not the Crown. In most cases, the police would not consult the Crown in advance to determine if there's enough evidence to support a charge. Officers should be able to make that decision on their own, based on their own professional training in the law. I would estimate that in the great majority of cases, the first time a Crown is involved is when the information and the police court brief arrive at the Crown's office.

However, in complex cases, such as murder or commercial crime, the police may approach the Crown's office during the investigation, for an assessment of the evidence they've got. That's not asking the Crown to decide if charges should be laid, but if there is enough to warrant a charge. I admit that may seem a fine distinction, but it's a real one - ultimately, it's the officer who decides whether to lay the information, not the Crown.

Some regions have been experimenting with pre-charge reviews, where the Crown reviews all potential cases before the information is sworn. There are strengths and weaknesses to this approach. On the one hand, if it prevents charges from being laid that won't stand up in court, that saves everyone's time and protects the person who might otherwise have been charged. On the other hand, some argue it blurs the important functional difference between the Crown and the police - it's not the Crown's job to decide if charges should be laid. The Crown is the next step in the process, and is to be independent of the police, so some argue that it is better for the Crown to approach a charge with a fresh set of eyes, not having been involved in the charging decision. One of the duties of the Crown is to stay charges in court if the Crown concludes the evidence will not support the charge, even if the police want the charge to proceed. That decision is easier if the Crown has no personal investment in the charges.

[Kalhoun]

Originally Posted by Sleeps With Butterflies

In Scott Peterson's case it's simple stupidity. This is a man who told his mistress that he was spending New Year's at the Eiffel Tower with his new friends Francoise and Pasquel. Of course she saw him on the news at a candlelight vigil in Modesto about 10 minutes later

On the other hand, where do the cops get off using his wife's hair in the boat as proof that he killed her?

Lots of murderers get away with it. Cops are often stupid, often don't want to ask for help when they obviously need it (Brown's Chicken murders), and some criminals are smart and know how to work the system.

[Wendell Wagner]

A quotation from the movie Body Heat:

> Any time you try a decent crime, you got fifty ways you're gonna fuck up. If you
> think of twenty-five of them, then you're a genius... and you ain't no genius.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Kalhoun

On the other hand, where do the cops get off using his wife's hair in the boat as proof that he killed her?

A police case is built, brick by brick. The fact of her hair in the boat is not conclusive proof that he killed her. However, it is a point which supported the police theory that he disposed of her body from the boat.

To look at it from a different perspective, if the police had no evidence that she had been in the boat, the defence would have used that to argue that the police case was mere speculation. The finding of her hair did not likely decide the case, but it was another brick in the wall.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by RickJay

You could also get a dumb jury. That works.

In a very famous trial just wrapping up here, two teenagers stand accused of arranging the murder of a 14-year-old girl. There are over TEN THOUSAND MSN and text messages between them with the current defendant, the girl who demanded the murder take place, openly saying things like "u have 2 kill her tonite" and "i won tfuck you until shes dead" and helping in arranging the hit. Pages and pages and pages and pages of it. Even assuming they're dumb kids, I mean, you've got to be ESPECIALLY dumb to leave a trail of thousands of written admissions of guilt.

And yet the jury's now on its third day of deliberations. The defense called no witnesses and had no evidence; their entire rebuttal amounted to "Well, yes, she said hundreds and hundreds of times she wanted the girl murdered and participated in planning her murder, and it's all documented going on for months, but she didn't mean it. Yeah, that's it."

And still the jury weighs the evidence. So maybe one dumbass on a jury's all you need.

I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment. To my mind, this is a very careful jury that takes its responsibilities seriously.

Yes, there are a lot of e-mails and messages in support of the Crown's case. But a jury is not just to take the Crown's word for the meaning of those documents. Its job is to make its own independent assessment of the evidence. The sheer volume of materials means that it will take time for them to reach a unanimous verdict, one way or another. It's a lengthy process - intentionally so, since their conclusion may mean that a person is found guilty of first degree murder, the most serious offence on the books.

As well, I have to say that this case strikes me as a hard one for the Crown. As I understand it from the media reports, the Crown is not alleging that she had any personal involvement in the murder, so there is no forensic evidence that the Crown or the jury can rely upon. The allegation is that she planned the murder and incited her boyfriend to commit it, making her a party to a first degree murder. That case depends entirely on her state of mind, her communications to the boyfriend, and the effect on the boyfriend. That's a hard case to make.

Also, there's the accused's age and motive. Normally when there's an allegation of a "hit", it's a Godfather type scenario, related to some sort of criminal activity, like drug trafficking. That's not the case here - it's a 17 year old teenage girl, alleged to have planned a murder for the type of teenage jealousy that normally triggers graffitti and cliques in high school - not a murder. It's entirely understandable that the jury will take its job seriously, to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of her guilt.

