It is probably was crime of passion that he had covered up. Apparently she was having affairs and he didn't. Robbers don't kill people for mere $50k. He maybe a nice guy but also a killer. It was not because of money I would guess. Anger management issues are likely and those are not visible now.
Truth is in these situations we don't know so no one outside of the case should speculate.
I feel the tendency to turn criminal cases into public spectacles does more harm and disservice to justice than anything else. The public has no business passing judgement or deciding for themselves. Leave them out of it.
My point was that the post I was responding to had left out a significant point from the article and was passing a slanted judgement. Effectively the same point that you are making, which I agree with.
Though the gruesome spectacle of public obsession with criminal cases like this has a long and (ig)noble history. There were late Victorian and early Edwardian “police reports” that filled exactly this sort of lurid fascination with the macabre.
However, I found the wider premise of the article more interesting than the speculation about the crime - which is whether someone convicted of an unpleasant violent crime can be simultaneously a warm and friendly person, and whether the justice system is as cut and dried as people like to think.
I found it very thought provoking beyond (or possibly in spite of) the “unsolved mystery” aspect.
People do indeed kill for the kick of it. But professional robbers stick to robbing, sometimes going as far as to not use real weapons in case they get caught. But there are all kind of offenders, some with mental health probelms or some panicking who end up killing even if they did not intend to do that initially.
Professional robbers aren't really a thing. It's more a lifestyle, and it tends to be quite short. Many people who would consider robbing others would kill for 50k, because most robbers and thieves are not rational profit maximizers, to say the least. 50k is the kind of money that makes normal people start getting ideas, let alone criminals.
In Australia, organised crime has taken to hiring teenagers as hitmen; e.g. the perpetrators of a failed assassination attempt against a retired footballer (they shot him but he survived) included a 15 year old and 16 year old – https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sixteen-heart-pumping-ab...
Reasons for using teenagers include that they cost less, they are impressionable, easier to manipulate, eager to "prove themselves", and receive more lenient sentencing (especially those under 18). Adult hitmen demand thousands, they'll find a teenager willing to do it for $500 (AUD 500 = USD 350).
Apparently, this strategy wasn't invented in Australia, Australian criminals have copied it from Europe where it was already established (particularly in Sweden and the Netherlands)
> It's an old strategy. It's commonly been part of plots of various stories/movies in the US going back decades.
I think significant aspects of it are quite novel – e.g. teenagers being recruited via Signal or Telegram, often by overseas fugitive gang leaders; some cases have even (allegedly) involved Iranian government agents
Also, there's a difference between something repeatedly happening in fiction over decades, and law enforcement seeing multiple real life cases of it over a few months in a single metro area
What a laughably insulated statement. An example from NZ - Janek Patel was murdered in 2022 while attempting to prevent the cash register at his corner store from being stolen.
Things like that happen all the time but a masked rubber killed the wife in her bed and waited to get unknown amount of money from the husband from the safe. I don't know how to say this, he should have done a better job with the story... He hadn't watch enough murder shows on TV.
regardless of what happened truly, id say that someone isn't define by any specific thing that happened in their lives. however people do like to try and make it seem that way, because emotion and subsequent judgement cloud perception and prevent looking past things for a lot of people who cant detach themselves from their own emotions and or judgement.
people change all the time, and sitting in a small box without freedoms will surely cause deep introspection even in the most outward of people.
you can befriend anyone if theg are friendly to you, regardless of what happened in their lives historically. ofcourse be careful and learn lessons, but no need to be judgemental on things that never involved you in the first place.
for most people you can find some slice im their life and mark them as bad (maybe not wife murdering bad, but bad nonetheless). if you look critically at how you view people you will find that the people you do accept in your life simply dont have slices that you know of that trigger your emotions and cause judgement.
this is why i like some religions say judgement is only reserved for god. other then that it just causes more negativity from something that was already negative. spreading it more and more.
(yes i know this last part will likely be hated on by the atheists, thats ok, judge away ;), still love ya!)
I'm finding more and more onerous the social expectation that I should be punishing transgressors of law or morality through shunning and disrespect. In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state, and I don't believe that someone should be looked down upon because they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.
