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.
I am! But I don’t want you to think I’m a sicko.
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 glad you said it first, LOL!
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.
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.
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.
A similar scene takes place in the Agatha Christie novel Cards on the Table.
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! 
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
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.
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.
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?
(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.
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. :smack:
#4 contradicts #1-3, don’t ya think?
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.
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
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.