Aquarium Cleaner Corona deaths now under homocide investigation, wife exposed as Democrat partisan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
It's quite clear that the intent of the article is to get its readers to imagine a conspiracy related to the political leanings of Wanda Lenius in murdering her husband. Firstly, the article presents being investigated by homicide detectives with the implication that the PD thinks it's a homicide, and that has been blown out of the water above. Secondly, there really isn't any evidence that their political leanings relate at all to the chloroquine poisoning. Presenting them together in such a fashion is inviting the inference that one follows from the other. That's the intent, and clearly we can see the effects of that in the OP. National Review is also quite sneaky in sourcing the word "prolific" from the clickbait title which then details contributions including to groups with varying missions (e.g. countering resistance to incorporating science into policy making, supporting pro-choice female candidates) which are not explicitly partisan in mission although at least in today's political climate obviously lean Democrat. She also contributed to Clinton and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Well I say details. Actually they omit probably the most important one: magnitude of contribution, instead using the vague language "thousands of dollars". Would you call someone who gave, in total, $2200 to political campaigns or policy interest groups over the last 2 years a prolific Democratic donor? I sure as hell wouldn't, but of course I don't know the number is $2200 and not $72000 either, except that there really isn't any good reason to avoid being specific unless they intend to imply something is more significant than it seems.

Basically, it's downright dirty. Not including any technically false statements when taken individually doesn't make something appropriate.

According to the Examiner's article, she's given $6000 to democrat groups since 2018.

Interviews show that the relationship was previously troubled, including a domestic violence charge that was dropped because her husband supported her.

Do we even know that the husband knew what he was drinking?

You don't think it's at all strange that the police have asked for the recordings of the interview?

It merits at least a little investigation, and that's what's happening.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: soundforbjt

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
A lot of things in this case just don't seem to make any sense. If the couple are democrats, why are they listening to Trump? Maybe that part is overblown, or only one them actually leans democrat. The husband sounds like he would be smart enough to know better than to injest fish cleaner, but if the wife is trying to murder him and blame Trump for it, why did she injest a lethal dose herself? Murder suicide? Well, that would be an easier theory to stomach if they were younger.

I think the error bars are pretty large here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the husband either didn't know what he was drinking, or there was some cognitive decline. Maybe he's the democrat, and the wife isn't, and the wife tricked him into ingesting the cleaner (and maybe she didn't mean to kill him, but actually believed it would help). I dunno. It's a weird case.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
I think the poster is actually an automated forum process that only exists to test adherence to forum rules around insults and personal attacks.
Post nonsense that only a moron could think about posting and then perform a check of responses.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,732
28,908
136
Why not just delete obvious propaganda threads like these? They only serve to legitimize the garbage being spread. This thread now shows up on the first or second page of google search results if use a few of the terms from the title. Simply locking the thread isn't enough.
Are the mods listening?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda
Jun 18, 2000
11,155
733
126
What part of confirmation bias is confusing you? Take a poll of how many here bought into this nonsense, and you will have your answer. Only those that want it to be true, will think it is. Oh, and the really dumb. But if we are going to try to protect the really dumb from bad info, it will require taking away all forms of communication. Because the dumb will always be dumb and easily duped.

You overcome confirmation bias with repeated exposure. That's why these articles are plastered across as many sites as possible. Either way, I've said my piece.
 
Last edited:

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
According to the Examiner's article, she's given $6000 to democrat groups since 2018.

Interviews show that the relationship was previously troubled, including a domestic violence charge that was dropped because her husband supported her.

Do we even know that the husband knew what he was drinking?

You don't think it's at all strange that the police have asked for the recordings of the interview?

It merits at least a little investigation, and that's what's happening.

1. People donate to political groups.

2. People have domestic disputes.

3. People who die can't tell us what they knew and didn't know before they died.

4. When someone dies because of poisoning at the hands of another person, police investigate to see if there is any evidence of malice or criminal negligence. When that involves a party to the action giving interviews to the media, they are going to want to see that.

