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.
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.
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.
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.
To recap answers to the OP:
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
And then get Prof. Plum to drag the body into the dining room ?
Remember, if you’re going to fake a suicide by gun, the second bullet through the head is going to be a tough sell.
My point is that it shouldn’t have been a brick in the wall. A hair could have been transferred via his clothing, via an item he transported to the boat from his home, or even via a visit to the boat herself. It shouldn’t have been mentioned at all. They were married to each other. It would have been odd if her hair hadn’t been found on the boat!
There has been some cases where it has been deemed as suicide despite the presence of a second bullet in the head, so it apparently isn’t as obvious as it seems (I’ve an example in mind, but it wouldn’t ring any bell for someone who isn’t French, so…)
“I am making out the report now. We haven’t quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape.” – Capt. Renault, Casablanca
Stranger
There’s always the exception. It’s a tough sell, but maybe not an impossible one.
Appointed, but as career civil servants. You can start out as a junior Crown right after articles and work your way up to regional or head office positions, much like any other civil service position.
If there is a case with heavy political implications, such as an allegation of criminal misconduct by a current politician or high-level political staffer, it’s often farmed out. Sometimes the file goes to the office of the Attorney General in another province for any legal opinions related to the charge. Often if charges are laid, either a Crown from another province, or a senior private lawyer, is given the retainer to prosecute the case. Not always, however - sometimes it’s just handled routinely within the local office.
If memory serves me correctly, there’s a case of that nature going on in British Columbia right now, being handled by a special prosecutor from the private bar.
Questions like that go to the weight to be assigned to the evidence, not to the admissibility. If the prosecution had not been allowed to enter that evidence, it might have left the jury with the incorrect impression that there was no evidence that she (or her body) had been in the boat. Better to let as much evidence in as possible, and let the jury decide how much weight to give to it in the overall picture.
Killing a spouse seems like it would be tough since suspicion would tend to fall on you. You could probably get away with it, but you would need something incredibly elaborate and planned out.
A good exercise would be to take a 150 lb bag of wet meat and then see if you can hide it somewhere where it wont be found and so no one sees you.
That would be easy, since nobody would notice it missing.
The truth is that there’s no way to commit a murder and be SURE you’ll get away with it. Murders people do get away with are usually because
In Pakistan there was a murder of a girl a few years ago. Well she just dissappeared one day. Case unsolved for four years (and it being hard for the police to argue that there was a murder in any case, there was no body).
One fine day during the renovations in a private house, they found the skeletal remains of a young girl, DNA confirmed that it was her. Turned out the house had been used as a private tution center, and she attended/ She had been murdered by one of the staff and buried there. No one had made the connection because she had been last heard from in a mob call from a mall, about 3 miles away. She had gone back there to collect something without telling anyone.
So point is, if the dots are not connected.