Comments by "Glamdolly" (@glamdolly30) on "COURT TV"
channel.
-
By 2011, this poor man's life had totally spiralled out of control, thanks to the trauma of his encounter with serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. He clearly needed help with his mental health that was not forthcoming. I believe there are signs of his mental fragility on the stand.
A homeless drug addict, in 2012 Tracy Edwards was sentenced to 18 months in jail for his part in the death of another homeless man, who fell from a bridge and died.
His current whereabouts in 2022 are unknown. He remains a hero, as the survivor who ultimately stopped Dahmer's killing spree. Make no mistake, many men are only alive today, thanks to the quick-thinking and courage of Tracy Edwards.
NB It's been posted in response to my post, that Edwards was indicted by grand jury for a sexual assault against a 14 year old girl. If that's true, my sympathy for him is GONE.
Thanks too for pointing out my drag/drug typo, now corrected!
2400
-
Madeline had just turned 13 years old. She had recently started her period, and in sync, her body was developing. She was a vulnerable minor, going through puberty!
This unique, transitional time between childhood and adulthood, is when more privacy is craved by girls and boys, and that should not only be respected by the adults around them, but encouraged.
Seeking privacy is normal and healthy behaviour by growing teens, and part of their natural, developing independence.
But we know poor Madeline wasn't allowed to have privacy in that house. Her feelings and needs counted for nothing, they were always a low priority, and came far below her mother's paedophile's boyfriend's demands.
With her mother Jennifer's full approval, paedophile predator Stephan Sterns was locking her daughter into a bedroom with him every night, to rape, sexually abuse and photograph her whenever he liked. I suspect we may learn he was selling those pornographic photographs online, to other paedophiles.
It's sinister and very telling that both Sterns and Jennifer give the same story, and tell detectives Madeline was clingy, insecure, and hated to be alone. Stern's mention of 'snuggling' with her, is vomit-inducing. A grown man with a greying beard, who never held down a job and collects 'Star Wars' and other childish memorabilia, sitting there in a backwards-facing baseball cap like a school boy. And he's explaining why he felt it was appropriate to share a bed with his girlfriend's daughter, from the age of six to 13.
Little wonder poor Madeline hated Sterns, the man her mother moved into her home without consulting her. A jobless bum who contributed nothing to their lives, or the smooth running of that home. Madeline never reported his serious sexual assaults on her to anyone, unfortunately. It could have saved her life. That she didn't confide in anyone, only confirms how low her self-esteem was, after years of horrible abuse. She must have had no hope at all that anyone would believe her, care, or stop the abuse.
She once told a counsellor she was glad Sterns was moving out (to move back in with his long-suffering parents - though Jen soon moved him back in, because she clearly thinks any man, however pathetic, is better than no man). Madeline said she hated sharing a home with the slovenly Sterns, who was a drain on the family resources and 'ate all their food'.
His parents have since revealed he frequently stole cash and jewellery from them, including his late grandfather's Rolex watch. It was of great sentimental value to Sterns' mother. When she confronted him, he denied all knowledge of it. But she and his father Chris believe he sold it. They recently told an interviewer their son is a compulsive liar, as well as a thief, who would gas-light them when denying his many thefts. What a pitiful man-baby. Why the hell did Jennifer Soto want such a man in her life? Bad enough he was a loser, but he was in reality, far worse - a paedophile who no doubt targeted her to access her child.
Jennifer's police interview paints a picture of a failed and sexless partnership. She and Sterns sound like ships in the night, who share her address but spend little time together. And when she got home from work, tired, she would send her 37-year-old boyfriend upstairs to share not only a bedroom with her soon to be 13-year-old daughter, but a bed. She had to know what was going on in that bed. I believe she made a sexual sacrifice of poor Maddie, in order to keep Sterns. She obviously didn't want to have sex with him herself, so Madeline was enlisted as a sexual surrogate.
We'll probably never know why Sterns murdered Madeline that night, as her mother slept soundly, nearby in the house. Perhaps he feared she was pregnant. Maybe he was concerned she might report his rapes. Was he angry she'd recently shown romantic interest in a boy at her school? Or it could be as simple and callous as Madeline's physical development no longer pleasing his paedophile tastes.
Whatever twisted reason he had for strangling her to death and stealing her entire, promising life from her, Stephan Sterns will be removed from society. But many people who could have protected her from him, did not, and failed her terribly. Chief among them is Madeline's mother Jennifer. She didn't just just fail her daughter - she betrayed her, and actively enabled both her chronic sexual abuse and her murder. Like Sterns, she deserves to die in prison.
240
-
157
-
143
-
2:15 Charlie Adelson looked anything but 'comfortable' - he looks what he is, a dead man walking! Whatever he paid his lawyers, he deserves a full refund for the lousy opening statement they gave for him today. His blackmail/extortion alibi is utterly laughable, no jury on Earth would buy it!
Many people have waited a long time to see justice for Dan Markel. And justice means the Adelson family being prosecuted for his murder - they are all equally culpable with Charlie, for masterminding the murder plot.
Is Charlie really gonna take the rap for his ghastly sister Wendi and mother Donna, go to jail for life and never rat them out?
How fabulous it was to see Dan's ex wife Wendi take the stand today, suddenly looking very nervous - a far cry from her previous cocky performances, lying under oath! $hit got real for Wendy today, and handcuffs are coming ever closer. It's about time -she should have gone to prison a very long time ago, ditto her mother Donna, the matriarch and mother-in-law from hell, at the centre of this twisted web.
Dan did not have to die over a child custody fight. Kids are kids for such a short time, and they need both their parents. Wendi could have been a grown up and handled the custody issues civilly, without involving her family. What the Adelsons did to Dan's children when they decided to play God and murder their loving father, was unforgivable.
118
-
Vinnie missed the most important question of all, which is not why two young people wanted to raise 6 kids, 4 of whom were not their own - there was an obvious financial motive for them to do that. Neither Trezell nor Jaqueline worked - they used adoption as a cash cow to provide a nice home, vehicle and lifestyle for themselves.
The big question is why these two murdered babies were ever given to the Wests in the first place, when they already had four kids to raise, and we now know they were abusive enough to murder them!
The relevant child protection authorities and policies need to be forensically scrutinised in this case, and serious questions must be answered! Because while the Wests allegedly murdered two baby boys and will be made answerable for that at their imminent murder trials, other, faceless individuals gave those dangerous individuals sole charge of the boys and the power to hurt and kill them. Lessons must be learned from this disaster, to stop it happening to any other child!
If rumours are correct, this trial will require a strong stomach. Police have garnered witness testimony from the remaining four children in the Wests' care that is said to be utterly sickening. I have read that the Wests enlisted the other children to join in with the physical and emotional abuse of the babies. Hard to believe such horrors can be sadistically inflicted on innocent children, but it seems that's what happened in this case.
Whatever was going on with the biological family, it cannot have been anything like as bad as the home where they ended up. Should Cincere and Classic ever have been removed from their biological family? That's another question that must be examined closely.
104
-
86
-
85
-
This child killer is going down for a long time, hopefully indefinitely. Her conduct in court, smirking, chewing candy and passing notes to her lawyers, shows exactly how hard-faced and self absorbed she is. Not a single tear for her deceased baby son so far, not even when photos of his broken body were shown - recovered from the dumpster she threw him in.
Imagine being a defenceless baby, at the mercy of that drugged-up, angry, violent monster? I want to know why, if she lost custody of him to her grandmother, she was still raising him, and still had full access to abuse and murder him?
79
-
64
-
64
-
@NavajoSunBeauty That's exactly why the children's deaths at their evil father's hands were prolonged, filled with terror and totally horrific. Whether the axe attacks by Josh Powell killed them or not is pretty irrelevant in context - the point is they suffered terribly in their last moments alive, thanks to their sadistic, sub-human father.
Josh Powell knew police were closing in on him for murdering the children's mother Susan, and he was not going to go to prison for the next 50 years. Nor was he going to let his hated in-laws, the children's loving grandparents, continue to enjoy custody of them and raise them with the stability and love they so desperately needed. So he selfishly took them with him - and did it in the cruellest possible way.
This was a failure by the system, specifically the family courts, to protect two defenceless children from a father who not only had a long history of domestic abuse, he was prime suspect in their mother's murder!
Josh Powell should not have been given any access, or allowed within 100 miles of those little boys. I am so sick of hearing about 'fathers' rights'. What about childrens' rights to be safe, not abused, terrorised and finally killed by their parent? The law was so busy respecting Josh Powell's supposed 'rights' as a father - to access children he didn't give a damn about - it forgot about the children's rights not to be put in danger. Lessons should be learned from this outrage, but I doubt they will be.
46
-
45
-
43
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
34
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
08:30 The photo of those sweet children hugging each other as their killer, evil Uncle Alex looks on smirking, really chills the blood. Hours later he murdered that lovely girl Tylee, who was more of a Mommy to her brother JJ than his own disgusting Ma Lori ever was.
It breaks my heart that little JJ must have missed Tylee very much, immediately. I bet he kept asking Lori where his sister was, his endless questions about Tylee likely drove her crazy. Plus the fact she was suddenly having to be a mother to him without Tylee around to help take care of him for her, as she always did.
Oh I bet Lori couldn't wait to summon her brother Alex aka 'The Family Hitman' back to her home late at night, to repeat his recent, obscene violence, against that defenceless little boy. She's no mother, never was!
Photos of the children tell the story - they are always hugging, they were each other's closest support. And when Tylee was so cruelly stolen from JJ and this world, it was only a matter of weeks before he too was destroyed by the evil lurking within his own family. Killed by the people who should have loved, cherished and protected them both. Sickening.
As Lori Vallow smiled in a flower garland, and her new husband Chad fooled around on a banjo at their beach wedding, her children's murdered bodies lay decomposing in squalid 'graves' on his land. May justice for all those scumbags' victims be swift and merciless!
23
-
It's disappointing that COURT TV never starts their reports with a few words of explanation about the context of the crime and the accused's alibi. In 2018 Ronnie O' Neal murdered his girlfriend and their 9 year old daughter and attempted to murder their 8 year old son (now aged 11), then set fire to the family home to destroy evidence.
O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend murdered the children, and he only killed her impulsively, out of self defence and rage that she had killed his kids. That's the oldest lie in the domestic abuser's handbook. Unluckily for him, one of the children survived to tell the true story!
The prosecution say the crime was premeditated first degree murder, and attempted murder, the worst level of homicide for which they are seeking the death penalty. That chump is literally fighting for his life.
He killed his 9 year old daughter with repeated axe blows to her face, head and neck. He repeatedly stabbed his son in the stomach. He then attempted to shoot his girlfriend dead as she fled to a neighbour's home to get help. The gun jammed, so O' Neal beat her to death on the neighbour's front doorstep with the weapon, a long barrelled rifle. The beating was so brutal the gun broke into several pieces, which were recovered from the crime scene.
When emergency service arrived, the little boy staggered out of the burning house and collapsed. He was rushed to hospital by ambulance, and told medical crew en route that his father had killed his mother and sister and had stabbed him. His knife wounds were so severe, his intestines were hanging out.
A firefighter gave evidence and said he recovered the little girl's dead body from the burning house, where the floor was slippery with her blood. He carried her outside and laid her on the front lawn, and said her face was totally unrecognisable. He had hugged a male colleague, and wept.
I've heard that when O'Neal cross examined his son, the little boy told him: "You stabbed me in the stomach". I would have liked to have seen that. The child has been adopted by one of the detectives who investigated the murders. It's the first time he's lived in a family free of his father's abuse. O' Neal is trying to use this to his advantage, claiming the detective is coaching his son to frame him for the murders!
This scumbag had a documented history of domestic abuse, with many calls made to police by his girlfriend. He had recently fathered a baby with another woman. He is headed to death row. He's so clearly mentally unstable, as evidenced by the aggressive way he yelled his opening speech at the jury, I'm amazed the judge allowed him to represent himself. He doesn't appear to be restrained at all. I hope the judge doesn't regret her decision when he's declared guilty - I think his reaction could be explosive! I suggest all armed officers in the court keep a close eye on their weapon.
Making his son interact with the man who murdered his mother and sister and nearly killed him, is a travesty of justice. Who knows how badly that trauma could affect him? The law should be amended to protect child victims of serious crimes from this happening again. I' Neil's defense layer could and should have asked whatever questions he wanted asked - he should not have been allowed to address the child directly, even over Zoom.
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
The Adelson's thought they were so special, and so much better than everyone else, they could literally kill a family member who became problematic to them, and they would get away with it. To believe you're so superior that even the law doesn't apply to you, is some rare level of narcissism and entitlement!
I sense Donna the family matriarch is the all-powerful spider at the centre of the family web. She was able to persuade her son Charlie, who enjoyed a great life as a wealthy dentist in the family firm, to arrange a murder that would get him locked up in prison for the rest of his days. That's some strong, and strongly dysfunctional, motherly influence!
Donna is estranged from her eldest son Rob Adelson, because she wouldn't respect his right as an adult to choose his own wife. Again that reflects a crazily controlling woman. The behaviour of her husband Harvey as she was arrested at the airport, indignant with police, tenderly holding her face and kissing her, then carefully removing her jewellery for safekeeping, again confirms her high status in that family. I believe Donna is a big league narcissistic abuser, who married a weak enabler in Harvey.
Harvey gave Donna the high status marriage and family life she demanded. I don't believe he has ever said no to her - even when, together with their son, she plotted the murder of a family member. The state has named Harvey Adelson as a conspirator in Dan's murder, he may be next to face a jury trial. To quote Donna's email to her daughter, Dan hasn't beaten the Adelson family yet - but he's sure getting there!
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
Wendi's wide-eyed innocent act on the witness stand has grown old - she's as guilty as sin. Yes, her ex husband, the father of her children, would be alive today if she wanted him that way. She 100% knew about the murder plot, and she fully endorsed it. Had she at any time told her family: "No, not this way - I can't have my kids grow up fatherless", it would not have progressed to completion.
The case against Wendi is primarily circumstantial, because as the only daughter and family princess, her mother and brother protected her, and kept her at arm's length from the grubby, murder for hire arrangements. But I believe it is a powerful circumstantial case that, with a well-prepared prosecution team, could convince a jury of Wendi's guilt far beyond a reasonable doubt. And let's face it, they will have to bring their A-game to nail Wendi, because not only is she an attorney, she will hire the best defence team her murdered husband's money can buy!
I'm intrigued that cracks are appearing in the relationship between Wendi and her family, since brother Charlie's murder conviction and life sentence, and mom Donna's arrest and prosecution. Are her brother and mother enraged that she's keeping her distance from them in her own self-interest, while they take the fall for the murder they arranged for her benefit? Is it now possible they could decide to take her down with them?
Interesting too that prosecutors are meeting with an old girlfriend of Wendi's (I guess we can safely assume they are no longer pals!) This confirms that even as they prepare for Donna Adelson's imminent murder trial, prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to secure daughter Wendi's scalp too. And what of family patriarch Harvey Adelson, like Wendi named by the state as a murder conspirator? Could he too face a jury trial? This show is going to run and run!
17
-
17
-
17
-
3:06 The first images we've ever seen of Richard Allen pursuing Abby on the bridge. Chilling. Let the dumb conspiracy theorists finally shut up - he did it! Within days of the crime, Allen admitted he was there on the bridge, on the right date and time, and he even admitted he was wearing the exact same clothes as 'Bridge Guy'.
When he was finally caught years later (thanks to a sub-standard police investigation), he confessed to murdering Abby and Libby. He wasn't tortured, threatened or coerced in any way. He CONFESSED. He IS Bridge Guy. How much more evidence of his obvious guilt do some people want???
Richard Allen is a highly dangerous sex killer, and no child - or woman - would be safe, were he ever to be released. The police ineptitude in holding back so much information from the public who could have identified him - including this video - only fulled the irresponsible conspiracy theorists, and muddied the waters. Thankfully the guilty man was eventually caught and jailed, despite the incompetence of Supt Doug Carter and co.
Let Abby and Libby's loved ones get on with their lives, holding them safe in their hearts, knowing their precious girls' murderer can never harm another child.
16
-
Yes, Ronnie O' Neal is a complete psychopath - he's also a narcissist at the extreme end of the scale, and they are very skilled at seducing women and persuading them they are everything she's looking for in a man, to get their claws in and gain control of her.
It's called the early 'love bombing' phase of what will inevitably become an abusive relationship - and possibly, as in this case, a domestic murder. The 'love bombing' consists of telling the woman "I love you" first and frequently, and pushing for a commitment very early on. This pressure to secure the woman's exclusivity is often accompanied by traditional 'romantic' gestures like flowers and gifts. Sadly, even smart, highly eligible women are often taken in by this kind of attentive, enthusiastic behaviour, are flattered by it and comply with the abusive man's wishes to tie them down in some way - little knowing what the future has in store.
The 'love bombing' phase will last for as long as it takes for him to hook the woman into some sort of commitment to him - eg living together, having his baby, getting engaged or married to him.
Once the narcissist has the woman under his command, the control and abuse begins, and she starts to see a totally different man emerge! I'm convinced greater education in schools about respectful, adult relationships, and teaching kids to recognise 'The Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse' and its red flags, would play a small but significant part in reducing future incidents of domestic violence.
Knowledge is power - give women the tools to recognise when a man is not good for her, and the support to escape him with her children, if needs be. In the UK there are far too few domestic violence shelters for women and children, and now that so many have surrendered to toxic trans activism and allowed male bodied 'trans women' shelter, safe, man-free refuges for women and kids are becoming even more scarce.
Meanwhile, so many boys today are sadly fatherless, and grow up without a positive male role model. I make no excuses for men who become abusers. But how less likely that outcome would be, had they been raised by a loving, non-abusive father, who they witnessed treating their mom and all females with respect.
Ronnie O' Neal's inflated ego and crazy grandiosity was clear during his trial, when his grandstanding, shouty performance defending himself, gave jurors a glimpse of what his victims had suffered at his hands. Put simply, Ronnie O' Neal is a bully, and all bullies are cowards. In addition, he's a little guy. It's one thing for him to murder a defenceless woman and children - but how will he hold up against men much bigger and tougher than him? The kind of hardened criminals who don't like wife and child killers? I don't envy him his future! He'll have a hellish time in prison - in my view it's highly questionable he'll survive it for long.
I'm not sure wife and child killer O' Neal should have been allowed to further insult the victims' loved ones by telling them he wasn't sorry, and repeating his lies that he didn't murder them in cold blood. Haven't those poor grieving people suffered enough? The spectacle of him cross examining the son he tried to murder aged 8 was appalling and unjust enough!
If that scumbag O' Neal had his way, his little boy would also be dead now, like his mom and sister. By a miracle, Ronnie Jr survived his vicious father stabbing and setting fire to him. The boy has now been adopted by a police officer and his wife, and has settled well with them. He was incredibly courageous as he had to face his evil father via a live link to the court room. Watching at home we couldn't see his face, only his small, burn-scarred hands, and we could hear his soft, well spoken and polite replies to questions put to him by his would be killer.I will never forget the moment when Ronnie O' Neal asked his son "Who stabbed you?" And after hesitating for a moment, Ronnie Jr bravely replied: "You did".
I'm glad O' Neal had to hear the victims tell him exactly what they thought of him. And I'm very glad he had to sit there and hear the judge dismiss his bullshit account of his daughter's brutal axe murder He can lie all he likes, he knows he did it, we know he did it - and his fellow prisoners sure as hell know he did it too! Good luck Ronnie, I've a feeling you'll be entering Hell much sooner than you anticipated!
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
@randalthor6872 Agreed, Doug Carter is a total buffoon, who has no more idea who killed Abby and Libby today, than he did on day one. The killer left DNA at the crime scene, so the fact no one has been charged confirms loud and clear the murderer is still at large.
This 'Anthony Shots'/Kegan Kline sideshow is a total waste of time. The killer is clearly a middle aged man. And police have had no contact with him.
Libby gave police a golden piece of evidence, a video and audio of the killer, the best possible clue on a silver platter - and they still messed up! Law enforcement should have shared that fantastic video far and wide and in full with the media from the start, when people's memories of that day were fresh. But they hesitated, didn't put it out in full, and held back just about every other detail of the crime from the public - which was counterproductive to solving it! Contrary to what Doug Carter seems to believe, it's usually the public who ultimately solve crimes and identify killers, not police officers, no matter how smart!
The first two weeks after a murder are known as the golden period, when the perpetrator is most likely to be turned over to police by someone who suspects him. In those days when the murder date is still within memory, the killer's relative/work colleague, whoever can put two and two together and recognise the significance of something they said or did, or maybe a visual anomaly like a scratch on their face or dirty/torn clothing, that stands out.
But a month or two later, and they won't recall something so trivial anymore, or link the killer with the crime. Five years on, and this is very much a cold case, regardless of Supt Carter's bravado. That guy is as clueless today as he's ever been, and his replacement as the head of this investigation is long overdue. Two children deserve justice - and no female is safe while their killer remains at large.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
This was a miscarriage of justice, no question.
If Jeffrey Dillingham got the death penalty by lethal injection (he was executed on November 1st 2000, aged 27), then his two accomplices in the brutal murder of 40-year-old Caren Koslow and attempted murder of her husband Jack Koslow in their home, should have been executed too. That's the couple's stepdaughter /adopted daughter Kristi Koslow, and her boyfriend Brian Dennis Salter.
Kristi Koslow masterminded this crime aged 17, along with the man she was sleeping with at the time, her then 19-year-old lover Salter - he brought his pal Dillingham on board, also 19, on the promise of a $1million fee. Apparently Salter lacked the balls to kill two unarmed, sleeping people in their beds, alone!
Salter was a coward before he committed this crime, and he remained a coward afterwards - as did his scumbag girlfriend Kristi Koslow, who started the whole, revolting sequence of events in motion. Without her, there would have been no crime committed, and Caren Koslow would not have been violently murdered by two young males, her life horrifically ended at just 40. Kristi's motive? She was angry her adoptive dad divorced her adoptive mom. Boo-hoo!
It's irrelevant that Kristi Koslow wasn't present at the crime scene, during these deparved, bloody murders. Kristi came up with the double-murder plan, she directed events, and she gave the two killers the security codes and floor plan to the home, to enable them to commit the crime. She very sensibly didn't physically take part, so she could convincingly play the innocent after her parents' deaths (though despite her intentions, her hated adoptive father miraculously survived). In many people's view, Kristi Koslow's sly cowardice makes her worse than the killers!
If you had to apportion blame for this heinous crime, the man who wound up executed for it was actually the least culpable!
In the view of any reasonable person, it's clear all three were at least equally to blame. So why did one, Dillingham, live with the shadow of his execution for years before being killed? The other two languish in prisons to this day, allowed to live and given taxpayer funded bed and board until they die of natural causes. WRONG!
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
He's a manipulative narcissist, like most domestic abusers and killers. Notice how he started off telling his son "It's good to see you". He's grooming the kid, hoping he can still exert influence on him and his testimony, as his father.
There's no doubt he murdered his wife and daughter that night in premeditated attacks. It's unlucky for him one child survived to tell the true story. O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend attacked the children, and he killed her in an impulsive revenge attack. It's the oldest story in the book for family annihilators like him! The jury won't buy it - you could see he was capable of the crime from the aggressive way he addressed them. The guy is crazy!
The child has been adopted by one of the detectives on the case, and he is finally living in a loving, stable family. Not surprisingly his father had a history of domestic abuse, and had fathered a baby with another woman.
