She cold bloodedly shoots her husband in their house.
She has a gun, he has no weapon.
She has a motive of revenge or just hate towards him.
She also could have premeditated to kill him since she has a recording from who knows when about him plotting to kill her.
Her defense is her word against his, no evidence of anything, other than she has a gun and he has none.
She should be charged of first degree murder and given the chair.
Isn't the recording an evidence? Missed the plot?? She kills north the guys in self defense. Legally she is safe, I reckon.
shareWhat????
Looks like you missed my post.
If anything, that's evidence AGAINST her, because she premeditated her revenge over his alledged failed assassination plot.
There is no self defense argument other than her own testimony, which is quite useless if there's no hard proof backing it up. She is as safe as any other red handed murderer in history.
Premeditated? Please explain how? Maybe I missed something, but nothing suggested that she planned it. The recording was mailed to her, she never planned to have the conversation recorded. The plot to murder her is not alleged as there's a recording.
You can cook up all the theories you want, but the film never shows her having any idea about her husband's involvement until the very end. When she figures out the wrong key, she suspects him and she still did not know about the recording till then.
And if you remember, she was leaving the house she was attacked.
Litigation 101:
1- a trial is in its core and essence cooking up theories, that's what lawyers do, that's what judges rule on.
2- only undisputable fact: he is dead, she is alive. So, he is certainly not going to need defending his position, she on the other hand has to explain a lot of things, starting with his death.
3- if that recording is ever brought up, it will be used AGAINST her. It's a clear proof that she had negative feelings against him before killing him. It establishes her motive for eventually murdering him.
4- her murder never happened and to support the theory of a plot there's only a recording of his voice, which we don't know where it's from nor what it's really about. Not being her own recording might even make it inadmissible in court. At any rate, a plot for murder is on a totally different scale than a succesfull murder.
5- everything else you brought up has no value in court, it's all her words about her own suspicions and there is no hard proof of any of it, she could have fabricated all of it after the murder of her husband.
6- what she would need is some hard proof that she acted in self defense, I don't see that happening from what we see in the movie, and to be honest, she DOES murder him at the end. She could have just pointed the gun and get him arrested for plotting against her, or injured him to stop him, instead of killing him. And to make it even worse, it is her second murder in a month.
Well, if you actually have some legal knowledge what you said might be true. But point 4 cracked me up. So murder should have happened to support the theory that someone planned it? Hehe!!!
What is attempted murder then? We only hear a small portion of the recording. Don't you think whole conversation was recorded along with names etc?
And not going into the actual legality, she got away with the self-defence in the first instance.
Nope, unless that whole conversation had him stating his first and last name, acknowledging that he knew this was a recorded conversation, and above all there was a way to identify his voice (remember that he is dead at that point), that tape does not hold in court as a proof against him.
Attempted murder is what the assassin did, forcing his way into their house and assaulting her. To have him connected, hard proof is needed, like something written or a wire payment etc. Or an official statement.
She got away the first time against an unknown intruder that attacked her. The clues, circumstances, murder weapon, all leave little doubt of her self defense. Her husband's murder is a whole different ballgame.
It would be kind of hard to convict someone of murder, when the case never even goes to trial. No D.A. would even bother taking on this case. Remember, they were a high profile and wealthy couple. She would have top notch attorney's representing her every step of the way. And here would be the undisputable facts they would present.
1) Her husband had made some bad financial decisions recently and desperately needed an influx of quick cash. Motive
2) He is on tape plotting her murder with her lover.
3) She was attacked in their home, by someone who had never been there before but obviously had inside information on how to get in undetected. The dead assassin could also be connect to her lover.
4) Her lover would soon be found murdered.
As long as her husband is alive, her life is in danger, especially now that she knows what he has done. No jury would ever convict her, so no DA would even waste time pressing charges.
I agree with 1 indisputable fact: she is loaded, her uber expensive lawyers will buy her way out of jail.
But you would just need a DA with some devil's advocate sense and the will to catch a rich bitch to plead a clear case of cold blooded murder here.
1,2,4- true, but one more reason for her to kill him
3- that is her only case: self defense. But 1,2,4 are so strong that there will always be room to argue against her for pre meditation.
Also, she had a gun, he did not, that looks (at best) like abuse of self defense.
Was there a real need for killing him other than revenge?
Why not escape/injure him/capture him/call the police?
Also it is her second "accidental" murder in about a month.
Phil Spector died in jail for a single, far more innocent accident. Will she get a pass only because she is a woman?
Her attorney would argue that she had gun to keep her husband from fleeing before the police arrived. He attacked her and tried to wrestle the gun away from her, with the intention of killing her. In the struggle, she shot and killed him. Both of them have defensive and offensive wounds proving the struggle. Then the tape shows her husbands intentions, and her lover being found dead eliminate any reasonable doubt that she was in imminent danger.
Even if our theories were equally likely (They're not. All other evidence supports mine) there's this little thing in our country called "Presumption of Innocence". There's no evidence to support premediated murder. Lots of evidence to support self defense. Been a long time since I saw the movie but I don't remember how she got the gun, so the police probably couldn't verify who brought the gun into the apartment, or who even started the fight with it. She would spend plenty of time talking to the police, but would never spend a day in jail or have any charges filed.
Phil Spector told his limo driver that he shot her, then tried to argue it was a suicide. He also went thru 4 sets of attorneys, had his defense forensic expert accused of hiding evidence, and had 10 jurors voting for conviction in his first trial. He was convicted the second time. He also had a history of pulling guns on women.
You clearly do not remember what happens. Watch it again.
She attacks him hitting him on the face breaking his brow arch.
He pushes her to the floor (no wound evidence of it, probably not even a bruise).
She pulls a gun out of her pocket and shoots him, wounding him badly on a shoulder.
She runs past him, he trips her (maybe a bruise on her knee).
He charges at her, but she punches his face with her gun, then shoots again before he even touches her. He is dead.
Not only that IS murder. It also looks like it.
The tape, even PRETENDING it is admissible in court (which it is totally not) proves squat. And again, it would only establish her solid motive for killing him.
Any killer, like her, might talk for years to the police, explaining how innocent they truly are. Do you think they are heard or the police will figure out their own reality?
Spector never killed nor harmed anybody before. She has.