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

51–60 of 62 posts

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

#51

Post by mardifoufs »

lesuorac wrote: post #17
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 like the UK method [1] more. You can be silent if you like but if you want to claim you were just going on a "jog" and not "running away from somebody you murdered" you better make that claim now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

No that's horrible actually. It is almost always worse for the accused, and better for the police. If you talk, they win and if you don't you lose.

I'm Canadian so it's not like this (not talking to the cops being the better option) is unique to the US.

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

#52

Post by mcpackieh »

brmgb wrote: post #42
mcpackieh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Evidence and proof are the same word in my own native language. > There's a lot of circumstantial evidence Hardly. You could arbor doubts for the people who ate at her place but for her husband there is absolutely nothing. I am not proud of HN falling at the level of the tabloid press through not really surprised.

In English we often use the same word 'evidence' when speaking of weak circumstantial evidence and conclusive direct and damning evidence (e.g. "proof"). I think it must be similar in whatever your native language is, because some way to express this nuance is vital to the pursuit of justice. What you essentially said above is that nobody should be accused of murder on the internet if there isn't conclusive evidence. But if I'm seen covered in blood walking away from a murder scene hours before the murder is reported, why shouldn't people on the internet speculate that I'm the murderer? All they have against me is circumstantial evidence, not conclusive evidence e.g. proof, but it's certainly reasonable for people to say they think I did it. Maybe they're wrong, but their suspicions are still reasonable even if they happen to be wrong.

Somebody dying or being grievously injured after a meal you prepared is circumstantial evidence. Yourself being unharmed is further circumstantial evidence, as is your children being unharmed. Your spouse suffering from some manner of GI-related injury and then his parents being poisoned to death in a separate incident, both after eating meals prepared by you, is circumstantial evidence. This is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

In this case the circumstantial evidence isn't proof of anything. It's probably not enough to convict, I think there is reasonable doubt (mushrooms can be misidentified, the kids may have refused to eat the mushrooms because 'mushrooms are icky', the husband might have been injured by something else, etc) But it's certainly enough circumstantial evidence for casual observers to reasonably suspect murder, and for authorities to start an investigation.

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

#53

Post by mcpackieh »

sinkwool wrote: post #48
mcpackieh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The truth is that very few people are ever inclined to murder. I believe that many people are afraid of the consequences if they were to get caught. I think that if there was some "magical" way to murder someone without getting caught, there would be vastly more murders. Just think of any road rage video: I imagine that many of the participants would be capable of murder at that instance if they knew they would get…

I don't believe that. People commit lesser crimes with similar punishments (many years in prison) at a much higher rate; why doesn't the threat of punishment make armed robbery or burglary as rare as murder?

Furthermore, if somebody wants to coldly kill for the thrill of it, they can probably do so and get away with it because police suck at solving murders when the murderer and the victim didn't already know each other, yet people being randomly murdered by strangers is very rare, even more rare than other kinds of murders. The easiest kind of murder to get away with is the most rare kind of murder!

Additionally, if somebody is so enraged as to seriously consider murder, they are emotionally compromised and rational consideration of the consequences is therefore unlikely.

For these reasons, I conclude that punishment is not an effective deterrent to murder. Punishment is an effective deterrent for some other kinds of crimes, but not murder.

> Just think of any road rage video: I imagine that many of the participants would be capable of murder at that instance if they knew they would get away with it.

There's a huge difference between believing somebody deserves to be yelled at (or even beaten up) and believing they deserve to be killed. Just because people are very angry at each other doesn't mean they're suppressing a homicidal impulse. And even if they were suppressing a homicidal impulse, that restraint is likely motivated by the innate empathy most humans except an aberrant few experience. If the only thing keeping you from murdering people is the threat of punishment, you're probably a high-functioning sociopath. Most people aren't.

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

#54

Post by lesuorac »

mardifoufs wrote: post #51
lesuorac wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the UK method [1] more. You can be silent if you like but if you want to claim you were just going on a "jog" and not "running away from somebody you murdered" you better make that claim now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

No that's horrible actually. It is almost always worse for the accused, and better for the police. If you talk, they win and if you don't you lose. I'm Canadian so it's not like this (not talking to the cops being the better option) is unique to the US.

It's better for getting to the truth in a timely manor.

Its basically civil discovery except for a criminal matter. Good luck in a civil case bringing up some evidence at the 11th hour when its obvious to the other side you had that evidence from the start.

