If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS New York)   Wife goes over a cliff, falling 120 feet in 2.74 seconds. If she landed 52 feet from the base of the cliff, did she stumble or was she pushed by her husband, who was philandering at a rate of 20 affairs per marriage?   (newyork.cbslocal.com) divider line 9
    More: Interesting, CBS, New Jersey, Englewood Cliffs  
•       •       •

8467 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2013 at 4:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-10 03:37:29 PM
3 votes:
First, assume a spherical wife...

/stubmitter
2013-04-10 05:12:26 PM
2 votes:

Joelogon: First, assume a spherical wife...

/stubmitter


Then assume a perfect vacuum and no friction loss...
2013-04-10 05:27:28 PM
1 votes:
20 affairs/marriage? I don't do metric. What's that in Kennedys?
2013-04-10 05:11:24 PM
1 votes:

Joelogon


First, assume a spherical wife...


of uniform density.
2013-04-10 05:11:18 PM
1 votes:
There's only one way to know for sure:
mestechko.info
2013-04-10 05:10:04 PM
1 votes:
42
2013-04-10 05:08:42 PM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: How was he convicted if he was the only witness as to what happened?

I mean, I'm assuming he's an asshole and did  kill her, but where is the evidence?


You don't have to have an independent witness, otherwise all you'd have to do to successfully murder someone is to be the only surviving witness.

He told multiple stories as to what had happened, and changing one's story that dramatically tends to indicate to investigators and a jury that they're a liar. Add in the circumstantial evidence (numerous affairs, troubled marriage, fact that they were discussing said troubled marriage when she died) plus physical evidence and there was enough for a murder conviction.

Now some are questioning that physical evidence and what it indicates. Whether enough actual experts really truly do disagree AND can convince a judge that there's room to argue that evidence AND the judge is also convinced that without that evidence the case would be in doubt...well, how that turns out will determine whether or not he gets a new trial.

I'm familiar with the case, as it turns out. I personally think he did it. My reasoning (FWIW) is as follows (and it's not enough to convict someone legally)...suspects always remember key details around a traumatic event. Some minor aspects WILL change in the telling. Police look for liars by two methods; one that the story has absolutely no changes, is told the same way each time and the suspect can't do it easily backwards or out of sync (because it's a rehearsed lie). The other is a story where the substantial elements change dramatically (because it's an unprepared lie, or a lie that had to morph to fit the facts). He's done the latter. It's changed from him being right there, they were sitting and discussing marital woes...she got up and lost balance and fell, and he couldn't grab her in time...to he was walking away and she just vanished, to he went to get her a blanket from the car and he saw her fall, to him implying it was suicide b/c he didn't actually see her fall and thought she might have jumped.

Story has changed dramatically many times. Now, we KNOW people do lie against their interests, hopefully everyone is aware of the serious problem of false confessions. However this doesn't have any elements of that (and he has never confessed). He simply has changed the story MANY times, and told different versions to different people. That coupled with the evidence certainly makes me think he's guilty.

But I of course I could be wrong, and I think when there's new evidence or new science, such things SHOULD be reexamined. DNA evidence has exonorated many wrongly convicted people, and that's a good thing.
2013-04-10 05:05:42 PM
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: How was he convicted if he was the only witness as to what happened?

I mean, I'm assuming he's an asshole and did  kill her, but where is the evidence?


Young man, this is not a court of evidence. This is a court of law.
2013-04-10 03:56:44 PM
1 votes:
Well who doesn't discuss a troubled marriage at the edge of a cliff?
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report