Podcast Summary: Stuff You Should Know

Episode: Short Stuff: Killing a Dead Body

Date: September 17, 2025
Hosts: Josh & Chuck (iHeartPodcasts)

Overview

In this “Short Stuff” episode, Josh and Chuck explore the bizarre and thought-provoking question: Can you legally or physically murder someone who is already dead? Using real (and some legendary) cases, they journey through legal precedents in France, the US, Canada, and Australia to explain how intent and circumstance shape criminal responsibility in these macabre scenarios. Throughout, they mix in their signature banter, detours into pop culture, and memorable legal oddities.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Magnolia (and Ronald Opus) Story

• [02:23–04:17]
  • The hosts kick things off reminiscing about the film Magnolia, which opens with vignettes, including a story narrated by Ricky Jay about a man who attempts suicide, but is killed by a stray bullet fired by his mother.
  • They reveal this outlandish story stems from a forensic “urban legend”—the Ronald Opus case—created by Don Harper Mills in 1987 to illustrate how new evidence can dramatically alter coroner's findings.
  • “He loaded the gun that killed him. And so the medical examiner ruled it a suicide after all.” — Josh [03:51]
  • The story’s not true, but sets up the episode’s central theme: legal ambiguity around cause of death.

2. Can You Murder a Dead Body? Legal Possibility vs. Intent

• [06:45–07:13; 08:35–12:15]
  • The core of the episode discusses the “legal impossibility” versus “intention” debate in murder law. Is it a crime to try to kill someone already dead?
  • One of the best-known cases is from France, 1986 (the “death of Monsieur Wilkins”):
    • Monsieur Wilkins is knocked out and killed by Monsieur Charrot.
    • Later, Monsieur Pere de Roult, thinking Wilkins is still alive, beats and strangles the body, only to learn Wilkins was already dead.
    • Legal scholars debate: Is it a crime if the act was impossible (the victim was dead), or does intent (trying to kill someone you thought was alive) prevail?
  • “It was impossible for him to complete this act, which means that he can't possibly be guilty of it. ... And other people said ... his intent was to murder this man, therefore he's guilty of attempted murder.” — Chuck [08:38–09:15]

3. Historical Legal Precedents

• [10:06–12:21]
  • 1975, New York City:
    • Michael Geller is shot three times in the chest by Joe Bush.
    • Melvin Dlugash then shoots Geller in the head five more times.
    • Dlugash claims Geller was already dead; he's initially convicted, but the conviction is overturned. The court shifts the focus from possibility to intent: if you believe your victim is alive and act to kill, you can be convicted of attempted (not actual) murder.
  • The French high court and New York’s Supreme Court ultimately rule similarly—intent matters more than the “impossibility” of murder.

4. Modern Applications & Other Cases

• [12:55–14:56]
  • Josh and Chuck note how this principle crops up more than expected.
  • Police Shootings: Example of a Toronto cop shooting a suspect, then firing more shots after the person is likely dead. The later shots constitute attempted murder, even if the first were justified.
  • Australia 2014 (Melbourne Mercy Killing):
    • Rocky "Spartacus" Matt Scassi is shot in the head during a struggle. Daniel Darrington delivers a “mercy” shot and then further shots, believing Matt Scassi may still be alive.
    • Darrington can’t be convicted of murder for the subsequent shots, but does get convicted of attempted murder, as he believed his victim might still be alive.
  • “He demonstrated quite clearly that he thought Matt Scassi was still alive and shot him to kill him, however merciful the act was supposed to be.” — Chuck [14:38]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On legal intent vs. impossibility in law:

  “What you intended to do determines your guilt or innocence, not the actual fact or possibility of whether you could have done what you were trying to do.” — Josh [12:03]

• On the frequency of these cases:

  “This actually happens with surprising frequency. ... I would not think that there would be more than one or two cases, but there are some here or there.” — Chuck [12:55]

• Moral for listeners:

  “If somebody is potentially already dead, call an ambulance.” — Josh [15:15]

• Movie trope reference:

  “This kind of thing ... is in movies a lot. ... To prove your loyalty to the organization, someone’s in there, ‘I killed most of him, you got to finish them off, so we’re both liable or whatever.’” — Josh [15:24]

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment | |------------|--------------------------------------------------| | 02:23–04:17| Magnolia/Ronald Opus Story | | 06:45–07:13| Introduction to Legal Impossibility | | 08:35–09:47| The Wilkins/Charrot/Pere de Roult Case | | 10:06–12:21| NYC Geller/Dlugash Case | | 12:55–14:56| Modern & International Cases (Toronto, Melbourne)| | 15:15 | Takeaways and pop culture/movie trope discussion |

Conclusion: The Legal Weirdness of Killing the Dead

Josh and Chuck wrap up with the lesson that law ultimately cares most about the intent behind a crime—even if ending a life was, by definition, impossible at the time. It's a thoroughly SYSK blend of quirky legal history, darkly funny stories, and the occasional digression into movie trivia.

If you want to sound smart at parties or just ponder the strangest intersections of law and mortality, this episode packs an engaging, accessible punch (with a dash of French pronunciation humor).