This isn't some cancel culture story, the author is reflecting whether the author is themself a "bad judge of character". There are basic reasons related to self-preservation why you might want to figure out whether your friends are murderers, the article wasn't talking about how the potential murderer didn't deserve dignity and respect.
You're right, my comment was off topic and a knee-jerk reaction from just the title, though I didn't have the phrase "cancel culture" in my mind when I wrote it. While on that topic though, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with "cancelling" someone, but more-so that second degree cancelling of someone who doesn't join in on the cancelling
> In my opinion punishment should be purely an affair of the state
The issue here is that we should expect 'the state' to be fairly objective in it's determination of illegality, the correct punishment for the event, and to publish what actions are illegal in a way that is publicly consumable prior to the events it arbitrates.
Lessor transgressions should be handled directly by the peers of the transgressors. I don't want the government holding a court case about something trivial to society at large but relevant to the small community it occurs in.
To be friends with a rapist is to help that person to stop raping. If the actions that you take have helped a rapist to stop raping, even if they were cruel or harsh, you have been more of a friend to that rapist than someone who has reinforced their behavior through inordinate kindness.
>they treated someone who has done wrong with dignity and respect.
Well, many have victims who weren't treated with dignity or respect.
Recidivism is high, and so there's a statistical basis that people are who they show you to be.
Choosing to believe in an idea of them may hurt you, and its unfortunate if you choose to believe on society's behalf in an idea of them rather than who they actually are.
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN, and particularly not nationalistic flamebait. That is easily avoided, unlike the flamewars that start raging once it appears.
Similar in theme to the Nathan Fielder documentary about Elizabeth Holmes "You Can See Everything", which is also about a criminal professing their innocence, the journalist/documentarian's relationship with them, and attempting to find out if they lie. Both include a prison visit as well!
that kind of reminds me of a writeup by this exiled Chinese dissident; she ended up knowing her CCP surveillance officer so well, he was almost like a family member.
But ultimately what is the point of these stories? I didn’t learn anything, no mystery was unraveled. It’s information fast food but dressed up as intellectual.
Huh... I thought it was pretty obvious. Man becomes obsessed with the details of a murder. He starts to question what his motivations are if he doesn't actually know one way or the other whether the man is guilty. His focus on the case begins to fade and he is asked by his daughter if the convicted man is his friend or not.
For twenty minutes it was an engrossing read for me, but to each their own I guess.
As an aside, a decent number of very guilty murderers have support among family and friends, especially because nobody wants to believe they're family or friends with a murderer; much easier to believe the story.
My father (then a local public person) had a driver who used to take us to school in his absence. Nicest guy ever, would joke around, take us to other places when we didn't wanna go to class, absolutely the best. One day I was looking for the fire extinguisher in the car (then required in my country) and found a Glock G19 underneath the driver's seat.
I asked "what the hell?" and he said "this is for me to use in case somebody talks shit about your father".
Upon some investigation, it turns out that the nicest guy in the world was actually living in my city because he was on the run for a murder he committed in another city many years back. The nicest guy in the world had an altercation with another patron at a bar, while drunk, broke a beer bootle on a table, stuck into the stomach of the other guy, and twisted left and right until internal organs started showing.
If you're interested in this kind of thing, I just finished reading a book where the author improbably was commissioned to write a book about a serial killer but the killer was a friend of theirs!
I've read many of these stories over the years. I find it fascinating that well-meaning and seemingly quite intelligent people are so eager to exonerate the very-obviously-guilty whenever they have any redeeming features at all. Charisma, intelligence, or just a similar background to the befriender. They refuse to accept that liars, cheaters, thieves, murderers, fraudsters, etc are often normal people like themselves who may even have admirable traits and qualities. Often, they do victimize people they truly love.
I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain, which play out in politics daily in all quarters. Like a kind of primal social anxiety - people have irrational fear of the crowd turning against without them having done anything wrong.
