- 14 Jun 2022 00:46
#15233330
Some of you are naive enough to think that no one is found guilty of crimes unless we are certain that they committed the crime. Well, that is obviously untrue. The below two stories demonstrate that. Both the stories are about women who were convicted of murdering their husbands.
In the first story, the wife's husband had died from being poisoned with automotive anti-freeze.
The only evidence:
They found an opened container of the poisonous anti-freeze in the man's garage, but no fingerprints were found on it. If the man had recently poured it, they assumed his fingerprints would probably be on it.
The couple had recently separated, and the woman may have wanted the man's house and money and to avoid an expensive divorce. She would later get $200,000 and the house after he had died.
The woman claimed the man had called her brother and said that he had no reason to live without his wife. The man's relatives did not believe he could have been suicidal.
The woman claimed the man had alcohol problems, but no alcohol was found in his body.
(If he was indeed an alcoholic and was about to commit suicide, it is probably he would have been drinking alcohol before, so this reduces the likelihood that it could have been a suicide)
Doctors had told the woman that she had the option to take her husband off of life support and that it appeared he was already brain dead. The man's relatives said they were adamant about not taking the man off life support, but said that while they briefly left his bedside at the hospital, the woman made the decision for the doctors to pull the plug and take him off life support.
She also wanted to have his body cremated right away and did not want to hold a funeral. (Might she have been trying to hide evidence of some other drug in the man's system? Doctors did already know that the man had been poisoned with anti-freeze. This also may have suggested she did not care about him much and was anxious to get rid of him)
Teresa Kotomski Says She's Innocent Of Murder, Blames Diabetes | Crime News (oxygen.com)
https://www.oxygen.com/snapped-behind-b ... s-diabetes
The second story involves a man who was shot dead while at work.
The only evidence:
The woman was seen on surveillance camera footage driving to and from the place where her husband worked, at the time he was killed.
The woman owned a gun that was consistent with the type of gun that could have fired the bullet. The woman was a murder mystery book writer, and one of the plots in her writing involved someone swapping out the barrel of the gun so the bullet could not be traced to the gun.
Prosectors suggested the woman may have been motivated by money problems and a life insurance policy on her husband.
One of the woman's books she had written was titled "How to Murder Your Husband".
'How to Murder Your Husband' writer Nancy Crampton Brophy found guilty of murder : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/11014334 ... ist-brophy
In both stories, the evidence was entirely circumstantial. We don't know with complete certainty that either of these women killed their husbands. Yet, both women were charged and convicted of murder.
Want to know what my opinion is? Both women should be punished for murder, but the amount of the punishment should be substantially less because enough uncertainty exists that they might not be guilty. They should also not be able to benefit in any way from their husband's death. They should only get what they would have gotten in a divorce.
In the first story, the wife's husband had died from being poisoned with automotive anti-freeze.
The only evidence:
They found an opened container of the poisonous anti-freeze in the man's garage, but no fingerprints were found on it. If the man had recently poured it, they assumed his fingerprints would probably be on it.
The couple had recently separated, and the woman may have wanted the man's house and money and to avoid an expensive divorce. She would later get $200,000 and the house after he had died.
The woman claimed the man had called her brother and said that he had no reason to live without his wife. The man's relatives did not believe he could have been suicidal.
The woman claimed the man had alcohol problems, but no alcohol was found in his body.
(If he was indeed an alcoholic and was about to commit suicide, it is probably he would have been drinking alcohol before, so this reduces the likelihood that it could have been a suicide)
Doctors had told the woman that she had the option to take her husband off of life support and that it appeared he was already brain dead. The man's relatives said they were adamant about not taking the man off life support, but said that while they briefly left his bedside at the hospital, the woman made the decision for the doctors to pull the plug and take him off life support.
She also wanted to have his body cremated right away and did not want to hold a funeral. (Might she have been trying to hide evidence of some other drug in the man's system? Doctors did already know that the man had been poisoned with anti-freeze. This also may have suggested she did not care about him much and was anxious to get rid of him)
Teresa Kotomski Says She's Innocent Of Murder, Blames Diabetes | Crime News (oxygen.com)
https://www.oxygen.com/snapped-behind-b ... s-diabetes
The second story involves a man who was shot dead while at work.
The only evidence:
The woman was seen on surveillance camera footage driving to and from the place where her husband worked, at the time he was killed.
The woman owned a gun that was consistent with the type of gun that could have fired the bullet. The woman was a murder mystery book writer, and one of the plots in her writing involved someone swapping out the barrel of the gun so the bullet could not be traced to the gun.
Prosectors suggested the woman may have been motivated by money problems and a life insurance policy on her husband.
One of the woman's books she had written was titled "How to Murder Your Husband".
'How to Murder Your Husband' writer Nancy Crampton Brophy found guilty of murder : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/11014334 ... ist-brophy
In both stories, the evidence was entirely circumstantial. We don't know with complete certainty that either of these women killed their husbands. Yet, both women were charged and convicted of murder.
Want to know what my opinion is? Both women should be punished for murder, but the amount of the punishment should be substantially less because enough uncertainty exists that they might not be guilty. They should also not be able to benefit in any way from their husband's death. They should only get what they would have gotten in a divorce.
- By wat0n
- By Godstud