It's wrong this 11 year old has been forced to have this direct communication with his father and would-be killer. Poor kid was only 8 years old when his dad tried to kill the whole family, and set fire to the house to destroy evidence. This little boy has spent the last 3 years physically and mentally healing from his father's knife attack on him (when police arrived, his intestines were hanging out), and the loss of his mother and sister. He witnessed him murder his 9 year old sister with repeated axe blows to her face, head and neck.
Having to speak with O'Neal again, even over Zoom, could badly traumatise this child, and set back his recovery. The law is an ass! Where is the consideration for victims of crime - and especially child victims?
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
Yes, I think sadly Kathy got in over her head with an abusive man whose violent crime would taint her reputation and eventually leave her so terrified of going to jail herself, that she could not go on. He may well have told her he killed Victoria, or actively involved her in the cover up. He comes across as a controlling narcissist who expects the women in his life to prop him up, and do his bidding. So I think it's entirely possible he told Kathy about the murder and sought her help, in lying to police etc.
Or she may simply have worked out for herself that he had murdered his wife. The circumstantial evidence - eg the timing of their affair before Victoria vanished, which was central to his motive - was probably as compelling to her, as it was to the jury.
Prokopovitch's poor wife Victoria is the victim here, murdered by the man who had made public wedding vows to love her 'in sickness and in health'. But it's hard to escape the feeling he also has his girlfriend Kathy's blood on his hands. Her daughter, who cried for her on the witness stand, obviously thought her relationship with Jim had indirectly caused her tragic death by suicide, while in police custody. It was a sad end for a woman who was by all accounts a gentle soul and homebody, who loved her menageries of pets.
11
-
@KH-dm9zm Great posts. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and critical thinking skills can deduce from their extreme behaviour Chris and Roberta Laundrie knew their son had killed Gabby. If he's told them a fiction about her, eg that she went off with another guy, they would have shared that with her family. And they would not have felt any need to hire a damn lawyer!
It's patently obvious the mommy's-boy drove home to mommy (in Gabby's van, stealing $1,000 of her money en route), and as soon as his peanut head was through the door, spilled the beans about killing her. He put the most positive spin he could on it of course, with a ton of victim-blaming, and his parents supported him - as he knew they would. It's clear they'd over indulged him, and cleared up his messes all his life, at 23 he was a man-child who'd never held down a job or lived independently of them!
The Laundries deserve nothing but contempt for their disgusting disrespect of Gabby and her family, a young woman who had shared their home for the last two years. It can't be proved, but it's pretty obvious they knew her body lay abandoned by their son to the elements, rotting and possibly being eaten by animals. Yet they zipped their mouths, and helped Brian escape on foot before whatever was left of her remains, was found by police.
As parents, and as human beings, they should have had enough basic decency to speak to Gabby's desperate family But it's blindingly obvious to all, why they did not. They were protecting their killer son, from the consequences of his sickening violence against a defenceless woman. They over protected him his whole life - that's how he grew into such a disappointing and dangerous man-child.
It's sickening he's cheated justice, and let his folks off the hook too by dispensing with a high profile murder trial and a lifetime of visits to a maximum security prison. Gabby deserves some small morsel of justice, even if it's only the Laundries being prosecuted for harbouring a fugitive and hiding evidence.
11
-
11
-
@edwinacaparelli9911 Richard Allen looks exactly like 'Bridge Guy' (the killer Libby recorded stalking her and Abby), because he IS 'Bridge Guy'. He came forward to authorities within days of the crime in February 2017, and identified himself as such!
Allen said he was at the Monon High trails and bridge at the exact time of the murders, wearing the exact same clothes as the man on the smartphone footage. He was spooked at seeing a still of himself from that video on TV news, and decided to get in front of the police by claiming to be a witness, not a suspect. He knew several witnesses saw him there that day too. What's more, he was the ONLY man seen by witnesses. Allen effectively locked himself down as the killer, with his own words.
There's also the small matter of his multiple confessions. He did it, no question. But sadly the Keystone Cops under buffoon Supt Doug Carter ballsed up the investigation and failed to identify Allen for 5 YEARS through sheet incompetence. That appalling delay has inevitably weakened the prosecution case, and boosted all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories (including - laughably - that an obscure religious order/sacrificial cult was responsible, yada, yada).
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Glad @CourtTV discussed the brutal reality of Jorge Torres' prolonged and horrendous suffering, locked inside the suitcase as his oxygen ran out, while his girlfriend mocked his distress and repeatedly denied his desperate pleas to release him. This crime is right up there among the worst categories of sadistic, cruel and depraved murders.
I've followed this story for the last 4 years (and seen Sarah Boone's outrageous, entitled conduct in custody - which judging by her dramatic weight gain, sure didn't put her off her food). But until watching this report tonight, I wasn't aware the suitcase flipped over and moved some distance from its original position on the lounge floor, between the two Smartphone videos recorded by the defendant. I think Boone will have a very hard time explaining that away in court.
The flipping of the suitcase and it's progress around 2 feet across the room, could not have been achieved by Torres himself. It had to have been done deliberately by Sarah Boone, and it had to take a significant amount of effort on her part, to achieve. 4 years ago she was a slight woman, I'd guess around 30lbs lighter. She must have expended considerable effort, and I am guessing mostly used her legs/a combination of legs and upper body, to overturn that heavy suitcase containing an adult man.
Let's not forget she was drunk at the time too, as her slurred words on video confirm. Why, in her drunken, unsteady state, was it so important to her to turn that suitcase over? The answer is sadly obvious, and utterly chilling - she was getting pleasure from torturing Jorge Torres, and escalating his suffering inside the horrific, zippered tomb from which she knew he could not escape. She had him totally defenceless and at her mercy, and she planned to enjoy every minute.
The starkly different position of the suitcase between videos, proves that this murder involved prior, sadistic torture. It also supports the Prosecution case that it absolutely WAS murder, and not some 'unfortunate accident', as she claims. Her motive was obvious, to make her hated boyfriend suffer her deadly revenge, for his prior alleged sins against her of domestic violence and infidelity.
Jorge Torres' autopsy revealed multiple injuries, most notably a severe and heavily bleeding wound to his head, plus other bleeding cuts and abrasions, severe bruising, and black eyes. During her initial police questioning, Boone pleaded total ignorance of those injuries. Prosecutors concluded they occurred when she pushed him down the stairs, inside the suitcase. That was likely her first, serious assault on him, before filming the subsequent, infamous cellphone videos taunting him.
Boone denies pushing him down the stairs, claiming he got into the suitcase on the ground floor. But the fact she flipped the case with him inside it, as proven on the video images, again supports the prosecution case that he sustained his nasty injuries from a prior tumble down her stairs inside the case, which she did not film.
We will never know how or why Jorge Torres made the deadly mistake of climbing into that case. The evidence of torture captured on video suggests to me this was a premeditated crime, and that Sarah Boone slyly tricked him into the suitcase on some lighthearted pretext, with a very sinister, hidden agenda.
I believe he entered the case upstairs, not downstairs as she claims (suitcases are typically stored in bedrooms after all). Once he was zipped inside and she was satisfied he was trapped and helpless, she committed her first assault on him, pushing the case down the stairs, from the very top to the very bottom, with all her might. It was such a violent and forceful descent, a neighbour heard it and thought Boone was moving heavy furniture. That alone could have killed him, had he suffered a neck injury for example, banged his head, or had any kind of cardiac event on the way down.
Sarah Boone's blatant lack of remorse immediately after discovering her partner's body next day, and her ongoing lack of grief for his terrible suffering and death, confirm exactly how ruthless she is. Her number one concern, first, last and in the middle, is always herself. It was only too predictable she asked the officers in the interview room if she could get back the 'expensive' ring she'd given Jorge (at the time he was wearing it while lying lifeless on a slab at the morgue). When told no, she expressed anger that his family, who she hated, would get to keep it. This was not a grieving woman begging for an item of jewellery for sentimental value. It was all about the ring's monetary value. You got the distinct impression if she could have visited his lifeless corpse and yanked it from his cold, dead finger, she'd have done it in a heartbeat.
Boone really thought she could not only torture and kill her boyfriend, but film herself doing it, and walk away a free woman just by telling cops: "It was unintentional". Her arrogance and delusion are off the scale, and will be on full display at her imminent murder trial. She's so far removed from reality, I'd bet money she'll make the huge mistake of taking the stand, assuming she'll charm the jurors. It's gonna be a wild ride!
This is a woman who cynically uses the fact she's a mother, to present herself to detectives (and others), as a responsible, caring and decent human being. But she's fooling no one. She's shown scant concern for her only child since her arrest for this now infamous suitcase murder. The homicide aside, Boone is an alcoholic, domestic abuser and chronic narcissist. Frankly it's no mystery whatsoever that her son's father, won full custody of him. Thank God he did!
Jorge Torres' death was an unimaginable tragedy, which his children and other loved ones must live with for the rest of their lives. But if there's one silver lining to emerge from this vile crime, it's that Sarah Boone's innocent little boy will be forever spared her toxic presence in his life.
Jorge paid the ultimate price for his abusive relationship. But he was an adult, and he made a choice to be with Boone. Her son however, had no choice. I bet his life has much improved in the 4 years she's been held in custody. Poor kid likely receives a ton of mail from Mommie-Dearest the serial letter-writer, in that same, crazy oversized scrawl she harasses the judge with. But mail can be burned, trashed or returned to sender. An abusive parent can show-up on your doorstep any time, and ruin your day.
I think Sarah Boone's imminent Guilty verdict and Life sentence for murder will be a huge relief to her son and her ex-husband. They will be totally free of her, for the first time ever. I wish them both speedy healing, and all the very best for a brighter, Boone-free future.
10
-
10
-
Ladies - pay close attention to how a man treats you as you move out of the early honeymoon stage, and really get to know him. Financial meanness is a huge red flag you should not ignore!
Shanti was a beautiful, successful, intelligent and much-loved woman - she was highly eligible, for many reasons. But this parasite (as her first husband rightly called Tronnes), was primarily after her money only.
Shanti was a smart woman, but she was not wise to this creep's true intentions - he didn't love her. Sadly the smartest women can miss, or wilfully ignore many red flags in a man's behaviour, because they don't want to face the disappointing reality of who that man is. Far too often women think they can/should fix everything that's wrong in a toxic relationship, and take far too much responsibility for the fact it's failing.
After one year of marriage, she was living like a squatter in a house her husband had gutted and made uninhabitable. It didn't even have a working kitchen! What's more, Tronnes owned the house outright, and never added her name to the property as co-owner. If that wasn't bad enough, he never worked a single day throughout their union - and despite having persuaded her to marry him by falsely claiming to be a multi millionaire, she was the sole breadwinner.
Shanti began to notice every time groceries had to be paid for, or a restaurant bill arrived at the table, Tronnes took a step back, and it was always her credit card that came out. Why did she tolerate that? She even switched the beneficiary of her $350k life insurance policy from her beloved only son Jackson, to Tronnes - no doubt at his persuading. Total madness!
The relationship was so bad, they clearly weren't even having sex any more, living not just in separate beds, but in separate wings of the house. Police discovered Tronnes was a member of a same sex sauna/bath house, a fact his wife was unaware of. Poor Shanti must have been desperately lonely and unhappy with this man.
The trigger for the domestic murder is only too predictable - Tronnes knew Shanti would not tolerate the miserable life he had given her for much longer. On the day he brutally beat and strangled her to death, I suspect she told him of her intention to leave him. Divorce would have meant dividing their assets, but murder would get rid of the woman he'd never loved (narcissistic abusers care only for themselves), and get him a big pay-day.
Shanti made the fatal mistake of sleeping at the wheel, and clinging to an abusive relationship long past its expiration date. She's not the first woman to make that mistake and be killed because she stayed with her abuser too long, allowing him the access and opportunity to kill her - and sadly, she won't be the last.
I am so sick of hearing of domestic murders of fabulous women, by inadequate, toxic males. Please ladies, watch and learn from these tragedies, and don't let it happen to you. Pay close attention to how your partner treats you, and how the relationship makes you feel. Are you happy and secure, do you feel loved, valued and respected? Do you laugh together, talk together, enjoy simple shared pleasures like a walk in the park or a home cooked meal? Shanti was living with a lazy fantasist, who wouldn't share his one asset with her - the marital home - and expected her to fund his lifestyle. He didn't even provide a nice home for their married life - for the last 18 months of her life she was living in a building site.
If all that weren't bad enough, it appears the marriage was celibate, despite his lie to police that they had sex on the night before her murder. Forensics proved otherwise. Shanti was getting nothing out of that marriage but misery and expense - not even sex or affection. Don't make the same mistake girls - get out without delay, and never look back. Stay too long with such a man, and you may not live to tell the tale.
10
-
10
-
@EclecticG A huge and hugely sincere THANK YOU to YOU and every other wonderful, courageous and decent person who has written positively in response to my consistently honest, good faith online posts.
To be clear - I am grateful to every response under my original post here, supporting truth and integrity, in the face of appalling, cynical and self-serving LIES.
We, the honest and truthful witnesses, know most people, are good people, who oppose every fake, disingenuous, post you typically see here.
In closing, I must stress: Please value and share, the TRUTH. So many important, honest and profound outcomes depend on your courage and honesty. Go for it!
God bless you, my friend. XXX
10
-
10
-
10
-
Yes, easily - those girls were just 13 and 14, nothing in their young lives had prepared them for the terror they experienced that day, at the hands of a sex predator. It's a very common reaction to freeze with fear if confronted in such a way, and comply with everything the perpetrator orders you to do, in hopes that's the best way to stay alive. But it rarely is.
I feel we should teach our teens self defence and survival techniques for such situations as part of their school education. Girls in particular are raised to respect adults (especially men), never say 'no' to them, and to be 'nice' and compliant.
We should instead be telling our girls to do the opposite of everything a would-be attacker tells you to do, plus make as much noise and effort as possible to escape him. Scream "NO!" as loudly as possible to attract the attention of passers by, kick, bite and FIGHT if needs be. The crucial point is to resist going with the perpetrator to what the FBI calls; 'the second location'. Because the second location is the quiet location, away from other people and the hope of escape, where he plans to do his worst to you. The second location may be his car. In Abby and Libby's case it was 'Down the hill'.
10
-
10
-
You talk about Brian as if he's in the same category as Gabby - He is her murderer! She is the only victim here, along with her heartbroken family and friends, and they are the only people deserving of sympathy. I doubt anyone but his warped parents will mourn Brian the fiance-strangler.
Brian has taken the coward's way out, which is to be expected from a cowardly domestic abuser and killer. Gabby's loved ones have been cheated out of the closure they deserve from a full trial, and justice for their murdered child.
As far as Brian Laundrie's parents Chris and Roberta are concerned, his death is a little bit of karma - they will experience some of the pain her family have. However, they have the comfort of knowing their child died at his own hands and by his own choice - he was not terrorised and brutally murdered by someone he loved, trusted, and planned to spend his whole life with! Gabby's death by strangulation at his hands, was infinitely crueller and totally unjustifiable.
The Laundries should now be prosecuted in Brian's place for withholding evidence, aiding and abetting a fugitive and every other offence that can possibly be thrown at them. They are scum. Maybe now they might have a little empathy for the suffering they put Gabby's parents through, in barring their doors and windows and refusing to answer their pleas for information. But I doubt it, those two care about no one but themselves - and in their killer son they spawned an evil sociopath in their own image. Good riddance to Brian Laundrie - the only good domestic killer is a dead one!
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to build a strong case against Wendi Adelson. They know she's an attorney, and will hire the best defence team her late husband Dan Markel's money can buy. They must bring their A-game, and have certainly had enough time to prepare. I pray they have uncovered a killer 'Gotcha' piece of evidence against her.
There are hints of cracks developing within the Adelson family. In recent years Wendi has been keeping her brother and parents at arms length, terrified of following them to prison. I wonder how Charlie feels, knowing he will die behind bars because he was manipulated to arrange a murder by his mother and sister?
Mom Donna is facing the same horrendous penalty, and again I imagine is pretty resentful of Wendi, her only daughter, who no longer visits her parents. She and husband Harvey are now pretty much estranged from her and their two grandsons. Donna now faces leaving prison in a body bag, all because, in her eyes, she was a devoted mother who stuck her neck out to solve her daughter's 'problem'. And this is the thanks she gets - Wendi has turned her back on them, out of ruthless self-preservation.
I wonder if the anger Charlie and Donna feel towards Wendi, the family princess/golden child who pushed for and endorsed her ex husband's murder, could prompt them to turn on her, and take them down with them, either now or in the future?
Alienating them is a risky strategy by Wendi - they have the power to put her away for life, though obviously they would have to incriminate themselves to do it. But it would not be the first time the Adelson family had a huge bust up. As was mentioned in this report, eldest son Rob is estranged from them after Donna refused to respect his right to choose a non Jewish bride.
Rob recently had closed door meetings with prosecutors and may give evidence against his mother at her imminent murder trial. His evidence, giving an insider perspective on the twisted family that allegedly arranged their son-in-law's murder, would be fascinating. And what of Harvey, the Adelson family patriarch, like Wendi, named by prosecutors as a conspirator in Dan Markel's murder? Will he face justice next? There are many more gripping chapters to come in this story. But the one the public most keenly awaits, is the prosecution of Wendi.
10
-
10
-
10
-
Exactly! This sicko wanted to own his wife, to him she was merely a possession to be used and abused. Typical double standards of the narcissistic abuser, it's fine for him to disrespect her and have affairs, but he demands total obedience and devotion from her.
A woman is at highest risk of being murdered by her abuser, when she ends or threatens to end the relationship. This removes his power at a stroke, and the worst abusers may decide to take back their power in the ultimate, twisted way, by ending her life. It's the age-old 'If I can't have you, no one else will'.
How many more Anas out there right now as I type this, living miserable, frightened lives with abusers who will some day kill them? Far too many. In the UK alone, two women are killed every week by an abusive partner/ex partner. More must be done to keep women safe, and to educate men about respectful relationships (these crimes are almost exclusively male perpetrated). I believe children/teens should learn about this stuff at school, knowledge is power.
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Yes, Alex Cox had planned to murder Joseph Ryan way back in 2007 when he ambushed and attacked him with a taser gun in a parking lot, where he'd come for an access visit with his then 4 year old daughter Tylee (just as 12 years later he'd murder Lori's next husband Charles Vallow, on an access visit to little JJ).
Alex later told a friend he planned to murder Joseph that day by throwing him in the trunk of his vehicle while stunned by the taser, then driving to a remote location to shoot him and dump his body. But the taser failed to fully deploy, and Joseph fled and called 911. Alex was arrested and served three months in prison for aggravated assault.
He retained a pathological hatred for Joseph Ryan, repeating Lori's slanderous lies that he'd SA'ed daughter Tylee (allegations investigated and rejected by Child Protection, who ruled Tylee had been coached to make false statements against her dad).
When Joseph's body was found in his double locked apartment in early April 2018 he'd been dead for at least a week. Advanced decomposition meant foul play could not be detected, and it was ruled a natural death. But I don't buy it for multiple reasons. Lori knew she'd benefit financially from Joseph's death, and sure enough in August 2018 she received a payment of $60,000 to her account from his life insurance policy.
Tylee immediately received around $4,000 a month in death benefits, as Joseph's only child. Lori had full access to that money and treated it as her own. The following year, one month before her murder. Lori had Tylee's benefits payments switched from her daughter's bank account, to her own. She also switched the beneficiary of her own, $2m life insurance policy to her eldest child, son Colby alone (she clearly knew Tylee and JJ wouldn't be around much longer).
I have no doubt Joseph Ryan was murdered by Alex and Lori - they have admitted as much to their brother Adam Cox. People can, and do get away with murder. The outrageous police incompetence in this case, which allowed heinous killers to get away with murder time and time again, resulted in at least three avoidable homicides. If Lori and Alex had been charged with Charles Vallow's murder as they should have been, there's every possibility Tylee and JJ, and Tammy Daybell, would still be alive today. Ironically I believe if Alex Cox had been kept behind bars, he too would be alive - because Lori and Chad would not have been able to kill him!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Agreed, Boone's home videos are truly, incredibly disturbing. She had so many chances to let Jorge out of that horrific zippered tomb, let him stretch and breathe, and let him live. But time and time again, she deliberately and determinedly chose not to free him.
This wasn't negligence, or any kind of accident. She didn't fall asleep in a drunken stupor on the couch, wake up, horrified at 5am and let him out in a panic, before immediately dialling 911 (and God knows, that would have been bad enough).
Instead, she deliberately went upstairs to bed, leaving him trapped in the suitcase totally alone in the darkness and silence, on the ground floor. And there he stayed, until finally, who knows when, death ended his suffering. He must have been utterly terrified when the awful truth hit him, that his girlfriend wasn't coming to his aid.
Sarah Boone finally got up the following lunch time and found him - dead for some time, purple in the face, with rigor mortis. And let's not forget, she had abandoned him to climb the stairs to bed, after repeatedly ignoring his pleas to free him because he couldn't breathe. It's all there on the shocking videos she made - videos that are about to destroy her outrageous 'Not Guilty' plea in court!
It's total BS she thought Jorge could release himself. She knew damn fine he could not, he told her many times, as proven by her own videos. If he could get himself out of the suitcase, why would he beg her over and over to release him? Why, with increasing desperation, would he tell her: "Sarah - I can't breathe"?
It makes no sense at all. She knew he was trapped inside that horrific, confined case, could not breathe, and had no hope of escape without her intervention. Yet she did not intervene - she went up to bed.
Boone's not guilty plea is a huge mistake. I can't wait to see her own warped decisions sink her in court. We all know what she did - thanks to her nasty little videos, we've seen her crime unfold with our own eyes (the videos alone prove her aim was to torture and humiliate her hated boyfriend).
You would not do such a sadistic, cruel thing to a dog, least of all your own partner. She deserves to die behind bars and I really hope when she's found guilty and sentenced, she does not get parole. This was murder of the most heinous and depraved kind.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@NavajoSunBeauty Hi - It wasn't my intention to appear to be arguing/disagreeing with you, I'm sorry it came over that way. I wanted to add greater context to your accurate post about the children's cause of death.
As a journalist and long time campaigner against domestic abuse, accuracy is important to me too. I'm hyper alert to the minimisation/justification of such heinous domestic crimes, which is seen with disturbing regularity in online forum comments.
I feel it's critical in a case as complex as this one people know the full story. Though even when all the facts are known, a small minority will still relate more to the perpetrator, than to the victims.
I've even seen it argued Josh Powell loved his children, and never would have killed them if only the 'poor guy' had been given full custody as was his 'right' as a father. Yes, there are people out there who argue a wife and child killer was a suitable person to have sole, unsupervised access to two little boys! The misogyny among a percentage of people runs deep. I'm British, so sadly didn't see the show, what was your verdict?
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I haven't loathed a defense attorney this much ever! The disgusting, disrespectful way she addressed that brave survivor of a murderous knife attack, by her animal of a client. UGH!
I realise the justice system relies on everyone having legal representation, but when I see a lawyer like her paid handsomely to put an absolute PoS like him in a good light and demonise his victim, it makes me sick to the stomach.
I don't care if that lady drank 5 bottles of tequila and was blind, roaring, outrageously drink - her partner Matthew Terry stabbed her seven times IN THE NECK! Nothing she did explains, let alone justifies his revolting, bloody violence. It's only thanks to her incredible determination to flee the house, and the heroic work of medical experts, that saved her life.
