2
   

Now here is one for the books!

 
 
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 10:09 am
I cannot attest to this story -- it came to me in an email.

But it sure is a doozey!

*****

Subject: Very bizarre death...... > >


Not even CSI would attempt to capture this mess.. This is an unbelievable twist of fate!!!

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS President Dr Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story:

On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-storey building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly.

Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.

"Ordinarily," Dr Mills continued, "Someone who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands.

In the room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr. Opus.

When one intends to kill subject "A" but kills subject "B" in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject "B. "When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant and both said that they thought the shotgun was not loaded.

The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, assuming the gun had been accidentally loaded.

The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident.

It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother.

Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist.

Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-storey building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.


(A true story from Associated Press, Reported by Kurt Westervelt )

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,655 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 10:18 am
Bizzaro!
0 Replies
 
colorbook
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:40 am
An interesting and unusual story for sure.
0 Replies
 
kirsten
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:47 am
Great tale, but it sure has "Urban Legend" written all over it!
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:49 am
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/opus.htm

Apparently, it's fiction.
0 Replies
 
Sugar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:52 am
deleted by poster
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:54 am
I heard this too. But may have seen it in a movie. Does that ring a bell for anyone?
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:57 am
Yes, it does fealola, I've been trying to dredge up the movie...
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 11:57 am
Ah yes, according to snopes it's been used a few times in tv and films. One was Magnolia.
0 Replies
 
mac11
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:01 pm
Yep that's it - it was a fast scene at the beginning.
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:07 pm
goodness
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:08 pm
Sorry Frank, but that is an Urban Legend. The Darwin Awards have it as "Bizarre Death
1994 Urban Legend". If it could have been confirmed true, they would have by now.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:09 pm
Ahhhh...I figured this was an urban legend.

Too bad...it was a great story.

Interesting how it came about!

Thanks everyone. Hope ya all enjoyed it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:11 pm
I certainly did. Thanks. I think I've read all of the Darwin Awards at one point or other.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:28 pm
I think I first heard this little tale back in the 1970's while in law school. It was given, if memory serves, by a torts professor while explaining proximate cause. The Palsgraf case was, of course, the center piece of his lecture. I believe this was one of his other examples, but it was clear that the story was not taken from an actual case. It might also have been originally a Bar Exam question, they are often just as quirky.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 01:14 pm
I've read this somewhere before, but can't remember where. Good story though.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:24 pm
Asherman, Montana

Go to the link that Mac provided up above. It explains the genesis of the piece completely.

The explanation is interesting, too.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 02:29 pm
That was interesting. Thanks for the link Mac.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:10 pm
Sure thought it was one of those examples we were given to chew on in Torts. Guess my old memory is fading faster than I realized.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 05:33 pm
It is somewhat like a proximate cause lesson. Hey, I remember Palsgraff - the lady getting clocked by a large scale when fireworks went off in the LIRR station. Wacky.

And Palsgraff really happened.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Now here is one for the books!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 09:30:46