[Tiresias]

Problem solving exercise: You are going to commit murder. How are you going to get away with it?

Note: I am not a homicidal psychopath. Just been reading G. K. Chesterton (detective fiction writer, for the uninitiated). Father Brown, Holmes, Dupin... these guys always get their man. And now, in the age of forensic science, it's even harder to imagine getting away with murder. However, I do have a few ideas. But you first.

[Cold Warrior]

And now, in the age of tracked computer activity and hyper-sensitive police and hair-trigger arrests, we'd have to be stupid to put down murder thoughts -- however hypothetical -- on the internet.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Note: I am not a homicidal psychopath.

Yeah, right. The guy who brings up this topic is always a homicidal psychopath. Haven't you ever seen any Hitchcock films before? if you really had to check for this white text, then you have a very bad joke-detector

[Tiresias]

Detective fiction writers think about the convoluted machinations of the criminal mind for a living, so I guess that makes them psychopaths...

[nonhuman]

In my experience, the best way to get what you want is never to take it yourself and always to convince the person who has it that they want to give it to you.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Problem solving exercise: You are going to commit murder. How are you going to get away with it?

Note: I am not a homicidal psychopath. Just been reading G. K. Chesterton (detective fiction writer, for the uninitiated). Father Brown, Holmes, Dupin... these guys always get their man. And now, in the age of forensic science, it's even harder to imagine getting away with murder. However, I do have a few ideas. But you first.

I started reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy last year but got bored.

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Problem solving exercise: You are going to commit murder. How are you going to get away with it?

Note: I am not a homicidal psychopath. Just been reading G. K. Chesterton (detective fiction writer, for the uninitiated). Father Brown, Holmes, Dupin... these guys always get their man. And now, in the age of forensic science, it's even harder to imagine getting away with murder. However, I do have a few ideas. But you first.

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I started reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy last year but got bored.

That's theology, isn't it? Ever read any of the Father Brown stuff? Each story is like a clever little puzzle with a mysterious set up followed by the brilliant solution of Father Brown—priest, part-time crime solver (who is an expert on the criminal mind due to all the confessions he has listened too). Really fun reading.

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I started reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy last year but got bored.

"Suppose," Chesterton wrote in his entertaining book Heretics[1], "that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down." A monk is asked his opinion and is knocked down for beginning, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be good—" Everyone, Chesterton continues, rushes for the lamp-post and pulls it down in ten minutes, and then

they go about congradulating themselves on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is a war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes.

So, Chesterton concludes, "Gradually and inevitably, today, tomarrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark."

[1] Heretics the "prequel" to Orthodoxy, is a collection of short articles on contemporaries such as H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Rudyard Kipling.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed 

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Good point. But this is one small category of madmen, and there are many others.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed 

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Yep, I do recognize that from Orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

That's theology, isn't it? Ever read any of the Father Brown stuff? Each story is like a clever little puzzle with a mysterious set up followed by the brilliant solution of Father Brown—priest, part-time crime solver (who is an expert on the criminal mind due to all the confessions he has listened too). Really fun reading.

Yeah, there were a few people that got together and discussed it once a week. Unfortunately at that point in my life my priorities were in a different place and reading was definitely not one of them. It's something I'm trying to get back into.

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yep, I do recognize that from Orthodoxy.



Yeah, there were a few people that got together and discussed it once a week. Unfortunately at that point in my life my priorities were in a different place and reading was definitely not one of them. It's something I'm trying to get back into.

Heretics and Orthodoxy inevitably are required reading for anybody working in philosophy, Christian thought or Christian theology if for the only reason that folks tend to refer to them directly or draw and apply ideas and concepts from Chesterton.

[Rumor]

Sure, this is an easy question.

First, I would....hold on, someone is at the door.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yeah, there were a few people that got together and discussed it once a week. Unfortunately at that point in my life my priorities were in a different place and reading was definitely not one of them.

[Mastrap]

As far as I know only about 45% of all murders ever get solved. So you've got a 50/50 chance without any special precautions...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Problem solving exercise: You are going to commit murder. How are you going to get away with it?

Easy. Just don't do it within 100 yards of a speed camera.

[abbaZaba]

I started typing up a serious response to this question but when I was done I was kind of creeped out by it since murder was so well thought out in my head. so I deleted it.

[Dakarʒ]

So basically you murdered your response? I've alerted the authorities.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

http://psych.wisc.edu/henriques/reso...r%20Funnel.gif

Hahahaha...not quite. There was a girl.

[Dakarʒ]

Keep your facts outta my face, thanks.

[abbaZaba]

my response had too many good ideas in it. I couldn't let you guys know my secrets for free

[Jawbone54]

Being around this forum for some time now, I'm concerned that about 20% of the people that respond to this thread might be speaking from personal experience.

[Rumor]

Kill them with kindness.

[Jawbone54]

How about a hug, Rumy?

[Rumor]

Now I know your true intentions!
How'd you know I am Rumsfield?

[Dakarʒ]

Battle of the pointing sigs. Advantage Jawbone.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Problem solving exercise: You are going to commit murder. How are you going to get away with it?

I think you need to be more specific. Do I have to murder someone that I know and have reason to murder? That makes it more complicated. If I can just go out and kill a random person that I don't know, then I don't think you'll ever catch me.

