Staging is the aspect of these cases which most interests me (2nd only to the cut and thrust of trials).
I would argue that we need to be every careful about deduction vs inductive reasoning.
The first point is that the poisoner is a rare kind of murderer. Nevertheless if we suspect poisoning in a case, profiling might tell us what to look for. e.g. the murderer is trying to conceal the method of murder, and sometimes also the fact of murder. But especially the clinical, cold blooded nature of it suggests a cunning mind. Stupefying the victim is about control.
For example, in the "disappearance" of Helen Bailey, she was drugged with sleeping pills, and possibly dumped alive into a hidden septic tank by her husband. The motive was financial. She was a wealthy author and he wanted the money and the house without her in the way. In other words, she was a problem that needed to be solved in a bloodless way. This strikes me as similar to the motive and approach in this case.
But the other point one can make is the genesis of these plots is often opportunistic. The poisoner uses the method available, or where she/he has experience - e.g a rare poison stolen from a university lab. Remember the domestic poisoner is not a hardened killer. The plan will be developed over time, and will be designed to place the least emotional stress on the killer, compared with your typical bloodlust crime.
So this is where deductive reasoning has to play a secondary role to inductive reasoning.
What circumstantial evidence do we find of poisoning to support the theory?
I see the cap in the dryer as more of a small clue to what happened than hard evidence on its own. But as @MassGuy pointed out, finding this clue was critical to breaking the case wide open. And we find that Grusing and the team really did their job here.
Per profiling theory, they found the Rx for the suspected poison (common mistake), plus witnesses who could attest to BM's skill & experience with tranq-ing large animals.
They pinned BM in the lie about shooting from the Breezeway allowing for a dart to be found in the house. Especially BM indicated they would find darts all over the yard (absurd)
And perhaps the most incriminating fact. No tranq serum was found, and BM admitted to disposing of it on the day of disappearance.
IMO this is what matters - the sensitivity of the tranq theory to the accused - via an inductive process. Barry 'fessed because Grusing figured it out - not directly because of any cap in the dryer - critically Grusing did not at first tell Barry this!
So was a tranq gun used?
IMO we can't answer this question deductively or inductively, nor do we need do. But it is highly suspicious to me that no working tranq gun was located. This is by far the bigger issue.
One of the big problems for the defence at any trial, IMO, was their inability to explain lack of tranq-serum and recovery of obvious tranq gun - and how that could fit with the accused's own statements of recent use.
We can infer by induction, IMO, that the accused sought to stage/conceal these aspects. Especially in his elaborate lies, the accused never referenced a specific gun. Why was that?
As usual, it is the existence of the staging which matters much more than trying to figure out what the original timeline looked like.
This is incidentally, the problem with all BM's lies. He makes something up in the moment, to avoid pressure face to face, without considering how it impacts everything else.
The version that he never shot in Colorado, is the version that fits with no gun and no serum.
Opps.
I would argue that we need to be every careful about deduction vs inductive reasoning.
The first point is that the poisoner is a rare kind of murderer. Nevertheless if we suspect poisoning in a case, profiling might tell us what to look for. e.g. the murderer is trying to conceal the method of murder, and sometimes also the fact of murder. But especially the clinical, cold blooded nature of it suggests a cunning mind. Stupefying the victim is about control.
For example, in the "disappearance" of Helen Bailey, she was drugged with sleeping pills, and possibly dumped alive into a hidden septic tank by her husband. The motive was financial. She was a wealthy author and he wanted the money and the house without her in the way. In other words, she was a problem that needed to be solved in a bloodless way. This strikes me as similar to the motive and approach in this case.
But the other point one can make is the genesis of these plots is often opportunistic. The poisoner uses the method available, or where she/he has experience - e.g a rare poison stolen from a university lab. Remember the domestic poisoner is not a hardened killer. The plan will be developed over time, and will be designed to place the least emotional stress on the killer, compared with your typical bloodlust crime.
So this is where deductive reasoning has to play a secondary role to inductive reasoning.
What circumstantial evidence do we find of poisoning to support the theory?
I see the cap in the dryer as more of a small clue to what happened than hard evidence on its own. But as @MassGuy pointed out, finding this clue was critical to breaking the case wide open. And we find that Grusing and the team really did their job here.
Per profiling theory, they found the Rx for the suspected poison (common mistake), plus witnesses who could attest to BM's skill & experience with tranq-ing large animals.
They pinned BM in the lie about shooting from the Breezeway allowing for a dart to be found in the house. Especially BM indicated they would find darts all over the yard (absurd)
And perhaps the most incriminating fact. No tranq serum was found, and BM admitted to disposing of it on the day of disappearance.
IMO this is what matters - the sensitivity of the tranq theory to the accused - via an inductive process. Barry 'fessed because Grusing figured it out - not directly because of any cap in the dryer - critically Grusing did not at first tell Barry this!
So was a tranq gun used?
IMO we can't answer this question deductively or inductively, nor do we need do. But it is highly suspicious to me that no working tranq gun was located. This is by far the bigger issue.
One of the big problems for the defence at any trial, IMO, was their inability to explain lack of tranq-serum and recovery of obvious tranq gun - and how that could fit with the accused's own statements of recent use.
We can infer by induction, IMO, that the accused sought to stage/conceal these aspects. Especially in his elaborate lies, the accused never referenced a specific gun. Why was that?
As usual, it is the existence of the staging which matters much more than trying to figure out what the original timeline looked like.
This is incidentally, the problem with all BM's lies. He makes something up in the moment, to avoid pressure face to face, without considering how it impacts everything else.
The version that he never shot in Colorado, is the version that fits with no gun and no serum.
Opps.
Last edited:
