In Your Face

[kytdunne]

hoosier said:

The "body" was only on screen for what 10 seconds?

So maybe the real question should be: Why did they opt to pay someone to play a dead body when they could've had the 'real' guy play his own pretend corpse?

Kyt

[mlm828]

Remember the bet between Jim and Marty at the end of the episode? Jim bets Marty they will not be able to make the murder case against the Tuxhorns and will be able to get insurance fraud at most. Who wins that bet?

I think Marty wins. Insurance fraud generally involves making a false claim to an insurance company. I'm sure that was the Tuxhorns' plan, but based on what we see in the episode, they never got that far. I think Joan would not have made a claim immediately, to avoid arousing suspicion.

Unlike Jim, I think they had a pretty good circumstantial murder case. The victim was killed in the Tuxhorns' apartment, with their gun; Joan gave a false story about what happened; Jerry was out of work with big gambling debts; they took out an insurance policy on his life recently; Joan was seen with a man resembling Jerry, and that man is now missing; Joan had the body cremated quickly, on a pretext; and Jerry is very much alive. I also think Jim is off base in thinking the inability to identify the victim will be a problem. I don't think the identity of the victim is critical to making the case, as long as they can establish the deceased is not Jerry Tuxhorn, and they can easily do this, because Jerry is alive.

Does anyone want to bet against Marty?

[kytdunne]

mlm828 said:

Unlike Jim, I think they had a pretty good circumstantial murder case. The victim was killed in the Tuxhorns' apartment, with their gun; Joan gave a false story about what happened; Jerry was out of work with big gambling debts; they took out an insurance policy on his life recently; Joan was seen with a man resembling Jerry, and that man is now missing; Joan had the body cremated quickly, on a pretext; and Jerry is very much alive. ...

Does anyone want to bet against Marty?

I will. It's all circumstantial evidence. They have nothing to prove that Joan met the victim and conned him into her home where her husband blasted him in the face. Probability is that they'll say the victim broke in, her husband killed him, realized they could maybe save her husband from the bookies, and took advantage of a bad situation. No proof to the opposite. Bottom line on the murder charge: reasonable doubt. They get off.

Kyt

[mlm828]

kytdunne said:

I will. It's all circumstantial evidence. They have nothing to prove that Joan met the victim and conned him into her home where her husband blasted him in the face. Probability is that they'll say the victim broke in, her husband killed him, realized they could maybe save her husband from the bookies, and took advantage of a bad situation. No proof to the opposite. Bottom line on the murder charge: reasonable doubt. They get off.

Kyt

I agree they could try to raise a reasonable doubt along the lines you suggest. However, if this strategy is to succeed, the jury would have to find the Tuxhorns' testimony believable enough to create a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure how credible they'd be, especially after cross-examination. In addition, they apparently have a witness who saw Joan leaving a bar with the man who is now missing. Also, the jury will be told that circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence. The case may not be airtight, but people have been convicted on less.

[kytdunne]

mlm828 said:

I agree they could try to raise a reasonable doubt along the lines you suggest. However, if this strategy is to succeed, the jury would have to find the Tuxhorns' testimony believable enough to create a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure how credible they'd be, especially after cross-examination.

Joan'll be credible. All she has to do is stick with 'the truth' - of how the robber was shot and they took advantage of his similarity to her husband. The loose canon in the mix is Jerry since we don't really know anything about him other than the research he indulged in and a gambling problem.

mlm828 said:

In addition, they apparently have a witness who saw Joan leaving a bar with the man who is now missing. Also, the jury will be told that circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence. The case may not be airtight, but people have been convicted on less.

The witness saw someone fitting Joan's description, which is as generic as Jerry's.

Today's juries are inclined to want more forensic evidence and after the bloody mess in the apartment, they'll be wanting to know why fingerprints weren't taken off the dead man, why the blood wasn't tested, etc., so that'll go against the prosecution: they had a chance to get evidence and missed it entirely. Why?

If Jerry's anywhere near as good as Joan, they won't be convicted of murder. And on the flipside, of course, people have been let go with a lot more evidence against them.

Kyt

[mlm828]

If Jerry's anywhere near as good as Joan, they won't be convicted of murder. And on the flipside, of course, people have been let go with a lot more evidence against them.

I guess we'll just have to go to trial and let the jury decide -- that's why we have trials, after all. But thanks for taking me up on the bet!

[greenbeing]

rducasey said:

I know this belongs in In your face, but I saw a similar reaction , when Joan Tuxhorn says "nothing in this life is guaranteed" and Jim seems to lower his head as if he's saying "you're not kidding."

Ah! Thanks for sharing! I hadn't yet noticed that one!

--GB

*moved this bit from the Rub a Tub Tub thread where we were discussing Jim's reactions to things the perps were saying that had bearing on his life

[greenbeing]

Joan Tuxhorn has really started to remind me of Marybeth Desmond. They both played the distraught widow very well--until the detectives started asking the slightest question about their private lives, then they both got very defensive and snippy.

Also, I had never noticed before, but the second time Jim and Karen are interviewing Joan, there are a couple people in white jumpsuits. Are they cleaning? Or doing forensic stuff? And if they are cleaning, since that was a big problem later, why didn't it raise a red flag with Karen at the time?

