Force Ten
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 3,192
- Reaction score
- 11,015
My husband is a Lt. in his fire department and I sent him the sept. 13 article. I texted it to him and said "Fire Chief is in trouble". He replied "He's a chief. He knows that a gun shot wound to the head would show up. She started the house on fire then killed herself or killed herself and left something on the stove. " it didn't say anything in that article about suicide.
I don't know that I agree that she killed herself, but he also said that he could of killed her other ways and it not show up. That he would of known a bullet would show.
Yes, of course. That would be an a rational assumption. Murdering someone is not a rational act though. Her murder could have been the result of a fit of rage and the fire an afterthought. Whoever did this might have took the gamble that the coroner would miss the bullet whole or conclude it was suicide. Also a gun would have had to have been nearby for this to first been labeled a suicide, because the absence of such would be an obvious homicide.
I wonder who's gun it was. If it wasn't registered to either Nanette or Steve, then it might have been an unknown person to either of them. Maybe she came home to robbery? But a thief wouldn't care to make it look like a suicide.
So the real question remains, why would someone want to make it appear to be suicide?