The statement presented suggests that Arthur may have been murdered, and the wife, Queen Volupides, is the prime suspect for homicide or an accomplice to murder. In a homicide, the suspect only needs a volitional act. Queen’s cognitive process may have been influenced by alcohol, hence driving her to commit the accidental or reckless act. The fact that Queen was at the club until one in the morning implies, she was intoxicated by the time she left. Therefore, it can be argued that Queen was not thinking soberly at the time of the act, hence may be guilty of manslaughter. On the other hand, the possibility that Queen may have contracted a third party to commit the act cannot be ruled out. Being knowledgeable of her husband’s whereabouts, and the fact that he was probably drinking waiting for her, Queen may have fed this information to the killer and waited until the act was completed to return to the house.
The motive for manslaughter is evident in the statement. Queen was angry when she stormed out of her home after a tiff with her husband. Whether her anger subsided upon return to the house can only be speculated. However, it can be argued that as a married woman, staying out and partying at the club late into the night without her husband’s consent may have infuriated Arthur further. The alcohol in his system shown by the autopsy may have been consumed as he waited for his wife to return. It is likely that the two had a confrontation, and Queen took advantage of her husband drunkenness to hit him on the head with a blunt object causing the injury. Alternatively, the injury may have been caused by the third party contracted by Queen to kill her husband.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Though the autopsy confirmed that Arthur was indeed drunk, Queen’s statement that Arthur slipped or tripped on the stairs on his way down to get another drink is falsified. The image of the crime scene is a critical piece of evidence because it contradicts Queen’s account of the events that occurred. From the image, it can be observed that Arthur is still holding the glass in his hand. This is unlikely if indeed the victim fell down the stairs. His first instinct would have been to grasp for support, an act that would have made him release the glass, which would probably break on hitting the floor. The contention here is that Queen may have fabricated the scene of the crime. After hitting Arthur on the head and realizing that he was dead, Queen thought the best way to absolve herself was to fabricate evidence of the crime scene by taking advantage of the fact that her husband was drunk. She put her husband’s body at the bottom of the stairs and placed the glass in his hand. Queen’s insistence that she her husband tripped on the stairs places her at the scene of the crime. Similarly, if the act were committed by the third party, they would have staged the scene of crime to give Queen’s statement some ring of truth.
There is also evidence of the motive to commit the murder. The evidence suggests the homicide may have been premeditated. After partying at the club until one in the morning, Queen asked her friends to come to her house after she had already left. Her behavior can be interpreted as suspicious. The ten minutes gap between Queen living the club and the arrival of her friends may prove to be inadequate for Queen to commit the act and stage the crime scene. Therefore, it is likely that a third party contracted by the wife committed the murder of Arthur. Inviting friends to her place for a drink can be interpreted as an attempt to have an alibi. The friends would definitely vouch for Queen because they spent the larger part of the night together at the club, and were separated ten minutes between that and the witnessing of the crime scene. Based on the evidence presented in the case, it can be argued that Arthur’s death is a homicide committed by either his wife or a contracted accomplice.