How dare that stick-up-her-ass lawyer sneer and look down her nose at that noble survivor of an horrific, domestic murder attempt, during the cross examination? That kind of unprofessional conduct should not be allowed!
7
-
Nope, no remorse at all, and no sadness even that her boyfriend died. We saw that total lack of emotion from her on police bodycam footage, right after Jorge's death. She clearly didn't love him. From day one, her only concern was for herself!
Psychopaths lack sufficient empathy for the normal emotional reactions of healthy non-psychopaths, so they can't mimic their typical behaviours (eg crying for the deceased victim), even when it would be in their own best interests to do so. We see this in killers all the time. I'm noticing a smirk on her face a lot too - 'Duper's Delight' - because she thinks her lies are working with the jury. They aren't, she comes across as the arrogant, manipulative liar she undoubtedly is!
Boone claims to be the victim here, but she has no clue how to act like a victim - because of course she isn't one! She'd have helped her cause if she'd just cried at one point, and at least expressed some pain/sadness over Jorge's death. But she forgot to! 🤣🤣🤣
All she did to play the victim, was to portray the real victim as a villain, and blacken Jorge's character. Her performance on the stand comes across as blatantly fake and horribly self serving. She never once mentioned being scared of her boyfriend, during her first police interview four years ago. It's obviously a new explanation for her vile crime, cooked up by her and her lawyer (whose regular prompting of her on the stand, is utterly laughable).
7
-
If America's gun obsession was justified, and made sense, Amie would be alive today. Because if gun ownership worked, as the firearms lobby claims it works, she'd have made sure she carried a weapon at all times, and would have shot Gareth Pursehouse dead when he confronted her inside her home.
But Amie, like the vast majority of homicide victims, was not kept alive by a gun. And her tormentor and killer was not taken out by one, before fatally harming her. More's the pity! If only Amie were in the dock for killing HIM inside her home, a toxic abuser and would-be killer, no one would miss. She would be acquitted for sure. I would support gun ownership - if it worked, and saved good people like Amie. It doesn't.
But the fabulous, much-loved Amie is gone and the world is a lesser place.
UGH that creep is a revolting specimen, no wonder Amie wanted nothing to do with him. It's terrifying she survived her violent, abusive relationship with Pursehouse 8 years previously, yet he returned to take her life so long afterwards. He was a ticking time bomb.
7
-
7
-
7
-
The fact the doctor told police his wife gave him a back rub that day, to explain that his skin may be under her fingernails, is chilling. It suggests Mabel scratched her husband, as she tried to defend herself during his murderous attack.
That poor woman knew her husband, the father of her three children, the man she trusted and shared a home and bed with, was killing her. It's hard to imagine a more horrible and heinous betrayal.
And for what? Money - and Greed. Mabel was almost certainly about to leave him - the most common trigger for a man to murder a woman. Like so many domestic killers, Dirk Greineder chose murder over divorce, so he wouldn't have to give his wife her share of their jointly owned assets.
Their children know full well their father killed their mother. The way the daughter constantly shakes her head while defending his 'innocence', is very revealing body language! (19:55). They are still being controlled and manipulated by their narcissist father, just as he controlled and manipulated the entire family. If only poor Mabel had realised what he was capable of, and got herself to a safe, secret address to launch divorce proceedings. So many women are murdered because they make the fatal mistake of staying in a soured relationship too long - and give their abusive partner the opportunity to kill them.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Agreed. When you look at the totality of evidence, the most reasonable explanation for Victoria's sudden, suspicious disappearance is that her husband killed her in a domestic homicide after years of abuse, and successfully hid her body in the works sludge pools.
The total absence of a body, after extensive professional police searches, is in itself powerful evidence of foul play by a third party. Suicide victims are usually found, murder victims are not. When a woman suddenly vanishes without a trace never to be seen again, you can be sure she was murdered - and by far the most likely culprit is her partner. Who else but Jim had any reason to want rid of Victoria? He had the means, motive and opportunity.
Her ill health was becoming a drain on his patience and finances. And when his affair with the new girlfriend Kathy heated up, he had far better uses for the family cash, ie taking her to hotels for pornographic photo shoots, and blowing hundred of thousands of dollars gambling in casinos.
His contempt for his missing wife was clear in the way he spoke of her to police - it was obvious he did not want her back! If he was guilty of nothing more than falling for another woman after his wife's supposed 'suicide', why did he and Kathy repeatedly and determinedly lie about it to police, and under oath? Again, that's circumstantial evidence indicating their intention to cover up a very serious crime of spousal murder, which was triggered by their affair.
The way he told relatives with certainly that his wife was dead and would never be found, spoke of personal knowledge of her whereabouts. And that was supported by the evidence the jury heard about the industrial waste outlets he used in his dumper truck driver job for a paper factory.
When the senior detective revealed in court that Jim had told him he had a key to access the chemical sludge pools (which were NOT covered by CCTV cameras), it was clear where Victoria's remains lay - and why they had never/would never be recovered.
Prokopovitz's defence lawyer was visibly shocked at the news, and stammered his responses, as his client notably stayed silent. Old Jimbo slipped up there with police - as narcissistic killers often do. The key revelation was a real slam-dunk moment for the prosecution.
7
-
7
-
7
-
That so-called body language 'expert' made a total fool of herself with her "Wendi is innocent - her palms were facing up", BS! That's ridiculous.
In fact Wendi's over the top sobbing looks horribly fake and rehearsed, and in the context of her soured relationship with the victim, her ex-husband (with whom she was fighting a vicious custody battle over their kids), it simply makes no sense.
That's how you'd respond to the murder of your much-loved, current husband, not your hated and despised ex!
Also that 'expert' suggests Wendi would know nothing about body language, to fake moves indicating innocence. But as a lawyer, I would suggest she likely knew about the various indicators for guilt and innocence, and in the run up to Dan's murder researched and practised the right body language for that very moment, when a cop told her of his death. Wendi knows the legal system, and that she was on video throughout that police interview.
It's perfectly obvious Wendi Adelson was putting on the performance of her life in that police interview room. But she is not the great actress her mother Donna told her she is. Far from it. Her wide eyed innocent act in court doesn't convince me either!
She's a narcissistic abuser so ruthlessly self-serving, she would not share her children with their father, and was fully on board with him being violently and permanently removed from their lives. And she was OK with her closest family members taking the rap for that crime, a murder which only benefited her. Wendi's a lousy human being and mother, who belongs in prison for the rest of her days.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Exactly right, great point. Not only was her fake crying very over the top, it simply didn't make sense she would react like that about an ex-husband she hated, and was fighting a vicious custody battle with! That's how distraught you'd be if your current, much-loved husband died - not your despised ex!
Her overly-dramatic sobbing is plainly all for show - she's an attorney, who understands the legal system and knew that video footage of her in the police interrogation room being told of Dan's shooting would be viewed and analysed endlessly for her reaction. I doubt she's any stranger to body language either, and she no doubt knew the moves/gestures that indicate 'innocence'. Ridiculous that so-called 'expert' believes she's not guilty, just because she threw her palms up!
As others have mentioned in the comments, Wendi knew Dan had custody of their two children that day. Surely an innocent woman with no clue about the murder plot would have been panic-stricken about her little boys' safety. The first thing out of her mouth to police would be; 'Are my kids OK?'
But curiously, Wendi never mentioned them. It's like she knew Dan had dropped the boys safe at school, and was shot later, when he arrived home, alone in his car...
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Is anyone who resides in the real world remotely surprised by this police officer's vile, misogynistic insults about Karen Read? Sadly this is how many men talk about women, with other men - in both informal, and professional settings. This kind of casual misogyny and disrespect of females by males is a global epidemic - and it thrives and spreads like wildfire in all-male/male dominated environments.
Groups of men are, generally speaking, toxic, which is the innate nature of male-dominated organisations like law enforcement. God help any woman who becomes implicated in a criminal investigation, managed by mostly testosterone-fuelled male officers.
Women are, again generally speaking, a civilising influence on men in the workplace. Organisations like the police would be far better run with a 50/50, male/female split of employees. But that day is a long way off!
6
-
6
-
The way Jessie 'Smug-Git' Smollett has exploited his colour every which way to his own benefit is utterly shameful!
This wealthy, entitled creep has set the cause of black people back by decades - I hope every person of colour with any power or influence roundly rejects him from now on, and he is made the pariah he deserves to be!
The man is a dirty disgrace. HOW DARE HE continue to lie and lie and lie again that he didn't do it, when the evidence against him is overwhelming??? He has no shame, no morals and NO DIGNITY.
Whatever his expensive lawyers manage to pull for him, the final say will be in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, where creepy Jessie Smug-Git is a total JOKE! His acting career is OVER as is his VIP celebrity status and any respect he once had.
What a total a$$hole to put that NOOSE around his own neck, knowing how that image hurts people who know real black people horrifically lynched and murdered by racist monsters using exactly that method?
He cynically exploited racist murders just to get himself bigger fame and prestige, thinking he deserves to be a Denzel Washington or a Samuel L Jackson (you know - a black STAR with TALENT, lol!) Smollett has only succeeded in making himself an infamous pr1ck, and shown the world in court exactly how lousy an actor he is!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Police should have taken Brian Laundrie into custody as soon as Gabby was declared a missing person - if they had, he'd be behind bars now where he belongs. He came home from that road trip in Gabby's van alone, hid behind his parents and an attorney and refused to answer any questions about her whereabouts, despite her family's desperate pleas.
Brian Laundrie was the sole person of interest in her disappearance, police should not have given him the chance to leave his parents' house and go on the run! That's not just my view, even senior police like Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd believes his colleagues dropped the ball.
The Keystone Cops messed up every step of the way - firstly by failing to arrest Laundrie for domestic abuse on the roadside, after not one but TWO 911 witness reports of him hitting her, (Sheriff Judd said there were ample grounds to arrest him right then for domestic abuse), then by failing to take him into custody or even put him under round the clock surveillance when Gabby was missing, suspected murdered.
The dirty Laundries totally ran rings around law enforcement, and now Brian's killed himself he's totally cheated justice! If I were Gabby's family I'd be lived at police.
6
-
@Skitdora2010 There was no 'bigotry' in that person's comment it was perfectly logical and reasonable - it's YOU who needs to get off your high horse! Seems you're another who doesn't understand the power of a primarily circumstantial case. Kudos to police for working hard over 8 years to deliver justice for a woman who was murdered by her abusive husband. Detectives provided enough evidence against James Propokovitch to show an intelligent jury that he and he alone was the reason for his wife's sudden, suspicious disappearance.
A less intelligent jury seeks a ton of forensic evidence, because they lack the critical thinking skills to work out the truth from a ton of circumstantial evidence. Thankfully this group of people was smart enough to do the work! There was no other reasonable explanation for Victoria Propokovitch to have totally vanished in those suspicious circumstances - none. The defence assertion that this physically weak lady who couldn't walk far and didn't drive somehow committed suicide and disposed of her own, fully clothed body (never located in 8 years, despite extensive professional searches), was ridiculous! She was more likely to have been abducted by little green men from Mars.
Propokovitz had motive, means and opportunity, police even know what he did with his wife's corpse, and why having placed it (minus dentures) into powerful chemicals, he was so cocky that he'd got away with murder!
Detectives even presented evidence of his extra marital affair, which went straight to motive - why else would he have lied under oath and persuaded his girlfriend to commit perjury with him, regarding their relationship? Perjury is a serious criminal offence, with serious consequences, if they had nothing to hide they'd have just told the truth. They conspired together to lie to authorities because they were covering up the far more serious crime of murder. Propokovitch is a gambling addict - he knew better than most how high the stakes were!
This was a textbook domestic homicide, sadly seen all too often. The guilty verdict sends a powerful message to other abusers they cannot assume they'll walk free just by hiding their victim's body, and nor will police give up on justice for a murder victim and their family because years have passed.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Lately we are hearing hints that all is not well within the Adelson family - cracks have appeared in the relationship between Wendi and her parents and brother, as she distances herself from them, terrified of following Charlie and Donna to prison.
Imagine how angry Charlie must feel at his little sister, the spoiled family princess he will now die behind bars for, all because he was good enough to 'eliminate her problem', at their mother's urging?
Ditto Donna, furious that her only daughter, who she stuck her neck out for, plotting her hated ex husband's murder, now barely visits or talks to her. I bet Donna and husband Harvey hardly see their grandsons either, because Wendi is so terrified of visiting them or being seen to be close with them - and then being judged guilty by association.
Is it possible Charlie and Donna could be so angry at taking the fall for Wendi, they decide to take her down with them - either now or at a later date? After all, the eldest son Rob Adelson is fully estranged from the family and may give evidence for the state at his mother's imminent murder trial. So this family has a history of explosive fall outs - and of turning on each other! The plot thickens...
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@SkinnyRob You talk about emotion as if it automatically correlates to a lack of logic or judgement. That is a false assumption. Without emotion, man is nothing, and laws mean nothing. There is emotion behind every single great human achievement since time began my friend! It's a fundamental mistake to despise emotion. Emotion is the life blood of human civilisation and human advancement.
There is a big question mark over this man's mental health, and that's one aspect of public concern over his being allowed to represent himself - with all the privileges that affords him.
Human beings usually prioritise the safety and well being of children above every other consideration, and that is strongly reflected in the laws of every civilised society. That convention has sadly fallen through the cracks in this case, due to the priority the law gives to the rights of the accused and the legal presumption of innocence.
While that presumption of innocence is a crucial cornerstone of every decent judicial system, many people feel that should not come at the detriment of children. Ronnie O' Neal's child has paid a heavy price for his father's presumption of innocence. I think the law should be slightly amended in this area, to satisfy both the defendant's rights and the rights of children not to be brought into direct contact with an adult charged with harming them.
In my view O' Neal's assisting defence attorney could have put his questions to the child. My objection - and many others' objection - is that the child was forced by the existing system to interact directly with the accused. Who knows what additional psychological harm that could do to an 11-year-old, who is just starting to heal 3 years after his father murdered his mother and sister in front of him, and attempted to stab him to death. This is about as extreme a case of domestic violence as you'll find.
Child psychologists in the UK have confirmed re-living a crime like that in court can be just as disturbing to a young mind as experiencing it was. And what more powerful and distressing way to take a child back to that event in his/her mind, than to make them speak with the murderer - even over Zoom - and hear his voice. As adults, we may struggle to empathise with that experience. But it's an experience that child will likely carry with them for the rest of their days, along with the crime itself.
Last year the Scottish Parliament passed new legislation specifically to protect children from courtroom encounters like this one. It means that any child witness or victim in a serious crime case, will now give pre-recorded video evidence ahead of the trial, which will be played to the jury. The defendant's questions will be put to the child by a lawyer, during that pre-recorded evidence.
This change in the law will not in my view compromise any defendant's rights, but will spare children the unnecessary trauma of a direct interaction with the defendant.
The law of any country cannot be set in stone and unchanging. The law must be an organic thing, subject to amendment to reflect the ever changing values and morality of every society. If it were not subject to change, America would still have slavery!
I hope we will see an amendment in the US law, to prevent any other child from the additional, courtroom injustice this child has undoubtedly suffered.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Allen contacted the authorities and admitted he was 'Bridge Guy' (there at the crime scene, on the bridge, at the relevant time, wearing the exact same clothes), within days of the 2017 murders. The witnesses present only ever saw one male suspect. Who else do you think it could be???
Richard Allen is the Delphi killer. Unfortunately police messed up big time, they should have arrested and charged him within two weeks of the murders when he first came forward, not five years later. And if they had, we wouldn't be having this conversation now - everyone would accept he's the killer.
Unfortunately all the police mistakes under the bumbling, inexperienced Supt Doug Carter, have allowed conspiracy theories to thrive. And obviously Allen's defence team will exploit those police errors to the max, to get their guy off. But the evidence of his guilt is compelling. I sure hope the jury doesn't have any gullible people on it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Yep, divorce would lose Lori and Chad their breadwinner spouses (both Tammy Daybell and Charles Vallow worked hard to pay all the bills and ensure neither Chad nor Lori had to work), plus half the marital property and assets.
But murdering them would not only wipe out the 50/50 division of marital assets in a divorce settlement and have each of them inherit the lot, they stood to get very wealthy indeed from each spouse's substantial life insurance policy.
Lori knew she was the sole, named beneficiary of Charles' $1 million insurance payout ('was' being the crucial word, as unbeknown to her he had secretly switched the recipient to his sister Kay Woodcock, so she wouldn't get a penny). And Chad kept adding to the premium on wife Tammy's policy in the months before her murder, meaning he received a staggering $430,000, which he collected within days of her death (he had an imminent beach wedding to pay for, after all).
They killed Lori's children JJ and Tylee to enjoy a hedonistic, child-free marriage, and to keep receiving monthly benefits cash for both kids. I guess with JJ's father Charles murdered, and Tylee's dad Joseph also conveniently deceased, they thought no one would notice the children's permanent absence.
I believe there was also an element of revenge on JJ's grandma Kay Woodcock, who had received the $1 million Lori was sure would be hers. Helped by brother Alex, she had killed Charles to get her hands on that cash, so in her warped mind she had earned it! Murdering Kay's beloved grandson JJ, rather than simply allowing her to take custody of him, was payback for the million dollars. But it seems Lori never banked on Kay and husband Larry contacting police when JJ's phone and FaceTime calls abruptly stopped, and they could no longer get hold of her.
How sad that no one initially noticed Tylee's absence or reported it. It was only through JJ's reported disappearance that police realised his 16 year old sister was also missing. I guess in time her brother Colby would have raised the alarm (he was suspicious that texts purporting to have been sent by her, did not use her typical writing style). It is chilling to contemplate how lonely and vulnerable both Tylee and JJ were, in the last sad weeks of their lives.
Tylee couldn't rely on her increasingly hostile and absent mother Lori, who was totally wrapped up in her married lover Chad Daybell (who unsurprisingly, Tylee loathed). She had not been able to maintain any friendships with kids her own age, thanks to her mother making her happiness a very low priority and constantly uprooting her from homes and schools. Her father Joseph died in mysterious circumstances in April 2018, and just over a year later her Uncle Alex murdered her loving stepfather Charles, who was her last potential protector.
JJ too was very isolated after his dad Charles' murder. Just 2 months after losing him forever, Lori had his big sister Tylee murdered. JJ's two closest relatives were taken from him without warning or explanation. Then a strange man called Chad Daybell, appeared out of nowhere as a new 'father figure' - one who hated and disciplined him. After learning JJ's grandma Kay received Charles' $1 million life insurance payout, money she had assumed would be hers, a vengeful Lori stopped JJ's contact with her and his grandpa Larry.
The two weeks between Tylee's murder and JJ's, must have been Hell for the little boy. Lori had long since stopped giving him the autism drugs that helped regulate his moods. And in yet another act of maternal betrayal, she got rid of his faithful service dog, Bailey, the Golden Doodle his dad Charles had got him as a best friend. Bailey immediately loved JJ and helped him to sleep through the night. Incredibly Lori tried to sell him to make herself a fast $2,500 dollars.
A worker from the charity that had originally provided Bailey, spotted the advertisement and recognised Lori's fulsome descriptions of the wonderful service dog. She was forced to surrender him back to the charity, and he is now the beloved dog of another autistic boy. Bailey's loss must have been yet another terrible blow for JJ. No wonder he was 'acting out', as the babysitter said in her evidence today. Thanks to his evil mother, Uncle Alex and Chad Daybell, JJ's whole world collapsed around him in the last weeks of his short life.
A few days before he was murdered, Lori belatedly told him his dad Charles was dead. Why tell him at all, when her plans to kill him too, were so close? The little boy was so devastated, he refused to believe it. His school teachers recalled he was inconsolable at the loss of his daddy. Charles was a wonderful father. Lori clearly hadn't given a moment's thought to the affect murdering Charles would have on his vulnerable little boy. But why would she? The child she had raised as her son from a baby, and who loved her as his mother, was clearly totally expendable in her eyes.
A mother who would sacrifice her children for a man and money, is no mother at all. Yes Lori was influenced by the evil, manipulative Chad Daybell, and he fully deserves the death/life sentence that's coming to him - ditto Alex Cox, who through death, cheated justice. But Lori was the mother of two of her victims. It's hard to imagine a more heinous, despicable betrayal.
6
-
6
-
@sirtedricwalker2979 Great post, agreed, Wendi's eagerly awaited murder trial will be dynamite. You nailed it - she isn't half as smart as she thinks she is, no question she was jealous of her miles more accomplished and well respected ex-husband. He ran rings around her in their legal battles, and she just couldn't bear losing. Nor could her poisonous family.
Her intellectual inadequacies will be fully exposed when prosecutors finally go to town on her. Charlie and Donna's trials are just the warm up act - Wendi's murder trial is the main event and please God it will be televised, it's gonna be must-see TV!
After ten years, her wide-eyed, innocent 'who, me?' act is getting old - and so is she, far too old for the simpering, damsel in distress act. Wendi isn't half as hot as she thinks she is either! When she stands trial for conspiracy to murder, her brother and mother will both be behind bars, already convicted. The jury will struggle to find Wendy and her wide-eyes remotely credible, IMO
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ThePrincessnady1 Thank you, I was waiting for exactly that predictable comment - and it took 45 minutes to arrive!
You missed the point. If gun ownership worked, every female would carry one, and thousands of stalkers, killers, rapists etc, just like Gareth Pursehouse, would have been shot dead and taken out of society by their victim.
How great that would be. But sadly it just does not happen. Even if Amie had carried a gun, she was taken by surprise inside her home and overpowered by a 6ft 4ins maniac twice her weight and strength. Chances are he would either have disarmed her, or turned the weapon on her.
She had bought pepper spray to defend herself - no idea if she was carrying it when attacked, but if so she didn't use it. Alone, she had no chance against that monster.
I wish guns kept good people alive, and annihilated the bad ones. But this and countless other murders prove they simply don't. Year after year, guns prove useless against killers like Gareth Purseglove.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Actually Baldwin absolutely DID come forward and 'act devastated' because I don't doubt he was devastated. He didn't deliberately set out to kill that woman! Whatever he is, he's not a monster. How would you feel if you were unintentionally responsible for another human being's death? And what's more, a likeable, popular human being you were friends with? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
But obviously Alec Baldwin is a controversial/unpopular figure for some, because of his politics and 'take no prisoners' attitude.
The question here is not about intent, but negligence and recklessness. I think it's pretty rich of Alec Baldwin to suggest he's only being held accountable because he is wealthy. HE pulled the trigger, and HE was a producer on the movie, so at least partly responsible for the almighty F-up which put a loaded gun into his hand.
There are rumours of cost-cutting on the film, which put its cast and crew under unacceptable pressures and possibly played a critical role in the tragedy. For the sake of the young woman who lost her life, and for ALL movie sets in which a death like this should never be possible, there must be a full and frank investigation and the person/people responsible held to account.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Tylee was a smart girl, becoming a young woman. She saw right through that big fat fake Chad Daybell - unlike Lori, she wasn't taken in by his pseudo-prophet garbage. I'll bet she told her stupid, deluded mother exactly what she thought of him. And surprise, surprise, soon after, Chad branded her 'Dark' and a 'Zombie'. Chad Daybell is a narcissist who demands to be placed on a pedestal, he would not tolerate Tylee's disrespect.
