Stanley Van Wagner

This first analysis paper will be based on the case of The Murder of Stanley Van Wagner. This case involves a husband, Stanley Van Wagner, who was found dead on May 15, 2015, with bullet shot wounds. The perpetrator involves Stanley’s wife, Amy, who was charged with the murder of her husband. All of the inculpatory evidence found at the scene where Wagner was found, points to Amy as the murderer, that is from the gun that was used, a .380 caliber handgun. After some investigating, it was found that Amy had a registration for the exact same type of handgun. Before the murder happened, Wagner had told Amy that he was going to divorce her if she once again stole and forged his signature for money and therefore put her as the number one suspect.

The first question I believe went unanswered was that of Stanley and Amy’s son. Chapter 3 of Criminal Investigation, states “the couple’s son, who was home in bed on Friday, May 15, reported and later testified that he did not hear any gunshots in the house that morning” (Brandl, 2018, pg. 38). However, it does not mention whether the son was awake during that time, which according to the clock’s computer found next to Stanley’s body, was at 5:30 a.m. on that Friday. If he was not awake then that could be one of the reasons he did not hear the gunshot and especially if he is a heavy sleeper. Secondly, there was also a pillow found at the crime scene which showed that a bullet had gone through it which could mean that Amy grabbed the said pillow and shot through the pillow in an attempt for the gunshot to not sound as loud as it would have without it, which would also explain why the son didn’t hear the shot and adding the probability that he might have been asleep at that

This is what might have pinned her for his death as it was known that she had taken out money before and was threatened with divorce, but with him being dead then she had no need to worry about the threat anymore and could take out whatever money she wanted. The second mistake I believe was the message she sent to her son that same Friday morning asking him about his thoughts on the rug in Stanley’s office. A rug that Stanley never placed on the floor and which was only for display. Not to mention that the place in which the rug had been placed on the floor had been placed on top of a bloodstain which one could assume to have been a way in which to hide it. Lastly, the third mistake which led to Amy’s identification and conviction as the killer would be the Google search that she had made on May 15, 2015, which was for a solution to clean carpets. This mistake could possibly be tied back with the rug that was used to cover the bloodstain and therefore incriminates Amy by making it seem like she was trying to get rid of the