Russian politician killed by grenade after suspected rape in murder-suicide
57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49215686]The poster says, cherry picking posts
what, do you want me to collectively reply to all posts in the thread simultaneously?
I just want to know how they would possibly conclude that, when both parties are in fucking pieces how would you even determine that? They probably just needed a statement so that terrorists would be ruled out. This is Russia, and the woman was powerful. No matter what happened the story is going to be canted in a light that makes her either a martyr or completely a victim of circumstance.[/QUOTE]
i'm not a forensic scientist and neither are you(probably? if you are then you're more qualified to talk about this than me)
the facts of the story are as such:
1. The male was romantically involved with the woman, and vice versa
2. Both parties were found naked below the waist
3. Forensics determined that intercourse had occurred briefly before the incident occurred
4. Forensics also determined that the explosive detonated in an area focused around the head and upper body.
the rumors are that:
1. The husband had accused the woman of cheating on him
2. There was an explosive planted inside the vehicle
it's been a day and a half and no terrorist organization has come out to take responsibility for this incident. as it stands, it's [I]much more likely[/I] that the husband was trying extremely emotional and confronting his wife about the incident, threatening suicide and accidentally(or purposely) doing it.
there is the possibility that this was a terrorist attack and that Russian news is trying their best to cover it up, and I won't deny that, especially from a country like Russia, they would rather save face and claim it as a domestic dispute gone wrong rather than a top-level politician being assassinated.
all i'm saying is that, at the moment, one conclusion is much more likely than the other.
[QUOTE=Toro;49213433]By the fact that he had a live grenade in his hand, how many people have casual sex with a live grenade in there hand?[/QUOTE]
Its the only way I can get off.
They went off with a bang.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49213646]if it looks like a duck
if it sounds like a duck
it's probably a duck
[editline]30th November 2015[/editline]
really at the end of the day you could only speculate, but it's incredibly likely that it was the case[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're right it's a duck. I should've read the article better.
So people can barely figure out what happens in cases where there's video evidence and yet you guys are willing to believe speculation that there was a rape in a case where there was an explosion with no one around and just after the fact cleanup as evidence?
I'm not sure I understand what's happening here. According to multiple articles, all the forensic evidence is pointing to murder-suicide and forced sex. So, uh, why are y'all focusing so specifically on trying to disprove the rape aspect of this disturbing story? Like, even if he didn't rape her, he still blew a fucking grenade up in her face. I literally don't understand what reason there is to doubt the evidence here.
I mean, yeah, sure, maybe the news agencies are reporting a falsified story with bogus evidence... But why? To what end? What reason is there for you to be skeptical?
[QUOTE=zakedodead;49217630]So people can barely figure out what happens in cases where there's video evidence and yet you guys are willing to believe speculation that there was a rape in a case where there was an explosion with no one around and just after the fact cleanup as evidence?[/QUOTE]
uhh
yeah
that's kind of how forensic science works
you piece together the information and whatever evidence is left and come to a reasonable conclusion that way
[QUOTE=aznz888;49217707]uhh
yeah
that's kind of how forensic science works
you piece together the information and whatever evidence is left and come to a reasonable conclusion that way[/QUOTE]
[quote]Major news outlet LifeNews later reported an anonymous police source as saying forensic evidence indicated the couple did have sex before the explosion.
The source said: “[b]Presumably[/b] during a fierce conflict he began to force her to perform her conjugal duty by threats and showing her an explosive device.”[/quote]
Forensic said there was :sax: not forced :sax:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49213369]I mean yeah I agree with you, but it's only presumed[/QUOTE]
I think having a grenade in this story completely changes it. Its already proven he did in fact have a grenade in his hand as well.
A grenades a pretty easy way to threaten someone. You could at least try something against someone with a gun/knife at that close range(in the boat) but a fucking live grenade? You really gotta do what your told or your dead pretty much, especially if that person is holding you.
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49215686]The poster says, cherry picking posts
what, do you want me to collectively reply to all posts in the thread simultaneously?