[Rumor]

I can't see any sigs.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Battle of the pointing sigs. Advantage Jawbone.

I'm in.

[Dakarʒ]

Yours is practically a "caption this pic" challenge.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

If I can just go out and kill a random person that I don't know, then I don't think you'll ever catch me.

Bingo, otherwise you'd need a vat of acid, a couple trash bags, and a CSI-style web of lies.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

If I can just go out and kill a random person that I don't know, then I don't think you'll ever catch me.

Yup.
If the goal is just to kill someone and get away with it then just find some gang member and gun him down. You'd never be a suspect the police would go after unless you have ties to the person or the gang.
Plus everyone almost expects those people to be gunned down eventually. Therefore there would never be a great deal of attention paid to the crime.

[pixelbaker]

icicle. a big one. stab and then it goes away with no evidence. unless someone sees you, then you have to icicle the second person too. it's a win-win.

[dcmacdaddy]

All you've got to do is trip and fall on the subway and accidentally fall against someone who tragically gets pushed in front of an oncoming train. Voila! Instant murder.

As crowded as the subway platforms can be in NYC that is an all-too-likely occurrence as a genuine accident, not as a masked accident. That is why I always take a step or two *backwards* when the train enters the station. Just to make sure I am moving away from the train in case of a crush of people trying to get to it. (not too mention I am not a big fan of crowds in general)

I would think that pretty much any place where two people are alone together--with no-one else around--is a place where a murder could be committed. I would think that killing the person is the easy part and that getting away with it is the hard part. Anyone here ever kill anyone?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm in.

I'm in too.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm in too.

Well, I hope the temperature in your sig drops 20º then.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I think you need to be more specific. Do I have to murder someone that I know and have reason to murder? That makes it more complicated. If I can just go out and kill a random person that I don't know, then I don't think you'll ever catch me.

No. It has to be someone you want to murder, not just some random dude walking down the street, which would make you crazy.

Anyway, here's how I'd do it. I'd groom my victim, pretend we were best friends. I start pretending to have an interest in photography. I ask him ("You are the only person I can ask") to help me with a photo shoot. "I want to take some pics at the Grand Canyon" (of course, any cliff's edge will do). He'll think the idea corny, but (hopefully) comply. I will tell him I want a certain shot... he will stand at the edge of the cliff with his back to me, holding some stupid prop or other. "Great" I say (click, click, click) "Beautiful" (I am creeping closer) "One more..." Then I simply boot him over the edge. A horrible accident.

Or, even simpler, I'd just shoot him point-black in the face with a shotgun. Didn't know it was loaded. Yes officer, we were drinking. A horrible accident.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by pixelbaker 

icicle. a big one. stab and then it goes away with no evidence. unless someone sees you, then you have to icicle the second person too. it's a win-win.

Um, creative.

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

No. It has to be someone you want to murder, not just some random dude walking down the street, which would make you crazy.

Anyway, here's how I'd do it. I'd groom my victim, pretend we were best friends. I start pretending to have an interest in photography. I ask him ("You are the only person I can ask") to help me with a photo shoot. "I want to take some pics at the Grand Canyon" (of course, any cliff's edge will do). He'll think the idea corny, but (hopefully) comply. I will tell him I want a certain shot... he will stand at the edge of the cliff with his back to me, holding some stupid prop or other. "Great" I say (click, click, click) "Beautiful" (I am creeping closer) "One more..." Then I simply boot him over the edge. A horrible accident.

Or, even simpler, I'd just shoot him point-black in the face with a shotgun. Didn't know it was loaded. Yes officer, we were drinking. A horrible accident.

I don't think either of those would work because you would still be charged. I think it'd be hard to convince the law that both things were an acccident. especially that shotgun one. I gaurantee you'd get charged for that.

[abbaZaba]

also, the problem with killing someone who you want people to believe to be your friend is there is bound to be evidence that you've mentioned in past conversations that would lead people to believe you were the culprit.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by pixelbaker 

icicle. a big one. stab and then it goes away with no evidence. unless someone sees you, then you have to icicle the second person too. it's a win-win.

That already happened in Walker Texas Ranger.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Problem solving exercise: You are going to commit murder. How are you going to get away with it?

Kill yourself

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That already happened in Walker Texas Ranger.

Coming to one of the three CSIs in 5...4...3...

[residentEvil]

well rule #1 obviously is don't write it down for someone else to read/know about it. otherwise, you didn't get away with anything.

[BadKosh]

Bore them to death with this thread?

[loki74]

If you get say, five people in a room, and they all shoot the same person with the same gun in the same place (specifically, an instantly fatal shot to the head), and none of them spill the beans, it will be impossible to convict someone--you would not be able to determine who actually killed the person and who simply shot a corpse.

EDIT: you could, of course, get them all on conspiracy to commit murder...

[- - e r i k - -]

Club them to death with a frozen ham, then serve it to the police officers investigating the crime scene.
Kudos to Roald Dahl

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Detective fiction writers think about the convoluted machinations of the criminal mind for a living, so I guess that makes them psychopaths...

Your humor detector needs work.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Your humor detector needs work.

Or perhaps your joke generator.

[el chupacabra]

I would take them to the mountains butcher them and leave them for the coyotes.

I was just discussing this with a forensic scientist the other day. According to her it's extremely rare to solve a murder case. She says hundreds are murdered each year in every big city that the public doesn't hear about.