In my posts and presentations on the common mistakes writers make about the law, I often talk about the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. This article on homicide charges recently filed against a Utah woman for her husband’s murder lays out a good case of circumstantial evidence: evidence of facts that lead to an inference of guilt.
Turns out the man had told others if something happened to him, look at her. Changes in wills and insurance policies, drugged drinks, fentanyl purchases, and more. But one of the most eye-popping threads in this story? After her husband’s death, she published a book for children on dealing with the loss of a parent.
Some people can capitalize on anything – including murder.
I wonder if she thought the book might help divert suspicion from her. Such a shame that he didn’t move sooner on the divorce proceedings, or simply leave, but he might have been worried about the kids.
The drug purchases! I guess she thought that after a year had passed and she wasn’t arrested, she got away with it. And so, why not publish a book to “help people like her” who just want to help kids in grief. Why not?!
Right? It’s all simply horrifying.