How would you dispose of a corpse?

[Munkay]

Never trust a man who owns a pig farm.

Or Jahcs or Deebye in a carpool lane!

[Munkay]

I doofed. Double post.

[Guest]

Burying a corpse in a field somewhere doesn't seem to be a viable option.  You always read about news stories in which someone unearths the remains and the police eventually track down the killer.  Statute of Limitations for Murder and all that.  The same goes for tying a heavy weight to the body and dumping them in a body of water.  Eventually an identifiable part of the body will be found and the killer is arrested.

So how would you dispose of a corpse so that no one could ever trace a murder back to you?

Let's assume that you live in a single-family dwelling.  Let's also assume that you have neighbours that would wonder about any odd smells.

Here's what I would do.  I would immediately place the body into a large chest freezer.  If I didn't already own one, I could probably pick one up second hand for pretty cheap.  I'd set it to the coldest setting and freeze the body.

I'd then get to work lining my basement or garage with plastic building wrap.  I don't want any stray DNA stuff to fly around, and I want to be able to contain the evidence.

Once the body is frozen solid, I'd go to work with a grinder.  I'd pay particular attention to the fingers and teeth.  It would probably be a week-long process.  Everything would be ground to dust, and I'd cart it out nightly in small grocery bags and dump it along the sides of little-used roadways.  The wind would carry the evidence away to freedom.
[right][snapback]85889[/snapback][/right]

before u think up sumthing like that
tell us why and how u would kill sum1
cause if its not pre meditated, youll leave enough evidence in the course of slaying the person.

[Munkay]

Burying a corpse in a field somewhere doesn't seem to be a viable option.  You always read about news stories in which someone unearths the remains and the police eventually track down the killer.  Statute of Limitations for Murder and all that.  The same goes for tying a heavy weight to the body and dumping them in a body of water.  Eventually an identifiable part of the body will be found and the killer is arrested.

So how would you dispose of a corpse so that no one could ever trace a murder back to you?

Okay okay, I got it. This is crazy but it just might work. Make a time capsule. Insist on it not being opened for your lifetime! At the very least a few zany antics will come out of it.

A little less crazy is you find some gravediggers who just don't care. Preferably drug addicted. Pay them off and have them throw the corpse in a fresh grave. Once the other corpse is placed on top of it, voila. Double burial with only a slight cost. With any luck the gravediggers will pass before they tell anyone, and your hands are wiped clean.

Cheers,

Munk

[Guest]

You do know that each and every single suggestion so far has been foiled on CSI, right? :whistling:
[right][snapback]85914[/snapback][/right]

csi solves all crimes,
yet theres so many unsolved murders... and "dissappearances"
you are funny thp :D

[kandrathe]

Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

Encased in masonry somewhere in New Jersey?

A Cask of Amontillado

Literature is rife with the mistakes of killers in not understanding the timeline for discovery and investigation. There are bodies discovered all the time, where no identification can be made, with no motives, and no suspects. They just don't get any press.

[Zarathustra]

Forget the normal weight system for the "sleep with the fishes" method.

Chop the body up, encase each very small piece in cement, then once hardened head out across Lake Michigan, scattering chunks as you go.

In the dead of night, no one pays attention to what people load into their boats. And a nice, peaceful trip across the lake makes for a great opportunity to take care of some unfinished business.

[Munkay]

Forget the normal weight system for the "sleep with the fishes" method.

Chop the body up, encase each very small piece in cement, then once hardened head out across Lake Michigan, scattering chunks as you go.

In the dead of night, no one pays attention to what people load into their boats.  And a nice, peaceful trip across the lake makes for a great opportunity to take care of some unfinished business.

Along the same lines, start a shark chatering business. There are tons of crazy goons out there willing to get in a metal cage and swim with the sharks. There's no better way to attract them than with a little chum. No one ever asks about chum, no one wants to know what it is.

:whistling:

Cheers,

Munk

[Guest]

Forget the normal weight system for the "sleep with the fishes" method.

Chop the body up, encase each very small piece in cement, then once hardened head out across Lake Michigan, scattering chunks as you go.

In the dead of night, no one pays attention to what people load into their boats.  And a nice, peaceful trip across the lake makes for a great opportunity to take care of some unfinished business.
[right][snapback]86036[/snapback][/right]

that would work to buy u a few months or years time, but youd have to buy a lot of cement if u wanted it to last your lifetime

[Guest]

Please go away.

