Back then, who would believe a story like that? And if a child WAS believed, they would probably have been blamed for it on some level.
One case that has always fascinated me is the murder of Ken McElroy in Skidmore Missouri in 1981. McElroy was a career criminal and town bully who was shot to death in his pickup truck on the main street. There over 45 witnesses to the killing, but no one has ever been charged with crime.
There was a 1991 TV film called In Broad Daylight about it (based on the 1988 book of the same name by Harry MacLean.
It’s a wonder none of the townspeople didn’t burn down his house when he was away. That guy was bad news.
Yeah, and then get shot themselves, and maybe they thought (possibly correctly) that the property may have been booby-trapped?
For the record, I do believe he is guilty, I just think there’s more to it. Regardless, imho, the means never justify the end. Most all cops and prosecutors think they can trust their gut. They couldn’t have been certain enough to load the case.
New topic, has anyone seen This Is The Zodiac Speaking?
It makes a hell of a case against Arthur Allen. Very compelling.
I believe that Allen probably did some of them, but not all of them.
Some people also believe that Ted Kaczynski is the Zodiac, on one level or another. I don’t agree; he lived in the region at that time but I think that’s where it ends.
Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express similarly is based on the Lindbergh murder.
Allen does seem to be the best fitting suspect, as there’s a ton of circumstantial evidence leading to him. DNA tests were inconclusive though. But they were apparently run in 2002 – I’ve always thought those tests were skewed – not intentionally, like a conspiracy, but there can be problems with it: is there enough material to test and compare to a known sample (in this case from a fingerprint) (source: “Arthur Leigh Allen does not match the partial DNA fingerprint developed from bona fide Zodiac letters,” inspector Kelly Carroll told the San Francisco Chronicle. ) Was the test conducted properly (again, not a conspiracy thought, just that people can make mistakes)? Could the chain of custody have contaminated the sample?
Richard Gaikowski is another suspect high on the list (mostly Tom Voight’s, it seems), but I’ve always preferred Allen.
I was trying to figure out what connection there could be but then remembered the motive in the Agatha Christie novel, which I won’t spoil here.
“Inspired by” is a better phrase here than “based on.”
Those Munchchausen Syndrome people kind of fascinate me. The case of Lacey Spears is one I just learned about.
She was giving her toddler son salt through a feeding tube. I can’t imagine the pain that poor little guy went through. She was caught on camera in the hospital giving him the fatal dose.
This is one of those exceedingly rare instances where I think the extra-judicial solution was warranted. To paraphrase: The rule of law is not a suicide pact.
The townspeople were completely justified in my view. That was the closest they’d come to justice. I strongly suspect if I were one of them I’d have seen nothing as well, and not have lost a second of sleep over it.
The “D. B. Cooper” hijacking. The fact that someone in the modern era, could take over a Boeing 727 and demand ransom money, parachute out of the aircraft with the money, and now, over 50 years later, the culprit has never been identified, and we don’t know if he’s alive or dead, though some of the money was found at a distance from the jump site, is difficult to fathom.
“He needed killing” used to be a valid defense in several states.
And he gave his name as “Dan Copper”, not DB, that was an error by a reporter.
I haven’t looked it up to verify it, but the show claimed the killings stopped the 4 years he was locked away. If true. That’s a heck of a coincidence.
As far as the DNA, are they sure had his correct DNA from early on?
I used to date Arthur Allen’s cousin. I’m not sure how well she knew him, but she felt pretty sure he was guilty.
Except there is means of escape. They were both grown men with money and cars. All they had to do was drive away. This excuse that they were ‘trapped’ or ‘powerless to escape’ is nonsense.
You could be right - I am not trying to defend the Menendez brothers specifically; as I said, I know little about the case or the facts brought out at trial. However, I think it is entirely possible that a childhood distorted by severe abuse could result in “adults” of 18 and 21 who had far less maturity than we would expect at that age (which is still pretty young - an 18 year old is technically an adult but with zero experience at being one).
Again, not saying that’s what I believe was true with the Menendez boys. Just that I can easily imagine a situation where it was true.
You have obviously never known anyone who grew up in an abusive environment.
I’m not going to go tit-for-tat on this. I’ll end with this: I refuse to subscribe to the assertion that the only option for two grown men with means was to either stay and be further abused (if they were indeed abouse int he first place) or kill their parents.