Tylee's position was already vulnerable once Chad Daybell was on the scene, because she had seen and heard too much and had all the dirt on her mother's and his crimes. She saw what really happened to her stepfather Charles Vallow - he walked into that house unarmed and unsuspecting, to take son JJ to breakfast, and he was ambushed and shot dead by her Uncle Alex. It was murder - by a convicted felon who had done prison time for assaulting his sister's previous husband Joseph Ryan. The baseball bat/self defence story her mom and uncle coached her to tell police, was pure fiction.
Poor Tylee likely witnessed the whole murder. Charles had loved her like a daughter, and remained supportive of her after her mother's adulterous affair and toxic, deluded conduct went off the chart. Charles had purchased Tylee's jeep for her - the same jeep Alex used in the first attempted shooting murder of Tammy Daybell, and the failed attempt on Brandon Boudreaux's life, after both Charles and Tylee's violent deaths.
Charles was Tylee's last surviving protector, after her father Joseph Ryan's suspicious death just over a year earlier. With Charles dead, Tylee was pretty much alone, and desperately vulnerable. I think she knew it.
She had no one to turn to. Most girls of 16 can rely on their mom for support. Tylee could not - Lori only had eyes and ears for Chad Daybell. Tylee tried speaking to her grandpa in the last weeks of her life, but her pleas for a private talk went unheeded. I think she was frightened of the energy in her home - and she was right to be. Because the same vile energy that killed her stepdad Charles (and I suspect her father Joseph in 2018), would soon destroy her and JJ. Sweet Tylee must have been the loneliest girl in the world.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm angry at Maddie's vile, neglectful mother who enabled her rape and murder, and the system that failed to get a heinously abused child out of a highly dysfunctional and dangerous home.
There will always be vile, perverted paedophiles like Stefan Sterns around, hiding in plain sight looking for opportunities to abuse vulnerable children - its up to parents, primarily, but also other relatives, teachers, doctors, counsellors etc, to be gatekeepers protecting minors from such men. Maddie's maternal grandmother hated Stefan Sterns - why wasn't she able to save her from him?
5
-
5
-
Vinnie Politan's intro - Yes it was likely Alex Cox attempting to kill Tammy Daybell that day on her driveway, with a gun. But what VP failed to add, is he was allegedly making that attempt on Tammy's life, in cahoots with Tammy's husband - THE ACCUSED, CHAD DAYBELL.
That is crucial information, and crucial context in this specific murder trial, in which the defendant is victim Tammy's husband Chad Daybell.
It never ceases to amaze me how bad hard news reporters like Vinnie Politan (and other so called journalists), are, at reporting precise and accurate facts in true crime cases like this one. More to the point, many are entirely incapable of presenting facts in their proper, relevant context - the obvious context here being Alex working with Chad.
As a British, NCTJ qualified national newspaper journalist and TV producer I say - Up your game and get your damn act together Vinnie & Co!
The Lori Vallow/Chad Daybell murders are a complex murder case, involving at least FOUR homicide victims, and at least three defendants (one of them, Alex Cox, deceased). So accuracy, context and intelligent, insightful analysis by the broadcast/print professionals reporting it, is absolutely crucial.
5
-
Thank you for taking the time to write such a powerful and authentic account of this infamous domestic abuse case - and your very personal perspective and insights on the subject.
I'm so sorry to hear of your childhood suffering, due to your abusive father. As you demonstrate, being an abuse survivor can give you highly developed empathy and a radar for the silent suffering and vulnerabilities of others, which I have no doubt you possess in spades. That's why you have called this situation so accurately, and correctly identified that the real domestic abuse victim is not Amber Heard but Johnny Depp.
I believe anyone who has had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of narcissistic abuse, is likely to recognise it in Amber Heard's independently reported abusive (and in her general) behaviour.
Victimhood is a favourite assumed identity of covert narcissists. Covert narcs are the most dangerous variety of narcissist IMO, as they can be very plausible and exploit a false victim status to great effect in order to wield power over others. They are control freaks who seek to possess their intimate partner, and resent sharing them with others.
For the narcissistic Amber Heard, marrying superstar Johnny Depp was a trophy. But as a narcissist at the extreme end of the spectrum, she would/could not adapt to the limitations his VIP status inevitably put on her exclusive access to him. An obvious example of this was her rage that her physical and emotional abuses were frequently witnessed (and thwarted), by the intervention one of his security staff.
According to psychologists, a classic tactic of narcissistic abusers is to isolate the victim from their family and friends to maximum their personal control - something Heard couldn't achieve with Depp whose status required a large number of staff pretty much 24-7. Thankfully these staff afforded him some protection from her assaults, helped him to physically escape her when she was kicking off at him, and would ultimately be invaluable witnesses to his abuse by her.
As you probably know, Depp grew up with a mother who was physically and emotionally abusive to him and his 3 siblings (as the youngest, he undoubtedly suffered her wrath the most). His coping mechanism was to flee when he sensed his mother's rage building - he said her kids all knew to 'get out of the way' before something came flying at you - a fist, a kick or a flying telephone.
They were copying their father's example, as he too tried to get away whenever their mom physically assaulted him, never retaliating (Depp said he twice witnessed his dad punch a wall in frustration, breaking his hand on one occasion). This is exactly the strategy Depp used with Amber Heard, taking evasive action as her anger built - typically locking himself in the bathroom, sleeping in one of his neighbouring apartments, or if they were travelling, escaping to another hotel room that had been booked especially for that purpose.
Clearly this is not the default reaction to conflict of an abuser, but a victim. We've heard on the audio tapes that SHE secretly recorded, how verbally aggressive, belligerent and insulting she was with him at such times, knowing exactly how to inflict the worst emotional pain by calling him a lousy father to his kids, or a quote:"Fat, washed up actor". Her professional jealousy of Depp's success was frequently obvious in her verbal tirades. Again this is a narcissistic abuser's usual M.O., designed to erode the victim's confidence and self esteem, and heighten their own status.
I believe Johnny Depp's traumatic, insecure childhood helped to make him a fantastic actor, as it equipped him with heightened empathy - the hallmark of the greatest stars, as empathy lets them access the authentic emotions and reactions of the characters they play. Unfortunately however, childhood abuse has many more negative repercussions for its adult survivors, one of which can be their subconscious attraction to abusers in romantic relationships. People may not know why they go through life with a series of broken relationships behind them. They are repeating old, familiar habits - namely doomed relationships with 'bad news' people like their abusive parent/parents!
I hope when Depp has won this trial he will take some time out to see a great psychotherapist and work through the reasons he chose Amber Heard and even agreed to marry her after experiencing several serious incidents of abuse by her. At 58 he does not have a successful romantic track record behind him. As he approaches his 'golden years', it would be sad if that pattern of volatile, failed relationships were to continue.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dianaprince3176 I'm not American and as my posts make clear, I understand US defendants' right to represent themselves and cross examine witnesses - even minors, as in this case.
I thought my point was clear, but as you didn't understand it I'm happy to explain it for you again:
I don't believe that right for defendants in serious crimes like murder/rape to directly question witnesses, should extend to children. YouTube comments on the case suggest many people are outraged on this little boy's behalf. I hope this murder trial prompts sufficient public anger to start a national debate about child witnesses, that leads to greater legal protections for them.
In my view the US justice system is weighted too far in favour of the defendant, to the detriment of its most vulnerable victims, minors. Ronnie O' Neal should not have been able to directly quiz his 11-year-old son and victim, about the ordeal he and his murdered mother and sister suffered at his hands. Additional psychological harm could be done to that child, in having to once again face his father and would-be murderer (even over Zoom), and revisit that life-changing horror.
This is about as bad as domestic violence cases get. Ronnie O' Neal killed his 9 year old disabled daughter with repeated axe blows to her face, head and neck, witnessed by his then 8 year old son. He chased his fleeing girlfriend with a rifle, shooting at her as she ran to a neighbour's house for help. When the gun jammed, he beat the mother of his children to death on the front doorstep, the impacts breaking the rifle into pieces. He then returned home and stabbed his son so viciously, when emergency services arrived his intestines were hanging out. The boy also suffered burns when O' Neal set fire to the house.
No justice system is perfect but as a journalist I can vouch child witnesses/victims are better protected and prioritised in British courts. Last year the Scottish Parliament passed the 'Vulnerable Witnesses Act'. It ruled in the most serious crimes, young people under 18 do not appear in court live, either in person or remotely, as this little boy did. Instead, minors pre-record their evidence in advance of the trial, and it is played to the jury. The new law, modelled on the Scandinavian legal system, means children don't have to face the accused in court or be cross examined. Psychologists recognise that giving evidence in court re-traumatises a child and can be almost as distressing as the crime itself.
The laws of a country are not set in stone, and nor should they be. They should be organic and evolve with the changing culture and values, to reflect modern morality. Most people watching this alleged domestic killer quiz his son will feel revulsion. That gut instinct kicks in when a situation just isn't right - and in many people's eyes, doing this to a child is very wrong. The drama that played out in that courtroom this week reflected very badly on American justice. It can and should do much better than that!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
All will be revealed at trial and it will no doubt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by a compelling combination of forensic and circumstantial evidence. That the prosecution are sure the boys were murdered way back in September, three months before they were reported missing, is in itself damning. It shows there is no proof of life for Cincere and Classic, beyond September 2020 - no photos of them, no sightings of them by friends, family, neighbours, no attendance at playschools or even on local CCTV etc etc.
Police will have trawled hours and hours of CCTV and found a point at which the West family outings no longer feature their two youngest adopted children. That alone is a big clue to the date of the murders!
The allegation they were murdered in September shows they died when the Wests were living at their previous Bakersfield address NOT the house from which Trezell West claimed they both wandered out of a gate as he was collecting firewood (a likely story!) Forensic experts will have examined that previous Bakersfield address in detail, and likely found evidence of violence/foul play, eg trace amounts of the childrens' blood after a clean up by their killers. No doubt the house move itself - which prosecutors believe occurred after the murders - was an attempt to escape justice.
The trial will also feature evidence from the older four children living in the West family home. The indictment document is in the public domain, and it tells some of the story. It alleges the Wests ordered the older children to participate in acts of violence against the two, now (allegedly) deceased youngest children. It also alleges the Wests threatened witnesses not to give evidence against them - very likely, those four children.
If Trezell and Jacqueline West are innocent, they should be confident and welcoming this trial, when they can prove it - not standing in court in matching grey pyjamas looking like terrified rabbits caught in the headlights! Let them have their 'day in court' and give evidence in their own defence, if they can prove the kids went missing from their yard - or were ever living at that new address - they have no problem!
5
-
5
-
@nicoleloves9483 He totally did it alone. He had his parents' big house all to himself to 'deal with' their bodies (he repeatedly told his girlfriend not to come over/limited her time there, so he could finish what he euphemistically called 'his chores').
But like so many killers, he was over confident. Detectives and the forensic crime labs they use can pick up the tiniest speck of blood proving he location of the murder scene and the killer's connection to it. Who else could have killed and dismembered them in their own home but the son who lived with them? It's frankly ludicrous this 24 year old man is denying it. But he has nothing to lose, and no doubt enjoys all the attention he's getting at his double murder trial.
He's secretly proud of what he did to his parents. There's no remorse or emotion from him when photos are shown in court of his parents' body parts. He shot them in the back then chopped them up - because they were about to uncover his many lies about himself and his life. He's not a man, but a man-child. He didn't want to grow up, leave home, earn his own money or be a man, as his elder brother had. He's an evil, entitled, cowardly freak, and the sooner he's locked up with bigger psychopaths, the better!
Chandler Halderson killed the two people in the world who loved him deeply, and would have supported him no matter what. Who gives a damn about him now they're gone, and he killed them both so cruelly? He has a very lonely life ahead of him.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Utterly sickening when you consider the specific context and timing of this phone call. Letecia Stauch had murdered husband Al's much-loved 11-year-old child Gannon two weeks earlier, stabbing him 18 times, fracturing his skull with a heavy object, and shooting him three times with a firearm, the final bullet shattering his jaw and spine. That evil PoS made absolutely sure Gannon was dead!
She then shoved his brutalised corpse into a suitcase and dumped it out in the February snow. Incredibly while he was missing, she visited his remains several times (unseen by idiot police, who should have been tailing her). Finally she took the body on a morbid,10 hour road trip across country, and hurled it off a freeway bridge. She gave sweet, innocent Gannon the most violent and squalid death possible.
To hear her weeping and wailing for herself, as she tells Al Stauch a pack of lies, witters on about 'Immunity', and shows she cares only about saving her own neck, is totally enraging!
This woman put far too much elaborate planning and forethought into that poor child's murder and the subsequent cover-up, for her to successfully plead 'Insanity'! It's crystal clear she knew right from wrong when she killed Gannon - because she poured so much effort into getting away with the crime, before, during and after. She's not mad - just BAD to the bone.
4
-
4
-
@AliceWilson-w9m Richard Allen approached the authorities soon after the murders in February 2017 and pretty much confessed to being 'Bridge Guy', ie the man recorded following the girls across the bridge on Liberty German's Smartphone video. There's no question it's him - he said so himself!
Allen stated he was at the trails/crime scene at the exact same time as the incident, confirmed he crossed the bridge, and even said he was wearing the same clothes seen on the man in the video. He was obviously panicked that video of him, as well as witness sightings, would identify him, and decided to 'get in front' of the story by putting himself forward as a witness, not the killer, and acting innocent.
The chances of Allen being at the trails at the time of the murders, wearing the same outfit, as the suspect, and being recorded following the victims across the bridge (it's clearly him) - and NOT being the killer - are close to zero.
I don't believe you have your facts right. Hopefully more reliable and detailed information about the case than is currently being peddled online, will emerge at trial.
Sadly the bungled police investigation - and its crazy over-emphasis on secrecy - has inevitably allowed all kinds of misinformation and even elaborate conspiracy theories to fill the information void. It has also understandably weakened public faith that the guilty man has been charged.
I'm confident had an experienced and competent team of detectives been running the show from the start, Richard Allen would have been arrested and charged within two weeks of the murders. If he had, there would be far less opportunity for the armchair detectives, naysayers and conspiracy theorists to make merry with the case.
Senior police responsible for the severely flawed murder investigation, chiefly Supt Doug Carter, should be held fully accountable for their mistakes when the trial is concluded. Thanks to them, a highly dangerous man has walked free for five years. But the additional and prolonged suffering their incompetence has caused Libby and Abby's loved ones, is unforgivable.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@EckerKyle You nailed it when you used the word 'Interpret'. Unfortunately (as some of these comments demonstrate), not every jury is mentally equipped to accurately interpret a criminal case which features more circumstantial than forensic evidence.
I've seen comments here stating that murder trials should not be held if there is no body - as if the victim's corpse is the only possible way to prove a/ they are dead and b/ they were killed by the defendant! That shows worrying ignorance. If murder could only be proved by the victim's body, every killer would do their best to hide or destroy it for a guaranteed free pass from prosecution!
As it is, killers like Propokovitz and Patrick Frazee already assume they'll escape justice by wiping out their victim's corpse. Thankfully both men were wrong, and their evil crime was revealed by a mass of other, multi-layered evidence. And ironically, as I said earlier, the killer who makes huge efforts to get rid of the victim, may wind up drawing attention to himself and his role in their death!
Fact is, evidence takes many forms other than physical/forensic proof. A lot is expected from a jury - they must analyse the meaning and significance of a mass of facts. The truth does not come signposted - the jury must work hard to find it. A group of smart people with common sense and critical thinking skills, should between them be able to work out the most credible version of events presented in court, and accurately judge guilt or innocence accordingly.
Respect to this jury for taking their time, asking the questions they needed to ask, and reaching what I believe was undoubtedly the right, guilty verdict.
If James Propokovitz had got away with this murder, it would encourage other killers to have faith in the 'No body - No crime', myth. This case also sends a strong message out that police won't give up on justice, for domestic violence victims and their grieving families. Many years may pass before cops knock on the door - but they will come for those who thought they got away with killing an inconvenient spouse!
4
-
4
-
4
-
@3_up_moon Exactly right! Isn't it strange, how some people seek to project positive qualities like guilt and remorse onto a man who strangled his fiance to death, abandoned her body to rot in the elements, and drove himself home to his mommy & daddy in her van, stealing $1,000 of her cash en route?
Worse, he hid behind Mommy's skirts and an attorney, refused to share Gabby's fate with her desperate loved ones, and then ran away before searches located her strangled body.
Now we find he's killed himself because he was too gutless and egotistical to face the world's disgust and rage at his appalling crime against a woman he should have loved and protected. Dirty Laundrie never loved Gabby, he only ever cared about himself. Suicide was his final, selfish act, cheating Gabby and her family of justice, so he could dodge a death sentence and all the bigger psychopaths he'd have inevitably been 'bitch' to. He literally got away with murder - and his grotty parents escaped the shame of his high profile murder trial and many miserable years of visits to peanut-head in a maximum security prison.
However Chris and Roberta Laundrie should not escape justice for harbouring a killer son, aiding and abetting him and withholding evidence. Their callous disrespect for Gabby, a woman who had shared their home for the last two years, is shocking and should not go unpunished.
Their son had the dignity of dying by his own hand - in stark contrast, Gabby was terrorised and murdered by the man she loved and trusted, strangled to death in the most horrific betrayal imaginable. Brian's creepy parents deserve only contempt. After messing this case up every step of the way, police should belatedly do something to show support for abuse victims like Gabby, and prosecute the dirty Laundries to the full extent of the law.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yep, Jussie Smollett took the three things he cared about more than anything or anyone in the world - his public image, his career and his reputation - and flushed 'em down the toilet. And he is not emerging from that $hitty U-bend ever again!
All because he thought he was a black talent on a level with the biggest names in the business, like Samuel L Jackson, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. Not even close - as his utterly lousy acting in the role of innocent victim since he pulled that stunt proves!
Smollett was incredibly lucky to land a well-paid role in a niche, black-themed TV series (trading on his partial black heritage again). But he wasn't grateful for that - oh no. That taste of success only made him more entitled and greedy, and more convinced he deserved MORE money, fame and adulation.
What a total and utter TOOL. 🤣🤣🤣His career is OVER - and as the Judge told him, he did it all to himself! The court of public opinion is the one that really counts in cases like these involving public figures, and they've given him a life sentence.
He's finished as any kind of credible celebrity - and no real celebrity is going to want to work with him, or even be seen with him in public, ever again. If Smollett has the nerve to walk any red carpets in future, he'll find real stars backing away from him in droves, like he just farted!
4
-
4
-
The podcast launched by convicted multiple murderer Lori Daybell's Uncle Rex Connor and brother Adam Cox is called 'Silver Linings'. What a weird title.
How can the murders of two innocent, defenceless children, seven year old JJ and 16 year old Tylee (plus the killers' two, equally surplus to requirements spouses Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell), have any, quote 'silver lining'?
The Connor/Cox podcast, and its accompanying book, smacks of cynical profiteering off the heinous murders of innocent human beings. Where were they when their innocent relatives' lives were in danger???
If I were Rex or Adam, I would be far too distraught, and far too busy beating myself up that I'd failed to save the lives of my brother-in-law, and niece & nephew/great niece and nephew, to set up a damn podcast or write a book. Frankly, I would be attending professional psychotherapy sessions forevermore, and spending the rest of my life racked with guilt that I didn't lift a finger to stop the murderous campaign of violence of the evil, unholy trinity Lori, Alex and Chad.
If Lori's family had only supported Charles Vallow when he first told them she had threatened to kill him, many murders may have been prevented, including the depraved slaughter of two vulnerable children.
The hand wringing of these two men, as guests of any YouTube channel that will have them, is - Hmmm, let's just say belated, to put it kindly!
4
-
Marie Hackett At least the Laundries don't have to suffer the agony of knowing their child was brutally murdered - and by someone he loved, trusted and planned a life with - as Gabby was brutally murdered by their son Brian!
No one ever expected Chris and Roberta Laundrie to appear on TV and explain themselves. What has shocked so many is their callous disregard for Gabby Petito and her parents, and their refusal to respond to that devastated family's private questions sent by phone and text message.
As parents themselves, it was shocking they could so cruelly ignore Gabby's family, desperately worried about her safety. And let's not forget, Gabby had lived in the Laundrie home for the last two years - didn't they care about her?! Of course the reality is now all too clear - their son Brian had told them he killed Gabby, hence their decision to use the services of a lawyer and keep their collective mouths shut. They totally forgot about Gabby's tragedy, in their unseemly haste to protect their son from the consequences of his evil actions.
We can only guess at the end game Chris, Roberta and Brian decided on. Was the plan for him to escape justice for good with suicide? Could his parents have packed him off with enough drugs to do the deed? Frankly the Laundries have behaved so bizarrely, I can't put anything past them. Or was he just hiding out awhile, and got attacked by a crocodile? Whatever happened to him, I cannot mourn his passing. He murdered a much-loved young woman with her whole life ahead of her. May he rot in hell for all eternity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Why can't we change the rules now? Just because a law was made many years ago, doesn't mean it's right or can't be amended to fit current morality. If your logic stood, we would still have slavery!
Most people would not think it acceptable that an 11 year old child can be quizzed by his would-be killer like this - even via Zoom. That man murdered his mother and sister, and tried to murder him.
The poor boy's spent the last 3 years grieving their loss, healing from his own physical and mental scars, and trying to find stability in his life. A family adopted him, but it didn't work out. He was then adopted by one of the detectives who worked his family's murder case. He's been to hell and back, but is finally in a good place, with good people who love him.
Then he gets the call from court, and is told he has to not only see his father and would-be killer again, but be questioned by him. And that monster who terrorised him and took away his family forever, gets to speak to him and say "It's nice to see you". That is not acceptable!
The defendant's questions could and should have been put to the child by a defense attorney NOT by him personally. Seems the law is all about the rights of the accused, and the victims get overlooked. We need to do more to protect victims of serious crimes - and especially child victims. America must do better than this!
4
-
4
-
@kerryruppert6275 We can speculate forever. Only two people know how he wound up zipped inside the suitcase he died in - one of them is dead, the other is a psychopath/compulsive liar, whose word can't be trusted.
But it's academic anyway. The fact is, he told her repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, yet she callously taunted him, and abandoned him overnight to die a horrible death by suffocation. Only a very young child would imagine he was safe and not in any danger, trapped inside that small suitcase for many hours.
Sarah Boone is not a child. When she ignored his pleas to let him out and instead went upstairs to bed alone, she had to know she was playing Russian roulette with her boyfriend's life. You wouldn't do that to a beloved pet, least of all your partner! A normal, caring non-psychopath feels love and empathy, and wouldn't sleep a wink knowing they had put another sentient being's life in peril.
It's clear Boone didn't love her boyfriend. Her desire to sadistically torture him to such extremes that he did not survive the night, reflects the murdering monster she is. Drink/dysfunction doesn't excuse or explain her breathtakingly callous actions.
4
-
4
-
@ebogar42 There is never any excuse for men to murder women - you shouldn't post victim blaming shit like that. Brian Laundrie was a cowardly domestic abuser, who wasn't dealt with robustly by police as he should have been, so carried right on abusing her and soon escalated his abuse to her murder. Law enforcement need to use that bodycam footage of the Keystone Cops for training purposes, it shows how NOT to handle domestic abuse relationships!