I just want to know how they would possibly conclude that, when both parties are in fucking pieces how would you even determine that? They probably just needed a statement so that terrorists would be ruled out. This is Russia, and the woman was powerful. No matter what happened the story is going to be canted in a light that makes her either a martyr or completely a victim of circumstance.[/QUOTE]
How does reporting that she was raped and murdered by her husband make her a "martyr," and why does it feel so much like you are trying to villify her? A martyr is somebody who dies for a cause. What cause would she have died for in this scenario?
[editline]30th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;49217795]Forensic said there was :sax: not forced :sax:[/QUOTE]
Read that again, man.
"A police source [confirmed] that forensic evidence indicated the couple [had] sex before the explosion. [The husband] presumably [...] began to force her to perform her conjugal duty by threats [with] an explosive device."
The police source is stating that the forensic evidence seems to be supporting a rape and murder-suicide.
However, I reiterate, why is this ONE PARTICULAR POINT of a horrifying murder what you have decided to latch onto? Like, okay, let's drop that aspect and examine the situation again.
"The suspect and victim had totally consensual sex, and then he murdered her and killed himself with an explosive device."
Is that somehow a more acceptable narrative for you?
The aftermath is truly fucking brutal
[IMG]http://siberiantimes.com/PICTURES/OTHERS/Oksana-Bobrovskaya-murder/inside_car.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;49217795]Forensic said there was :sax: not forced :sax:[/QUOTE]
are we reading it differently? even the source you just cited stated "he began to [B]force[/B] her to perform her conjugal duty"
and i agree with BigDumbAmerican, what exactly are you getting at here? does removing "rape" from the story make the situation any less horrific? two people still got blown to bits inside a car.
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
also jesus tag that picture man
[QUOTE=aznz888;49217904]also jesus tag that picture man[/QUOTE]
There's no body in it, just blood splatter.
[QUOTE=aznz888;49216081]i'm not a forensic scientist and neither are you(probably? if you are then you're more qualified to talk about this than me)
the facts of the story are as such:
1. The male was romantically involved with the woman, and vice versa
2. Both parties were found naked below the waist
3. Forensics determined that intercourse had occurred briefly before the incident occurred
4. Forensics also determined that the explosive detonated in an area focused around the head and upper body.
the rumors are that:
1. The husband had accused the woman of cheating on him
2. There was an explosive planted inside the vehicle
it's been a day and a half and no terrorist organization has come out to take responsibility for this incident. as it stands, it's [I]much more likely[/I] that the husband was trying extremely emotional and confronting his wife about the incident, threatening suicide and accidentally(or purposely) doing it.
there is the possibility that this was a terrorist attack and that Russian news is trying their best to cover it up, and I won't deny that, especially from a country like Russia, they would rather save face and claim it as a domestic dispute gone wrong rather than a top-level politician being assassinated.
all i'm saying is that, at the moment, one conclusion is much more likely than the other.[/QUOTE]
My personal speculation is that it was just an illegal weapons ownership gone wrong. There are a million possibilities for this, and each is really barely likely. The fact that they're jumping to a story leads me to believe that they know and don't want to tell, so they throw up a lie and wipe their hands.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49215985]Easy. Perform a rape kit on her body, because it wasn't "blown to pieces". Reading the story from the NY Times it has pictures included, one of them is of her body laying on the ground.
I mean, her face maybe because the story says her face was "disfigured" but her body wasn't torn apart like some weird gibing mess.[/QUOTE]
Rape kits just determine genetic material. You can't exactly prove that someone has bruises or is being forced or w/e if their body was hit by a grenade.
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49218622]My personal speculation is that it was just an illegal weapons ownership gone wrong. There are a million possibilities for this, and each is really barely likely. The fact that they're jumping to a story leads me to believe that they know and don't want to tell, so they throw up a lie and wipe their hands.
Rape kits just determine genetic material. You can't exactly prove that someone has bruises or is being forced or w/e if their body was hit by a grenade.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you used the word "speculation," because wild speculation is all that amounts to. There is no logical basis to it. The given evidence simply doesn't support your theory.
