if you're gonna whack somebody .... (1 Viewer)

[Zen Butler]

Mike, totally true.

Take me back to the days of a good ole' fashion "Meet me at 3:00, after school and we'll go."
The days of rumbles and streetfights without firearms. Those were the days.

 

[Joe Szott]

OK, no more HTF group meets for me. These people are maniacs!

Some random thoughts:

In truth though, I think they only solve maybe 10% of all murders in the USA (it's an extremely low percentage), so it probably doesn't require all the precaution (though I suppose it's worth it not to be the 1/10.)

Don't you love how they spend like 1-2 weeks on a single murder in CSI (or similar shows) when it's like a dead hobo or prostitute? You'd be lucky to get 48 hours of a detective/techie's time in real life, they are usually swamped with cases. I would love to see the CSI guy tell his staff to drop a few of the cases since they are too overbooked.

Lastly, anyone here watch the Daily Show regularly? Funniest thing I've ever seen on that show was Rob Corddry taking gun training, "I want to kill a Hobo ... No, I want to kill him here." Too funny.

 

[Zen Butler]

Joe, I'll let these speak for themselves.

 

[MarkHastings]

I've always told people, If the guy is dumb enough to murder someone in the first place, why would you expect him to be smart about the crime?

"Stupid Criminal" is a redundant statement.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

No way is Huey Lewis more cynical than Elvis Costello!

 

[Chris Moe]

Another tip. Raid barbershop dumpsters for a couple months for lots of hair. When you are done killing distribute hair all over the murder scene just to piss off the cops.

 

[Philip Hamm]

 

[Zen Butler]

Was it Spanish rice?

 

[Francois Caron]

I don't know what's worse. You guys discussing how to kill someone without being caught, or me writing everything down.

 

[Ted Lee]

good one.

i definitely think it's possible (but highly unlikely) to get away with murder anymore. invariably, you're going to do something stupid, or some random "x" factor that you didn't think about is going to do you in.

but i definitely think it's possible.

---

zenbro - when the cops hit us up, we'll blame everything on garrett. i think he put even more thought into this then me.

---

side note, you ever wonder what makes a "popular" crime ... like the laci peterson murder trial? really, in the grand scheme of things, it was just another missing person. how did it get so popular that the poor bastard husband got himself into the media frenzy. i bet he never thought about that going into it...

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Oh, that one is easy. It was a slow news day.

Glenn

 

[Joey Skinner]

Don't do it in Las Vegas, New York or Miami. They have amazing crime labs with every piece of crime solving equipment known to man and crews of dedicated geniuses that solve every murder.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

I have an alibi: The HTF!! Obviously someone read my posts and created a copy-cat murder! Plus ISP records will show i rarely leave my computer long enough to kill someone.

Now I want to start a thread "How to hide the body"


PS: I like the barbershop idea, but would take it one gross step further; I'd get a part-time job as a jizz-mopper at the local Adult World.....

 

[Zen Butler]

I've already printed all of Garrett's posts

 

[AjayM]

Just coming off of jury duty for a murder case I can share some knowledge here. It wouldn't be that hard to pull off the "perfect murder", with enough planning and preperation. Pulling off the "perfect robbery" would be a lot tougher, mostly due to always having evidence with you (or selling it leaving a paper trail). But some thoughts on the murder case I saw.

1. The CSI teams are orders of magnitude bigger than on TV (obviously), this case would probably be pretty low on the "murder" scale (drug dealer gunned down in poor neighborhood), but they still had 4 or 5 CSI guys on the scene. Behind the scenes in the lab there are literally hundreds more people, the people in the field aren't the one processing all of the evidence, there is a team of people doing firearms work, fingerprint work, DNA work, etc.

2. The CSI guys in real life make MANY more mistakes than they do on TV. Our case had TWO pieces of physical evidence collected by the CSI team. This despite the fact that the picture's taken at the crime scene show what would probably 100+ pieces of potential evidence.

3. Finger prints are a lot harder to come by than on TV. Our case had three "bad guys" breaking a sliding door, and two of them running through a house and jumping out a window none of them wearing gloves...total prints collected...one. There are tons of smudge marks, but no viable prints. The fingerprint "expert" basically said that leaving a "good" print behind isn't the norm, in fact it's semi-fairly rare. First certain conditions have to be met enviromentally, your skin has to have quite a bit of moisture on it (like oily skin, etc), and you would have to touch something and let it go without smudging.

4. DNA evidence may be great, but spotting that one hair strand from across the room....not going to happen. We had zero DNA evidence for our trial despite less than prepared "bad guys". DNA evidence under fingernails, skin cells on other things, etc are all VERY fragile, and will be useless after the first time you wash your hands.

5. GSR (gun shot residue), this would be easily defeated by any lawyer in the world. The firearms expert in our case basically said that a positive GSR test means you were around someone or something that had handled a firearm recently. The residue literally falls off your hands, can be transfered easily from person to person (I shoot a gun, shake your hand, you now have GSR on your hand), and is gone the first time you wash or wipe your hands with something.

Some other things to note, detectives are VERY good at getting information out of you, they are trained to do so, they take courses on the art of interrogation. If you have something to hide, there is a good chance they are going to find it or at least figure some part of it out.

Andrew

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Which brings me to part three in my series "Murder for dummies". When the police question you.

Deny everything. In fact, don't even talk to them. The cops got you in the little room and the detectives tell you they have you red handed? Give yourelf a quick smile and a pat on the back, 'cause they don't have anything. If the police are asking you anything.... the police dont have anything. Why else would they be questioning you?

Of course questioning you would be pointless anyway because you followed my advice and you have no idea who the now-dead person is. But don't let them know that you know anyone died. Assume they're questioning you about the porn you looked at on the library computer.

 

[MarkHastings]

Kind of like being pulled over for speeding:

Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?
You: No.

WRONG answer! Now the cop can make up any speed because you just said you had no idea how fast you were going and you now can't deny anything they make up.

 

[Mark Sherman]

I'm with Joe on this

 

[Joe Szott]

Garrett - your sig links had me in stitches.

 

[Alex Spindler]

The worst part of the whole affair is that the smart reason to murder someone is for you own substantial gain, which puts you in the spotlight. Dumb reasons are for very small gains, and killing for no gain is insane.

And from all the mystery novels I read, it sounds like they always focus on the person who stood to gain.

I always thought that the best possible solution would be to be two positions down from the inheritance line. Then you kill the rich person and frame the beneficiary. You get all the money, have a likely patsy, and nobody is curious about how you got rich. It's like a murderous triple-word-score.