Y’all watching ….
- Thread starter Eastmandawg
- Start date
My mom keeps me updated.
she thinks he is guilty but, she thinks he may not get convicted. Interesting story.
He sounds like a real dirtbag.
she thinks he is guilty but, she thinks he may not get convicted. Interesting story.
He sounds like a real dirtbag.
He’s slippery, frustrating the hayul out of the prosecution…agree with your Momma.
Last edited:
In the end he will pay! It might be when he faces God, but he will pay for sure.
True dat….but just think the prosecutor/s are overmatched.
At least to this point in time.
Last edited:
You can't ever tell with a jury but I am still struggling with the motive that the prosecution is pushing. What benefit does he get from killing them? Throw in the fact he would have had little time to clean up and dispose of the murder weapons he would have had to miss something and the weapons would have to be close by wherever he went. Also, why would you use 2 weapons, I guess you want it to look like 2 people but that would take lots of planning and rules out any panic/spur of the moment killing.
He's a dirtbag but I still question a lot about these killings. The DA thought this was a slam dunk and I don't think it is.
I haven't been following it, but the benefit he gets is his wife and kid never know what kind of scumbag he really is, wasn't there some big financial crime about to drop on him before the murders? He was taking people's life insurance money instead of giving it to the beneficiaries? There are people that would rather kill a loved one than that loved one finding out their whole life has been a lie. He took out a policy on his maid and she died in his house I believe.
Well, the rest of his family and his other son would still find out. He had no life insurance on his son or wife. He didn't have insurance on his maid, he filed a claim against his homeowners policy.
Definitely a scumbag but the DA doesn't have a convincing motive as I see so far and in a circumstantial case like this I think you need to have a good one for the jury.
Not according to Matlock! when I found out that the guy was from SC, I stopped following the trial.
You just can't accept my genius and you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. Meanwhile, go look up what I posted... I am indeed correct. Motive is not mandatory to convict for murder. That's an urban legend. Convenient? Possibly. But not required.
"For example, to convict a defendant of murder, the prosecution must prove the defendant killed the victim, and that he did it with malice aforethought. Malice basically means having an intent to kill. Neither motive nor opportunity to commit the crime is required to prove the defendant guilty."
Last edited:
Dang, Sugar Britches……you don’t even know who you are arguing with or what you’re arguing about.
Pretty sure that doesn’t make you a “genius”…..it does make you special though.
I never said anything about “motive”
I said:
True dat….but just think the prosecutor/s are overmatched.
At least to this point in time.
You said:
Nope
Last edited:
Every legal expert on TV says he's overmatched the prosecutor. But they didn't talk to you first, so maybe they know nothing.
I don’
We disagreee. SLED & the local constabulary made a few errors early and the defense has tried to sew doubt. But I think Waters has been good overall. What viewers see on the tele can seem very different live. None of this means in any way the jury’ll acquit or convict. Crazy case with a bunch of crazy people involved. Can’t wait for the Netflix series in a year or two.
Latest posts
-
-
-
What kind of assets has UGA provided EA Sports for the upcoming college football game?- Latest: Natedawgy_dawg401
-
-