Im nototious for my bad spelling and typos, but even I dont purposefully dont spell all that stuff wrong.

This wouldnt be as annoying if people had not explicitly asked you not to do this already.

[Doc]

Well, it would be wrong to let all that perfectly good meat go to waste you know. You could make a giant vat of chili con carnage and sell bowls of it at a fundraiser for charity. Some sort of karmic balance. And not just for you. The person killed may have been a real twat as well, and doing something good with his body like feeding people and raising money for charity might just be the nicest thing he has ever done in his life.

What? Why are you all looking at me like that?

[ima_nerd]

Im nototious for my bad spelling and typos
[right][snapback]86100[/snapback][/right]

notorious*

How ironic. :D

But yes, take the time to use proper grammar. The time difference become typing "someone" and "sum1" is practically nonexistant.

[gekko]

Please go away.

Im nototious for my bad spelling and typos, but even I dont purposefully dont spell all that stuff wrong.

This wouldnt be as annoying if people had not explicitly asked you not to do this already.
[right][snapback]86100[/snapback][/right]

*jaw drops*

Ghostiger telling someone else to improve their spelling. Wow.

:P

You know you need to improve your posts when...

gekko

[LemmingofGlory]

*ahem*

Pay no attention to DeeBye. He just wants advice on how to dispose of Natalee Holloway.

[Guest]

Please go away.

Im nototious for my bad spelling and typos, but even I dont purposefully dont spell all that stuff wrong.

This wouldnt be as annoying if people had not explicitly asked you not to do this already.
[right][snapback]86100[/snapback][/right]

Are you seriously joking me? Other than using a "u" instead of "you", missing an apostrophe in the contraction "you'd", as well as a period at the end and not capitalizing, my post was with no error. Even with these "errors" it was clear and concise"
Look at your post. Not only did you write "... I dont purposefully dont spell all that stuff wrong.", in wich case "u" substituted for "you" is technically not a spelling error and the only such questionable spelling in my message, but you have also used a double negative.
Now you might think you are cute because you can't spell, but I can.
You are also being a hypocrite by leaving blatant errors in your message.
Last of all: I had never used words with numbers substituting letters, yet most of the posts criticizing my messages are against this very thing.
I reminisce a member posting me a quite comical webpage, about people that did some illogical things, that was supposed to be about me. I had read it, as the word "wanker" always warrants a laugh from me. One of the messages there was that "wankers" always miss the point of the message they answer to and make personal attacks. It seems my typical grammar, being at worst as good and at most better than many of the posters here, was what the messages replying to mine were about. So now I'd like to post this very link here for yourself to observe:

http://www.guidenet.net/resources/wanker.html

[Tal]

Are you seriously joking me? Other than using a "u" instead of "you", missing an apostrophe in the contraction "you'd", as well as a period at the end and not capitalizing, my post was with no error. Even with these "errors" it was clear and concise"
  Look at your post. Not only did you write "... I dont purposefully dont spell all that stuff wrong.", in wich case "u" substituted for "you" is technically not a spelling error and the only such questionable spelling in my message, but you have also used a double negative.
  Now you might think you are cute because you can't spell, but I can.
You are also being a hypocrite by leaving blatant errors in your message.
  Last of all: I had never used words with numbers substituting letters, yet most of the posts criticizing my messages are against this very thing.
  I reminisce a member posting me a quite comical webpage, about people that did some illogical things, that was supposed to be about me. I had read it, as the word "wanker" always warrants a laugh from me. One of the messages there was that "wankers" always miss the point of the message they answer to and make personal attacks. It seems my typical grammar, being at worst as good and at most better than many of the posters here, was what the messages replying to mine were about.    So now I'd like to post this very link here for yourself to observe:

http://www.guidenet.net/resources/wanker.html
[right][snapback]86157[/snapback][/right]

Good morning SPACE I see you have attempted to circumvent the username ban. Whats more this post only serves to confirm that you are here with trolling in mind. I don't imagine you'll last much longer in this incarnation.

Cheers. :)

[kandrathe]

Are you seriously joking me?
...

[right][snapback]86157[/snapback][/right]

I think Ghostiger's point was that he unintentionally makes mistakes, and in the past he was the brunt of much hazing until he convinced some of us that he had a mental impairment or some such malody. The expectation is that when you post at the Lounge you leave your muddy galoshes at the door and don't mess up our carpet. It's just common courtesy.

