I continue to consider whether the prosecution will have a harder time winning a homicide case than now believed unless it can come up with some direct evidence of what actually occurred in the basement that night and/or evidence suggesting planning (e.g., additional early google searches, a life insurance policy, etc.) or prior threats to AW (e.g., physical/emotional abuse). I have only read about two additional pieces of evidence this week. One is that BW may have bought a Tyvek suit prior to Jan. 1st (in addition to the one he bought after Jan. 1st) and the other is that he had previously googled about the best divorce state for men. The first could be useful to the prosecution, but the second seems pretty weak in and of itself. I understand that there is other forensic evidence that is still being tested.
I also read the article about Thomas DiBiase, the self-styled “No Body Guy” who wrote a book with details of successful murder prosecutions where the victim’s body was not found. I wonder if in the majority of the prosecutions in the book the defense’s position was that the defendant had nothing to do with any harm to the victim and therefore had nothing to do with the disappearance of the victim. If so, in these cases, the jury (and the defense) may have been presented with a binary choice: either the defendant was involved with killing the victim AND then disposing of the body or the defendant was involved with neither. In these cases, if the defendant was found guilty, the jury presumably decided based primarily on circumstantial evidence that there was no other logical explanation for the victim’s disappearance other than the accused killing and disposing of the victim. Based upon current disclosed evidence, does the BW case present a defense that was unavailable in these other cases either because it did not fit the facts or it strained credulity? Could BW freely admit (through his defense lawyer, not by testifying) disposing of AW’s body and thereby pleading guilty to any corpse-related charges, but deny killing or harming her that night? The burden, as we know, is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed her. In this case, the possible time, place and means of harm to AW are very constrained and therefor the prosecution’s ability to rely on the jury’s imagination is also limited compared to many of the other cases.
Could the defense go something like this: BW admittedly was a troubled person who had his run ins with the law, but there is no history of violence on his part. He was a good father to his three children, in fact, his was solely responsible for caring for them for the past number of months. Since AW must have been a good mother whose children’s welfare was foremost in her mind (leaving aside her weekly absence), she would not have left the children with him if he wasn’t a gentle and caring father. He may not have been happy with his wife leading her own life five days a week in DC, and he might have suspected disloyalty on her part, but there is no evidence of complaints or threats to AW based upon her absence from the household. On the night of her disappearance, all seemed well in the household: there was a nice note from AW, their friend who visited that night reported nothing amiss or unusual about the behavior of AW or BW. Locals who interacted with BW regularly might say that he was always a bit weird, but report nothing unusual about BW’s recent behavior. There is no evidence of infidelity on his part. BW was dependent on AW as she had a job and he didn’t, and he was restricted based on his previous conviction. While he googled about divorce, he might have been concerned about alimony and child support if he thought that she was contemplating dumping him. Besides, researching divorce is not a crime and does not imply that a husband is thinking about murdering his wife. Yes, there was a purchase of killing “supplies” after AW died. There was blood all over the place. There were trips to dispose of the body. Etc., etc. etc. But we already admitted responsibility for all of that. But you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt how AW died or that she died as a result of actions of the defendant.
Are there other facts that could be developed to support the theory of an AW accident (e.g., steep stairway, dimly lit basement, AW drinking that night, etc.)? Could BW’s previous mental health issues be used to support the theory of irrational panic and disposal of her body to avoid being wrongfully charged?
<modsnip - no link>
I also read the article about Thomas DiBiase, the self-styled “No Body Guy” who wrote a book with details of successful murder prosecutions where the victim’s body was not found. I wonder if in the majority of the prosecutions in the book the defense’s position was that the defendant had nothing to do with any harm to the victim and therefore had nothing to do with the disappearance of the victim. If so, in these cases, the jury (and the defense) may have been presented with a binary choice: either the defendant was involved with killing the victim AND then disposing of the body or the defendant was involved with neither. In these cases, if the defendant was found guilty, the jury presumably decided based primarily on circumstantial evidence that there was no other logical explanation for the victim’s disappearance other than the accused killing and disposing of the victim. Based upon current disclosed evidence, does the BW case present a defense that was unavailable in these other cases either because it did not fit the facts or it strained credulity? Could BW freely admit (through his defense lawyer, not by testifying) disposing of AW’s body and thereby pleading guilty to any corpse-related charges, but deny killing or harming her that night? The burden, as we know, is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed her. In this case, the possible time, place and means of harm to AW are very constrained and therefor the prosecution’s ability to rely on the jury’s imagination is also limited compared to many of the other cases.
Could the defense go something like this: BW admittedly was a troubled person who had his run ins with the law, but there is no history of violence on his part. He was a good father to his three children, in fact, his was solely responsible for caring for them for the past number of months. Since AW must have been a good mother whose children’s welfare was foremost in her mind (leaving aside her weekly absence), she would not have left the children with him if he wasn’t a gentle and caring father. He may not have been happy with his wife leading her own life five days a week in DC, and he might have suspected disloyalty on her part, but there is no evidence of complaints or threats to AW based upon her absence from the household. On the night of her disappearance, all seemed well in the household: there was a nice note from AW, their friend who visited that night reported nothing amiss or unusual about the behavior of AW or BW. Locals who interacted with BW regularly might say that he was always a bit weird, but report nothing unusual about BW’s recent behavior. There is no evidence of infidelity on his part. BW was dependent on AW as she had a job and he didn’t, and he was restricted based on his previous conviction. While he googled about divorce, he might have been concerned about alimony and child support if he thought that she was contemplating dumping him. Besides, researching divorce is not a crime and does not imply that a husband is thinking about murdering his wife. Yes, there was a purchase of killing “supplies” after AW died. There was blood all over the place. There were trips to dispose of the body. Etc., etc. etc. But we already admitted responsibility for all of that. But you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt how AW died or that she died as a result of actions of the defendant.
Are there other facts that could be developed to support the theory of an AW accident (e.g., steep stairway, dimly lit basement, AW drinking that night, etc.)? Could BW’s previous mental health issues be used to support the theory of irrational panic and disposal of her body to avoid being wrongfully charged?
<modsnip - no link>
Last edited by a moderator:
