Murderer husband

Pollycat

DomRavioli wrote: »

And we are right. Unless you want to know about this, and I mean getting dragged into it, keep your nose out. Its literally nothing to do with you let alone posting someone else's business on a public forum.

I agree with this.

Trek_girl wrote: »

This is a scenario of a friend of a friend's relative so as the information is fifth hand it's better to treat it as a hypothetical situation .

And the OP's friend and her friend should be pretty ashamed of themselves too by gossiping about this woman.

Trek_girl wrote: »

Esther could divorce him for a suspicion then be left alone, or continue to live under such a shadow.

What would you do in Esther's shoes?

Unless 'Esther' has asked you or your friend or your friend's friend for advice, you should keep out of her personal affairs.
To me it sounds like she's had a rough deal over a long period of time and doesn't deserve her life being discussed on a public forum by someone who finds it 'fascinating'.

I really do hope that this poor woman isn't a member of MSE and comes across this thread.

You ask 'what would you do in Esther's shoes'.
I'd be very inclined to bang all 3 of your heads together for meddling in my affairs.
Yes, really.

Trek_girl

Pollycat wrote: »

I agree with this.


And the OP's friend and her friend should be pretty ashamed of themselves too by gossiping about this woman.


Unless 'Esther' has asked you or your friend or your friend's friend for advice, you should keep out of her personal affairs.
To me it sounds like she's had a rough deal over a long period of time and doesn't deserve her life being discussed on a public forum by someone who finds it 'fascinating'.

I really do hope that this poor woman isn't a member of MSE and comes across this thread.

You ask 'what would you do in Esther's shoes'.
I'd be very inclined to bang all 3 of your heads together for meddling in my affairs.
Yes, really.

Pollycat wrote: »

One of the examples you mention above has nothing to do with the 'situation' you describe.
An earthquake reported on the news is real, it is factual.
Of course I would think about it, even if I didn't know anyone who may have been involved.

If someone wants their child to learn piano, what does it have to do with me or you? (unless they are expecting me or you to pay for the lessons or have specifically asked me or you for advice) Why would you or I need to even think about it?

I prefer to deal with the real world - where I don't get absorbed with 5th hand 'maybe he killed him, maybe he didn't' scenarios concerning people I've never met nor am I likely to meet.

And yes, the Discussion Time board is a sub-board of The Moneysaving Arms.

Essentially what you are saying is that unless a situation *currently*, *personally* and *directly* involves you, you should treat it as if it does not exist. You should not engage intellectually or emotionally at all.

The reason I asked about the disasters & piano lessons etc. is to determine the criteria you have set to enforce this perspective. Because as you have written it, essentially there is no point in watching any dramas on TV, to step into the fiction section of the library. You can not read a biography of any person living or dead and history, is just a collection of gossip to be avoided. That is the logical conclusion of what you have put forward.

The only reason I did not leave it as a purely hypothetical scenario is because there are those who would jump up and say 'that would never happen'.

Gossip is when the character of another person is shredded either directly or subtly so that those doing the gossiping can somehow feel better about themselves, usually by feeling superior in some way. Taking a CONCEPT for discussion i.e. *the concept that you perhaps can never know your spouse, that people can do awful things and you would have no proof * is the reason for this post.

MODERATORS - if necessary please feel free to move this to the general discussion board.

Pollycat

Trek_girl wrote: »

Essentially what you are saying is that unless a situation *currently*, *personally* and *directly* involves you, you should treat it as if it does not exist. You should not engage intellectually or emotionally at all.

No, that is not what I am essentially saying.

I'm saying that I have enough regard for people (even those who I don't know) that I would never, ever put what are possibly details about their real life on a public forum and ask other people to say what they would do in that situation.
I'm frankly very surprised that you cannot see this.

Trek_girl wrote: »

The reason I asked about the disasters & piano lessons etc. is to determine the criteria you have set to enforce this perspective. Because as you have written it, essentially there is no point in watching any dramas on TV, to step into the fiction section of the library. You can not read a biography of any person living or dead and history, is just a collection of gossip to be avoided. That is the logical conclusion of what you have put forward.

You talk of TV dramas, you talk of written fiction.
This is - by your own admission - something that some poor woman has actually gone through.
You need to recognise the difference between real-life and make believe.
If someone writes an auto-biography, they are putting their private life out into the public domain deliberately.
If someone - for example Princess Diana - chooses to tell their story to a writer, then (assuming that writer remain true to what has been told to them) then that is the same thing.
Kiss-and-tell stories in the tabloids is - imho - different.
As is posting about a real woman.
What you have written is not comparable at all to a biography.
It's gossip - pure and simple.
Your 'logical conclusion' is totally illogical.

Trek_girl wrote: »

The only reason I did not leave it as a purely hypothetical scenario is because there are those who would jump up and say 'that would never happen'.

Why do you have the need for other posters to believe that your first post is real and not a fabrication?

Trek_girl wrote: »

Gossip is when the character of another person is shredded either directly or subtly so that those doing the gossiping can somehow feel better about themselves, usually by feeling superior in some way. Taking a CONCEPT for discussion i.e. *the concept that you perhaps can never know your spouse, that people can do awful things and you would have no proof * is the reason for this post.

You may believe the explanation above is what gossip is but you are wrong.
If you had just posted that it was a hypothetical situation, that would have constituted 'taking a concept for discussion'. Writing about a real woman's life is not taking a concept for discussion.

Trek_girl wrote: »

MODERATORS - if necessary please feel free to move this to the general discussion board.

If you feel that your thread needs to be moved, maybe pm the board guide.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

IF there were to be a criminal prosecution in the future, the fact this situation has been discussed and it's been made clear that there was a fight, that the wife suspects her husband and that it's been discussed in terms of him being a murderer, the whole case/pursuit of justice could be jeopardised through somebody who has read it then being selected for Jury Duty and deciding that, because they've read about it before, the defendant must be guilty (or innocent, if it's somebody other than the husband).



So I don't think this is an appropriate subject for discussion on those grounds.