The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The Perfect Murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 76390
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




What is your perfect murder? It can be anyone, anyhow. Who would you kill? How would you do it? Person with the best method/alibi wins.


Debate accepted.

As Pro has not outlined the basic rules/structure of the debate, I'll assume that round one is for opening arguments--being followed by rebuttals and closing arguments.

=My Story=

Now, here is my idea of what the "perfect murder" actually is. Note that the characters in this are fictional.....or are they? Hmmm.

There once was a woman named Susie, with a husband named Bill; who was basically a tiresome English-man originating from the south-West of Britain. Bill had humble beginnings but had an early interest in business and making money, so became rather successful. Bill and Susie had met when they were both around the same age, both were single and seemingly wanted partners. Susie herself was not at all a "rich" woman and came from a poor family who struggled to get by immensely, so the prospect of dating Bill--a man who was gradually becoming a millionaire, was a desirable one. The problem with Bill [something that Susie should have questioned upon marrying him] was that he never liked to spend his money. In fact, he was extraordinarily tight. Him and Susie lived in a fairly nice property, but he never spent any money on her or took her out, or in fact did anything romantic with her. Essentially Bill failed to provide both financially and emotionally, and Susie felt like a very lonely woman.

Naturally she was expected to cook and clean for Bill as he was too tight to employ anyone else to do it, despite doing so she was never rewarded with any kind of appreciation. Susie was given a specific budget when she was sent out shopping by Bill, and people who had previously known her or were aware of the couple often saw her shopping in the cheapest stores and even charity shops.

Bill was indeed a very "difficult" man. To the extent that other family members also strongly disliked him, with some of them having completely cut-off contact and the others barely speaking to him. This was primarily due to his detachment and the fact that he continuously criticized those around him, without ever showing any love or affection.

The boredom and loneliness of being in such a marriage--as well as the criticisms from Bill whenever *he* thought she had done something wrong, made Susie become extremely unhappy. So much so that she began to resent her husband and harbored considerably negative thoughts about him.

Obviously she contemplated leaving, but then realized that at the age of 51 and looking a lot more wrinkly that she wasn't in a position to find another well-off man, or at least a guy with a lot of money. She could try divorcing him and claiming money but knew it would be *very* difficult to actually get anything out of Bill, and how could she afford any good lawyers? Having not worked for two decades, she simply didn't have the money to separate and/or claim from their marriage--and if she did, it would be a lengthy process. The house and all of their possessions were in his name. And Bill could easily fabcriate things about her to again prevent her from gaining anything.

What could she possibly do? There were times in the kitchen when Susie was so seething towards Bill that she wanted to just stab him with a knife there and then, and had placed a considerable amount of effort into not doing so. He would come in with his typically grumpy face, and either criticise or say nothing. Perhaps the food had not been cooked to his satisfaction or there was too much/too little of it. Nothing she did was ever right.

So, Susie began to think more and more about doing what she previously thought as the impossible. Though she'd had fantasies about killing him, she had initially wondered whether she could really go through with it or indeed "get away" with it. Being free of him would be the ultimate goal, but she would also be able claim on insurance after he'd died--which thus meant she'd be financially secure. Quite possibly she could make a case about the property as well, with him not around.

So one day, Susie suggested that her and Bill go out in the car to get some fresh country air. Usually Bill would be reluctant to *ever* go out anywhere but as it didn't really entail spending money, he decided to say yes. Susie and Bill happened to live in Cornwall, England, where there was a lot of cliffs and it was indeed very "edgy". Susie mentioned to Bill that perhaps a walk by the beach would be nice and this meant them parking a fair few meters above it, on the cliff area. The fact that the location was so near worked immediately in Susie's favour as Bill hated having to spend too much money on petrol. Susie wore a light coat and a scarf--while Bill also dressed himself up practically.

Anyway, they managed to find a space and with it being mid Autumn it wasn't very busy. In fact, no one within the immediate vicinity was around. Susie orchestrated and went over exactly what she would do in her mind and calmly composed herself before getting out of the car. "Nice to go out, isn't it, Bill?" she said managing to give a subtle smile to him, to which he just responded with an emotionless "I suppose", before saying "but let's not take too long". Susie looked at him and gently said they should give themselves a little walk first. "Even if we don't manage to get to the beach, at least let's have a look at that beautiful sea", she eagerly replied.

So Bill nodded and they both walked over to the direct location of the cliffs, with Bill walking with his hands behind his back which was his usual style. Now they were getting even closer and closer to the edge, but not close enough, Susie thought. She then said that she "wanted to get a better look of the view" and indicated that he should follow, which slowly but surely he did. Now they were there, and this was her a perfect opportunity. She quietly looked around to see if anyone else was there, and luckily, they weren't.

Then, as they were looking down at the sea. Susie all of a sudden decided to take her coat off as a glimmer of sun came along, and then placed it over her arms while putting her hands underneath. Then, she slowly turned around and moved her arms with [with the coat still placed over the hands] forward in Bill's direction; then directly put them on his back and then abruptly and forcibly pushed him off the cliff, his legs fell and he went flying forward all the way down to the Cornish rocks. That was it, she'd done it without having to even place that much effort in. It just took around a few seconds for Bill to eventually "hit" what was waiting for him, and when he did she looked down to see exactly what she had just done, and make sure that it was all actually real. Susie was both shaken and relieved; shaken at what had just happened and relieved that she'd finally done it.

Her next move [which she'd planned beforehand] was to immediately put her coat back on and then scream for help and find someone. She did this and went around frantically trying to seek someone out, but again--no one was around. She wondered quickly a little further to where it was less remote and then eventually found someone, "help" she screamed, "my husband, my husband's fell", with her anxious state naturally benefiting her story the people in question soon took her seriously. Susie then began to cry saying "Oooh no, I don't know how this has happened", "what was he doing?" and showed the people the spot where he "fell". "Oh no, I can't look" and the tears began falling again.

One of them started to comfort her and the others decided to then phone the emergency services, to inform them as to exactly what had happened. With no witnesses at the exact scene at the time and no evidence available, Susie stood to get away with murder. Once again, the seemingly genuineness of Susie's shock and grief at her husbands demise was a huge positive for her and just one reason why she was not suspected of anything.

Now over to Pro, I'm looking forward to your murder.

Debate Round No. 1


Very thorough backstory, well done Con. Also I would like to add that the next rounds well be used for debating against the other person's story. Thank you.

Garrie was a sick man. He knew it. But the world did not. He walked the streets each night in the hope that he might find a woman/girl worthy of his penetration. He waited a long time. But, at last, on the night of Easter day, he struck. All were out, celebrating, and he waited in the shadows, watching as the women and girls ran past. So happy, so innocent. He grinned through shroud of shadow. It was time.

A girl stopped before the alleyway in which he was hiding. A girl of 14, at Garrie's best guess. And then he pounced. Grabbing her by the collar as she screamed, he threw her back into the alley. His filthy nails ripped into her sweet flesh. Taking her from behind, the man thrust himself into her. She cried out for help, but there was no one there. He giggled as she blubbered like a pathetic child, and still he thrust on. On, on, on, on. Blood was spilling out onto the cobbles below. As he reached his climax, she released a final cry, however, it fell short upon the cold air. Garrie's hands tightened around the girl's neck, and she could now barely resist. She choked and spluttered, her heart beginning to falter.

However, as she drew her last breath, Garrie knew his adventure was only beginning. Once she was gone, he continued long into the night.


Thanks Pro. As specified I will move onto debating against your story, or in other words; rebuttals.

The first flaw in Pros case is that Garrie is seemingly in a public area--as he mentions that Garrie has been sat watching all the girls and women run past. Surely, one would ask, an acquaintance or fellow passers by would have possibly saw the girl [who Garrie had guessed to be 14] get dragged into the ally? And almost certainly someone would have heard her loud screams as he was "grabbed her collar" and then "ripped into her sweet flesh"? A 14 year-old girl would have very likely been with friends, who would've have questioned where she disappeared, and once again, other people would have heard.

So, that's two major errors in Pros story outlined.

Now onto the third--which is DNA evidence. According to Pros story, the girl was "blubbering" and finally "spluttered" as Garrie proceeded to kill her, which thus means that her saliva would have transferred to Garrie and his clothing. The question remains as to where Garrie would put his now DNA covered clothes and exactly how he would destroy the evidence. Even more importantly, he would undoubtedly have visible traces of blood on him as it "spilt out onto the cobbles below". So after a young teenage girl has gone missing, Garrie is to go out again seeking another victim with blood already on him? It may be evening, but streets are still illuminated with lights. When it's discovered that a number of girls [not just one, according to Pro] have been murdered, naturally the police would ask for witnesses; many of whom would likely give a description of Garrie. A man who prior to committing murder was sat visibly leering at girls and women walking by. There is no doubt that some of them would have recognized this and remembered, thus providing a reason for them to tell it to the police. The first thing witnesses would be asked is if they saw any strange or suspect looking people around.

The 4th flaw, which is perhaps the biggest, is where does Garrie remove the body? Again, Pro hasn't specified so presumably his plan is to just leave her there, ready for other people or the police to find. There will be traces of Garrie all over the girls body and even more strikingly, his semen in her system.
As well as saliva and blood, traces of her could also be found on his clothing.

To summarize Pros argument, Garrie has left his murder unplanned which is the biggest error any killer can make--and thus leaves a considerably flawed story.
Debate Round No. 2


He is in a public place, but he's in a back alley. No one can see him. No one could see the girl go into the alley either, the area was dark. Also, this is why no one heard her scream. There was no one around. So those aren't errors.

Garrie is a facechanger. As soon as the rape and murder is over he can disappear to another country to rape some more. No worries. He'll never be caught. And if Garrie does want to remove the body, like you said, he can just incinerate it. No body, no crime. Bye-bye.

As to your story, Susie will be investigated for the murder because she was standing right next to Bill when he fell off the cliff. There's no way she'll get away with it.

Typical Foolery.


Additional Rebuttals:

Pro argues that because Garrie is in a back ally, he will not be seen. However with *any* public place [it doesn't matter exactly where] there's as large probability of being seen. Naturally people would have noticed Garrie enter the ally, and a girl screaming loudly is fairly certain to have been heard by someone; seeing that directly outside the ally is a street with local populace and people walking/running around celebrating--a key theme in Pros story.

Pro then then claims that Garrie, after raping and murdering girls, can somehow disappear and then leave the country. Which of course to anyone that can apply logic is completely outrageous. For example, where does Garrie hide his blood covered clothes? And how about the women that would have witnessed and noted his strangeness? As stated previously, they would obviously informed the police and given a basic description when questioned. Even if he did mangle to get rid of the body, there would still be a missing girl[s] that would be reported.

Regarding my own story and Pros only rebuttal to it so far, how would the police be able to conclude the she was standing right next to Bill? Specifically as she gave an entirely different impression to the people she discovered and asked for help from. I also clearly outlined that both were in a remote location with no witnesses at the scene; therefore, where is the actual evidence that she was responsible? Once again, there is none.
Debate Round No. 3


There's no one around. I already stated that. If you actually read instead of gliding over the words like a weak blind man, then you would know that. Obviously you didn't pay attention, so I will reiterate. Ah, why must I always deal with this classic idiocy.

Garrie and the girl are alone in that particular vicinity. She screams but no one hears. Garrie can rape away in peace. "Where does Garrie hide his blood covered clothes?" That's your question? How tragical. You know nothing of murder. That's going to be the least of Garrie's worries. He can just burn them when he burns the body of the raped and murdered girl. Simple.

As to the people recognizing him, as I stated before, fool, Garrie is a facechanger. He merely delves into the old purse and invests in a bout of plastic surgery. Then he hightails it to Cuba or some exotic locale, and pish-posh, he's a new man. Then he starts all over again. A new girl, a new rape, a new kill. Ta-da.

Your story is a feeble effort. When the murder of the woman's husband is investigated, clearly they will investigate her. She will be judged accordingly. Just like silly Susie in your story, you're merely treading water, attempting to keep your head above the waves like a coward. Just release and accept that you have lost.


Closing Arguments:

Pro has essentially done nothing to improve his case or rebut my own argument. In fact, literally only one sentence has been used in response to my story. While I have addressed all of Pros points in-depth and shown exactly how flawed they actually are.

I'd also note that in using terms like "classic idiocy" to describe my rebuttals [which are obviously more than valid] and labelling me a "coward" is technically a violation of conduct and should be recognized as so by any potential voters. Instead of objectively responding to my contentions, Pro has exclusively resorted to insults. Merely stating that my own story is a "feeble effort" does absolutely nothing to argue any flaw[s] that may exist within it or rebut my own case properly--which is what is required of Pro.

To conclude the debate, I'll just briefly respond to Pros statement regarding the blood covered clothes--which of course would be an issue for Garrie if he is to somehow get away with murder. The first question is how exactly is Garrie going to burn the girl without anyone actually noticing? Again, the key error in Pros case is that they've set their story in alleyway and therefore in an urbanized area with other people and properties around. He's basically saying that Garrie is going to successfully rape, murder, and then burn this girl in a completely public area. I've also highlighted the problem of witnesses, who without doubt would have seen Garrie given his suspect behaviour.

Simply put, Pros argument has been consistently full of flaws--all of which he has failed to reconcile. In addition to that Pro has almost entirely dropped my own case and not provided any rebuttals. As well as violating conduct by using insults, etc.

Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Hehe, such a bad loser.
Posted by masterdrave 3 years ago
You're all nothing.
Posted by BigIvan 3 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice are you Manti Teo?
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Is this all because I didn't accept your friend request?

What a freak.
Posted by WAM 3 years ago
HAHAHAH best joke I've heard in a while... You clearly have no idea about law, nor about forensics. Don't believe everything you watch on TV. While 'Bones' might have some truth to it, the big majority about how they solve cases is BS. And just because you watch a TV show doesn't mean you could get away with murder.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
But it doesn't constitute evidence.

As far the fall, obviously it would be from high up so it would be hard for examiners to actually determine whether it was due to pushing; this isn't the type of murder where there is struggle involved. The only physical findings would be damage to the body *after* hitting the the rocks.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
A bad marriage constitutes a motive though and the force profile will eliminate the prospect of falling. The angle of the injuries will be different.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Not exactly, besides a bad state of marriage doesn't necessarily *prove* anything. To convict someone of murder you need conclusive evidence.

With no witnesses--there is nothing that could frame the character. Police can have their suspicions..but it all lies with what proof there is.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
LOL-.- please any investigator exploring the case would discover the state of the marriage and the wife would be the obvious suspect. Also the forensic crew would discover the discontinuity in the injuries sustained due to the differing force profiles of falling of a cliff and being nudged or pushed of a cliff. And then Both and Dr.Brennan would have a nice dinner :)
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Yes.....though I'd maybe recommend another opponent ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was clearly rude in this debate, you should never insult and opponent in any debate, thus con gets conduct points. Overall con had better spelling and grammar and also their rounds looked prettier. Arguments is easily given to con. con has much better clash of arguments, meaning you give much more refutation and consideration to both pro's and your own points. con puts a lot of effort into their story while pro doesn't match this effort in his own. Con wins because their case is simply more likely. it is more likely that a person will be caught if they leave their DNA at the scene of the crime, dont have an appropriate way to dispose of the body and could have been seen right before the time of the incident compared to a case where it was said, no one was around, where the victim was socially detached from family and had little amount of friends. So in conclusion con wins because her case is more likely to be the perfect murder than pro's and because she consistently gave effort