Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#31

Post by mcpackieh »

frontman1988 wrote: post #22

It's amazing how many poisons exist around us which can be easily used to kill anybody without much trace. Given the number of such deadly poisons, bio-attack cases using these are relatively rare.

Not just poisons, but also explosives, knives, guns, bludgeoning weapons, battery acid, cars... there are innumerable ways to kill or maim people but very rarely do people do these things. The truth is that very few people are ever inclined to murder. Remember this the next time politicians try to make you afraid and tell you they need to xray everybody and grope grandma to stop the terrorists.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#32

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

jbottoms wrote: post #26
kevinmchugh wrote: post #4

Foraging is a very cool hobby that I'd like to get into some day, but I'm aware of the potential for it to go wrong. My understanding is that in many places, you cannot determine safe mushrooms from dangerous ones using reference photos, they're just too similar and you need live expertise. What's safe and what's dangerous is also very localized. I worry that social media will cause people to think they can forage sa…

Mushrooms are very forgiving of spores from other mushrooms and easily include them into their structures. So much so that they are considered promiscuous. No book will help you with this in the emergency room. Why take a chance? Go to the gricery store and have a comfortable dinner. And, please keep this in mind: the President of the Boston mycology club died of mushroom poisoning, and he was surounded by "mushroom…

> And, please keep this in mind: the President of the Boston mycology club died of mushroom poisoning, and he was surounded by "mushroom experts".

Do you have a link for that? My web searches brought up 0 hits for this.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#33

Post by belter »

kenjackson wrote: post #20
lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, there's no reason to talk to the police if you're suspected of murder. It can never help you. It can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE edit: the video is a talk a criminal lawyer gave explaining why it's a bad idea to talk to the police. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch it.

I find that absurd. How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea? It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly. EDIT: And after watching some of the video the presenter seems to be making the case that you should never interact with the police. And maybe even moreso -- maybe never communicate at all w/o your lawyer since there are laws y…

Learn about the concept of hearsay...

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#34

Post by orwin »

kenjackson wrote: post #20
lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, there's no reason to talk to the police if you're suspected of murder. It can never help you. It can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE edit: the video is a talk a criminal lawyer gave explaining why it's a bad idea to talk to the police. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch it.

I find that absurd. How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea? It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly. EDIT: And after watching some of the video the presenter seems to be making the case that you should never interact with the police. And maybe even moreso -- maybe never communicate at all w/o your lawyer since there are laws y…

Because if your memory is jumpy or you're tired, and you make a mistake, especially on location or temporality, they will absolutely use it against you (especially if you fit the profile they have in mind) and kill you for it (literally in some US states). Never talk to the police without a lawyer.

My father ended up a night in jail because he gave in good faith poor information (that they still used). Don't talk to the police. Even if you're white: as long as you're not in a suit, don't do it.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#35

Post by mcpackieh »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #29
AutumnCurtain wrote: post #13

Ex-husband narrowly survives a sudden and serious GI illness after weeks of intensive care. A year later, his parents and another couple die or nearly die after dinner with his wife, becoming suddenly and violently ill while she and her children are unharmed. Curious.

I definitely think it is curious, and it obviously deserves to be thoroughly investigated (and by all accounts it is), but I just don't understand this need to immediately jump to conclusions in cases like this. The top comments on this article on the WaPo site are basically "It's not rocket science to know she did it." Why is it so hard to just wait for more information? Yes, it definitely looks very suspicious, but…

It's fine for people to suspect things before they're prove. She isn't being denied a trial. In fact, suspecting something before it's proven is a prerequisite for that person being brought to trial.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#36

Post by enlyth »

galleywest200 wrote: post #10
kevinmchugh wrote: post #4

Foraging is a very cool hobby that I'd like to get into some day, but I'm aware of the potential for it to go wrong. My understanding is that in many places, you cannot determine safe mushrooms from dangerous ones using reference photos, they're just too similar and you need live expertise. What's safe and what's dangerous is also very localized. I worry that social media will cause people to think they can forage sa…

