Really, this is getting annoying. Just the other day someone came up with the absolutely brilliant theory that she must have been stealing submarine secrets for the Chinese or something to that effect and now this.
Did you notice that (1) he lied about having dropped her off, (2) he sank his sub on purpose claiming it was accidental and (3) he said she died in an accident and (4) he claimed he buried her at sea?
So far only (4) seems to be somewhat truthful, he forgot to mention he butchered her first.
The police have, rightly so, only given somewhat sparse information through the press. PM is currently, to my knowledge, allowed to read newspapers, and there is little reason to give a suspect a chance at information. It is highly likely they have way more information than what they are divulging.
The information they do give is to de-mystify a case which is already so crazy bonkers that even a good novelist couldn't have cooked it up. It is simply too implausible.
Everything points to murder. And I don't think there will be less stuff pointing to murder over the next couple of days or weeks.
That was not what I told at all. I am clearly saying maybe she was onto something and that could be the reason she is dead. (If the murder is related to her job)
It was one line.
> I am clearly saying maybe she was onto something and that could be the reason she is dead.
Yes, that is the bit that I object to. She is most likely dead because something Madsen did or tried to do to her before she got done in entirely, and it has nothing to do with the last story she worked on. So forget about bringing the Mafia, the Russians and Cartels into it.
You meant to write 'fraud'. Fraught is a synonym for 'to be full of' or 'distressed'.
Here there is very little room for such creativity, the amount of contorting one would have to do in order not to conclude that Madsen killed Kim Wall is speaking volumes about those attempting it.
US jury system does it again
by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <[email protected]> on Monday April 28, 2008 @07:34PM (#23231238)
No evidence? No body? No murder weapon? Who cares! The
prosecutor used Power Point in his closing.. The
defendant is "weird".
Oh well, maybe Hans will confess and reveal where he
stashed the body now."
Edit: even sorted by "insightful", this thread is a nightmare:
by garcia ( 6573 )
While I could definitely see why he would kill that
thieving bitch of a ex-wife of his, I don't think they
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he definitely
killed her.
typical jury is a group of 12 people hand-picked by the
lawyers to be the most easily emotionally manipulated
people possible. You were expecting them to come to a
conclusion based on logic?
by OMNIpotusCOM
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
Last I knew you had to prove that he planned to kill
someone with a first degree murder charge. If you can't
prove she's dead, and nobody saw her die, and there's no
evidence that she's anywhere other than where he says,
you can't convict a person of first degree murder.
Can you imagine what would happen if this guy was black?
No kidding. I would really like to see a poll of the
jury members, and if they would change their votes if
they had been told that Hans's ex-friend (the wife's new
dude) had confessed to killing 8 people.
Some facts are prejudicial.
Some facts are prejudicial for a very good reason.
I'd like to see numbers on how that would have changed things.He eventually did. It would have saved a lot of time and grief if he had done it earlier.
Way too many parallels with this case.
Let me feed your curiosity. The anwer is: Nothing. This is a interesting problem to eval from a purely intellectual point of view.
In a early phase of the analysis ALL ideas are important. This is similar in many aspects to trying to catch a bug in a program that starts to do unusual things. You could work serially just picking the simpler explanation and stop here, or you could instead make a list of all possibilities and check it against the facts, discarding some and keeping other until the real cause is revealed. There is nothing wrong with it.
The difference is that when debugging a program nobody things "this variable is ugly and evil, so the other variables linked with it must be passing good values". You need to check it. The problem can be (and often is) in the interaction between two functions.
Updating the case, we have a obvious murder. We have a dismembered corpse that explain the "need to sink the submarine", we know were, and probably who. We have a fair good picture of the problem, but we don't know still why. We need to understand the interaction.
Of course there must be a reason and I bet that will be very obvious when revealed... most lose ends are now in the post-murder phase. How the corpse arrived to that beach for example.
It was me in fact. Please notice that you are wrong. I never said 'must have been', I said 'may have been' or 'could have been'. There is a planetary distance among both statements.
"The man loves with passion other thing; His work. Maybe she did something that was seen as a menace against the other love of his life, his submarine. Maybe she poke around and tried to sneak/photograph/open/discover some parts of the engine with the purpose to earn some bucks selling the submarine secrets when returning to China. I'm speculating of course, but unless he was drunk or drugged (unprobable while driving a sub), or both where flirting for months by e-mail and he feels cheated, there should be a solid reason for she being 'punished' with death. This is not a random act IMAO."[1]
> Please notice that you are wrong. I never said 'must have been', I said 'may have been' or 'could have been'.
You can hide behind weasel words all you want but the fact of the matter is that you were positing all kinds of ridiculous explanations for a situation where a simple one would suffice. That's about as clear an example of conspiracy nuttiness as I've seen since the Reiser trial referenced elsewhere in this thread.
What 'may have been' or 'could have been' still has to be remotely plausible to be considered and it really wasn't.
So if you feel that your use of the word 'maybe' gives you license to throw up all kinds of flak feel free, in the meantime realize that it does nothing to establish credibility and in fact probably achieves the opposite.
A proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, can be asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis)
Speculation:
The contemplation or consideration of some subject. Conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise
I could see an escalating scenario where she, as a reporter would, started questioning around that topic. She hits the right buttons, and he loses it and injures her badly enough that he now has to make a decision.
Is a murder, pretty obviously, but the reason of the murder is unclosed still. All possibilities are open.