Except there is no evidence being presented which suggests that there is any kind of conspiracy which links things together. Even though that is a possibility, suggesting that it is the case based on what is presented is a pure fiction. The only relevance to the reporting of #1 and #2 are as potential motives for homicide. And to be clear, the police have said that this is not a homicide investigation. Could it become one, sure. At that point, these things would become relevant, but still to the general public reading media reports, it would be quite irresponsible of us to think we knew what happened from this limited information.

But also use some common sense. Could someone committing malice murder decide also to kill themselves in the process? Yes. But knowing that you're about to ingest a lethal dose of poison is a pretty difficult thing to get over when thinking someone was acting rationally to kill another person, with political motivations no less, when there was absolutely no reason she had to take the poison herself to do it.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136

This really is rather simple. The NR article posted facts, if anyone actually read it. The death is being investigated, and the Free Beacon's recorded interview has been turned over to the police.

That's it. You guys sure do excite easily.
According to the Examiner's article, she's given $6000 to democrat groups since 2018.

Interviews show that the relationship was previously troubled, including a domestic violence charge that was dropped because her husband supported her.

Do we even know that the husband knew what he was drinking?

You don't think it's at all strange that the police have asked for the recordings of the interview?

It merits at least a little investigation, and that's what's happening.


So, let me ask you......which of those two things you listed---her Dem. donations and her domestic problem history---would you assign more weight to in relation to the poisoning? Seems the article prioritizes her Dem. donation history, as it's mentioned before her domestic abuse issues.

Now why is that?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
So, let me ask you......which of those two things you listed---her Dem. donations and her domestic problem history---would you assign more weight to in relation to the poisoning? Seems the article prioritizes her Dem. donation history, as it's mentioned before her domestic abuse issues.

Now why is that?
Because, among other reasons, the intent here is to switch the blame to the Dems for Trump pushing a dangerous and unproven drug as a miracle cure.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
So, let me ask you......which of those two things you listed---her Dem. donations and her domestic problem history---would you assign more weight to in relation to the poisoning? Seems the article prioritizes her Dem. donation history, as it's mentioned before her domestic abuse issues.

Now why is that?

Lol you are asking someone who watches and believes people who lie to him for a living and doesn’t know it, to able to spot written propaganda.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
1. People donate to political groups.

2. People have domestic disputes.

3. People who die can't tell us what they knew and didn't know before they died.

4. When someone dies because of poisoning at the hands of another person, police investigate to see if there is any evidence of malice or criminal negligence. When that involves a party to the action giving interviews to the media, they are going to want to see that.

Except there is no evidence being presented which suggests that there is any kind of conspiracy which links things together. Even though that is a possibility, suggesting that it is the case based on what is presented is a pure fiction. The only relevance to the reporting of #1 and #2 are as potential motives for homicide. And to be clear, the police have said that this is not a homicide investigation. Could it become one, sure. At that point, these things would become relevant, but still to the general public reading media reports, it would be quite irresponsible of us to think we knew what happened from this limited information.

But also use some common sense. Could someone committing malice murder decide also to kill themselves in the process? Yes. But knowing that you're about to ingest a lethal dose of poison is a pretty difficult thing to get over when thinking someone was acting rationally to kill another person, with political motivations no less, when there was absolutely no reason she had to take the poison herself to do it.

I'm not terribly bothered by the motives behind why a piece was published, as long as its content is mostly factual. Every news organization everywhere has to choose what to report, and that will invariably reflect biases or narratives that they want to suggest to readers.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136

This really is rather simple. The NR article posted facts, if anyone actually read it. The death is being investigated, and the Free Beacon's recorded interview has been turned over to the police.

That's it. You guys sure do excite easily.
Psssst. Noone is talking about the "article".
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,185
2,232
136
I hope you saw the other article posted in which the police explicitly stated that this is NOT a homicide investigation.




Yes, I saw it. There are other recent articles out there now that say the police are investigating as they would any unusual death as opposed to a homicide.



The newspaper also reported that Wanda Lenius was charged with domestic abuse assault in 2001 after she allegedly hit her husband and swung a mounted birdhouse at him. Gary Lenius declined to cooperate, testifying that he was not injured or placed in fear of injury. His wife was exonerated.



Also, for those referring to the domestic abuse issue, it was almost 20 years ago. She was probably "going through the change" back then. Some of you married old guys know what I'm talking about. ;)
 
Last edited: