Have I befriended a murderer?

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 reminded of Edgar Smith and William Buckley ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Smith_(murderer) ), let's hope that however this particular story ends no one else gets killed.

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!

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...

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.

I did befriend a murderer once.

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!

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.

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 serve - 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.

Easier to befriend someone who murdered his wife rather than, say, murdered the last guy that befriended him.

(you might have a different opinion if you are female)

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.

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.

It's supposed to be proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but the system prefers the principle of one crime, one sentence.

I read it. It was engrossing.

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.

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.

> Ten of the 12 jurors agreed, and Robin was found guilty by a majority verdict.

God bless America. I’m glad I’m here and not there.