2004_07_cocktails.jpg

The lede says it all. From the Post:

The New Jersey woman who served her brother-in-law a fatal cocktail didn't want to kill him, but incapacitate him to gain control of his money, her lawyer said yesterday.
Maryann Neabor, an emergency medical technician who once taught a course on home poisoning, served her brother-in-law a smoothie of pineapple juice, maraschino cherries and antifreeze last week, police said. He died two days later.

Neabor's attorney is trying to claim negligent manslaughter, not murder, telling reporters, "The motive was greed, as it is in all crimes. There was no intent here, and that means that there was no murder here, it was negligent manslaughte." The prosecutor in Haddonfield, Robert Bernardi, countered, "You don't have to intend to kill someone to qualify for murder. Even if you gave someone a poisoned cocktail and didn't even intend to kill them, most reasonable people would consider it murder if the person then dies." Here, here, making someone drink antifreeze seems to Gothamist to be motive enough. No murderers get off on "I didn't think the four minutes of stabbing would kill him." Please. And the NY Times article has the classic end quote from a neighbor who is shocked, because the murderer seemed "so normal."