Dumb criminal stories

[viper37]

Adn typically they could have been discovered and prevented by even just a tiny bit of oversight.  Instead a small business hires someone to, say, do the books and then places complete and utter trust in that person.

yes   exactly what I'm talking about

[viper37]

I don't know if if fits dumb criminal behavior.  It certainly looks dumb to me, though the story is far different from what we imagined at first.

A former judge (Quebec's court of Appeal, retired a few months ago) is on trial for murdering his wife.

His wife suffered a stroke a couple of years ago and was left paralysed from the right side.
Most people (yeah, me too) assumed it was some form of "compassionate" murder.

But he pleaded not guilty.  He claims she committed suicide herself.

But then, there are the evidences stacking against him:

• he had a mistress, his secretary.
  
• ballistic is clear: the gun was not fired from the left hand, there is a powder burn on the left hand, wich means she had her left hand close to the barrel.  She had her entire right side paralized...
  
• the gun has been wiped clean: no blood, no prints.  the victim wasn't wearing clothes.  the gun was found near her left hand.
  
• the way she was positionned, she would have had to walk over there, without any help, very difficult for someone half paralized.
  

It's all these things that, imho, makes him a dumb criminal.  He's a judge, from the Court of Appeal, it can't be he never presided a murder trial in his career.  He has got to know they will find wich hand was used during the post-mortem inspection.  And wiping the gun clean, I mean, how do you kill yourself while not leaving fingerprints or blood on your gun?

Is there something that makes you stupid when you become a criminal or is my view tainted by the "super criminals" of tv/movies?

[Barrister]

As a court of appeal justice he may well have never sat in on a murder trial.

But the police sure as hell better have more evidence than what you posted.  Motive doesn't mean he did it, and all the forensic evidence you listed merely shows it wasn't suicide - not who did it.

[viper37]

As a court of appeal justice he may well have never sat in on a murder trial.

I figured he was in another court before.

But the police sure as hell better have more evidence than what you posted.  Motive doesn't mean he did it, and all the forensic evidence you listed merely shows it wasn't suicide - not who did it.

trial isn't over yet.  there are other details I skipped, like the code-locked door to his house.  There's no sign of forced entry, apparently.
Here's one article on this story:
http://www.globalmontreal.com/6442640500/story.html

So, ok, maybe only the part about claiming (911 call) he found his wife who had just killed herself was dumb, not the actual crime.

[Barrister]

Trying to understand a court case based on newspaper accounts is so frustrating.

I'm surprised the evidence of him having a mistress would be allowed in.  Surely that counts as "character evidence".

And I still don't see any evidence linking him to the killing.

[viper37]

Trying to understand a court case based on newspaper accounts is so frustrating.

Yes, it can be.  The case is interesting to French medias, so we get more details and daily reports, but the english text on the subject are not as detailed.

I'm surprised the evidence of him having a mistress would be allowed in.  Surely that counts as "character evidence".

It goes to motive.  The Crown's theory is that he killed his wife to live with his mistress.

And I still don't see any evidence linking him to the killing.

not like the thief they found thanks to his USB key left on the scene with his backpack... but, there's a lot of small details that sure rule out a suicide and make it near impossible for some stranger to come in the house and shoot his wife.  It would have to be someone she knew and who knew the code to the entrance.

[Grey Fox]

There is only circumstencial evidence.

[viper37]

Guilty of 1st degree murder.

BB, do you have stats on how many murder cases in Canada are based on circumstancial evidence rather than other more definite proofs?

[Barrister]

Guilty of 1st degree murder.

BB, do you have stats on how many murder cases in Canada are based on circumstancial evidence rather than other more definite proofs?

Cases as in charges before the court, or cases as in matters brought to trial.  Because I can tell you the cases where we have really definite proofs tend not to go to trial.

[viper37]

Cases as in charges before the court, or cases as in matters brought to trial.  Because I can tell you the cases where we have really definite proofs tend not to go to trial.

that last part, I kinda got it figured for myself
I meant cases as in matters brought to trial, where there's a not-guilty plea entered.

I figure that in cases of really definite, you (as in Crown Prosecutors) tend to plea bargain (a little) to save some time and file the case?

[Barrister]

Cases as in charges before the court, or cases as in matters brought to trial.  Because I can tell you the cases where we have really definite proofs tend not to go to trial.

that last part, I kinda got it figured for myself
I meant cases as in matters brought to trial, where there's a not-guilty plea entered.

I figure that in cases of really definite, you (as in Crown Prosecutors) tend to plea bargain (a little) to save some time and file the case?

Not so much on homicides.  They are high profile (and the media loves to criticize).  There's not a lot we can compromise on.  1st degree murder is an automatic life / no parole 25 years, while 2nd is life / no parole 10 years.  If we drop it to manslaughter though there's no minimum however, so we almost never agree to do that.

Homicides we tend to go to trial much more often than other files (unless we have such a good case they plead guilty).  They do tend to rely more on circumstantial evidence though because the nature of the charge - the victim can't tell us what happened.

[Barrister]

I just saw a file where a guy shoplifted a vibrator.

[Barrister]

Dude calls up his ex-girlfriend on her phone.  After a few minutes, the new boyfriend Douchebag gets on the phone and tells Dude to never call this number or else he'll come over and kick his ass.  Dude says go ahead, so Douchebag drives over and calls to say he's outside.

Dude comes down to the front of his apartment, sees Douchebag holding a golf club.  Dude says "I don't have any weapons" and lifts his shirt to demonstrate that.  At that point Dude gets clocked by Dbag's friend who was hiding around the corner.  Dude turns around to see who hit him, and Dbag unloads with the golf club.  After a few good whacks Dude is leaking pretty good, girlfriend comes out and escorts Dbag away.

Dude calls police, says what happened.  Dude also requires an arm brace and five staples to the back of his head.

Police call up Dbag (and here's the extra-stupid part).  Dbag doesn't believe that it's the police, but amidst his swearing and cursing agrees to meet them at a nearby movie theatre.  Dbag shows up.  POlice call him again, and he's taunt them saying "I knew you were a fucking liar... oh shit you really are the police" *click*

[DGuller]

What happened next?  Did the Canadian cops lift up their shirts and showed the Douchebag that they had no weapons?

[Barrister]

Guy is pulled over for drunk driving, blows a fail, and is arrested and taken to the station.  Before leaving his vehicle he asks police to please take his backpack from the trunk of his car.  Police oblige.

Back at the station police note a strong odour of marijuana coming from the bag.  They look inside, and find not only some fresh pot, but several thousand dollars worth of powder cocaine.

Police on a simple drunk driving would never have even looked in the trunk if the guy hadn't asked them to...