Laundrie's a covert narcissist and did the classic abuser thing of getting Gabby miles away from her family and friends, living with him in his parents' home, so he could exert total control over her. He jumped at the 'Van Life' road trip, because he'd have her all to himself. He knew she was out of his league, and was terrified of his cute, smart girlfriend leaving him - and taking her money, van and electronics with her.
The usual trigger for abusive men like Laundrie to kill, is the woman leaving him, or talking about it. I'm certain that was ultimately the reason he murdered her. The incident at the Mexican restaurant on 27th August, when he argued over the $60 bill and returned FOUR times to yell at the female staff, was likely what led up to his final, fatal attack on Gabby. She went back in last of all, to apologise to the staff for his behaviour - he was acting like a big kid, the same way he would trail mud into the van with filthy feet, and leave it like a pig sty. I think Brian was finding the whole road trip stressful - a man-child who had never lived independently of his parents aged 23, would struggle to cope on an extended, cross country road trip, with no 'grown up' parents in the next room to help him.
Covert narcs can't handle losing an argument - and it's obvious he got nowhere with his temper tantrum in the restaurant. He must have finally left the Mexican place enraged, because he couldn't win. And if he found out Gabby had apologised to the staff for him, that would have left the loser feeling even more humiliated and enraged. It was his own damn fault for temper tantrum-ing in public - but nothing is ever a narcissist's fault, so of course he will have blamed Gabby.
Domestic abuse is about the abuser, not the victim. Gabby did nothing to justify that cowardly bully's abuse and murder, brutally taking her whole life from her, when it had only begun. Gabby was a big-hearted, smart, funny, lovable and much loved young woman, and will be greatly missed by a great many people. I doubt anyone but peanut head's weird parents will miss him. May he rot in hell.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@melmac685 Exactly! It was obvious Victoria meant "they won't find me IN TIME", ie in time to save her. Why would she say no one would find her body, or even think about her own corpse, or hiding it, after suicide?!
It makes no sense at all, but of course the defense was desperately clutching at straws. They had to try and explain how a cancer sufferer with a bad leg was able to not only leave her home at night when she could hardly walk and didn't drive, but also managed to not leave any footprints, kill herself some distance away, and totally 'vanish' her own, clothed body, without trace!
It's astonishing given the highly suspicious circumstances, that anyone believed Victoria's death had no third party involvement, and was not a domestic homicide. Who are these people? They're so gullible, they'd say a fox emerging from a hen house with a mouth full of feathers was a vegetarian!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hotboy80baby18 In eight years, no proof of life was ever found for Victoria Propokovitz, a lady with serious health issues who needed a daily cocktail of prescription drugs to function. In all those years, she never filled out a prescription card, touched her bank account, or contacted any of her beloved family members. She was never seen or heard from again - she was clearly dead, and her loved ones knew it.
In most parts of the world, legal presumption of death takes effect after 7 years, when a missing individual is officially declared deceased and recorded as such, and their estate (if they have one), is divided between their next of kin.
The totality of circumstantial evidence against the defendant in this case, told a compelling story of guilt. Victoria Propokovitz did not commit suicide, as the defence laughably claimed - the evidence did not support that. The only reasonable explanation for her vanishing in the middle of the night never to be seen again, was that she had been murdered by her abusive husband. James Propokovitz had the means, motive and opportunity. Who else but him, had any reason to want rid of Victoria? He was losing patience and money with his wife's medical issues. He had far better uses for the family finances - a new girlfriend he was wining and dining, taking pornographic photos of in hotel bedrooms, and gambling away six figure sums with, in casinos. His wife Victoria had become a costly inconvenience to him. He chose murder over divorce, because he didn't want to share the jointly owned marital assets with her 50-50.
Thank God trials like this one send a clear message to domestic abusers that they cannot expect to get away with murdering their partner, just by the successful disposal of their body.
The adage 'No body - No crime' is a myth, murder can and is proven without the victim's corpse, through diligent and determined police work such as we saw here. And it's a very important principle of law, in my view. Kudos to the two senior detectives who gave such detailed evidence and through their bodycam footage showed the jury exactly who James Prokopovitz is - an arrogant, aggressive, entitled bully, who abused his second wife Victoria just as he had his first, and finally murdered her.
Those two seasoned professionals had a gut instinct he had killed Victoria - just as her children did. And they didn't let go until they produced enough evidence, 8 years later, to take it to trial.
Jim's contempt for his missing wife was blindingly obvious, at one point telling police he wished he could, quote "shit her out", so that they would leave his girlfriend alone. He didn't want her back. And his escalating anger at the detectives who pursued him showed he fully expected, in fact almost demanded, to get away with her murder!
As he told family members with great certainty "She's dead, she's not coming home, and you won't find her", even adding the detail that she had no teeth, so couldn't be identified. It was yet more circumstantial evidence indicating knowledge - he knew all along where she was, rapidly decomposing in chemical sludge ponds which he himself stupidly admitted to cops he could access with a key.
8 years is long enough to know a missing person is dead. But as the years went by, Jim Propokovitz was wrong to assume he'd got away with murder. I hope a certain Barry Morphew, whose wife Suzanne disappeared in equally suspicious circumstances last year, watched this trial and worried!
4
-
The motive clearly was not theft, so it certainly wasn't a 'property crime' - no one stabs four people to death to steal the humble belongings of a few penniless students!
However, it's ridiculous to conclude as the bearded lawyer does @ 12:23, that the motive was not a sexual one, just because the victims were not sexually assaulted. The victims are three females and one male. The target was not the male - this was a rage killing against females, and the reason for that is almost certainly sexual rejection. Therefore the motive was sexual. A murder victim does not have to be raped/sexually assaulted, for the crime to have a sexual motive at its heart.
Three things you can bet on here: 1/ The perpetrator is a male 2/ The perpetrator has a personal relationship/was known to at least one of the female victims. 3/ The killer experienced/perceived he experienced sexual/romantic rejection from one of the females he murdered.
Two of the women killed, Madison (21), and Xana (20), worked as waitresses at a local Greek restaurant. That's another environment in addition to the University campus, that must be investigated as a potential source of motive and killer. Did a restaurant patron become obsessed with Madison or Xana, and be knocked back on making sexual advances? I believe a strong motive must exist to explain such a violent crime scene, and strong motives mean a strong suspect. Police will make an arrest for these murders very soon.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SkinnyRob In fact the evidence shows that courtroom experience will not be a positive experience for the child as you assume, but an ordeal almost as psychologically damaging to him as the crime itself.
Feelings - or rather emotions - inform every important achievement and glory of mankind since civilisation began. Without emotions, laws would be meaningless - every law ever made is underpinned by human emotion. Emotion does not automatically equate with poor judgement or lack of objectivity, quite the opposite!
This child was wrongly made to face his would-be killer not because society doesn't care about him and the damage that will do, but because the accused's rights have been given priority above all else - even the best interests of a child.
This is highly unusual. In civilised societies, nothing trumps the rights of children. I believe this is a 'blip' in the law that needs to be addressed and amended, without compromising the defendant's rights.
Ronnie O' Neal's defense lawyer could have directly communicated with the child, instructed by the accused, without negating O' Neal's legal rights or subjecting that child to the trauma of speaking directly with him. The intimidation and manipulation in the interaction between father and son was clear. O' Neal started off by telling the child he tried to stab to death 3 years ago: "It's good to see you", to which the child felt compelled to respond in kind: "It's good to see you too".
That 11-year-old was forced to exchange pleasantries with the man who murdered his mother and sister! That is not acceptable, and will undoubtedly come back to haunt him. He will feel he was disloyal to his murdered family. Ironically, he will also almost certainly feel responsible if his father is found guilty and receives the death sentence. His memories of speaking with his father over Zoom, as the prosecution's star witness, will stay with him forever and haunt him horribly if his dad is put to death.
Laws are not immovable and set in stone. As societies evolve and consensus and morality alters over decades, so the law must evolve and reflect those changes. I mentioned in another post to you that last year Scotland introduced a new law specifically to prevent any child experiencing the injustice this child did in court. Now a child involved in a serious criminal case as witness/victim, will pre-record their evidence on video ahead of the trial. And defence questions will be put to the child at that time, The video will be played to the jury. This new law does not compromise the defendant's rights, but protects children. I hope after the appalling spectacle of child abuse we just witnessed in this American court, the US will consider a similar change in the law to protect minors.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Watch Charlie's tell-tale body language from @4:52. He's telling a totally fabricated story about a supposed visit/conversation he had with his former girlfriend Catherine (the go-between who set up the contract killing of Dan Markel), right after the hit that HE had ordered!
This is the ridiculous, far-fetched fiction Charlie came up with, in hopes of escaping justice. Not a chance! He expected the jury to believe that his ex-girlfriend and her gangster ex-husband conspired to murder Dan without any input from him - then blackmailed him to keep their mouths shut, hence his huge bank payments to Catherine. It makes no sense at all.
Notice how his eyes constantly go down to the floor, and even completely shut for extended periods, as he gives this false, entirely made-up account. It's a total giveaway he isn't recalling a genuine memory, but instead is inventing a false narrative. Thankfully the jury didn't believe a single word of his testimony, and he will die in prison.
It will be fascinating to see if matriarch Donna Adelson does similar eye movements, if she too is dumb enough to give evidence in her own defence (that didn't go so well for her son - I've a feeling she'll take her lawyers' advice, and stay silent throughout her murder trial).
Here's to his ghastly Mom Donna, the spider at the centre of the web, and sister Wendi the family princess and chief narcissist, following in his orange-Croc-ed footsteps to a permanent prison cell, very soon! The Adelson family robbed two little boys of their loving father, and burdened them with the terrible legacy of murder. It's high time they were all serving life in prison, and Dan, his parents, and his beloved boys, got some measure of justice.
4
-
4
-
@RynoKnarr14 Josh Powell brutally murdered his two little boys for entirely selfish reasons.
He had vilely murdered their mother Susan and knew police were closing in on him, so he intended to kill himself to avoid spending the next 50 years in jail.
As he had decided on suicide, he also decided to murder his children at the same time out of sheer spite. He resented his late wife's parents getting custody of the kids after her death, and wasn't going to let them live happy lives raised by their loving grandparents.
He had nothing to lose as he was going to escape justice by committing suicide. So he murdered a couple of innocent, defenceless, (and thanks to him motherless) children to get 'revenge' on Susan's poor parents. Josh Powell didn't think they had suffered enough from him abusing, murdering and hiding the body of their beloved daughter - he wanted to deliver yet more horror and agony by viciously killing those sweet grandchildren.
The system failed Susan Powell and her family, because Josh Powell should not have been given ANY access to those children, as the prime suspect in her murder! Because the family courts stupidly ruled he had 'rights' as a father, they ignored two little boys' rights to be safe and unharmed by the dangerous, abusive man who had killed their mother. The courts allowed Josh Powell the chance to commit that evil double child murder.
Wherever the children's souls are now, they are not with Josh Powell - he's in hell, along with his equally warped father and brother who helped him murder and dispose of poor Susan.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nomudnolotus4410 Not sexist, the facts are the facts and you are quite wrong, domestic abuse is totally a 'gender specific thing'. Most domestic abusers are male, most victims are female, and the victims of domestic homicides are almost exclusively female. The facts are all too depressingly clear, and it's not an argument - men kill women!
I'm aware there are female abusers, but they are highly unlikely to kill - unlike their far more common, male equivalent. So for women, domestic abuse is literally a matter of life or death, as Gabby Petito's recent murder (and Maya Millete's, and Suzanne Morphew's, and Shanann Watts', and Kelsey Berreth's, and all the other murders of women by men who claimed to love them), powerfully prove.
I am very sorry to hear of your experiences and I agree with you, kids of both sexes should learn about narcissistic/domestic abuse at school. It's not that I want to 'demonise' men, or 'leave men out of the equation' as you put it, but we have to face facts, however uncomfortable they may be for men - women are in grave danger from this issue, men are not. Domestic abuse is everywhere, it cuts across all cultures, classes, ethnicities and age groups, and is a global pandemic more deadly for females than Covid. Yet addressing the crisis of violence against women is not a priority for any of the world's governments. Instead it is swept under the carpet, underestimated or regarded with tacit acceptance, as an inevitability. What an insult that is to men!
While I accept your point that men can be victims of narcissistic/domestic abuse, this is not an equal opportunities crime, the victims are in the overwhelming majority, female. Barely a day goes by when we don't hear about a woman being found dead (or disappearing), at the hands of her male partner/ex partner. Most men are not abusive, but a significant minority ARE, and the majority of decent men like yourself should call them out, not seek to minimise their crimes against women.
There is a widespread reluctance on the part of men, to acknowledge male abuse of women, or to confront it. We saw that clearly on the police bodycam of Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito. Those male cops couldn't wait to befriend Brian Laundrie, who they knew had just been reported by two 911 callers for hitting his girlfriend. Those officers were fully aware he was an alleged domestic abuser, so their sympathetic, even pally behaviour towards him, was totally inappropriate!
No wonder that bodycam footage has been widely criticised - even by senior police officers. According to Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, his police colleagues handled Laundrie all wrong. Sheriff Judd said after the 911 reports they had ample grounds to arrest him for domestic abuse and take him into custody, and should have done exactly that. But instead cops decided Brian Laundrie was the victim and Gabby Petito the perpetrator! That's not just lousy detective work - it suggests a deep seated and innate reluctance to identify and punish another man accused of domestic abuse.
Those cops were using exactly the same warped 'logic' you expressed in your post, ie the false premise that male and female domestic abuse are exactly the same crime, and of equal gravity. They are not, make no mistake about it, and police should know the statistics better than anyone. Of Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito, it was HER, not him, who was at risk of serious harm or death. Therefore her care and welfare as the victim should have been their priority, and Brian Laundrie should have been treated as the domestic abuse suspect he was. Their disastrous errors of judgement were tragically proven 2 weeks later, with Gabby's death at Laundrie's hands.
The police failure to confront or condemn Brian Laundrie for his independently confirmed abuse of Gabby Petito, paved the way for her murder by him soon after. In accepting Gabby's predictable self-blame at face value (cops should know abuse victims often blame themselves and downplay the abuse), and ludicrously giving Laundrie victim status, the cops in effect endorsed his abuse of her. No wonder he was all smiles at the end of the bodycam footage, as a distraught Gabby was sent off to spend the night alone in the van and he was chauffeur driven to a cosy hotel. He knew he got away with it!
As the damning bodycam footage shows police endorsed Brian Laundrie's domestic abuse and in so doing empowered him to not only continue to abuse her, but to escalate his offending to her murder. That bodycam video should be used in future to train law enforcement on how NOT to deal with domestic abuse cases. Because it clearly shows they missed a golden opportunity to save Gabby's life. Had they not been so weak with Brian Laundrie, acted appropriately on the 911 reports and taken him into custody, there's every chance Gabby would be alive today. Abuse victims are too weakened, brainwashed and traumatised to stand up to their abuser - that's why it's critical that police do!
Brian Laundrie is a coward and a bully. He was long overdue censure/punishment for abusing Gabby, and that encounter with police should have been it. He should have been told by those cops in no uncertain terms his abuse of his girlfriend was illegal, would not be tolerated, and would not go unpunished! He should then have been slapped in handcuffs and driven off to spend the night in a police cell - not taken to a comfortable hotel by a friendly cop doing an 'old pals' act!
Like all cowardly bullies, Laundrie would have collapsed if confronted. On the bodycam he was plainly very nervous around the police, because he knew damn fine he was guilty as sin. But he rolled out his usual covert narcissist tactics, smiling, apologising, and playing the bumbling, 'wouldn't hurt a fly', nice guy act - and those dumb cops were taken in!
If police had only treated him like the nasty abuser he was, I think he'd have wet his pants and wouldn't have dared lay a finger on Gabby for the rest of the trip. More to the point, if he'd faced dramatic consequences for his abuse, ie a criminal charge (or even the threat of one), Gabby would have had to call her parents and reveal his abuse to them for the first time (she'd clearly been covering for him, as they knew nothing about it). Third party involvement in that rapidly escalating abuse situation would almost certainly have ended the 'Van Life' project, and Gabby would have returned home - Alive.
But cops dropped the ball, made a bad situation worse, and flunked a golden opportunity to save Gabby Petito's life. That's what can happen when you downplay the male abuse of women!
4
-
4
-
4
-
This is no surprise. We already knew Amber Heard is an immoral scumbag, who will try any trick in the book to wriggle out of meeting her financial obligations. Hell, she even stiffed the LA Children's Hospital for terminally ill infants out of the $3.5m donation she'd promised them! She's lower than a snake's rectum.
She was present throughout the lengthy legal trial, she knows full well it followed due process and that she was treated totally fairly. She's only questioning its legitimacy now, because she LOST! Her duplicity in trying to get out of paying Johnny Depp what she legally owes him is frankly embarrassing!
Suck it up Amber - you would not stop abusing your victim Johnny Depp, even many years after your divorce. Your extended, malicious vendetta against him, purely for 'daring' to end the marriage, has now cost you not only the outrageous $7m divorce settlement you wrestled from him (for a childless, 15 month union), but another $2m on top! Marrying for money backfired on you, big time!
That $9m pay out doesn't go close to justice for Johnny Depp, for the heinous lies you told about a thoroughly decent man. Now the full story has been told through the courts, it's clear he never perpetrated, but only ever received the most extreme kind of physical and emotional domestic abuse from you.
But $9m damages was the jury's judgement after sitting through a full and complex airing of the evidence. And as is now crystal clear, a financial penalty is the only retribution an abuser and arch gold-digger like Amber Heard will understand, or respect! Ms Heard cares only about money, in her warped values it comes way ahead of every other human consideration. So a multi million dollar fine is the most appropriate punishment.
Amber Heard had her chance to con the jury, as she conned the judge in Depp's UK libel trial against The Sun newspaper. But this was a far more in-depth examination of the facts, and of her evidence - and a far more savvy group of people! After six weeks of detailed witness statements and a mountain of evidence. the jury simply did not believe Ms Heard's version of events. She isn't half as good an actress and liar as she thought she was! PAY UP AND SHUT UP!
4
-
@bluegeorgia8922 Yes, Ronnie O' Neal's poor little boy was just 8 years old when he witnessed his father brutally kill his 9 year old, special needs sister with multiple hatchet blows to the face, head and neck, and beat his mother to death with a broken shotgun as she cowered on the neighbour's doorstep where she'd gone for help. He then set fire to the family home.
When emergency services arrived at the burning house, that little boy fled through the front door and collapsed with stab wounds. Unluckily for the defendant he survived, and told medical staff in the ambulance that his father, not his mother, was the family annihilator.
A fireman who gave emotional evidence described finding the little girl dead. He carried her out of the smoke-filled house across a floor slippery with blood, and outside laid her body on the grass. She was tragically beyond help, and totally unrecognisable from repeated, heavy axe blows. He recalled hugging a male colleague, and weeping.
O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend killed their daughter and attempted to kill their son, and that he only murdered her in response, in an impulsive 'crime of passion'. The prosecution say that's garbage - O' Neal arrived at his girlfriend's house that night intent on murdering his entire family in totally pre-meditated attacks, and only by sheer fluke did his son survive.
That little boy is now 11 and will be the prosecution's star witness, giving evidence against his father via Zoom. O' Neal's opening speech wasted no time discrediting both his girlfriend who he's pinning the murders on, and his child who is the sole surviving victim and witness. He told the court his boy was lying in saying he had murdered his mother and his sister. He blamed his 'lies' on his autism, PTSD from the shocking and bloody crime scene, and brainwashing.
O'Neal said his son had been placed in two different adoptive homes since the murders. The first did not work out, but the second did. And according to the defendant, he was adopted by a detective who had worked his family's tragic case. This detective had "coached him to lie", and say he was the killer that night, said O' Neal.
I watched a 30 minute video of Ronnie O' Neal's opening statements in his defence. on Fox News. It was hard work! Why 'Court TV' presenters say he's 'articulate' I don't know. He kept using the same phrase "The evidence will show" over and over, like it was some brilliantly clever linking device, that made him look like a professional lawyer. It just made him look like a posturing, amateur idiot!
The way he constantly shouts at the jury is just plain aggressive, and likely to alienate every single one of them. It's also a chilling reenactment of his aggression to his vulnerable victims that horrific night. He's clearly an egotistical, controlling, violent sociopath. And he's done for.
O' Neil is so fundamentally self-serving and immoral, he has no qualms about denying his crimes for a shot at escaping justice. He does this even though it requires appalling victim-blaming, and puts his traumatised son through the added ordeal of recounting the violence in court, being cross examined, and called a liar.
I understand that defendants have a right to presumed innocence and a fair trial. But don't victims of crime, and especially child victims like this young boy, have rights too? Surely they deserve support and protection? I think it's wrong to make this child give evidence against his killer father, even over Zoom. He could have given a written witness statement instead, to be read out by a prosecution lawyer during the trial.
When Ronnie O' Neal is inevitably found guilty and sent to death row, his son could well feel responsible for his fate. That's a hell of a burden to place on an 11 year old's shoulders, no matter how evil his father!
I pray he that little boy is receiving ongoing, professional psychotherapy and emotional support to move forward after this explosive trial. My heart goes out to him - I feel he has been badly let down by the justice system. Please God in time he can recover and heal.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Exactly, Vinnie clearly hasn't been following this case at all, he's totally clueless about the facts and the various players. Fact is, no family member but Melody had any motive to kill Gary - she was his wife of 38 years and in line to get the whole $4.5 million estate, as she knew. None of their kids would get a cent if he died!
She was also having a hot and heavy affair, and they'd talked of marriage. She couldn't stand her husband Gary, they lived in separate parts of the house, she had betrayed him umpteen times with various affairs, and spending outrageous amounts of money.
She is a vile, greedy, self-centred woman and 3 of her 4 kids believe her capable of murdering their dad. That is all powerful evidence of her guilt - and I haven't even got onto the forensics!
So what if Scott said he'd seen burning bodies in Iraq, and so believed it was one? Doesn't mean he put it there! In fact it was Melody who mentioned the body first (pretending she'd just noticed it). She asked Scott if he'd thrown a goat on the fire. I think that's a REALLY weird comment, and horribly offensive when she knew it wasn't a goat laying there, but her husband!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ggbice Amen, the jury clearly gave this case proper consideration and debate, and reached the correct guilty verdict. Respect to them.
It's funny, the people who comment here that there wasn't enough evidence of murder to convict him, clearly didn't follow the 2 week trial. Because they don't quote any of the MANY prosecution witnesses, whose evidence strongly indicated a domestic homicide by the victim's abusive husband!
They ignore the ton of incriminating evidence against the accused, and instead quote the lame and limited arguments of the defence, whose only possible option to save his skin was to try and persuade the jury that the victim committed suicide. A cancer sufferer who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, supposedly walked far enough from home without her dentures or cigarettes, and without leaving a suicide note or any footprints, killed herself, before magically vanishing-away her own, fully clothed corpse. It was a story and a defendant so totally lacking in credibility, the defence couldn't produce a single, solitary witness to take the stand and speak in support of James Prokopovitz.
The lack of a body was actually a problem for the defence, more than the prosecution. Because the fact Victoria disappeared off the face of the earth and was never found despite exhaustive professional police searches, indicated third party involvement, therefore foul play/murder.
Suicide victims are usually recovered - it is murder victims, who go missing!