Are you mentally impaired or are you just lazy?
(ru mntly imprd or ru lz?)

[kandrathe]

You chop up the body in to sections and drive out to a hog farm.

The hogs will dispose of every last scrap of evidence, even the bones.

How do I know this? I live in the South. People come up missing all the time. They never find the bodies.
[right][snapback]85902[/snapback][/right]

I figure at least some were shang·haied, but you are probably correct most are just dead.

But, your post on rural options got me thinking...

Another farm inspired solution.

The problem with your or this solution is that it is uncontained and requires time which might risk discovery.

[Munkay]

Are you seriously joking me? Other than using a "u" instead of "you", missing an apostrophe in the contraction "you'd", as well as a period at the end and not capitalizing, my post was with no error. Even with these "errors" it was clear and concise"
  Look at your post. Not only did you write "... I dont purposefully dont spell all that stuff wrong.", in wich case "u" substituted for "you" is technically not a spelling error and the only such questionable spelling in my message, but you have also used a double negative.
  Now you might think you are cute because you can't spell, but I can.
You are also being a hypocrite by leaving blatant errors in your message.
  Last of all: I had never used words with numbers substituting letters, yet most of the posts criticizing my messages are against this very thing.
  I reminisce a member posting me a quite comical webpage, about people that did some illogical things, that was supposed to be about me. I had read it, as the word "wanker" always warrants a laugh from me. One of the messages there was that "wankers" always miss the point of the message they answer to and make personal attacks. It seems my typical grammar, being at worst as good and at most better than many of the posters here, was what the messages replying to mine were about.    So now I'd like to post this very link here for yourself to observe:

http://www.guidenet.net/resources/wanker.html
[right][snapback]86157[/snapback][/right]

Wait wait, let me get this straight. This is the post you leave when you try to prove you are "actually really intelligent" right? :lol: :lol: :lol:

We'll miss you S P A C E. No wait, we really won't. You were a horrible troll, but so how managed to be an even worse "intelligent poster." You went from writing like a wanker, to writing like some pompous idiot. I liked the wanker better, at least then there was a possible guise of intelligence behind purposefully writing like an idiot. Your intelligent post proved you have no real grasp of the English language - your sentences and word usage are highly laughable. And as to your comment that your grammar is somehow better than most of the posters on the lounge? How long have you been here? How many posts have you read? What you made is called a sweeping generalization, based off the post of a member Ghostiger, who is well known on the lounge for his misuse of grammar and spellcheck. The big problem with your attack on Ghost, is that Ghostiger has proven himself time and time again as a valuable member of the lurkerlounge. He actually has content and an intelligent point when he posts.

Oh, and please do use spellcheck when you are attempting to flame someone for "bad spelling." As for me, I won't even bother with it. Why? Because my subject has already proved he's an idiot by his own devices.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Goodluck elsewhere SPACE.

[Guest]

Wait wait, let me get this straight.  This is the post you leave when you try to prove you are "actually really intelligent" right?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

We'll miss you S P A C E.  No wait, we really won't.  You were a horrible troll, but so how managed to be an even worse "intelligent poster."  You went from writing like a wanker, to writing like some pompous idiot.  I liked the wanker better, at least then there was a possible guise of intelligence behind purposefully writing like an idiot.  Your intelligent post proved you have no real grasp of the English language - your sentences and word usage are highly laughable.  And as to your comment that your grammar is somehow better than most of the posters on the lounge?  How long have you been here?  How many posts have you read?  What you made is called a sweeping generalization, based off the post of a member Ghostiger, who is well known on the lounge for his misuse of grammar and spellcheck.  The big problem with your attack on Ghost, is that Ghostiger has proven himself time and time again as a valuable member of the lurkerlounge.  He actually has content and an intelligent point when he posts.

Oh, and please do use spellcheck when you are attempting to flame someone for "bad spelling."  As for me, I won't even bother with it.  Why?  Because my subject has already proved he's an idiot by his own devices.

Cheers,

Munk

PS.  Goodluck elsewhere SPACE.
[right][snapback]86207[/snapback][/right]

i have read enough, its not a sweeping generalization because there is very few posts here and many of them are less than a full line in length.
You and everyone replying to my posts has made enough errors to make a worthy list.
i simply could not have someone stating such incorrect info on me.
enjoy deciphering my oh so horribly written post. (blatant sarcasm)