The undated and anonymous tip is meaningless and incredible, the policeman returning from holiday a few days early for a brutal murder investigation sounds very normal, the lack of DNA on the thoroughly cleaned murder weapon is irrelevant, the notion of the murderer killing Dianne hours before the robbery and waiting for the rest of the town to wake up before leaving is absurd, his 'alibi' for 4:30-6:30 is that there was such a continuous stream of customers to server - yet not so many that any observed the robbery at 8:30 or saw the burglar enter hours earlier, or heard the brutal murder, and is anyway dependent on a theory that she was alive at 6:30 which presupposes the time of death was wrong, and therefore creates the opportunity for Robin to have also murdered her after 6:30.
Also, when a jury finds that a defendant probably or very likely committed a crime they must find them not guilty. A guilty verdict is reserved for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt though - an impossible standard). The minority jurors did not necessarily consider him innocent.
> I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain
Guilty conscience. People like that know they've done something, not necessarily criminal per se but at least antisocial, and that they deserve to be punished for it.
I tend to think they need to be hurt to get less neurotic and go back to making a positive contribution to society.
I've known many dozens of murderers. Some double murderers. Some triple murderers. Almost all of them are completely ordinary people, and there is nothing that would suspect you of their deeds if you met them on the street or at a party.
I was just thinking of one right now, after reading the article, who had allegedly bludgeoned their wife to death with a barbell while their toddler was with them. Looking them up, though, seven years after their trial their appeal went through, it looks like they are getting a retrial. "Defendant convicted of first-degree murder was entitled to a new trial to determine whether he was insane or guilty but mentally ill at the time of the offense because the prosecutor misstated critical evidence and made several other improper and prejudicial comments that deprived the defendant of a fair trial."
57 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 16.1 ms ] threadAlso, given he opened the safe and called the police a few minutes later, what happened to the money from the safe.
Truth is in these situations we don't know so no one outside of the case should speculate.
I feel the tendency to turn criminal cases into public spectacles does more harm and disservice to justice than anything else. The public has no business passing judgement or deciding for themselves. Leave them out of it.
Though the gruesome spectacle of public obsession with criminal cases like this has a long and (ig)noble history. There were late Victorian and early Edwardian “police reports” that filled exactly this sort of lurid fascination with the macabre.
However, I found the wider premise of the article more interesting than the speculation about the crime - which is whether someone convicted of an unpleasant violent crime can be simultaneously a warm and friendly person, and whether the justice system is as cut and dried as people like to think.
I found it very thought provoking beyond (or possibly in spite of) the “unsolved mystery” aspect.
Here in the US, people kill for a lot less.
And incidentally, in case you didn't know, to classify as a robber you need to either use, or threaten, with violence.
The average burglar is not a robber.
In Australia, organised crime has taken to hiring teenagers as hitmen; e.g. the perpetrators of a failed assassination attempt against a retired footballer (they shot him but he survived) included a 15 year old and 16 year old – https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sixteen-heart-pumping-ab...
Reasons for using teenagers include that they cost less, they are impressionable, easier to manipulate, eager to "prove themselves", and receive more lenient sentencing (especially those under 18). Adult hitmen demand thousands, they'll find a teenager willing to do it for $500 (AUD 500 = USD 350).
Apparently, this strategy wasn't invented in Australia, Australian criminals have copied it from Europe where it was already established (particularly in Sweden and the Netherlands)
It's an old strategy. It's commonly been part of plots of various stories/movies in the US going back decades.
I think significant aspects of it are quite novel – e.g. teenagers being recruited via Signal or Telegram, often by overseas fugitive gang leaders; some cases have even (allegedly) involved Iranian government agents
Also, there's a difference between something repeatedly happening in fiction over decades, and law enforcement seeing multiple real life cases of it over a few months in a single metro area
What a laughably insulated statement. An example from NZ - Janek Patel was murdered in 2022 while attempting to prevent the cash register at his corner store from being stolen.