After 8 years of police searches and public appeals, common sense decreed someone had worked hard to dispose of Victoria's remains to ensure she wouldn't be found. And who else could that person be but her abusive husband, who found her illness and medical bills a drain on his patience and finances. James Prokopovitz, who made it blatantly obvious to police he despised his wife and didn't want her back. The man who at the start of 2013 began an affair with the newly widowed Kathy Friday, and determinedly and repeatedly lied with her to the authorities about when their relationship began, because it was one more smoking gun signposting his motive to murder his wife.
There's no question Victoria was killed and disposed of by her husband. Police even worked out where he put her corpse - it was undoubtedly in the industrial sludge ponds he could access 24-7 with his own key, a location with no CCTV cameras. He was so confident the powerful cocktail of chemicals in the ponds would destroy her - he even mentioned her lack of identifying teeth - that this knowledge assured him he'd escape justice. Thank God he was wrong!
3
-
3
-
Excellent special report by Court TV. One by one, the Adelsons are falling like dominoes - first Charlie, who will die behind bars, next his mother Donna, the controlling spider at the centre of this family web, whose murder trial starts next week (she's done). And the really intriguing question now - has Wendi been clever enough to avoid prison for her role in her ex husband Dan Markel's murder?
I agree with the final panel, Wendi Adelson's played a much smarter game than both her mother and her brother. But let's not forget, Wendi was the golden child in that family. The main reason she's escaped prosecution to date, is that her parents and older brother actively protected her, and kept her at arm's length from their grubby murder plot.
However with Charlie's murder conviction and now Donna's prosecution, it seems cracks are appearing in their relationship with Wendi, the family princess. No doubt terrified of prison, Wendi is keeping her formerly close family at arm's length. Having done so much for her, Charlie and Donna are likely enraged. They may now be turning on Wendi. Could there be a third-act twist in this tale - will the Adelson family try to take Wendi down with them?
The murder of Dan Markel was all about Wendi, first and foremost - and a family so massively egotistical they believed they could literally kill him, and get away with it. Wendi is involved in this crime up to her neck - she knew about it, and she endorsed it. Dan would be alive today, if his ex wife had wanted him that way. Wendi didn't want Dan alive, because he was beating her in the child custody courts and thwarting her having full control over their two kids - and by extension, full control over her life, and her family's lives.
Interesting that we heard in this report prosecutors recently had a closed door meeting with Wendi's eldest brother Rob Adelson, long estranged from the Adelson family. Could he be called as a state witness at his mother Donna's imminent murder trial? His evidence would be dynamite, and keenly anticipated by the media. What is his insider take on the twisted family dynamics that got his former brother-in-law Dan Markel killed?
We can be sure prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to nail Wendi Adelson. An old girlfriend of Wendi's is talking to them, and spilling the beans about her in closed meetings. It's safe to assume she and Wendi are no longer friends! Like Wendi, Harvey Adelson, the family patriarch, has also been named as a conspirator in the murder for hire of Dan Markel. Could he be next to face a jury trial? This show will run and run.
3
-
3
-
@19:10 The medical expert is wrong here, and Vinnie didn't correct her. She mistakenly states that Photo One, ie the still image depicting the FIRST position of the suitcase, is the photo on the RIGHT.
From that wrong conclusion, she goes on to say the case was flipped over so that the zipper was underneath victim Jorge Torres, and that SECOND photo is seen on the LEFT. In fact the opposite is true.
Photo One, depicting the FIRST, starting position of the suitcase, is the image on the LEFT, when it's partially laying on the rug, with the zipper underneath Jorges. The first cellphone video Boone made, which was shown at the beginning of this episode confirms it, and clearly shows that first, original position of the suitcase, sitting on the rug with the zipper positioned beneath it, @ 3:32.
Boone then flipped the case over to lay some distance away from the rug, with the zipper now positioned at the top, above the victim, as seen on Photo Two, which is the SECOND still image on the RIGHT of the screen.
Vinnie wasn't concentrating here!
3
-
@haleyt3754 You make some valid points., and I understand where you're coming from. I agree, the parents must have spotted issues in their youngest son, long before he murdered them both.
The truth is, there are always red flags to be picked up by parents when a child is going wrong. Ditto with toxic romantic relationships. But too often parents wilfully ignore or dismiss the signs, as do the girlfriends and wives of the overwhelmingly male, psychopathic/narcissistic wife killers/family annihilators.
Historically the received wisdom about 'children' who killed their parents (even adult children like Chandler Halderson), was always that they were cruelly mistreated as kids by those parents, either wilfully abused or coldly neglected. Perversely, these killers were presented by some academics as victims themselves.
But in recent years it's increasingly being recognised monsters can be moulded by the opposite conditions - an over indulgent parent or parents. Indulgent parental figures who fail to outline and enforce boundaries and expectations of good behaviour in their progeny, and respect the rights of others. Such parenting can create such dangerously entitled and narcissistic adults, they are even capable of murder in their own self interest.
I believe that's what we're seeing in the case of Chandler Halderson, and similar, recent parent-killers like Grant Amato and Joel Guy Jnr. All grown men in their twenties who killed their parents when they belatedly threatened to remove their financial support - support that should have ended many years earlier!
These young men weren't grateful for the sacrifices their parents had made to keep them, long beyond childhood. On the contrary, they took it as their due, and were enraged when their father (in every case), told them the free ride was ending. I believe modern western societies are breeding a new category of stunted male - the 'man child'. Unlike their fathers who expected to become adults at 21, with full time jobs, mortgages and families to support, today's males expect to stay dependant teenagers right through their twenties - and often into their thirties too!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EckerKyle My interest in this and other criminal cases is primarily professional, as a former court reporter for national newspapers. The law fascinates me, and custom and practice are of course different between the US and UK, though legal principles are broadly the same. In both arenas, I've often puzzled that juries can be inadequate to the task of navigating circumstantial evidence. Your increasingly clueless and unsophisticated posts, and fondness for that horribly broad term 'proof', have shed some light on that mystery for me - thank you.
I'll offer you a little riddle that might help you to better understand any future criminal trials you attempt to follow. The words 'assume' and 'deduce' are not interchangeable. They have subtle but distinct differences in meaning.
If a farmer sees a fox burying something, he might assume it's stashing recently killed prey. But if he witnesses the same scene close to his hen house after finding three chickens missing from it, he could reasonably deduce the fox is burying his birds.
The farmer's assumption is just that, a guess based on his general life experience. But his deduction is based on specific, personal knowledge, ie a conclusion he has reasonably reached by connecting the known facts. Which of course makes it circumstantial evidence.
When your Mom asked you if you'd been in the cookie jar as a kid and you said no, she knew you were lying. Did she see you take the cookie or eat it? No. But she knew you very well, and through experience could tell if you were being deceptive. She also saw cookie crumbs around your mouth. Yep - it's that circumstantial evidence again. Mom knows what happened, she'd stake her life on it and could no doubt persuade an intelligent jury of your cookie theft. But you would argue you shouldn't be convicted without a date-stamped photo of you eating the cookie!
Your understanding - or rather, misunderstanding - of circumstantial evidence, is that you dismiss it as pure guesswork. That shows real ignorance, as a fundamental misrepresentation of it. No jury can ever be 100% certain of its verdict, no matter how strong the evidence might seem. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.
The 'proof' you have such touching faith in doesn't, in real terms, exist. That's why the legal concept of 'reasonable doubt' has to exist. The truth doesn't come gift wrapped on a silver tray, with a ribbon tied round it. Juries must work hard to find the truth, hidden among the prosecution and defence narratives.
Unfortunately the rapid development of DNA and other forensic evidence over the last 30 years has dazzled some members of the public, and left them thinking circumstantial evidence is weak by comparison. That's a big mistake - as this trial shows. Besides, forensics are not always the irrefutable, 'slam-dunk' proof they're presented as. Forensic evidence can be manipulated, given undue emphasis or unfairly dismissed, and of course mistakes have been made before in evidence gathering and interpretation, resulting in miscarriages of justice. You might further your mind, if you could open it sufficiently to learn.
I hope my little legal lesson today will be of assistance to you. Though ignorance clearly isn't your only problem. You're heavily emotionally invested in this case for some reason. I've no idea why and don't want to know, that is a matter for you.
3
-
@jjones797 This was NOT a victimless crime! Smollett has made ALL black people victims of his outrageous, self promoting lies, and continues to bring disgrace on them by STILL playing the 'racial victim' card, 3 years after he was exposed for faking a hate crime. And unlike him, most people of colour are not protected by massive wealth and VIP status!
Jussie Smollet tied a NOOSE around his own neck, and claimed white supremacists did it to him during a racist beating, knowing he would incite horrific memories of the historic, racial lynchings of Black people in the US.
With that image of the noose alone, Smollett cynically lit a powerful fuse and inflamed public hurt and anger over racism - and why? All for his own career advancement!
He arranged that ugly and elaborate publicity stunt to promote himself as a heroic 'victim' of racism. Incredibly, the very averagely talented Smollett (who most people had never heard of prior to this scandal), was paid a staggering $2 million a year in a little-known TV series.
But rather than be thankful for his privileged position, pathological narcissist Smollett felt he deserved to be a black superstar like Denzel Washington or Samuel L Jackson.
Did he work harder to achieve their hard-won Global fame, or attend acting classes to improve his performances (as we've seen with all his terrible, hammy-as-hell, fake-ass speeches since he was caught red-handed, he is a decidedly poor actor!)
No - Smollett got scheming, and decided he could take a short cut to superstardom by starring in his own, self-penned and directed, fictional hate crime. The NERVE of the guy, thinking he would get away with it, shows exactly how much bad behaviour he has previously got away with in his life!
Smollett has set the cause of black people back by decades - and continues to sully their reputation with his immoral denials, protests and constant exploitation of his race. That guy never suffered a moment of racism in his privileged life! Born to a wealthy, well connected family (white father), he learned early his skin colour would let him play the underdog when it suited him. And boy has he exploited that over the years!
Instead of owning his crime and taking his punishment like a man, Smollett continued to fight for his own privileged position. Oh this guy does not see himself as any kind of underdog - he believes he's way superior to everyone else! It wasn't even much of a punishment - a mere 150 days, ie less than 5 months in custody - and not even in a real prison. Plus all prisoners were to be removed from the communal areas whenever he wanted to use them for exercise breaks, making phone calls, etc, so he was not being treated like any average black OR white prisoner but was getting the VIP service even in custody!
Except he's even wriggled out of that! I am raging about this crime because I am a decent person who believes the law should be applied evenly to all human beings, regardless of their wealth, privilege, status in society, sex, race or religion. Jussie Smollett has cynically wielded his fame, wealth and power to escape justice right down the line - and while he exploited his privilege, he claimed victim-status because he is mixed race. The hypocrisy and entitlement are off the scale - no wonder so many people of ALL colours are rightly angry about this abuse of power, abuse of the system and above all, abuse of his own ethnicity!
This is NOT a victimless crime - sadly, black people far less powerful that Jussie Smollett will pay a heavy price for his disgusting, egotistical and illegal conduct. Ultimately he will get justice though, thanks to the most important and influential court of all - the court of public opinion. For a celebrity, that's the one that REALLY counts.
Smollett is finished as an actor and as any kind of credible public figure. And the judge was 100% right - he can blame his miserable future life of disgrace and ignominy on whoever he wants - fact is, he did it to himself.
3
-
3
-
@HillbillyIslandLife You're tripping! Melody didn't need 'magic' to move her husband's body, just smarts, determination, and enough time - she had all three, plus a wide selection of farm vehicles and tools at her disposal. Adrenaline and the need to get away with murder are great energisers!
There were no 'drag marks' because she cleaned up - but unfortunately for her, not well enough to cover her attempts to remove Gary's blood (and a bullet fragment) inside the house. Police forensics, and specifically luminol, lit up the crime scene like a Christmas tree and showed exactly where she'd shot her husband dead. The bullet found in Gary's rib revealed he had faced Melody when she pulled the trigger - so he was fully aware of his cheating wife's final, horrific betrayal. Poor guy should have seen it through when he began divorce proceedings against her years before - it would have saved his life.
Melody was small but she wasn't disabled - quite the opposite, she was trim and fit from regular gym sessions. It speaks volumes about her guilt, that her best defence was 'I'm not strong enough to move his body'. Baloney!
There is zero evidence against Scott, he had a solid alibi. The defence were clutching at straws with that dumb trail cam schtick. People regularly erase trail cam footage, big deal. Fact is, Scott was not at the farm when his dad was killed - Melody was. That's why he wasn't charged with murder, and she was!
Scott had no motive to commit this murder - in fact he had everything to lose from his dad's death, as his father had given him a job and a home (his mean old mother sure didn't - she resented anything Gary did for their kids!)
Melody had a $4.5 million dollar motive to kill her husband. She wanted a new life with her lover Rusty, funded by ALL of Gary's money. A 50/50 divorce split wasn't good enough for her. She's an evil woman who murdered her husband out of malice and greed, and tore her family apart.
Not so long ago she was the woman who had it all - a loving, millionaire husband, a beautiful home, healthy children and grandkids, and a lavish lifestyle that was the envy of many. But Melody wanted more - and was ruthless enough to kill her husband to get it.
Now she has the rest of her life to dream about the dream life she threw away, when she chose murder over divorce. Melody isn't getting out. She'll die a lonely death in a cage, as she fully deserves. A fitting end for a despicable sub-human who stooped so low that she tried - and failed - to frame her own son for the murder she committed.
Either you didn't watch the full murder trial, or worse, you did watch it and are incapable of piecing together the compelling evidence of Melody's guilt.
If it's the latter, I pray you never sit on a jury.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Useless guests tonight - and all spouting the same pro-Barry Morphew garbage. The DNA in her car is a random fluke and irrelevant to her murder - she didn't vanish in her car! And her lover's alibi checked out - he was many miles away, it wasn't him. Barry Morphew is the guilty man, no question. Get a more balanced panel Vinnie - Hell I'm a journalist (a real one, not a YouTuber), I'll come on and give the other side!
If you believe a lurking serial killer kidnapped Suzanne Morphew from the back yard of her remote house as she WhatsApp messaged her lover, just 4 days after telling her abusive hubby she wanted a divorce - Give me a call, I've a bridge I'd like to sell ya! 🙄🙄🙄
Why are people falling into the trap of "He couldn't have got to the burial site on the day she vanished, therefore he must be innocent'? Baloney! Even if that questionable statement were true, so what? All that suggests is that wasn't the original location of her remains. Her killer put her someplace else first.
That maybe wasn't the original location of Suzanne's body. Barry worried the heat was on, and his first hiding place wasn't safe enough - maybe it was too near the house. So a few weeks, months or even years later, he moved her body to the current location, a mere 45 minute drive from the former marital home.
People need to think more laterally about this crime and how it went down. There was no bike ride. Of course Suzanne was killed by her abusive husband, she wanted out of the marriage, and ending the relationship is the most common trigger for domestic murder of women.
PS Your guest Phillip's misogynistic: 'She wasn't mother of the year' shtick is garbage. Why - because she had a long distance affair with a childhood sweetheart, while she was enduring a second cancer diagnosis and a husband so abusive he threatened to withdraw her chemo?
Suzanne owed her abusive husband and her selfish, grown up kids nothing!
There's no reason to assume Barry was a doting, faithful husband, quite the opposite! Phillip is swallowing Barry Morphew's obvious lie that his wife mysteriously vanished on a bike ride. Her mountain bike and blue helmet were STAGED, thrown from a car, miles apart.
Barry had no reason to start work on a Sunday, on a job scheduled for MONDAY! He was getting his alibi together, and hiding evidence including her body - though possibly not where it was found this week. Suzanne was never on any damn bike ride that day - apart from anything else, she left her water pack and sunglasses in the car!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ebogar42 Who's 'gaslighting'? Gabby Petito's murder by Brian Laundrie is only too real - along with the countless other women murdered in similar circumstances by abusive males around the world every day. Domestic abuse is a deadly global pandemic for females.
The young woman you paint as an 'abuser' is dead by homicide (strangled - the favourite method of abusive males). Her boyfriend has now been found dead by his own hand, after hiding behind his parents and a lawyer, refusing to explain his missing girlfriend's whereabouts, and going on the run from police. It doesn't take Columbo to work out what happened, or the dynamics of this all too common relationship in which a woman was abused - and then killed - by a man.
Such relationships, and the behaviour of both perpetrator and victim, are all too predictable. So the police failings are shocking. Had those officers received proper training in domestic abuse, they'd have recognised the many red flags evident on the bodycam footage in both parties' behaviour. It was textbook!
The marks on Brian Laundrie's face were typical of the superficial defensive wounds female victims inflict on men who assault and kill them. During an attack by a physically bigger and stronger male, all a female can do is lash out the best she can, and her nails will often leave marks. Laundrie may have received a few more of those scratches soon after, during his final, fatal assault on her, when Gabby desperately fought for her life - and lost. Those marks were evidence of HIS abuse, not her's! This is very basic stuff and it's astonishing police misunderstood the true significance of those marks.
Alas ignorant misogyny like yours is widespread among the public, but we expect better of law enforcement officers. It's appalling that they branded Gabby the perpetrator, and treated the actual aggressor Brian Laundrie as the victim. WTF? They didn't even once confront him about the very serious 911 witness reports of him assaulting her. People don't call 911 for no reason!
Instead cops accepted Gabby's self-blame at face value (when they should know taking responsibility for a perpetrator's abuse and minimising it, is a typical victim response), and decided she was the problem. They also failed to see through Brian Laundrie's simpering apologies and smiles, putting on the 100% expected 'nice guy' act that is the covert narcissist's stock-in-trade (see Chris Watts' police encounters for further examples). Confusing the identities of perpetrator and victim was an unforgivable fuck up by police, and should be the subject of an independent public enquiry.
Police above all should know the basic facts of domestic abuse and homicide. The statistics are clear and unambiguous. Domestic abusers are overwhelmingly male, and victims overwhelmingly female. And the victims of domestic homicides, are almost exclusively female. It's extremely rare for a man to die at a woman's hands, but women are killed by men with depressing regularity. Therefore, of Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito, it was her, not him, who was at significant risk of serious harm, or homicide. It was Gabby whose welfare should have been prioritised by police - as her death soon afterwards powerfully proved.
Gabby Petito was involved with a man so abusive, he killed her. Like the dumb police officers whose warped judgements paved the way for her murder by him two weeks later, you feel more comfortable viewing this not as a case of male abuse, but as two abusive people - which is plainly ludicrous. Policemen have got to do better than this, if they are to perform their duties appropriately and support the predominantly female victims of abuse. In not confronting Brian Laundrie about his abuse of Gabby, they effectively endorsed it. This made him feel more empowered and entitled to continue his abuse - and as we know, to escalate it to murder.
Why do some males have such difficulty calling out abusive assholes like Brian Laundrie? If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem! No wonder so many women suffer in silence and stay with their tormentors - sometimes with tragic consequences. The victim-blaming they get, even from the police paid to protect and serve them, is totally unacceptable.
3
-
Agreed, it's a disgrace how this privileged actor spent 3 years fighting justice for his heinous crime, cynically exploiting his mixed race with a faked hate crime just to increase his own already huge privilege!
And now his expensive lawyers bring further shame on all black people, by laughably claiming their VIP client has been the 'victim' of racial discrimination, and that he was already punished at the time with a paltry $10 k fine and some BS 'community service'. That was no punishment at all but another fraud, every bit as fake as Jussie's staged hate crime itself, designed to make it appear justice had been served, when it hadn't at all.
'Double jeopardy' my ass! Smollett's first supposed 'punishment' was a total fraud, pulled off by his friends in high places. That $10k fine was peanuts to him - he was paid $2 million a year), and you can be sure the 'community service' was nothing that would inconvenience him!
Anyone who reads the full legal timeline to this case can clearly see Jussie Smollett has used his powerful contacts to get him off the hook - and that his defence lawyers are playing the race card to get him off now just as cynically as he used it himself with his disgusting publicity stunt!
Thankfully the public, police and prosecutors were outraged at Smollett's ability to escape justice with his corrupt connections. As the judge explained in his sentencing speech, some fantastic prosecutors worked hard to ensure he didn't get away with his outrageous fraud because of who he is, but was held accountable at jury trial. And that trial was the first and only real punishment he had faced - as proven by his hissy fits and temper tantrums after he failed to convince the jury of his lies (he's obviously a lousy actor), and didn't escape a custodial sentence from the judge (though 6 days later, he'd given that the slip - refusing to man up and put up with a less than 5 months in comfortable custody - and with good behaviour he'd have been out in just 75 days).
It is a travesty of justice, but whatever happens legally, Smollett now has zero credibility. He only succeeded in pulling a public relations disaster. He's finished as an actor and a public figure. And as the judge rightly said, he did it all to himself!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Victoria's entire adult life was sad married to two abusive men, the second of whom murdered her when he met another woman and she became inconvenient. If only she had faced up to the source of her misery, her cruel, unfaithful husband, and divorced him years earlier.
Pretty sickening the way Victoria's perfectly understandable depression was cynically exploited by her killer, to get him off a life sentence. Thank God his 'she committed suicide and hid her own corpse' strategy didn't work!
Those who feel sorry for Curly 'cos he's jailed at 75, should save their tears for the wife he killed aged 59. Victoria didn't get to enjoy her retirement, die a peaceful, natural death in old age, speak to her loved ones, or have a proper funeral. He will get all those human dignities, he callously denied his wife.
James Prokopovitz is where he belongs, in a cage, just a shame he wasn't locked up 8 years ago. Respect to this smart jury for recognising the truth and finally ensuring justice was served for Victoria and her family, 'What's done in the dark, WILL come to light'.
3
-
3
-
Vile, pitiful excuse for a man. Same old story - it's OK for him to cheat, disrespect his wife and do whatever the hell he likes, but he thinks he owns her, and demands total control of her.
After Ana dumped the bum and blocked him on social media, he started stalking her through her friends' online accounts, and bugged her home to spy on her through an app he activated on their daughter's ipad. He was climbing the walls with frustrated rage, because she ended their romantic relationship and wanted a divorce, as she was fully entitled to do. She took away his power.
Abusive males like him refuse to accept rejection, it bruises their fragile egos, and they cannot bear having losing their power over the victim. She has effectively pulled the plug on him and his abuse. The most extreme abusers will take back their power in the most barbaric way possible, by ending the victim's life.
Ladies, be alert that after you end a relationship with an abuser, the chances of his violence escalating to murder multiply many times. Stay safe, get yourself to a secret address and end it by phone. Take steps to ensure you are never alone with him again, however briefly. If you must have ongoing contact due to kids, finances etc, enlist the help of third parties, family and friends, to act as go-betweens. If you have to meet face to face, choose a busy, public location where there are lots of people around, and bring supporters with you.
Unfortunately Ana could not cut all contact with her abusive husband, because he was also the father of her kids. Many women have died due to access visits over children shared with their abuser. More must be done to protect women out there in Ana's situation. She and her friend should not have died at the hands of her estranged husband. Two vibrant, much-loved young people brutally executed, and a little girl left motherless, thanks to one man who refused to accept rejection, or hear the word 'No'.
Rejection is one of the hardest things human beings have to deal with in life. But deal with it we must! No one owes you love or devotion, people only stick around because they want to. As we go through our first teen break ups, and suffer this uniquely painful hurt for the first time, we learn that you do get over it, life moves on, and other people and experiences lie ahead. You cannot lasso the Moon, nor can, or should you try to put chains on another human being.
