posted
I'll give the nurse an A for originality, but if you want to get rid of a person, isn't there an easier way? He could have politely asked her to vacate the house.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I really don't think there's enough wattage going through a generic radio to kill someone. Especially since electricity tends to take the easiest path. Some of the current would've gone through the woman, but only enough for it to be very uncomfortable, I would imagine. And unless current crosses your heart, electric shock is unlikely to kill.
I once took one of those one-time-use cameras apart, the ones with the flash. I shocked myself pretty badly on that. I found out later that if my palms had been wet or sweaty (I have unusually dry palms) I might've died. Wierd how things work out like that. Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, considering the two likliest scenarios are he tried to kill her or she tried to frame him for murder, I'm thinking he oughta spring for the Motel 6.
posted
I am with dagonee. It seems pretty stupid to try and electrocute your spouse. Is someone really so dumb as to:
not clear the history
not be able to get the radio into the bathtub
take the chance that if the radio does make it into the water it will cause death
and then buy life insurance? And what does
quote: She told police that her husband's reaction was "not normal" and she became suspicious.
mean? How did she react? How did her husband react? What is considered "not normal"?
It bothers me when news stories presume guilt. We gave limited information of the events and we already assume he is guilty.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, never bet on a suspect's innocence because "no one would be that stupid." People frequently are that stupid. The prisons are full of them.
Friend who's a probabtion officer saw one of his clients standing on the side of a road where hookers frequently solicit. As he approached, she spit something out of her mouth. They put her in the car and he watched her while his partner searched the area. When the partner came back and said, "Look what I found," she blurted out "That's not my crack" before she could see what was in his hand.
quote:Well, never bet on a suspect's innocence because "no one would be that stupid."
I wasn't betting on the suspect's innocence, I was just presuming innocense --especially since we don't have all the facts. I was just pointing out what would have been stupid if he was guilty to show there is room to suspect we are not getting all of the info.
[Edit] I never said, "no one would be that stupid." The quotes make it sound like you are quoting me. I did say, "is someone really so dumb as to......"
posted
Even in that situation, Dagonee, the evidence is still not good enough to convict. There can't be a shadow of a doubt. Maybe she just knew there was crack on the ground?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would you try to kill someone that way? Aren't there a million other ways to do it that are more likely to leave you with a dead body than a stool pigeon?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, Alexa, I'm sorry it seemed like I was quoting you - it was merely meant to make a general statement about the stupidity of criminals and as a rhetorical device to introduce what I thought was a funny story. Sorry.
Second, Phanto, I said from the beginning the case sounded weak (Alexa was actually agreeing with me). And the standard is not "shadow of a doubt," it's reasonable doubt. Very different things.
The problem with trying to use the idiocy of the attempt to judge guilt or innocence is that it can always be spun both ways. The improbability of a method, especially one meant to look like an accident, can always be written off as the suspect trying to be sneaky.
posted
I think a hair dryer is much more likely to cause a problem. But I think there is an urban legend about a babysitter who knocked a radio into a tub, killing the kids. Though I would never have a babysitter bathe my kids for the simple reason that drowning is far more likely.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it was "stupid" of the guy to knock the radio in in the hopes that it would kill her...if it didn't, what more innocent way to attempt it? "Oh, god, honey, are you all right? I'm so sorry! I accidentally knocked it in!"
much better than trying to explain the gun hidden behind your back, or the pouch of arsenic in your pocket Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Developing my idea (my husband hates baths, so this is purely academic) would be to drop some cherished object into the bath, then apologizing profusely try to dry it off with the hair dryer. Then drop in the hair dryer.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Developing my idea (my husband hates baths, so this is purely academic) would be to drop some cherished object into the bath, then apologizing profusely try to dry it off with the hair dryer. Then drop in the hair dryer.
So what makes your statement "purely academic" isn't that you would never attempt to kill your husband, but RATHER because he does not like baths? I find that a little humorous.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
