This episode of HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET was odd because it had been based on a true story that went the rounds between 1994 and 1998. Steve Allan and Jayne Meadows are a married couple who always seem to be arguing and then go through a ritual when the argument gets very hot: Allan goes to a closet and pulls out his shotgun, and aims it at Meadows, firing it (there is no charge in it). Meadows falls, pretending she is killed, and Allan rushes over to her to apologize to her before she "dies". So all is forgiven about their crazy weekly quarrel.
But one day when they go through the entire formula, Meadows stumbles just as Allan fires the supposedly empty gun. Only this time the gun fires a charge, but since Meadows has hit the ground before it was fired, Allan's shot goes through the window. But just at that moment a man is falling from the roof, and he gets the shot through him - killing him!. The police come and arrest a shaken Allan. He can't understand how the gun was loaded - he never loads it! The police are appalled by the weird circumstances here. Is it an attempted murder of Meadows? Is it a murder with depraved indifference or a manslaughter of the man who was shot and killed? And who is he - there was no identification on the body.
The A.D.A. is talking shop with her friends and those police not in on the case. And it gradually unravels.
First, the man who was shot was definitely an attempted suicide - he was seen carefully going to the roof, and purposely jumping off. So does that lessen the fault of Allan. Possibly, but Allan still was going through the intentional motions of threatening to fire and kill a target (Meadows) even though he hit a second target. Yes, they are aware that Allan was claiming that he did not load the gun, but he could be lying.
Then it turns out that earlier in the day Allan and Meadow's son was visiting them, and that he was arguing about them lending him some money he needed for his business. They refused because he had lost all the money they lent him earlier. He was aware of their weekly argument game, and he was alone in the room with the weapon for a few minutes. He knew how to load the gun. Possibly he loaded it. His fingerprint is on the gun. They should speak to him.
That's just it - he's vanished. Has he fled? Gradually, however, it all falls into place. After checking the possible places that the son could have fled to, someone notices the fingerprint does look familiar. It looks like the fingerprint of the suicide. They check, and now they know the son jumped off the roof.
So now, instead of an attempted murder of Meadows, Allan can be tried for the murder of the son...or can he? The son loaded the rifle. The son's finances were messed up. He threatened to have his parents committed if they did not help him, or, to commit suicide.
The A.D.A. explains that the son loaded the rifle, intending his father would kill the mother, and go to prison, Then he went to the roof to jump off and kill himself. He just did not realize the rifle he loaded would be fired and kill him instead. So Allan is not arrested - it is, after all, suicide.
The story actually happened, not in Baltimore (where HOMICIDE took place in) but in another part of the country in March 1994. The plotter was one Ronald Opus, and the story was told by Dr. Don Harper Mills at the 1994 annual awards dinner for Forensic Science,AAFS
But one day when they go through the entire formula, Meadows stumbles just as Allan fires the supposedly empty gun. Only this time the gun fires a charge, but since Meadows has hit the ground before it was fired, Allan's shot goes through the window. But just at that moment a man is falling from the roof, and he gets the shot through him - killing him!. The police come and arrest a shaken Allan. He can't understand how the gun was loaded - he never loads it! The police are appalled by the weird circumstances here. Is it an attempted murder of Meadows? Is it a murder with depraved indifference or a manslaughter of the man who was shot and killed? And who is he - there was no identification on the body.
The A.D.A. is talking shop with her friends and those police not in on the case. And it gradually unravels.
First, the man who was shot was definitely an attempted suicide - he was seen carefully going to the roof, and purposely jumping off. So does that lessen the fault of Allan. Possibly, but Allan still was going through the intentional motions of threatening to fire and kill a target (Meadows) even though he hit a second target. Yes, they are aware that Allan was claiming that he did not load the gun, but he could be lying.
Then it turns out that earlier in the day Allan and Meadow's son was visiting them, and that he was arguing about them lending him some money he needed for his business. They refused because he had lost all the money they lent him earlier. He was aware of their weekly argument game, and he was alone in the room with the weapon for a few minutes. He knew how to load the gun. Possibly he loaded it. His fingerprint is on the gun. They should speak to him.
That's just it - he's vanished. Has he fled? Gradually, however, it all falls into place. After checking the possible places that the son could have fled to, someone notices the fingerprint does look familiar. It looks like the fingerprint of the suicide. They check, and now they know the son jumped off the roof.
So now, instead of an attempted murder of Meadows, Allan can be tried for the murder of the son...or can he? The son loaded the rifle. The son's finances were messed up. He threatened to have his parents committed if they did not help him, or, to commit suicide.
The A.D.A. explains that the son loaded the rifle, intending his father would kill the mother, and go to prison, Then he went to the roof to jump off and kill himself. He just did not realize the rifle he loaded would be fired and kill him instead. So Allan is not arrested - it is, after all, suicide.
The story actually happened, not in Baltimore (where HOMICIDE took place in) but in another part of the country in March 1994. The plotter was one Ronald Opus, and the story was told by Dr. Don Harper Mills at the 1994 annual awards dinner for Forensic Science,AAFS