And, the jury did in the end convict: Crown seeks adult term for Stefanie's teen killer. It took them 20 hours over three days. That doesn't seem an unreasonable time to determine if a person is guilty of murder.

[palindromemordnilap]

To recap answers to the OP:

1) Only about 60% of known murders are solved
2) That statistic includes non-premeditated murders such as crimes of passion and manslaughter which probably represent most murders.
3) We don't know how many murders are successfully disguised as accidents or suicide.
4) At least some cases of alleged premeditated murder that go to trial end up in acquittal or hung juries.

We also know that some convicted murders are later found to have been innocent, which often means someone else probably got away with it. (It's really hard to convict anyone when another person has already been found guilty.) It stands to reason that if some people found guilty are later proven to be innocent, that there are surely other falsely convicted people serving time who lack the resources and/or the evidence to prove their innocence.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by gwendee

Oh, and don't forge your SO's signature on a life insurance policy 2 weeks before you do the deed. How badly do you have to have messed up to think profitting from murder would be a good alternative?

Clearly, the problem here is that too few murderers are familiar with the works of James M. Cain and Raymond Chandler.

As already stated upthread, most murders are committed by people who are either acting in passion (whether spontaneous or 'planned'), or by people like Scott Peterson who have an inflated opinion of their own invulnerability despite rampant stupidity in action.

From Layer Cake:

It is only very very stupid people who think the law is stupid. And avoid like the plague, loud attention seeking wannabe gangsters who are in it for the glory, to be a face, to be a name. They don't mean to fuck up. They just do.

and

Look, I know it's not your thing, but if you ever have to kill somebody, never tell a living soul.

Stranger

[Moirai]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Now I understand. I think I misunderstood your original comment - sorry. I thought you were saying that the Crown wants to get a high rate of cases cleared through the courts, so tells the police not to work on weak or difficult cases. That doesn't happen - it's up to the police to decide how to allocate their resources, particularly on difficult cases.

I now understand that you were saying that the Crown gets involved in approving charges, to ensure there's enough evidence to warrant going to court - is that right? The answer to that is both yes and no.

The elements of each offence are set out in the Criminal Code. Police officers are trained in the requirements of the offences, and are expected to know what kind of evidence they need in order to warrant laying an information against a person. It's the officer's decision whether to lay a charge, not the Crown. In most cases, the police would not consult the Crown in advance to determine if there's enough evidence to support a charge. Officers should be able to make that decision on their own, based on their own professional training in the law. I would estimate that in the great majority of cases, the first time a Crown is involved is when the information and the police court brief arrive at the Crown's office.

However, in complex cases, such as murder or commercial crime, the police may approach the Crown's office during the investigation, for an assessment of the evidence they've got. That's not asking the Crown to decide if charges should be laid, but if there is enough to warrant a charge. I admit that may seem a fine distinction, but it's a real one - ultimately, it's the officer who decides whether to lay the information, not the Crown.

Some regions have been experimenting with pre-charge reviews, where the Crown reviews all potential cases before the information is sworn. There are strengths and weaknesses to this approach. On the one hand, if it prevents charges from being laid that won't stand up in court, that saves everyone's time and protects the person who might otherwise have been charged. On the other hand, some argue it blurs the important functional difference between the Crown and the police - it's not the Crown's job to decide if charges should be laid. The Crown is the next step in the process, and is to be independent of the police, so some argue that it is better for the Crown to approach a charge with a fresh set of eyes, not having been involved in the charging decision. One of the duties of the Crown is to stay charges in court if the Crown concludes the evidence will not support the charge, even if the police want the charge to proceed. That decision is easier if the Crown has no personal investment in the charges.

That is very interesting, thank you for posting it. Here in the US, it is quite different. Here, the police investigate and then the District Attorney's office decided whether to file charges. They often don't, if they feel that the evidence isn't good enough to secure a conviction. It's not necessarily a dig at the cops' competence (although sometimes it is), but let's face it- the DA is elected, and the conviction rate of the deputies beneath him/her matters.

[Northern Piper]

That's a big difference between the two systems - the Crowns in Canada are all professional civil servants, not elected officials. The Regional Crown Prosecutor who heads up each office and directs the other Crowns is not elected and doesn't face that kind of pressure.

[Moirai]

But what about political pressure from the other side? Are they appointed? Do they serve "at the pleasure of the current government?" Or is it strictly a "time in grade" thing- start out as an attorney, put in your years with good performance reviews, eventually become a prosecutor?

[chowder]

Originally Posted by willthekittensurvive?

wasn’t that they came to the conclusion that the perfect murder would be to bash the victims head in with a lead pipe and put the victims fingerprints on it too make it look a suicide?

And then get Prof. Plum to drag the body into the dining room ?