An Oklahoma man killed his wife, and then himself, about 2 weeks after she made a TikTok video accusing him of child molestation. I am not victim blaming by any stretch of the imagination, but we have a legal system for many reasons, and these are some of them. Oh, I’m sure it’s REEEEEEALLY tempting to do something like this, but what if he didn’t do it? Yeah, I too believed in the “guilty until proven innocent” thing WRT sex crimes, until someone pointed out, “What if it happens to your son, your brother, your husband, your father, or you for that matter?”
In short, just everything about this is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Another source said that she’d filed a restraining order before making this video, and enforcing it was complicated because he was a registered Native American tribal member.
Are you seriously suggesting you think allegations of sex crimes should be “Jail or shoot the accused first then consider a trial to be moot?” Because that’s about the only way I can interpret your words.
At one time, basically, yes, I did. Lots of women actually do, and quite a few men as well.
I definitely don’t feel that way now. I do understand that the conviction rate is so low in large part because the victims do not want to keep reliving it.
The prosecutor in his trial, Ahmed Hossain KC, put it to Desborough that he might have killed them because he considered them worthless, deserving to die because of their troubled lifestyle and because they were “dinlos” – a local slang term for fools. Had he simply got annoyed with them and snapped? “I thought they were OK,” he replied in court. “They were good friends.”
“Our rivers and lakes should be places where families can safely enjoy time together, without worrying about getting decapitated by a drunk boater.” - or words to that effect.
One could certainly have a closing rate of 80mph between two very fast boats. but the article also says the pontoon ran up the stern of the victims’ boat. Suggesting the closing rate was closer to the difference between their speeds, not the sum.
I doubt some drunken yayhoo can afford a pontoon boat that goes 80 mph. I mean, he still killed someone, but I’d bet it was more like 30. Who writes this crap.
STEVENS POINT, Wis. (WSAW) - A Portage County woman accused of repeatedly poisoning her ex-husband by putting eye drops into his drinks is now scheduled to be formally charged in August.
The complaint alleges Meis caused her ex-husband to suffer serious health problems beginning in 2025, including extreme fatigue, dizziness, headaches, and repeated episodes of dangerously low blood pressure and a slow heart rate that led to multiple hospital visits.
The victim … said a cardiologist recently told him his symptoms “did not make any sense,” and that the doctor dismissed his concerns when he suggested he may have been poisoned.
Investigators say the victim installed a camera in his kitchen in mid-July after suspecting he was being poisoned.
The complaint describes one incident involving a Propel water bottle and another involving a metal water bottle, and notes investigators’ concern that children or others could have consumed the drinks.
Meis initially told investigators she added salt or saline to help the victim, but later admitted she put eye drops into multiple drinks to make him sick so he would need her, the complaint says.
That could certainly be relevant in the actual trial, but is it relevant for the grand jury hearing? As I understand it, the only question before a grand jury is, if the facts are all as the prosecution claims, does that constitute a crime. If the prosecution claims that she put the drano in the lemonade, and further claims that she did so with the intent that someone would drink it, that would indeed constitute a crime, so an indictment is correct.
Now, the claim that that was her intent might or might not be true. That’s for the trial jury to determine, and her claim that her intent was to kill ants is a possible rebuttal to that claim. But that’s for the trial jury, not the grand jury.