As to your second point, yes you can. Unless the grenade badly damaged her vaginal canal, you would still be able to test it for some of the classic signs of rape. And, according to the article, the grenade was held between them near their upper chests when it detonated. Most or all of the physical damage was done to their UPPER bodies.
[editline]30th November 2015[/editline]
I really shouldn't even be getting into this, but I'm just, like, really confused by your reaction here. Why is your initial response to this story extreme skepticism? What makes you think it is some kind of media conspiracy?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49218697]
I really shouldn't even be getting into this, but I'm just, like, really confused by your reaction here. Why is your initial response to this story extreme skepticism? What makes you think it is some kind of media conspiracy?[/QUOTE]
Because this information came from Russia, and the premise of rape at grenade point sounds completely fucking wild to me.
Not to mention how quickly they came out with the conclusion, a case as confusing and non-standard as this would take more than mere hours to determine rape at grenade point occurred.
Also, considering you clearly know so much about this, please tell me what the "classic signs of rape" are that wouldn't be obscured by a grenade blast? While their upper bodies were completely destroyed, an explosive shockwave will still damage all tissue in it's field, which if it was at chest level, would totally destroy all bones in their bodies and bruise a huge portion of soft tissue (including internal tissues)
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49221756]Because this information came from Russia, and the premise of rape at grenade point sounds completely fucking wild to me.
Not to mention how quickly they came out with the conclusion, a case as confusing and non-standard as this would take more than mere hours to determine rape at grenade point occurred.
Also, considering you clearly know so much about this, please tell me what the "classic signs of rape" are that wouldn't be obscured by a grenade blast? While their upper bodies were completely destroyed, an explosive shockwave will still damage all tissue in it's field, which if it was at chest level, would totally destroy all bones in their bodies and bruise a huge portion of soft tissue (including internal tissues)[/QUOTE]
The only valid point here i can agree with is the speed at which they came out with a conclusion; the only reason speedy investigations happens is if no foul play is suspected or if something's being covered up. All clues are still pointing to the absence of a plotted threat, however.
Furthermore, clearly since [B]you[/B] know so much about explosives and their effects on soft tissue, you would know that grenades aren't tools that instantly turn people into giblets. There's a huge difference between explosive force enough to kill a human(which isn't that much if it detonated right next to their faces) to explosive force enough to "totally destroy all bones in their bodies and bruise a huge portion of soft tissue (including internal tissues)"
You weren't there at the investigation, were you? You don't have the official autopsy reports either. I literally see no point in you playing detective and being extremely skeptical other than the fact that you can.
Every time you've tried to point out the evidence to the contrary, all you've done is turn your opinion and unqualified conjectures against official statements from Russian police and investigators. Yknow, the people [B]whose job it is to figure out what happened?[/B] Especially considering you're not a professional forensic scientist, so you have absolutely no reason to pretend like you know better, either.
I just don't understand the sheer skepticism of this, lol. It's like the people who call 9/11 an inside job after a decade and half of evidence proving otherwise and trying to cash in on the tragedy of thousands of people's deaths to sound smart.
[QUOTE=aznz888;49221955]The only valid point here i can agree with is the speed at which they came out with a conclusion; the only reason speedy investigations happens is if no foul play is suspected or if something's being covered up. All clues are still pointing to the absence of a plotted threat, however.
Furthermore, clearly since [B]you[/B] know so much about explosives and their effects on soft tissue, you would know that grenades aren't tools that instantly turn people into giblets. There's a huge difference between explosive force enough to kill a human(which isn't that much if it detonated right next to their faces) to explosive force enough to "totally destroy all bones in their bodies and bruise a huge portion of soft tissue (including internal tissues)"
You weren't there at the investigation, were you? You don't have the official autopsy reports either. I literally see no point in you playing detective and being extremely skeptical other than the fact that you can.
Every time you've tried to point out the evidence to the contrary, all you've done is turn your opinion and unqualified conjectures against official statements from Russian police and investigators. Yknow, the people [B]whose job it is to figure out what happened?[/B] Especially considering you're not a professional forensic scientist, so you have absolutely no reason to pretend like you know better, either.
