Someone just mentioned ribs, and now I’m hungry and distracted.

Truth is stranger than fiction.” I don’t buy that. Plenty of fiction exceeds the upper limits of strangeness set by any true account of facts. The exact letter of the cliché is wrong, but the spirit (that very strange shit does, indeed, happen) is dead on.

A Madison, Wisconsin District Attorney is looking for a 5’8″, 140lb woman to stick her head in a toilet in open court, to rule out the plausibility of a suicide defense in a murder case.

I’ll give you a second to re-read that.

Ready? It gets stranger. Turns out the defendant was already convicted once on the charges, but the conviction was overturned when it was discovered that the purported expert witness for the prosecution who testified about the toilet drowning wasn’t quite the expert he/she had claimed to be.

Or else.

"If it please the court, I'd like to present... EXHIBIT A!!!"

The thing that always gets me about these sort of reports are the questions left unanswered, and the “exaggerated credentials” of the expert witness creates a giant, dangling unanswered question in my mind: what… exactly… qualifies as expertise in the field of lavatory homicide? Must one have previously committed such an offense? Hold a degree in physics, anatomy and plumbing? Work at Home Depot? Be a notorious middle school bully? How much were the credentials in question exaggerated? Was the fraud perpetrated due to a complete lack of existence of the sort of expert required?

Whatever the case, the prosecution is now looking to prove, a second time, that the defendant poisoned his wife in order to make her vomit, then, while she was doing so, held her head down and drowned her.Which, of course begs the question; why wouldn’t he just actually poison her to death?

Not to suggest that murder is typically the product of a rational mind, but just what kind of thought process leads to this unconventional modus operandi? Was regular poisoning too dull? Or did he just fail at the attempt to poison her by making her nauseous before the poison could take effect, forcing him to improvise? Or did he encounter logistical problems with his  original, slightly less ridiculous “Knife-wielding-octopi-on-a-tandem-bike” plot?

The defense claims that the ‘victim’ was despondent, and committed suicide by drowning herself in the toilet. Into which she had just vomited. Has that ever happened? I mean, assuming you’re suicidal (and puking), I’d think that… I don’t know… there would be some easier method of offing yourself than somehow conjuring the will to hold your head in the toilet while suppressing every single natural impulse in your body, because all you have to do is pull a small handle that’s less than a foot from your head, or, you know… stand up.

Furthermore, wouldn’t some variation of that last sentence be enough to convince a jury that no matter how depressed someone is, if they want to die, they’ll find a relatively simple and straightforward way to do it (with the occasional overly dramatic Rube Goldberg/McGuyver-esque exception)? Is this really the sort of thing that requires demonstration? I know I’ve previously joked about ridiculous court cases, but seriously, when did the court system turn into an episode of Boston Legal?  Has it always been this absurd, and I just wasn’t paying attention?

Sadly, not a photochop.

What's great about Boston Legal is how easy it really was to find an image this odd, not to mention that it actually makes more sense if you imagine that it was taken while Bill Shatner was in the middle of... befouling his flamingo suit.


~ by tazehim on June 12, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: