Hitman: A guide to becoming a contract killer.

[Sypherian]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

I would imagine it would be very hard to completely clean a wood-chipper of all the gore though..........

Alot of cleaning products has the ability to destroy DNA trace for example bleach so yes maybe it would be hard to remove all the blood but what do they do when they can't test the blood to an known sample??

To be a good contract killer in my opinion you have to be as anomynous to the systam as possible so in my opinion joining the millitary to become a sufficient killer is a bad idea since they have a DNA register

So being an average Joe not known by the police (Fingerprints, DNA and so on) is a crucial point if you ask me.

As someone allready wrote killing somebody is'nt the hard part every man woman or child can take a life but being able to do it with out being found out is the tricky part.

IMO doing it from a distance by rifle with a scope mounted is by far the best way and the easiest way to take someone out and be able to get away, allthough not possible in every scenarion i guess.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Sypherian

Alot of cleaning products has the ability to destroy DNA trace for example bleach so yes maybe it would be hard to remove all the blood but what do they do when they can't test the blood to an known sample??

That should be separated into several sentences, but I'll try to answer just the same.

Bleach can contaminate certain samples to the point that a DNA match isn't possible, but it is by no means an "end-all" to DNA evidence. Secondly, if you don't remove "all the blood" you may as well not remove any of it.

When there's no DNA match on an existing database, they record the DNA map and wait for another sample that does match. During the investigation, they can ask multiple suspects for DNA swabs - or force them to provide DNA through a court order.

Originally Posted by Sypherian

To be a good contract killer in my opinion you have to be as anomynous to the systam as possible so in my opinion joining the millitary to become a sufficient killer is a bad idea since they have a DNA register

Supposedly, the military DNA register is only accessible if one is identifying the remains of a dead serviceman - it isn't legally permissible in an investigation. I say this with the greatest sarcasm, as it is regularly used for this very purpose, despite restrictions to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Sypherian

So being an average Joe not known by the police (Fingerprints, DNA and so on) is a crucial point if you ask me.

The "perfect hitter" would have absolutely no formal training or credentials in any field having to do with combat, firearms, explosives, etc. Such a person would need to be completely self-educated on said subjects or have informal training from qualified individuals.

To create a "perfect hitter" one would need to start the grooming process before he turned 16 - to prevent his real fingerprints from being taken for his DL, and to ensure that his DL photo is properly disguised to avoid a face recognition ID.

Originally Posted by Sypherian

IMO doing it from a distance by rifle with a scope mounted is by far the best way and the easiest way to take someone out and be able to get away, allthough not possible in every scenarion i guess.

It's not possible in "most" scenarios - and your assumption that it's easy only suggests that you've never tried to hit a target from any worthy distance.

Furthermore, it's better if most "hits" don't look like hits - this means stairs, cars, and slippery floors are far more suitable weapons than guns.

[Santriel]

It is very possible to become a "hitman" via conventional means.

Look up justice fuckups. Happens every day. I'm sure some family members would be more than happy to pay someone to deliver swift justice/get revenge on law scum.

Husbands under heavy divorce problems are also a good catch.

A killer's best ally would be explosives. They can be hooked to anything and fit pretty much any situation. Under a car with an inertia trigger, in a mailbox wired to a motion sensitive detonator, etc...

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Santriel

It is very possible to become a "hitman" via conventional means.

Except for the fact that investigations into such matters would almost immediately point to you.

Originally Posted by Santriel

A killer's best ally would be explosives. They can be hooked to anything and fit pretty much any situation. Under a car with an inertia trigger, in a mailbox wired to a motion sensitive detonator, etc...

Explosives (much like a rifle) are rarely a good choice for a professional job.
Most hits shouldn't look like hits - a carbomb "looks like a hit" - a mailbox bomb "looks like a hit".

Consider:
A wife hires you to kill her husband, and you blow his car to bits - the FIRST suspect is the wife. Part of your job is keeping the heat away from your client - blowing up the target is rarely going to accomplish that.

[Santriel]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Consider:
A wife hires you to kill her husband, and you blow his car to bits - the FIRST suspect is the wife. Part of your job is keeping the heat away from your client - blowing up the target is rarely going to accomplish that.

"Justice" needs proof.

If your client has been careful about payment (aka not withdrawing 5.000$ the week before you blow up the target), other than him/her talking there is no proof at all that he/she is involved.

Trying to go all james bond only works in movies. Perheaps the most reliable method, past explosives, is "disappearance" or faked suicide.

Without a body, there is no murder.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by Santriel

Without a body, there is no murder.

Not true, just ask ask anyone in law.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Santriel

"Justice" needs proof.

If your client has been careful about payment (aka not withdrawing 5.000$ the week before you blow up the target), other than him/her talking there is no proof at all that he/she is involved.

Trying to go all james bond only works in movies. Perheaps the most reliable method, past explosives, is "disappearance" or faked suicide.

Without a body, there is no murder.

As Bloodlusta' pointed out, the "no body = no murder" concept is exclusively for TV and films.

Secondly, wow. The guy claiming that explosives are the best method of killing someone and that "no body means no murder" is claiming that others are "trying to go all James Bond".

[Santriel]

Originally Posted by shetlan

As Bloodlusta' pointed out, the "no body = no murder" concept is exclusively for TV and films.

Secondly, wow. The guy claiming that explosives are the best method of killing someone and that "no body means no murder" is claiming that others are "trying to go all James Bond".

I meant trying to go into too eccentric schemes.

It is not a TV concept. Nobody is declared dead until identified AND dead. They list people as 'missing' or 'presumed dead' but in no way a prosecutor is going to go on a suicide mission trying to convict someone of murder... without any proof that anyone was indeed murdered; Should they do, even the dumbest lawyer of the country will have no trouble smashing it.

They need either a body with solid evidence or a confession.

Of course there are exception cases like when morons "disappear" the guy they owed 50k 3 days before a court order is due or when a husband 'goes missing' 2 weeks prior divorce because the broad would lose everything but...

Other than blatantly obvious cases and with the help of a hitman, it is much more difficult, virtually impossible to prove.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Santriel

I meant trying to go into too eccentric schemes.

Like blowing someone up?

In what twisted mind is blowing someone up less "eccentric" than shoving them down some stairs?

Originally Posted by Santriel

It is not a TV concept. Nobody is declared dead until identified AND dead.

People are declared dead, simply because they're missing, on a fairly regular basis. This is usually done for legal reasons so that the spouse or children of the dead party can attend to their affairs.

On a side note, do you have any idea how many john does go through the average morgue on an annual basis? And yet, they're declard dead.

Originally Posted by Santriel

They list people as 'missing' or 'presumed dead' but in no way a prosecutor is going to go on a suicide mission trying to convict someone of murder... without any proof that anyone was indeed murdered; Should they do, even the dumbest lawyer of the country will have no trouble smashing it.

Since you apparently get your information from some random TV crime drama, I'll enlighten you to how the process actually works. You may not be old enough to remeber the case in any detail, but I refer you to the case of Laci Peterson's disappearance.

Her husband (Scott Peterson) was being investigated for her murder from day 1 - before his wife's body was found, before they even knew she was dead, before they knew he had a mistress, and while he was "leading" a desperate effort to find her. Scott was charged before Laci's body was discovered, and the prosecuter was happy to say that they would have prosecuted Scott whether they had a body or not.

Bottom line, the "no body = no murder" concept is BS, which even a lazy man's study of recent murder cases would show.

Originally Posted by Santriel

They need either a body with solid evidence or a confession.

Also totally false.
Many a case has been tried on circumstancial evidence alone - and many defendants have been convicted by such evidence.

Originally Posted by Santriel

Of course there are exception cases like when morons "disappear" the guy they owed 50k 3 days before a court order is due or when a husband 'goes missing' 2 weeks prior divorce because the broad would lose everything but...

Other than blatantly obvious cases and with the help of a hitman, it is much more difficult, virtually impossible to prove.

I have no idea what that is suppose to say