If a love ends, then it simply was not meant to be. Respect the other person's right to not love you, and move on, with acceptance and gratitude for what was good in that relationship., and what it taught you. We are all changed, even slightly by our relationships, make it a change for the better. Take time to be alone, reflect and get to know yourself. Don't bounce from one affair to the next, using sex like sticking plaster. There is strength and peace in solitude.
He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy.
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sunrise.
WILLIAM BLAKE
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How can that dumb lawyer say there's no motive? There's clear motive - Chandler Halderson shot his father Bart dead moments before they were due to attend a meeting he'd set up at his college, where his lies would finally have been exposed! He then waited for his mom Krista to return home from work, and did the same to her.
The defendant had been going to elaborate lengths to live a lie, pretending he was studying and about to graduate, pretending he was working from home for an insurance company, and pretending he'd got a better job working for Elon Musk in Florida. But his dad was getting suspicious and had been on his tail for a while, asking why he had no money and wasn't paying them rent.
Chandler faked emails to himself from his supposed employer, explaining the lack of payment as a payroll problem that was being sorted. He also bought himself a cheap burner phone and rang his dad pretending to be a college employee! He must have thought his dad was stupid, but he was wrong. Bart wrote a note to his mom afterwards, saying the voice on the phone sounded suspiciously like their son Chandler.
They were onto him, and his web of lies was about to be exposed. He was 23 and still living at home rent free, a pathological liar with no qualifications and no job, wiling away the hours playing violent video games (one with an online friend who would visit and gift him the murder weapon and ammunition). Or hanging out with his girlfriend Cat, who he was allegedly cheating on.
Chandler's an entitled man-child and the polar opposite of his older brother Mitchell who'd left home, got engaged and was doing well in his career. In his evidence Mitchell described their childhoods, with a workaholic, largely absent father, and an over-indulgent, stay at home mom who molly-coddled them both way beyond childhood. Criminologists long ago identified that absent fathers are a major factor in males becoming criminals. Without a strong male role model to set an example and lay down consistent boundaries and expectations for good values and behaviour, they get only praise from an indulgent mother. And this is not good for their development to men.
Sadly in their youngest son Bart and Krista unwittingly created a dangerous narcissist so ruthless, he would even kill in his own self interest. He believed murdering his folks would get them off his back so he could continue his lazy lifestyle, and bring him a sizeable life insurance payout and inheritance to boot. People who knew the couple liked them. They were typical of so many hard working, middle aged people who raised kids to adults, and were looking forward to retirement. But it would all be stolen from them in the most brutal way imaginable, by one of the two children they'd given so much to in every possible way. Absolutely chilling.
And how that evil runt-of-the-litter's allowed to waste taxpayers' money with this farce of a trial, I don't know. The evidence against him is overwhelming - as evidenced by how little his lawyers have to say!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tremonti4ever You entirely missed my point. The original post is lame, because it's ill-informed. That poster raised the question of Vinnie Politan's marital/family status, pondering whether he was on TV so much because he's single. They didn't do the most basic homework, before typing - that's lame and lazy.
A quick Google search provides the low-down on Court TV's lead anchor. Born February 4th 1965, Italian-American Vinnie Politan (58), is the son of a federal judge, and younger brother of a corporate attorney, and was himself a prominent New Jersey prosecutor before entering journalism in the late 1990s.
Politan is very much a family man. He shares 3 children with Dolly Politan, who he married in 2002. This and plenty more information on Vinnie Politan is in the public domain, and readily available.
YouTube comments would be far more interesting if people only took a moment to do the most rudimentary research on their subject, and write from a position of knowledge not ignorance!
3
-
3
-
3
-
@GRMLS5 I don't remember her, but I can well imagine the BS she came out with, to support narcissistic psycho killer Jodi Arias. I'm British and it stuns me that the defence and prosecution in America hire 'professional witnesses' to essentially prop up their client's story and help them win.
It feels very contrived to me. I hope juries approach their evidence with caution, and bear in mind they are being paid to present a narrative brief which is clearly explained to them in advance, by the lawyers who hire them!
Dr Hughes' testimony that Depp was a domestic abuser was an utter farce. Not only had she never met him, she could support her 'conclusion' with no evidence whatsoever, beyond Amber Heard's wholly unproven and questionable claims!
As has become abundantly clear in court over the last 2 weeks, all the evidence points to Amber Heard being the violent, out-of-control abuser. She put Depp in hospital and crapped in his bed - and that's just for starters, before we discuss her physical and verbal assaults on him. Assaults she stupidly, secretly recorded, that now backfire on her, as they reveal exactly how vile and abusive she is when her mask comes off.
Dr Hughes also laughably quoted Heard's psychotherapist as some sort of 'independent, impartial' corroborating witness - when a therapist is anything but objective. Therapists are not trained to contradict their clients, but to blindly accept everything they tell them!
So Dr Hughes' testimony was blatantly biased for Amber Heard, and had zero evidentiary value, despite vilely slandering Johnny Depp as a rapist. Dr Hughes presented as an arrogant know-all with a big chip on her shoulder - and not even half as professional, insightful and generally impressive as Dr Curry, the psychologist who did Heard's damning psychiatric testing for Depp's team.
Frankly Dr Hughes' cynical character assassination on Johnny Depp utterly sickened me and I'm sure ALL decent people watching. It's more than ironic as an expert (and expensive) witness for Amber Turd, Dr Hughes ended up performing way better for Johnny Depp! 🤣🤣🤣
3
-
@Peace2humankind Nope, this was a smart jury with sufficient critical thinking skills to navigate a primarily circumstantial case, join the dots and correctly deduce the defendant killed his wife.
What could this set of circumstances possibly be, but a domestic homicide? The defence claim of suicide was preposterous. The total absence of a body was in itself a powerful indicator of foul play. Suicide victims' remains are found, murder victims are not, because their killer males damn sure of it!
James Propokovitz had means, motive and opportunity. No one but him, had reason to want rid of Victoria. When the defence cannot produce a single, solitary witness to back its claims, and the defendant (previously so emphatic to police that he didn't kill her), declines to appeal direct to the jury, the writing's on the wall!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Amen, that man is pure evil. The little boy is now being raised by one of the detectives who investigated the murders, it's the first time he's lived in a home without Ronnie O' Neal's abuse.
It is so sad he's had 3 years to heal physically and mentally from his father's violence (when police arrived, his intestines were hanging out from the knife attack), and the loss of his mom and sister. And then the court makes him face his would-be killer, and the killer of his family, and answer his questions. It's wrong - just the sound of that murderer's voice could traumatise the child and set his recovery back!
That PoS is pretending his girlfriend attacked the children, and he killed her in an impulsive crime of passion. Unlucky for him one of the children survived to tell the true story! He'd been abusing his girlfriend for years, and even fathered a baby with another woman. If only she had been able to escape him with her children, she and her daughter would be alive.
More must be done to protect women and children from scumbag domestic abusers like him! And more must be done by courts to protect child victims of crime from ever having to interact with the defendant again. O' Neal could have given his questions to a defense attorney, to ask the child. I think having to speak to his dad direct will inevitably bring that terrible night sharply back in focus for him, and be a very damaging experience.
3
-
Ronnie O' Neal's claiming his girlfriend attacked both children, killing the 9 year old girl and repeatedly stabbing the (then) 8 year old boy, who by a miracle survived. He says he only killed his girlfriend after she attacked the children, in an impulsive (ie not premeditated) act of self defence.
Obviously that's garbage. But if he could persuade the jury that story's true, it would serve two crucial purposes for him. It would take the child killer label off him and slap it onto his dead girlfriend, and it would lessen his murder from premeditated, first degree murder, to the lesser charge of an impulsive act of self defence.
It's the same BS fairy tale told by family annihilators since time began. Usually all witnesses have been killed by the accused, so there is no reliable witness to contradict his lies. Unluckily for Ronnie, his son survived to tell the jury that his dad, not his mom, stabbed him! How strange Ronnie missed out that part of his son's courtroom testimony, in his summing up!
Fuckwit has an imminent appointment with a lethal injection. I pray his son can break the cycle of what is almost certainly a family history of male domestic abuse going back generations.
3
-
3
-
@barbaranoel3186 Oh yes she could - and she did! Melody was small, but she wasn't disabled. Quite the opposite, she was strong and fit from regular gym sessions. She was smart too - she had an array of quality farm vehicles and tools at her disposal, and made sure she had ample time to get the job done by telling family not to visit.
Melody was the only person at the house with Gary that day - of course she did it! Police fast established Melody was there, but son Scott was not. People need to quit parroting the defence lie that Scott had anything to do with his father's murder. He did not - that's why he wasn't charged, and Melody was! His emotion on the stand when speaking of his beloved dad was genuine.
Bad enough she murdered her husband, the father of her children, out of malice and greed, but she then tried to frame her innocent son for her vile crime! Thankfully Melody didn't get away with any of it, and the world now knows exactly who and what she is.
Gary was always generous to his wife, but she treated him like dirt, enjoying the lavish lifestyle his money gave her, while flaunting her affairs in his face. Killing him at just 58, robbing him of his golden retirement years smelling the flowers and watching his grandkids grow, was Melody's final, horrific betrayal of her husband.
She deserves every miserable day she spends behind bars, dreaming of the dream life she threw away when she chose murder over divorce. I wish that evil woman a LONG life!
3
-
What we are seeing is a defence team taking advantage of a bungled police investigation. Supt Doug Carter's strategic mistakes - like the two totally different sketches released 2 years apart - are now coming back to bite him on his arrogant, incompetent ass!
How many ritualistic cult murders are there each year? And how many sexually motivated murders? Cult killings are rare, sex killings are not. I don't buy the theory that multiple male 'Odinists' lay in wait for a victim to sacrifice in broad daylight, on a sunny February day, and happened upon teen friends Abby and Libby.
This crime has all the hallmarks of a lone wolf attack by an opportunist sex predator. The fact Libby was naked confirms it - a few branches laid over the bodies to disguise their location before the killer fled, proves nothing. Nor does a bloody palm print on a tree.
Richard Allen was, by his own admission, 'Bridge Guy' - the stalker Libby was sufficiently concerned about to film with her Smartphone shortly before she and Abby were abducted. In the days after the murders, when the world knew police possessed video of the killer following the girls over the Monon High Bridge, guess what? Richard Allen came forward and told a marshal he was at the crime scene that day, walking alone for no good reason at exactly the same time as Abby and Libby, and wearing exactly the same clothes as the stalker on the video. Though predictably, he denied having seen the girls (of course he did!)
There's no question Richard Allen is 'Bridge Guy'. He's pretty much admitted it. And that admission looks very much like a man establishing an alibi and trying to get ahead of the police, because he knows he was caught on camera. After his confession, Allen must have been nervously awaiting the police knock on the door. But he needn't have worried, because incredibly, it never came!
The Keystone Cops failed to complete the most basic police work and interview (and eliminate) everyone who was at the Monon nature trails that day - including Richard Allen, clearly the prime suspect since he is 'Bridge Guy'. Frankly if police had done their jobs, he'd have been arrested and charged with the murders within a week!
The bungled police investigation left this notorious double child murder unsolved for five years - and has allowed the defence the opportunity to come up with this off the wall alternate story, based on the multiple theories and suspects police chased to fill that five year information vacuum!
The defence would have us believe their client happened to be at the crime scene that day (walking alone for no reason), happened to follow Libby and Abby across the Monon High Bridge (the scene of their abduction,) and happened to be filmed by them. And yet, the defence maintains, the girls were killed by someone else entirely - or to be precise, more than one killer.
It simply beggars belief! Their claim that one person could not have overpowered and killed two terrified children, armed with a gun, is ludicrous. Of course that's entirely possible. The poor girls were taken by surprise, terrified and in shock, their instinct was to obey the armed abductor, in hopes he'd soon set them free. They, like everyone else, didn't realise what he was capable of.
Many killers are 'boring' - BTK, Crippen, etc etc. too many to list here. Being boring is not a defence!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A barrister once explained the difference between a forensic and a circumstantial case to me like this: He said a criminal case predominantly featuring forensic evidence eg fingerprints, DNA etc, is regarded as gold standard, irrefutable evidence, and a very strong and sound case. He likened a forensic evidence case like that, to one single, thick, incredibly strong steel cable.
But if you have enough circumstantial evidence, all pointing to the defendant's guilt, he said that could be likened to a steel cable made up of multiple thinner strands of steel, all joining together - and with sufficient strands of circumstantial evidence, of sufficient quality, they can form a strand that's just as strong - and sometimes even stronger - than the 'single steel cable' of a predominantly forensic case.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@rong3378 Wanting to stab someone to death, and actually doing it, are a million miles apart. If the average person could be prosecuted for their evil thoughts about others, we'd all be wearing stripey suits and sitting on Death Row! Most people resist acting on their worst impulses for a whole spectrum of reasons, from morality to fear of consequences.
I doubt this woman will get any sympathy from female jurors, even if they too have been cheated on. She's very unappealing and unsympathetic. Her motive for the murder really isn't clear.
If she had brain cells in double figures, she'd pretend the girlfriend had cruelly taunted her about her romance with her husband, in the lead up to the murder. Even though her husband had left her, she WAS still his wife and people are generally sympathetic to that. Her only hope to save her skin, was to murder the victim's character in court and make the jurors hate her too. This she totally failed to do.
It's clear the only 'provocation' for butchering 'the other woman', was that she and her estranged hubby were in love. And that really doesn't explain such an extreme and horrific act of violence.
Her problem with the crime of passion claim, is that her actions were clearly premeditated. She stalked that woman, threatened to kill her, and then did - hunting her down, pursuing her and producing a knife, before stabbing her to death WEARING LATEX GLOVES! It doesn't take Columbo to know it wasn't an impulsive rage and loss of control.
God knows why she was so possessive with that guy anyway, he's no prize. Prize loser - as sexy as last week's limp lettuce, the type that could easily send you comatose mid-sex. I'm only surprised they split - they look perfectly well matched to me!
2
-
@kate_m_k88 A Thorpe is correct, context is all. Most people know the meaning of the term 'narcissistic' and it does by definition apply to a lot of killers. What could be more narcissistic - ie self regarding and vain - than feeling fully entitled to kill a human being who displeases you, for whatever reason? That certainly applies to Michelle Boat, who murdered her victim in a coldly premeditated (NOT impulsive) ambush, purely because she and her estranged husband were in love, no other reason.
'Narcissistic Personality Disorder' is obviously a specific, clinical diagnosis and it too applies to a lot of killers. In fact the diagnosis has proved very helpful in understanding the motivations and the MO of dangerous abusers. I believe the famous 'Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse' should be taught to teens at school. It's a very useful template to measure abusive behaviour by, and escape anyone displaying it!
The conduct of abusers in romantic relationships follows a very predictable pattern. That's why it is so important people know that pattern - forewarned is forearmed.
Perhaps the narcissist word is overused now but I am glad the phenomenon is finally being widely recognised. The excellent YouTube channel LIVE ABUSE FREE, run by a professional in the field of psychology, has many useful videos on narcissistic abuse. It's crucial people understand that a narcissistic abuser does not necessarily present as cocky or dominant. Covert narcissists like Chris Watts wreak havoc on people under the radar, because they have perfected a totally false persona as a decent, passive, maybe even submissive, 'nice guy'. After he murdered his pregnant wife and two children, everyone who knew him was shocked - especially when it became clear his murders and the elaborate way he disposed of his family's corpses was pre-planned for at least weeks. This was no hot-headed loss of control - the three murders were executed in a with cold, premeditated ruthlessness.
I would argue covert narcissists are the most dangerous of all, because they are so skilled at manipulating victims' perceptions of who they are, when the fatal attack comes they are totally unprepared and defenceless to it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@darlingdeb7010 LIES! Chad Oulson was never physical with Curtis Reeves - as proven by the fact Reeves had no injuries whatsoever! The aggressor was the 71 year old, big, burly bullying ex-cop. Reeves took a loaded gun to a movie theatre, spoiling for a fight (and btw, Chad was looking at his phone during the trailers, NOT the movie!)
If he was really so upset he should have moved seats. But Reeves has form as a bully - many witnesses came forward to speak of his aggressive, belligerent behaviour. No doubt he got away with many abuses of power when he was a serving co
Reeves' wife has seen it all before. That he caused trouble like that with a total stranger in front of her shows he has no respect for her whatsoever. She's as weak as water, and has enabled his vile behaviour all their married life. Partners who shut up when they see their partner being a bully are fully complicit in their crimes. Mrs Reeves also has Chad Oulsen's blood on her hands.
That said, she will face some punishment - she has to live with the scumbag for however many years they have left together. That's a life sentence of sorts - she made her bed, and she deserves to lie in it with that murderer. Ditto their spineless children who stook the stand for their evil father and exaggerated his supposed physical frailty - everyone could see what a big, burly, intimidating presence he still is.
Seems you fell for Curtis Reeves 'frail old man' act - that walking stick of his was sure worth the money! You're just as dumb as the ill educated, ignorant jury that delivered this appalling miscarriage of justice. I hope next time you're going about your daily business assuming you are safe, you have a similar encounter with a gun-toting bully like Curtis Reeves. Karma is coming for him and his supporters!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That so-called body language expert just made a total fool of herself. Wendi Adelson's wide-eyed, bad acting in the police interrogation room and on the witness stand SCREAM Guilt. But hey, her palms were facing upwards, so she must be innocent?!! Gimme a break!
Wendi is a highly qualified attorney and law professor, why wouldn't she know the basics of body language - and especially the classic gestures indicating guilt or innocence? It's perfectly predictable she'd have researched it before the murder of her estranged husband, to ensure she presented well as a devastated, innocent ex-wife on the interrogation room video. It seems at least one body language expert was taken in by her performance!
Wendi was always the Adelson family's golden girl. Her indulgent parents and brother Charlie agreed to keep her out of the planning and arrangements for the hit on her ex-husband. They agreed keeping her in the dark would give her the best possible chance of escaping justice. A decade on, their efforts to protect her have worked, and she still walks free. Clearly as the mother of Dan Markel's two sons, and fighting a vicious custody battle over them, she stood to benefit from his murder more than anyone else! (She also gained financially from his death, receiving among other payments, substantial monthly death benefits to the children).
Make no mistake - Wendi was fully behind the assassination of her husband Dan, by her closest family members. It simply beggars belief she knew nothing about it - or did not explicitly approve the plot. They would not have gone through with the murder of her children's father, without Wendi's express agreement.
Circumstantial evidence of her guilt is compelling. She had a solid alibi - her Mom had sent a TV repair man to her home at the very time of the shooting (how convenient). Soon after, Wendi was witnessed driving near the crime scene to check it out. She let slip to a boyfriend that Charlie had offered to hire a hitman to 'solve the problem' of her ex-husband.
Within months of the murder, she had re-located with the children to Florida near her family, the move she'd been blocked from making by Dan. She also changed the boys' surname from Markel to Adelson - a devastating blow to Dan's grieving parents and extended family. She was obstructive about allowing the Markels access to their grandsons for visits, even at holiday times. Wendi's conduct after Dan's murder was at best troubling, at worst damning.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ronnie O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend attacked their children, killing their 9 year old daughter and stabbing their (then) 8 year old son multiple times. He says he only killed her, impulsively and unplanned, in self defence because she had just killed the kids. Unluckily for him one of the kids survived to contradict his lies - he attacked everyone, his mother is a totally innocent victim.
Even if she had killed the kids, he chased her to a neighbour's house shooting at her, then when the rifle jammed he beat her to death with it on their front doorstep, so how was she any threat to him - she was running away! Also, if he only killed her in self defence, why did he set fire to the house? It's obvious the prosecution is right - he killed his partner and daughter and attempted to kill his son in premeditated attacks, then set fire to the house to destroy evidence. He's headed to death row. I only hope they cuff him before the guilty verdicts are read out, because he's clearly batshit ctazy and capable of attacking the judge and jurors!
2
-
John Sutton's final analysis is all about blame and condemnation of his son - who was adopted and raised by him and his late wife from a tiny, days-old baby. Yet there's no self-reflection on what he and his wife possibly did wrong, to mould an innocent infant to become their killer/would-be killer. Clearly Mr Sutton isn't willing to own a single bit of it!
They gave that child their name, and promised him a loving, supportive home, and the perfect springboard for a happy and successful life as a productive, well-adjusted citizen. But today Christopher Sutton's life lays in ruins, locked inside the maximum security prison he will only ever leave in a body bag. Considering he started out as the much-wanted, adopted child of a well-to-do, wealthy couple, that's an extraordinary reversal of fortune!
Yes, Chris Sutton is an adult, and he bears full legal responsibility for his adult crimes. Many rightly talk of the killer's faults, and the wickedness of his hiring a hit man to kill his parents. But this crime undoubtedly also represents a huge parental failure. John Sutton's narcissism and his total lack of accountability for his train-wreck son, do not reflect well on him.
Just because a couple is wealthy, does not mean they will automatically be good parents! What were Christopher's angry teen outbursts about? Did the Suttons really love their adopted children, or were they merely the accoutrements of a successful, respectable lifestyle, 'items' they felt the need to check off a list, along with a beautiful home, nice cars and Barbados vacations?
I believe sending their son away to a remote island boot-camp with other disturbed/depressed teens - and extending his stay there by a year - was an unforgivable parental betrayal. Christopher's worst suspicions were correct - he had become an inconvenience to his mom and dad, a problem they wanted rid of. That is not the unconditional love parents should feel for their children.
But that 'boot camp' ordeal could be the tip of the iceberg, in a catalogue of poor parenting. One expert interviewed in this documentary, diagnosed Christopher a sociopath. The jury's out on what creates sociopathy. But a leading theory is that it results from abuse or trauma in childhood. There is undoubtedly far more to this true crime story than meets the eye - or than we'll ever know.
If the Suttons had only prioritised their two adopted children over a high powered career, material rewards and status, and at least one extra marital affair, there's every chance Christopher could have turned out very differently. You reap what you sow.
2
-
@Dmdirmrjr33 False accusations of rape are actually rare, but when they do happen they get huge publicity which further discourages sex assault victims from reporting their attacker.
Rape is a woefully under reported, violent crime. When a victim finds the courage to endure the terrible ordeal of a trial, during which her rapist's attorneys will humiliate and tear her character to shreds, the odds are that the rapist will walk free at the end of it. No wonder women are so reluctant to prosecute!
Just look at this trial. The jury was faced with a man who was clearly a serial rapist and sex offender. That number of totally unconnected women, telling strikingly similar stories, revealed the ugly truth about the sports star in the smart suit. Yet they could not agree on his guilt on most charges, resulting in a mistrial! Why are juries so damned reluctant to call a rapist, a rapist?
The scandal here is not false rape reports, but the fact that most rapists walk freely among us, never even accused, least of all convicted, of their horrific crimes. And when an extreme, serial rapist like Kellen Winslow gets just 14 years jailtime, you know the crime of rape isn't just under reported - it is under punished too!
That evil predator will be just as dangerous when he leaves jail in 14 years as he is today. High time this highly dangerous, violent sex offenders got proper prison sentences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. And castration needs to be looked at as a sanction for convicted rapists. Castration is an option in many civilized European countries. Without their testosterone-producing testes, the sexual threat males present is lessened. You've only to see how neutered animals from bulls to dogs calm down after the snip, to see that it would also improve the behaviour of male humans too.
2
-
100% Barry Morphew killed his wife Suzanne, no question. He had a long history of vile, twisted, narcissistic domestic abuse (and adulterous affairs), and for decades used controlling, manipulative, horribly abusive behaviour on his poor wife. His long-term marital abuse inevitably seriously damaged their two, vulnerable, gullible young daughters.