When gathering evidence, would they not take a swab of blood from the mirror, just to make sure it belongs to the guy on the floor? And wouldn't they have at least run a blood test on the guy at the morgue? A cursory autopsy of sorts? I'm not entirely sure how this works, but it seems they should have something to go back on the Tuxhorns with after all the investigating. There was alcohol in the blood, so wouldn't they have a sample still? When they were searching for fingerprints (they found Todd Moncrief's), would they not have found some from Reginald Dunlevy also? I'm just searching for a smidgen of evidence that will get the Tuxhorns more than just insurance fraud, even though Jim'll lose his bet with Marty then.

There was blood all over the fireplace, and the mirror, a little on the floor, barely on the carpet. Can't you just picture Joan and Jerry planning it out? "Honey, when you shoot him, make sure you don't get any blood on the bookshelves, especially as I'll have to take the library books back on Monday. And if you can, make sure he falls so he lands with his head off of the carpet. It's white, and you know how white stains."

--GB

[mlm828]

greenbeing said:

I had never noticed before, but the second time Jim and Karen are interviewing Joan, there are a couple people in white jumpsuits. Are they cleaning? Or doing forensic stuff? And if they are cleaning, since that was a big problem later, why didn't it raise a red flag with Karen at the time?

When gathering evidence, would they not take a swab of blood from the mirror, just to make sure it belongs to the guy on the floor? And wouldn't they have at least run a blood test on the guy at the morgue? A cursory autopsy of sorts? I'm not entirely sure how this works, but it seems they should have something to go back on the Tuxhorns with after all the investigating. There was alcohol in the blood, so wouldn't they have a sample still? When they were searching for fingerprints (they found Todd Moncrief's), would they not have found some from Reginald Dunlevy also? I'm just searching for a smidgen of evidence that will get the Tuxhorns more than just insurance fraud, even though Jim'll lose his bet with Marty then.

I have wondered about these things, too, and I think you are correct to raise questions on these points. I don't know the NYC Medical Examiner's policies on retaining blood and tissue samples, but it always seemed unlikely to me that they would discard them so quickly in a homicide case -- even one like this, where there was no real question at first about what had happened.

As for those folks in the white suits, I thought they were a cleaning crew. I don't think they were crime scene techs, because Joan probably wouldn't have been allowed to be present while they were working. Presumably they had finished "processing" the scene and had released it before Karen and Jim return for their second interview with Joan. I'm not sure it would have raised a red flag with Karen at the time, assuming the crime scene crew had finished their work and released the scene.

[hoosier]

I assumed they were part of a cleaning crew--that looked like a super-industrial vacuum cleaner to me--and they were moving items around, wiping them off. The cops said they found only Todd Moncrieff's fingerprints. How could that be if Jerry Tuxhorn wiped everything off? Selective cleaning??? It has always bothered me that they didn't hold the crime scene longer.

Another thing, Christie said that she had the name of the store where she found her earrings and wanted Karen's number. If I remember right, in Leap of Faith didn't she say she got them at a trunk show? Was she talking about an antique shop or some such place where they sold on consignment?

[Dreamfire]

I always wondered about that c leaning crew. I would othink it quitesuspicious that the new widow was gettinga pro cleaning crew in after her husband has been killed in that space?
theonly thought I had come up with was;
Maybe a crime team looking for anything at all , ater the leads were not showing up?

BUt it seems really unneccesary and weird.

[anna]

ashatan said:

I always wondered about that c leaning crew. I would othink it quitesuspicious that the new widow was gettinga pro cleaning crew in after her husband has been killed in that space?
theonly thought I had come up with was;
Maybe a crime team looking for anything at all , ater the leads were not showing up?

BUt it seems really unneccesary and weird.

I always thought it was one of those crews that specialize in cleaning gory, toxic, or otherwise gross places. If I had blood and tissue splattered in my living room, the cleaners are the first people I would call - right before the realtor.

[maggiethecat]

anna said:

I always thought it was one of those crews that specialize in cleaning gory, toxic, or otherwise gross places. If I had blood and tissue splattered in my living room, the cleaners are the first people I would call - right before the realtor.

Karma for a very funny -- and apt -- comment, anna! There's not enough rug shampoo in the world . . .

[housemouse]

maggiethecat said:

anna said:

I always thought it was one of those crews that specialize in cleaning gory, toxic, or otherwise gross places. If I had blood and tissue splattered in my living room, the cleaners are the first people I would call - right before the realtor.

Karma for a very funny -- and apt -- comment, anna! There's not enough rug shampoo in the world . . .

Let me preface this by saying that I live in one of the safest small cities in the entire country. That being said, there is a house around the corner from us who's owner was murdered in a botched break in. I was shocked when the house went up for sale and was bought within a week! The people who purchased the house are now in foreclosure, hmmm, I wonder why. Bad mojo, that's what that house has, bad mojo.

[dogma]

<<<ashatan board=4 thread=1122417650 post=1143878845][/quote]
I always thought it was one of those crews that specialize in cleaning gory, toxic, or otherwise gross places. If I had blood and tissue splattered in my living room, the cleaners are the first people I would call - right before the realtor.[/quote]>>>

this is real life grizzly,,and i love my d/h dearly,, but his brother was the bad seed,,and took a shotgun to his head after he almost beat his girlfriend to death,, so,, i am the only one around,, as d/h was working 8 hrs away,, the state police told me to clean up the place,, and i did,, ( i was seriously in shock and was responding robot-like ) and it was verrry messy,, but,, they did give me the name of an agency that does that kind of cleaning
i seriously considered calling them to see if i could work part time,, as i can do that stuff ( working in a trauma center and all) but i just don't have the time,, one would assume they would pay well for a job like that