An Unusual Murder Case

[Meg 368]

There is an unusual murder case in Washington, DC that had a court verdict this week.   I'm surprised the story hasn't been picked up nationally since it has some unusual elements to it.   The basic facts are:

-  Robert Wone was crashing in DC on the sofa of an old college friend instead of fighting traffic to go to his home in the suburbs.   In the morning he was found stabbed to death.

-  No one has been charged with his murder.

- The three men living in the house were charged with obstructing justice and conspiracy to cover up the murder.

- Those three men waived the right to a jury trial and chose to have the case go before a judge instead.

- The judge acquitted them due to lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt even though she believes they know more about the murder than they are telling.

[link]

Moving onto opinions . . .

-  Outside of a Law & Order episode, I don't recall there being charges in covering up a murder when no one has been charged with the murder.   Listening to the news, I can hear Jack McCoy fussing that the three men are covering for each other so let's charge them all.  Since they can't prove who committed the murder, they went for getting them all on conspiracy.  After a trial that took weeks, it didn't work.

-  I have never heard of defendants waiving a jury trial so they can be heard by only a judge.   It's an available option but most people usually don't take it.  Speculation has it that they chose this because they felt a jury wouldn't be sympathetic to an all male threesome living in a million dollar house.  They are probably right.

-  The defendents' theory of the crime makes no sense.  They claim that a random intruder entered the house (there was no sign of forced entry), went into the guest room, stabbed the guy to death, and left without taking any valuables.  I suppose it's possible that this guy was hiding out at the house since someone was threatening him but nothing like that has been mentioned, maybe because they are trying to protect his wife.  Who knows?

There are many murders in DC each year.  Most of them involve drug gangs shooting each other and catching innocent bystanders in the process.   This one involved well-to-do professionals which, I imagine, is why it's been plastered all over the news the past few weeks.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LivingInThePast 364]

I think that all three of them should have been put in the slammer. That way, one might have the guts to speak up.

[His Divine Hand 244]

Originally posted by: LivingInThePast

I think that all three of them should have been put in the slammer. That way, one might have the guts to speak up.quote>

Yeah, 'cause nothing sounds more like justice than locking up possibly innocent  people up without evidence, regardless of Constitutionality!  

[-Lexus- 2]

This is justice. If there is no good evidence that they did it, they should be set free. Not be judged on vague suspicions that lack evidence. We progressed from the age where it was considered  proof that a women was a witch if enough people claimed to have seen her dancing or if she kept floating in the water if they pushed her in a river. 

Its to bad that they couldnt find enough evidence to get to the real murderer. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In these days of heavy forensic work, I can't believe that there was insufficient evidence that the guy was killed by person or persons unknown.  I think the DA must have blown it, somehow.  Here at home, a case like this would be picked to pieces by the Toronto Forensic Center, and there wouldn't have been a tern left unstoned.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

In these days of heavy forensic work, I can't believe that there was insufficient evidence that the guy was killed by person or persons unknown.quote>

It's actually not that difficult.  The success of modern forensics largely lies in the fact that most criminals have no idea how to properly cover their tracks.  Obviously, whoever murdered this person had a much better idea of how to avoid leaving evidence behind.

[Nuclear550 3]

This is one of those perfect crimes committed in where the police was not able to find the murderer.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

In these days of heavy forensic work, I can't believe that there was insufficient evidence that the guy was killed by person or persons unknown.quote>

It's actually not that difficult.  The success of modern forensics largely lies in the fact that most criminals have no idea how to properly cover their tracks.  Obviously, whoever murdered this person had a much better idea of how to avoid leaving evidence behind.

quote>

One of the men is a lawyer with a promenient law firm here.  Don't know what his speciality is.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

In these days of heavy forensic work, I can't believe that there was insufficient evidence that the guy was killed by person or persons unknown.  I think the DA must have blown it, somehow.  Here at home, a case like this would be picked to pieces by the Toronto Forensic Center, and there wouldn't have been a tern left unstoned.

quote>

Right, maybe in CSI miami where they can pull fingerprints from bullets but not in the real world. Forensic evidence is often not as conclusive and damning as on TV. Ive read that often they dont even find complete fingerprints but only half of them. And half a finger print is a lot less useful. Also, forensic evidence is always used to back claims up. Forensic evidence by itself is not conclusive. 

If they couldnt charge anyone with murder it simply meant they found no conclusive evidence to point either of the three guys as the murder with enough certainty to make a good case in court. That doesnt mean that someone blew it, it just means that someone didnt leave enough traces. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

If they couldnt charge anyone with murder it simply meant they found no conclusive evidence to point either of the three guys as the murder with enough certainty to make a good case in court. That doesnt mean that someone blew it, it just means that someone didnt leave enough traces. 

quote>

Quite correct.  But the idea of charging them with conspiracy is an Americanism.  The DA's coffee must have been cold or he needed the political clout of a trial.  The whole idea of a trial in this case is probably a futile waste of tax bucks.

Up here the court personnel, judges and crown attornies are appointed on merit by the Solicitor General in council with various justice groups.  Electing people like this leads to too many politically motivated fiascos, and we get it wrong in court often enough without additional agendas.