I just don't understand the sheer skepticism of this, lol. It's like the people who call 9/11 an inside job after a decade and half of evidence proving otherwise and trying to cash in on the tragedy of thousands of people's deaths to sound smart.[/QUOTE]
Grenades don't obliterate everything around them, but their shockwaves definitely do damage to things around them. The shock would almost definitely be enough to shatter nearly all of their bones except maybe their feet, as the blast would hit their rib cages with zero buffer.
If you want to see the damage a grenade can cause to a body, here's a similar case with a suicide via grenade: [VERY NSFW] best gore dot com /suicide/madeena-aoosheva-female-chechen-rebel-suicide-grenade[VERY NSFW]
I never said I was definitely correct, but the speediness is curious to me, especially considering how non-standard of a case this is.
PS- the entire reason comments exist here is to discuss the topic at hand. Nobody's going to argue that rape at grenade point is good, and an echo chamber of "wow that's fucked" is boring. Talking about possibilities enriches news, at least to some extent.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49222374]news about a rape-murder-suicide shouldn't have to be exciting or funny
it can just be there as an interesting thing that happened all on it's own without having needless speculation or epic funny memejokes and "amazing sex" titles[/QUOTE]
I never defended the title, or said it was supposed to be funny. "nedless speculation" is an interesting thing to say, especially if you've ACTUALLY read the post and looked at the link- grenades totally destroy the body. How in the world would have they come to this conclusion within the day?
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
again though, I have no need to defend my speculation, this is a forum, things will be discussed whether you think it's right or not, so your opinion on that topic isn't useful.
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49223553]I never defended the title, or said it was supposed to be funny. "nedless speculation" is an interesting thing to say, especially if you've ACTUALLY read the post and looked at the link- grenades totally destroy the body. How in the world would have they come to this conclusion within the day?
[editline]1st December 2015[/editline]
again though, I have no need to defend my speculation, this is a forum, things will be discussed whether you think it's right or not, [B]so your opinion on that topic isn't useful[/B].[/QUOTE]
and the pot calls the kettle black
[QUOTE=aznz888;49225600]and the pot calls the kettle black[/QUOTE]
You're saying we shouldn't discuss things on a discussion forum. That's just dumb. Also you missed the point.
Ps, care to reason how they could have determined what they did within the time frame they had and the level of damage a grenade does to a body? Look at the picture I linked in my previous post.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
Unless you're actually arguing that we shouldn't discuss things on the, oh right, internet forum
That would move your opinion from stupid to objectively wrong. If you don't want discussion maybe you should go somewhere else?
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49225909]You're saying we shouldn't discuss things on a discussion forum. That's just dumb. Also you missed the point.
Ps, care to reason how they could have determined what they did within the time frame they had and the level of damage a grenade does to a body? Look at the picture I linked in my previous post.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
Unless you're actually arguing that we shouldn't discuss things on the, oh right, internet forum
That would move your opinion from stupid to objectively wrong. If you don't want discussion maybe you should go somewhere else?[/QUOTE]
you literally just stated that someone's opinion is not useful for your purposes, which is fine, i support free speech all around. at no given time did i ever say we shouldn't discuss anything; debating is how we learn/view other people's opinions and perspectives. i was challenging the reasoning behind such an opinion, not questioning whether or not it belonged in a discussion.
if the only way you can get your statement across is to shove words into other people's mouths then you should probably reconsider your method of debate
anyways, there are different types of grenades and where/how they explode makes a pretty big difference. i looked at the photo you linked(pretty gnarly stuff), and the person is heavily burnt and disfigured, but it's not like there's no evidence to go on. i don't think it's that hard to figure out what happened here considering how much evidence was left behind, along with eyewitnesses, prior events, and a full investigation team.
of course, if they release a statement saying otherwise, then i'll gladly take that as the truth.
Can someone find a russian source?
EDIT:
[url]http://vedomosti.sfo.ru/articles/?news=2115[/url]
I just kinda assumed having sex while holding live grenade was just the sort of thing they generally do to pass the time in Russia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.