The figure has been described as "a few dollars".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Henry_Abbott
people change all the time, and sitting in a small box without freedoms will surely cause deep introspection even in the most outward of people.
you can befriend anyone if theg are friendly to you, regardless of what happened in their lives historically. ofcourse be careful and learn lessons, but no need to be judgemental on things that never involved you in the first place.
for most people you can find some slice im their life and mark them as bad (maybe not wife murdering bad, but bad nonetheless). if you look critically at how you view people you will find that the people you do accept in your life simply dont have slices that you know of that trigger your emotions and cause judgement.
this is why i like some religions say judgement is only reserved for god. other then that it just causes more negativity from something that was already negative. spreading it more and more. (yes i know this last part will likely be hated on by the atheists, thats ok, judge away ;), still love ya!)
If I ever experience committing murder, I sure do you will be the judge.
The issue here is that we should expect 'the state' to be fairly objective in it's determination of illegality, the correct punishment for the event, and to publish what actions are illegal in a way that is publicly consumable prior to the events it arbitrates.
Lessor transgressions should be handled directly by the peers of the transgressors. I don't want the government holding a court case about something trivial to society at large but relevant to the small community it occurs in.
Well, many have victims who weren't treated with dignity or respect.
Recidivism is high, and so there's a statistical basis that people are who they show you to be.
Choosing to believe in an idea of them may hurt you, and its unfortunate if you choose to believe on society's behalf in an idea of them rather than who they actually are.
God bless America. I’m glad I’m here and not there.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But ultimately what is the point of these stories? I didn’t learn anything, no mystery was unraveled. It’s information fast food but dressed up as intellectual.
not everything has to have a plot or an arc, this is real life
For twenty minutes it was an engrossing read for me, but to each their own I guess.
I asked "what the hell?" and he said "this is for me to use in case somebody talks shit about your father".
Upon some investigation, it turns out that the nicest guy in the world was actually living in my city because he was on the run for a murder he committed in another city many years back. The nicest guy in the world had an altercation with another patron at a bar, while drunk, broke a beer bootle on a table, stuck into the stomach of the other guy, and twisted left and right until internal organs started showing.
I did befriend a murderer once.
It's a decent read, the author went on to being a bestselling true crime writer. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/15654.The_Stranger_Be...
(you might have a different opinion if you are female)
I believe this phenomenon is also rooted in the persecution fantasies that many people entertain, which play out in politics daily in all quarters. Like a kind of primal social anxiety - people have irrational fear of the crowd turning against without them having done anything wrong.
The undated and anonymous tip is meaningless and incredible, the policeman returning from holiday a few days early for a brutal murder investigation sounds very normal, the lack of DNA on the thoroughly cleaned murder weapon is irrelevant, the notion of the murderer killing Dianne hours before the robbery and waiting for the rest of the town to wake up before leaving is absurd, his 'alibi' for 4:30-6:30 is that there was such a continuous stream of customers to server - yet not so many that any observed the robbery at 8:30 or saw the burglar enter hours earlier, or heard the brutal murder, and is anyway dependent on a theory that she was alive at 6:30 which presupposes the time of death was wrong, and therefore creates the opportunity for Robin to have also murdered her after 6:30.
Also, when a jury finds that a defendant probably or very likely committed a crime they must find them not guilty. A guilty verdict is reserved for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt though - an impossible standard). The minority jurors did not necessarily consider him innocent.
Guilty conscience. People like that know they've done something, not necessarily criminal per se but at least antisocial, and that they deserve to be punished for it.
I tend to think they need to be hurt to get less neurotic and go back to making a positive contribution to society.
Two ex-professional criminals who killed other criminals back in the 90", and one guy who killed someone in a pub brawl that went wrong.
Those people are relatively normal and can be 100% rehabilitated.
I also know a guy who was forced to watch execution while a teenager - he on the other hand is mentally badly damaged 2 decades later.
Those guys are far less psychotic and toxic than many corporate leaders I met in my career.
I'm from Central Europe.
I was just thinking of one right now, after reading the article, who had allegedly bludgeoned their wife to death with a barbell while their toddler was with them. Looking them up, though, seven years after their trial their appeal went through, it looks like they are getting a retrial. "Defendant convicted of first-degree murder was entitled to a new trial to determine whether he was insane or guilty but mentally ill at the time of the offense because the prosecutor misstated critical evidence and made several other improper and prejudicial comments that deprived the defendant of a fair trial."