Also, you don't have to talk in the UK just like the US. You still have the right to be silent.

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

#55

Post by lesuorac »

mywittyname wrote: post #28
kenjackson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Police are trained to get you to incriminate yourself. They will twist your words of innocence into evidence of guilt, i.e., you say, "I went to the kitchen for a knife so he could cut his steak.", but the police write down, "suspect went to kitchen to grab knife." Despite what popular culture teaches us, the truth isn't going to come out because crack team of investigators using DNA and cool tech to magically solve…

> The police are going to pick an easy target to pin everything on, and trick them into giving enough information for the prosecution to strong arm a plea deal.

Isn't that effectively Occam's Razor [1]? The guy with the worst defense should be the culprit.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

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

#56

Post by lesuorac »

kenjackson wrote: post #43
catboybotnet wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you're telling the truth doesn't mean that they'll present it to the court in a way that makes it seem like the truth. If they want to convict you, witnesses will show up pinning you to the crime. That, or they'll use "interrogation" tactics to get you to "confess" when you're innocent. It's mindgames to close the case early. The U.S. has a worrying amount of wrongful convictions, for many reasons. To su…

The problem with this and the video provided above is if the police are going to just completely fabricate statements you make then they can also fabricate that you decided to speak to them and confess. Knowing several officers, including some id never want to run across as part of their job, I do think they are far more likely to fabricate something that corroborates what they actually believe to be true. That is if…

A headache now is better than a prison sentence later.

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

#57

Post by kenjackson »

lesuorac wrote: post #56
kenjackson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this and the video provided above is if the police are going to just completely fabricate statements you make then they can also fabricate that you decided to speak to them and confess. Knowing several officers, including some id never want to run across as part of their job, I do think they are far more likely to fabricate something that corroborates what they actually believe to be true. That is if…

A headache now is better than a prison sentence later.

Being raised where I was I've probably interacted with the police 50x in my life. Usually things just like that, "did you see the guy in the car?" or "do you know where they live?". I've never once been to jail or even been asked to go to the police station. But I do know quite a few people hauled in for refusing to say anything. Not sure it was legal, but I feel like most police simply aren't trying to just grab random people around a crime to bring in (and I was taught to run if you see police, but that also just seemed counterproductive to me). And if they've decided that you're the guy they want to bring in, good luck with "talk to my lawyer". It sounds like they'll just make up your narrative for you. That is, it seems almost more likely that this is going to invite attention and likelihood of prison time.

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

#58

Post by oneTbrain23 »

jlittel wrote: post #12
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…

As a beginner, I found it helpful to - get a regional guidebook - attend a mycology society foray You can start with mushrooms that have no poisonous look-alikes, and gradually build confidence in your identification skills. I do see a lot of troubling Facebook posts asking if a big heap of different mushrooms are edible. You do have to put in some work to be able to identify a lot of different species. As a bonus th…

Avoid foraging. That will remove a whole class of unnecessary hazard. There is near zero benefits in foraging. Any nutrients can easily be gained from modern processed food and supplements. The cost savings in foraging cannot be justify with death or hospitalization. In fact the time wasted foraging can easily earn hundreds of dollars to but more expensive organic food. If it is for apocalypse scenario, learning to be weapon expert have way higher retur s than be a greatest foragers. Unless it is purely for thrill x factor seekers? Then dying is necessary to induce the excitement of knowing one has probability of dying from foraging.

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

#59

Post by baggy_trough »

oneTbrain23 wrote: post #58
jlittel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a beginner, I found it helpful to - get a regional guidebook - attend a mycology society foray You can start with mushrooms that have no poisonous look-alikes, and gradually build confidence in your identification skills. I do see a lot of troubling Facebook posts asking if a big heap of different mushrooms are edible. You do have to put in some work to be able to identify a lot of different species. As a bonus th…

Avoid foraging. That will remove a whole class of unnecessary hazard. There is near zero benefits in foraging. Any nutrients can easily be gained from modern processed food and supplements. The cost savings in foraging cannot be justify with death or hospitalization. In fact the time wasted foraging can easily earn hundreds of dollars to but more expensive organic food. If it is for apocalypse scenario, learning to b…

The benefit is that wild mushrooms taste much better than store bought.

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

#60

Post by senectus1 »

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.

yeah came to make this point. when the story initially broke I thought it sounded like a horrible accident. Now I suspect she's a nasty loon...

or at least very very stupid.

Will be interesting to see what the Police dig up.

Post reply on HN