Correct, photos are not adequate when trying to identify a mushroom yourself for the first time (when intending consumption). You need to do things such as spore-prints [1]. It is also strongly advised to go out into the field with those who are already experienced and have them teach you to identify, and not to be "self-taught". Your local mycological society would be more than happy to educate you. [1]: https://en.…

Maybe this is regional but all these comments seem way overblown. Just learn to spot death caps and if you're not sure, avoid mushrooms with gills completely and pick only ones with the spongy undersides like summer caps. I've eaten foraged mushrooms hundreds of times throughout my life based on only my grandmother's description of what I should and shouldn't pick.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#37

Post by lylejantzi3rd »

kenjackson wrote: post #20
lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, there's no reason to talk to the police if you're suspected of murder. It can never help you. It can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE edit: the video is a talk a criminal lawyer gave explaining why it's a bad idea to talk to the police. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch it.

I find that absurd. How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea? It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly. EDIT: And after watching some of the video the presenter seems to be making the case that you should never interact with the police. And maybe even moreso -- maybe never communicate at all w/o your lawyer since there are laws y…

> It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly.

And people watch too many police procedurals (tv shows). The cop you're talking to only has one job: gather evidence. It's not his job to determine your guilt or innocence or whether the evidence rises to the level where the DA will file charges. Telling him something that can exonerate you does nothing for you. Your lawyer needs to make sure that evidence is available to the DA (if you want to avoid charges being filed) or the jury, if it gets that far.

> How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea?

Hearsay. If you hear somebody say they committed a crime, it's not the same as witnessing them commit the crime. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence. It goes the same way with what you told the police. The cop you're talking to hasn't witnessed anything. He can only repeat what you've said, which is inadmissible.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#38

Post by gen220 »

enlyth wrote: post #36
galleywest200 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, photos are not adequate when trying to identify a mushroom yourself for the first time (when intending consumption). You need to do things such as spore-prints [1]. It is also strongly advised to go out into the field with those who are already experienced and have them teach you to identify, and not to be "self-taught". Your local mycological society would be more than happy to educate you. [1]: https://en.…

Maybe this is regional but all these comments seem way overblown. Just learn to spot death caps and if you're not sure, avoid mushrooms with gills completely and pick only ones with the spongy undersides like summer caps. I've eaten foraged mushrooms hundreds of times throughout my life based on only my grandmother's description of what I should and shouldn't pick.

The ratio of edible:lookalike-and-very-poisonous is regional and varies widely. Would be a fun dataset to visualize.

Anecdotally, I've heard that northern Europe is a relatively "safe" place (i.e. a high score on that ratio) and that the U.S. is, in general, more "dangerous". No firsthand experience to make a claim on the subject, though.

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#39

Post by foogazi »

kenjackson wrote: post #20
lylejantzi3rd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, there's no reason to talk to the police if you're suspected of murder. It can never help you. It can only hurt you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE edit: the video is a talk a criminal lawyer gave explaining why it's a bad idea to talk to the police. If you want a more detailed explanation, watch it.

I find that absurd. How can giving the police information that can exonerate you always be a bad idea? It seems like people have entered this weird behavior where they follow guidance blindly. EDIT: And after watching some of the video the presenter seems to be making the case that you should never interact with the police. And maybe even moreso -- maybe never communicate at all w/o your lawyer since there are laws y…

The police can’t exonerate you

Re: She invited four people over for lunch. A week later, three were dead

#40

Post by mcpackieh »

brmgb wrote: post #19
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #6

Imagine having tried to kill your ex husband and later succeeding in killing two couples with poisoned food and getting away with it. Great method, perfect for plausible deniability.

Imagine randomly accusing someone of multiple murders on the internet with absolutely no proof.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is sometimes sufficient to convict people for murder. Circumstantial evidence is certainly enough to suspect murder, if not convict somebody of it. To be pedantic, "proof" is for mathematicians, the rest of us mere mortals have to content ourselves with evidence.
Post reply on HN