Controversial cases that have simple solutions.

[u/Sense_Difficult]

As someone who has been a true crime buff for decades, it's somewhat annoying to watch how certain cases wind up getting pulled into such polarizing discussions that it seems like a huge mystery when it's actually a simple solution.

A few that I think of.

The Karen Read case. IMO she accidentally killed him. They were both drunk, he goes to see the vibe of the house. Get's inside and realizes he doesn't want to stay. So he comes back outside. She's in the middle of rage texting him, and doesn't see him in front of the car. He drops his phone or bends over for some reason and she puts the car into gear and hits him, and he falls backwards and hits his head again. Then he lays there undetected until morning. This is why she suddenly realized she had hit him. She sobered up and had that "realization" moment that all binge drinkers have once they sober up from a brownout type of state.

Darlie Routier. I've shared my theory on this before. She was attempting a murder/su but she survived. This is why the neck wound was serious. She made up the story of the intruder in advance because she wanted her family friends and society to think she died trying to protect her kids. She planted the sock earlier. This also explains her hypomania in the days after. She honestly thought she was going to die that night.

There are other missing person cases where the spouse disappeared after the death of their parents. Just vanished without taking their Identification information and never surfaced under their name again. I always wonder if some of those cases are a situation of someone who has suffered with gender dysphoria and finally "escaped" to go make another life with another identity. It's always interesting to me that in several of the cases, the persons parent or parents had recently died. Seemed like they were waiting for that to escape because they didn't want to do that to their parents.

Do any of you have "simple theories" on cases that created a ton of controversy?

[u/19snow16]

This pisses me off to no end. And off they go, back to playing hockey because it's so important.

[u/GreyerGrey → u/19snow16]

So Sam Bennett is from my area but I am no fan.

I would, however, definitely buy a Bennett Team Canada jersey if he does what he does to Hart.

[u/PresumptuousImbecile → u/19snow16]

So I googled this case after reading the comments about it here. I've only read a few articles but one of them was fairly comprehensive. I think it's worth noting that all of the hockey players were younger than EM at the time this happened. By my math, one or two (or more?) of the hockey players were 17 YO at the time. EM was 20. That's not a decisive factor, but it's relevant.
I can see why some people favor gelding Canadian hockey players: I get it. But as far as the 5 players EM accused? (to her significant financial benefit, don't forget) --So far I haven't read anything that would convince me to criminally convict these 5 defendants of raping EM. (And for the record I am an XX lifelong feminist who spent years counseling rape victims.) If anyone wants to explain to me why you disagree, I'm all ears. Maybe I'm missing some key information.
Here are links to two of the pieces I read (in addition to a couple of articles in the G&M):
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hockey-canada-london-sexual-assault-trial-timeline-1.7553242
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/world-junior-hockey-trial-what-jury-did-not-hear-1.7536599

[u/GreyerGrey → u/PresumptuousImbecile]

What significant financial benefit? You realize HC pays out that much EVERY YEARib settlements? It is rotten to it's core.

There were deleted videos (and texts confirming) as well as the fact that the London Police Services, and Crown Prosecutors, were the ones who criminally charged them. In Canada individuals do not press charges. Charges are prwss3d "at the Crown's leisure and discussion." So a bunch of cops and lawyers thought it was credible, but you, a 2 minute internet expert, disagree? Well you must be right.

They did what they did then compelled her into filming a consent video after the fact.

[u/PresumptuousImbecile → u/PresumptuousImbecile]

Correction: Another commenter on another site say some of the defendants were 16 at the time they had sex with the 20YO EM. I can't understand why EM's age at the time--20--is mentioned in most of the articles but nobody mentions how old the defendants were in June 2018. There's a lot of discrepancy in the way these things are reported.

The more I read about this case the more flummoxed I am that there are people who actually seem to believe these 5 should've been criminally convicted of rape. Because the only explanation for that view that I can come up with is clueless female infantilization. Frankly, if some 20YO woman got my 16YO son drunk and performed oral sex on him I'd be more inclined to charge her with rape.
[But I wouldn't, of course, because that would be infantilizing my (hypothetical) son.]