Everyone who met Suzanne, both men and women, were charmed by her. She was a genuine, loving, kind and big-hearted woman. When Suzanne finally faced the sad truth that her marriage was toxic and intolerable (the catalyst was a long-distance, mostly 'virtual' /online affair with her schoolgirl crush Jeff - long after she'd suffered her husband's multiple sexual flings), and bravely expressed her wish to divorce him, Barry murdered her.
t's a story as old as time, sadly. Dangerous males like Barry Morphew will not allow a woman to leave a committed romantic relationship with them, alive.
When Barry Morphew knew Suzanne would not forgive him this time (after umpteen years/incidents of forgiving him for horrible domestic abuse and sexual affairs), he decided murder was a much better course for him, than divorce. His motives for killing her were entirely ruthless and cold-blooded. This was no 'crime of passion', but the opposite - a man who would not be a gentleman and accept his wife's right to end their union, and take half her money with her.
Barry Morphew is a malignant narcissist at the most extreme end of the scale. He did not want the humiliation (as he saw it), of his beautiful, big-hearted and much-loved trophy wife Suzanne, publicly rejecting him by ending the marriage - as she was fully entitled to do.
And as a greedy, money-obsessive, Barry would not allow Suzanne to exit the marriage taking half her rightful financial investment with her. If you want to know more about this crime and its central themes, follow the money. Suzanne inherited huge sums from her parents - Barry had his greedy eyes on that lavish inheritance. He even bullied Suzanne into borrowing a large sum from her father to buy the marital home he occupies to this day, a macho, 'hunter's home' clearly chosen by him, with no feminine input from Suzanne or their daughters.
2
-
This is classic narcissism, taken to an extreme. Dr Dirk Greineder made a ruthless, self-serving decision to murder a wife who had become an inconvenience to him. He plotted, and then carried out her murder, taking only one dog on their daily walk to the park, to simplify the immediate clean up/cover up.
Once he struck the first blow to the back of May's head, a cowardly ambush from behind, he realised she would not die without a fight. May had a life to live, three children she adored, who adored her, and many other good relationships. She was not going to simply lay down and let her husband kill her - she fought back.
Dirk decided he had to see the plan through, and rid himself of her once and for all. Once he got her on the ground, he switched weapons and continued his violent onslaught with a knife, viciously cutting her throat and stabbing her repeatedly to her body. He told police they might find his skin under her nails, because she had given him a massage that morning, a chilling alibi confirming she had fought to defend herself during his knife attack.
In killing his wife, Dirk Greineder devastated their three children, and everyone who loved her. This is powerful narcissism - just because he no longer valued or needed May, he felt he had the right to permanently remove her from those who did! He refused to take responsibility for his wicked act, and put his own children through the ordeal of a harrowing, high profile murder trial. His Not Guilty plea was a final roll of the dice to try and get away with murder. Like the worst narcissists, he is pathologically self-serving, and has no shame.
He killed the woman he made marriage vows to, merely to avoid a divorce and the fair division of marital assets. All he achieved with his sickening crime, was the devastation of a family, ending his wife's life and effectively his own. Now aged 83, he has spent over 20 years behind bars. During that time, the three children May bore him, have only seen him within prison walls, with uniformed security guards and cameras ever-present.
He missed out on his own, beautiful family, didn't get to play with his grandkids - and his violence to the family matriarch, cast a permanent, black shadow over the Greineders forevermore. What a loser!
2
-
Arrogant pig showed total disrespect to the court, and again committed PERJURY right after the judge had condemned him for it in his sentencing speech! That was clear Contempt of Court, and should have immediately been shut down, and got him a longer jail term.
Smollett's temper-tantrum, throwing his toys out his pram and playing to the cameras with that "I am not suicidal" schtick (and a lousy ham actor and a dumb one aligning himself with deceased paedophile Jeffrey Epstein!), only proved he has no remorse whatsoever, and fully expected to go straight home to his mansion for champagne with his indulgent family, without any custodial sentence whatsoever. rather than be relieved he was only sentenced to a paltry 150 days for such a serious, premeditated crime, he was ANGRY. His entitlement and arrogance are off the chart!
However, regardless of today's soft justice, Smollett has been sentenced to a Life term in the court that matters most to any celebrity - the court of public opinion. He's a pariah now, a bad taste joke. Any actor who values their reputation will avoid him like he just farted. In his shocking greed for greater fame, privilege and money, Smollett flushed his public image, career and reputation down the toilet - the three things that matter most to him. And he is never emerging from that sh1tty U-bend again!
2
-
2
-
@karlypearl9701 How was the jury not impartial? It was selected in the right and proper way, and comprised 6 men and 6 women. It WAS impartial!
Murder is always a contentious issue - if a jury was totally unmoved by the seriousness of it, they would not be equal to the job asked of them. But recognising the gravity of a murder charge, does not mean a jury would jail a murder defendant on a whim!
A primarily circumstantial murder case like this one requires a smart set of jurors capable of navigating the evidentiary puzzle pieces, and finding the truth. A not so smart jury requires a ton of forensic evidence to convict, because they are dazzled by DNA and the like and wrongly assume circumstantial evidence is worthless by comparison. That is a big mistake. Thankfully it's not a mistake this jury made.
Any intelligent person who watched the whole trial, as I did, would have reached the same verdict as the jury. James Propokovitz had the means, motive and opportunity to murder his wife Victoria. The defence had the difficult task of persuading the jury there was sufficient evidence she had killed herself. There was not! Her own children knew she hadn't killed herself, and had a gut feeling their stepfather was behind her sudden, total disappearance. When they asked police to look into it, they agreed, and provided a compelling dossier evidence which also convinced a jury.
How could Victoria have got rid of her own corpse so successfully, that exhaustive professional police searches over 8 years failed to locate it? She was more likely to have been abducted by little green men from Mars, than she was to have killed and disposed of herself!
Today's guilty verdict in the strikingly similar Donthe Lucas murder trial, was another triumph by a smart jury. Lucas killed his pregnant girlfriend 8 years ago, and like James Prokopovitz, thought he'd get away with murder because he managed to get rid of her body.
Like the Prokopovitz trial, the defence could not produce a single, solitary witness to support his claim of innocence. And like Propokovitz, Lucas declined to take the stand and put his case direct to the jury. These are not innocent defendants, wrongly accused. They are ruthless domestic abusers and killers, and this year justice finally caught up with both of them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is the second COURT TV report I've seen on this murder trial which failed to outline the context of the crime, and explain the alleged killer's defense! C'mon Vinnie - I know you're a qualified lawyer not a journalist, but that's just plain lazy.
I am a journalist, so I'll do it for you - Ronnie O' Neal is claiming his girlfriend attacked his children killing his daughter and injuring his son, and that he killed her in an impulsive, revenge fuelled rage ie a 'crime of passion'. The prosecution says that's baloney and he went to her house to kill her and the children in a coldly premeditated, first degree murder.
The law is an ass on so many levels. Where is the legislation to protect that child from ever having another encounter with his father, his would-be killer and the killer of his mother and sister? That man is clearly crazy and the poor kid shouldn't have to even hear his voice again, never mind answer his questions!
Seems this defendant, a suspected double killer, has it all ways. After initially having his mental issues confirmed, he is declared competent for trial - in fact he's so damn competent, he's allowed to be his own lawyer! Yet we're told if he's convicted, he's allowed to play the mental health card to get himself a more lenient sentence! WTF? Talk about having it all ways! Is he mentally responsible for his crimes and competent, or not?
I hope there's an outcry about this trial, and that it causes a change in the law to protect child victims of serious crime from being directly questioned by the accused. Who knows what long term effects this additional trauma will have on this 11 year old child? Ronnie O' Neal's questions could have been asked for him by a dense attorney, to spare that child the ordeal of communicating with him directly, who knows if the poor kid will have nightmares and bed wetting after this?
Incidentally, I heard there was a dramatic point in this little boy's testimony, when he told his father "You stabbed me". Why wasn't it shown in this report?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
We only have Maria's word (the word of a thief), that it wasn't her idea to retrieve her confession letter from the doctor's home, having had second thoughts about it, and that it wasn't her who 100% put her boyfriend up to committing that burglary.
And we only have her word for it that this was planned as a burglary to retrieve the letter, and wasn't actually the pre-planned assassination of Paul and Greg, two witnesses who knew she owed the doctor $9,000. That is actually a far more plausible explanation - or why break in at night, knowing the two men were there, asleep and vulnerable? The victims were not killed because they awoke - both men died in their beds. They were surely victims of a ruthless, cold-blooded hit.
I believe this was always a murder plot, so Maria wouldn't have to re-pay that money, or keep any of the empty promises she made in the letter, and so that the doctor couldn't scupper her future employment/workplace theft scams, with a poor reference - or even by reporting her to the police for the theft.
The more I learned about her and her self-pitying, self-serving ways, the more I suspect that's exactly how it went down - and she concocted a story about a burglary pushed by her boyfriend, which gave her as little responsibility as possible.
Had the doctor only fired her for stealing from him (as most employers would have done), he and his son would likely not have been murdered. How desperately sad that his kindness in forgiving her, and letting her keep her job, resulted in a far worse betrayal by her - and set in motion the murders of both himself, and his beloved son.
Never was the phrase 'No good deed goes unpunished', more true!
I was not impressed with the defence attorney's performance. Her speeches were poorly argued, and lacked eloquence. I'm amazed she won the jury over, especially after putting her client on the stand with that blatantly coached, cynical sob story of victim hood - which the prosecutor effortlessly exposed and ridiculed!
Maria was a lousy witness for herself and only confirmed her pity was of the 'poor me' variety, not for the two men who lost their lives solely because of her. I saw no evidence of remorse or sadness for the innocent victims - only regret that she got prosecuted!
Maria's murder acquittals were a hollow victory. Clearly the judge did not agree with the jury, and ensured that in spite of their not guilty murder verdicts, justice was delivered for the double homicide through the hefty, 30 year sentence he imposed. I somehow doubt Maria will leave prison alive. I think in the end, she got what she deserved. Paul and Greg did not.
2
-
I agree he's 100% guilty but in truth he's fooled absolutely no one. He managed to dodge justice for three years all thanks to his VIP celebrity status and powerful friends in high places. This man has only ever experienced positive discrimination from his mixed race background!
For him to constantly play the race card and pretend the law was prejudiced against him for being black, is as outrageous a lie as his faked hate crime and the noose he put around his own neck!
But he deserves no Oscar - he's a lousy actor who didn't fool police, and didn't fool prosecutors, the judge or that jury! The fool was so deluded about his own talent, he really believed he could take the stand and persuade jurors of his innocence - his arrogance is off the chart!
But worst of all for Jussie Smollett - he didn't fool the public. It's the court of public opinion that really counts for celebrities - and he blew it. He's a joke, finished as any kind of public figure. He's toxic as all hell, no charity or good cause will let him within a mile of them. And as is now abundantly clear, he really isn't talented enough to resurrect any kind of big acting career.
It's frankly astonishing he ever landed a $2 million a year TV contract, on such limited acting ability. Which again indicates he's used to pulling strings and getting unfair advantages from powerful contacts. He's no Denzel Washington or Samuel L Jackson - that he believed he was as talented as those black superstars and deserved their level of fame, so faked an horrific racial assault as a short-cut to it, shows exactly how deluded he is!
2
-
2
-
These males become dangerous because they are molly-coddled by parents growing up, who don't lay down and instil clear boundaries and expectations for good behaviour, and respecting others. Parents who don't like saying 'no' to their little brats, or see their son's inadequacies and think denying those inadequacies by spoiling him (throwing money at the problem), will turn them into more impressive men. There is often an absent father the boy never knew.
The boy becomes a dangerously entitled, lazy and narcissistic man who never worked hard to amount to anything. So he's resentful of others who have worked to achieve good things in their lives, like respect, prestigious careers, good incomes and nice possessions.
We saw it with mass school shooter Nicolas Cruz, Darrell Brooks who murdered innocent people mowing them down in his mother's car (never had a job so didn't own a vehicle himself). Sometimes these man-child narcissists kill the parents who moulded them - typically when the parents say no to them 20 years too late (in this category are Joel Guy Jr, Chandler Halderson and Grant Amato). Society has got to start addressing the way it is raising boys!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I believe the evidence against Wendi is inevitably more obscure, because her mom and brother Charlie worked hard to keep her at arms length from the dirty business of arranging the murder-for-hire of her ex husband. In protecting Wendy from consequences, Charlie and now Donna, screwed themselves, and will die behind bars.
However there's every indication prosecutors are working hard behind the scenes to build a strong case against Wendi for murder. They know they must bring their A-game, as Wendi is an attorney, and will hire the best defence team her late husband's money can buy.
They've certainly had plenty of time to prepare, a whole decade to be precise, and I hope once her mom Donna is convicted, they will turn their attention to Wendi and score the hat-trick - the three Adelson family members who together arranged Dan's assassination, convicted and jailed for life.
Donna's husband Harvey, like Wendi, has been named by prosecutors as a conspirator, and it may well be that they prosecute him next, and save Wendi for last. The public will be disappointed if that happens - there is huge outrage that Wendi Adelson, the main beneficiary and driving force behind the murder, is still walking free ten years on and got her wish, to raise Dan's sons without him. Many people are on the edge of their seats, awaiting her arrest and conviction for his murder. Prosecutors know this, and there is immense pressure on them to act - but they must get it right. Wendi is an arch manipulator and she will fight all the way to stay out of prison!
I think it's safe to say with her mom's imminent murder trial following on from her brother's life sentence, Wendi must feel like the walls are closing in on her, and the day of her arrest is getting ever closer. In recent years she has turned her back on Charlie and her parents, out of ruthless self-preservation, and has little to do with them. As a result, her parents have missed out on seeing their grandsons, as well as their only daughter. They are angry about it.
It's ironic that they killed Dan so their family could all live together and raise his boys, and yet the murder has caused the opposite to happen - they are pretty much estranged, and will ultimately be permanently parted, in separate prisons!
2
-
Great special report. The Stephen Smith Case stinks to high heaven of corruption and cover up of a Homophobic hate crime! If Stephen's own family don't believe it was a hit and run, nor do I!
Buster Murdaugh does not give off heterosexual vibes, despite him flaunting his girlfriend on camera at every opportunity during Dad Alex Murdaugh's recent trial for murdering his Mom and brother Paul! There is ZERO chemistry between Buster and his lady. But Buster gives every impression of being a gay man hiding in the closet, desperate for sexual adventures with other gay men.
At just 19, Stephen Smith was a brave, out and proud Gay man. He wasn't reckless - he was very much aware of his vulnerability to violence, as a Gay man. I accept his Mom's assertion he would not have walked in the middle of the road that night.
If I was a gambler, I'd say there was a romantic relationship between the handsome and unapologetically gay Stephen Smith, and far less attractive (but celebrated) firmly in the closet, Buster Murdaugh. That was a relationship that could never emerge into the daylight. We know enough about the Murdaugh family, to say with authority - they would not tolerate a gay member of the family.
Buster would never have 'come out' to his parents. The fear of being ;outed' against his will for his relationship with Stephen Smith could well be ample motive for murder.
I believe Smith was murdered to cover up his sexual relationship with Buster. This was no damn hit and run! 🙄🙄Vinny Politan is 100% right - a hit and run makes no sense whatsoever! The location of his body alone, his wallet in the car not carried when he wa supposedly walking for gas, and the lightening fast processing by a funeral parlour, is suspicious!
Medical professionals were convinced from the start it was a murder. I hope justice will prevail for Stephen and his heartbroken family.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Agreed. I believe Richard Allen is guilty, on the balance of probabilities - but his defence should be allowed to cite the flawed police investigation and their mistakes like the second, much younger sketch with looks nothing like Allen.
Richard Allen admitted from the start he was 'Bridge Guy', ie the man Libby recorded on her Smartphone stalking her and Abby across the bridge that day (brave girl). He even accurately described the clothes he was wearing - which, surprise, surprise, were exactly the same clothes seen on the stalker in the video.
Allen obviously freaked out after seeing those images of himself all over TV news/social media, and was afraid he would be recognised by someone, and identified to police. He also knew several female witnesses had seen him there that day. He decided to 'get in front' of the story by presenting himself to the authorities as an innocent witness, rather than the guilty killer he was.
I bet he couldn't believe his luck when the police never followed up with him after his admission, leaving him alone for a staggering 5 years while they chased false leads like a load of headless chicken!
It was sheer incompetence by law enforcement. Indiana Police, under the utterly useless Supt Doug Carter, should be held fully accountable for that and other big mistakes in their flawed investigation (eg the second, useless younger suspect sketch/age estimate announced to media fanfare in 2019, and the 'Anthony Shotts' online profile, that turned out to be yet another disastrous red herring). Police mistakes allowed this highly dangerous sex killer to walk free for five years.
Even after prosecutor Nick McLeland announced the murder charges against Richard Allen in late 2022, he was telling the assembled news media about 'other actors', ie suggesting Allen may have an accomplice, and that there could be further arrests. There have been none - Allen acted alone.
McLeland's talk of 'other actors' right after charging Allen is a huge embarrassment for the prosecution, and will no doubt be exploited to the max by the Defence. It proves the police were still all over the place, hadn't got their theory straight about the crime very late in the day. They still wrongly believed Keegan Kline, the paedophile behind the cat-fishing 'Anthony Shotts' profile Libby had been chatting with online, was in some way connected with Allen. He never was. There are umpteen online predators like Kline chatting to young girls like Libby - sadly it wasn't remotely unusual. However they are not automatically child killers!
Of course Allen is guilty - and there would be no doubt about it from the naysayers, if the Keystone Cops had only arrested him when he first came forward and identified himself, just days after the double homicide. But because the police ran such a disastrous murder investigation, it's allowed misinformation and conspiracy theories to flourish.
The motive was clearly sexual, as confirmed by the fact the girls were both naked at various points during the crime. It was an opportunist abduction, assault and murder. Allen knew the Monon trails were a popular beauty spot with walkers, and was looking to commit sexual violence on a female victim that day. Vulnerable teens Abby and Libby happened to cross paths with him, in a tragic case of 'wrong place, wrong time'.
But Richard Allen deserves a fair trial and I'm not convinced this judge is showing wisdom in her pro-prosecution rulings, or her total ban on broadcast from the court.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Marie Hackett Gabby certainly didn't 'win', when she was conned into a relationship with a manipulative covert narcissist who viciously took her life at just 22. Her killer's subsequent death was as a direct result of his own wicked crime, so he certainly deserves no sympathy, least of all understanding!
It's now crystal clear Brian Laundrie's parents knew exactly what their son had done to Gabby Petito, a defenceless young woman who had shared their home for 2 years. Yet they ruthlessly closed ranks, hired a lawyer, shut their mouths and protected him from the consequences of his obscene violence against a woman who loved and trusted him. They callously ignored her family's desperate phone and text messages, knowing full well her body lay rotting out in the open where their son had dumped it - before driving home in her van, and stealing $1,000 of her money en route. Hardly a son who deserves protection!
I wish more women were clued up about the realities of narcissistic behaviour, which is seen in its most extreme form in the men who abuse and kill women. Such males (and domestic abusers are overwhelmingly male), typically kill the woman when she ends or talks about ending the relationship. Brian Laundrie's well documented controlling and possessive behaviour is textbook. I believe he was always afraid Gabby would leave him, and the pressures of the 'Van Life' road trip escalated his abuse of her and brought his fears and insecurity to a head.
It's great that people are learning about narcissistic abuse. In my view older schoolchildren would benefit greatly from lessons in respectful adult relationships. The Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse should be central to any such lessons. Knowledge is power. Armed with the facts it's entirely possible women who wind up dead at the hands of covert narcissists like Brian Laundrie and Chris Watts, might recognise the danger signs in time, and escape such men with their lives.
You don't need a Phd in psychology to recognise the all too predictable patterns of behaviour at play in abusive relationships like this one. There are common red flags in abusers' conduct - and in victims' responses too. That's why it's so shocking police in the bodycam footage were ignorant of those behaviours, and misjudged this couple so disastrously.
Had those police received proper training/education in narcissistic abuse they would not have been taken in by Brian Laundrie's totally fake 'nice guy' act. Nor would they have accepted Gabby's self-blame (the usual stance of victims) at face value. Those cops misidentified sly Brian as the victim, and branded the actual victim Gabby as the abuser! Detective work doesn't get lousier than that. Two weeks later Laundrie strangled her to death, revealing exactly how wrong those cops called it.
More education on the MO of abusers like Brian Laundrie would be very welcome - especially for law enforcement, who dropped the ball and missed a golden opportunity to save Gabby Petito's life. That damning bodycam video should be used in police training, as a powerful example of how NOT to handle abuser and victim!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Exactly, hypocritical as hell! It's sickening to see Jussie Smollett and his lawyers, all powerful, privileged people of colour, cynically playing the race card to get him off consequences for the crime he was just convicted of, hoaxing a racial hate crime.
That he and his legal team are repeating exactly the same thing he was just convicted of - playing the race card for personal advantage - is beyond ironic and massive hypocrisy!
And it does ordinary black people, unprotected by the immense VIP privileges that they enjoy, nothing but harm. Smollett and his lawyers are a disgrace to their race!
Jussie Smollett had a fair jury trial, he gave evidence in his own defence - still lying his head off throughout and refusing to own his disgusting crime, perjuring himself for hours as the judge pointed out. He was obviously as unconvincing on the stand as he has been right down the line (which shows exactly how bad an actor he is!)
Smollett is a narcissist of the most extreme variety, a pathologically self-serving liar, who has unshakeable belief in his ability to manipulate and fool others. Intelligent media players who followed his self-inflicted problems over the last 3 years, will avoid him from now on. He has hobbled his own career, because anyone with sound judgement won't work with him in future. An individual as entitled and deluded as Jussie Smollett is very dangerous indeed.
Smollett is so crazily egotistical and conceited, he was utterly convinced he'd get away with his ridiculously badly staged, fake 'hate crime'. Even after being caught red handed by the excellent work of Chicago Police, 3 years later he thought he could just continue to lie and he'd eventually fool enough people on the jury to get away with it!
All the way down the line he tried - and failed - to wriggle out of consequences. Early on, he believed he'd succeeded, when his friends in high places got him a slap on the wrist, a $10k fine (peanuts to him, paid $2 million a year), and some BS 'community service' of his choosing. Thankfully he did not get away with that - it was such an obvious farce, it was challenged by brilliant prosecutors, and the result - though it took 3 years - was this full jury trial.
Double jeopardy my ass! That first supposed 'punishment' was as fake as the hate crime itself. The only REAL punishment, as we've seen from Smollett's repeated temper tantrums and protests, was the jury trial. If that lying scumbag doesn't serve any jail time for the serious crime he was properly convicted of (which cynically damaged racial relations just for his own career advancement), the US justice system will be a global laughing stock.
Jussie Smollett has got away with nothing. He wanted more fame - and he got it, but the totally wrong kind! He has no credibility left as a public figure, and was never a talented enough actor to salvage any really successful career from this car wreck. In the court that really counts - the court of public opinion - Jessie Smollett is finished.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think Vinnie nailed it - the coward held the gun in BOTH hands then shot at his left temple. Perfectly feasible, not so strange. He wasn't used to handling guns, and wanted to make sure he killed himself outright at first attempt.
Glad 'Court TV' is showing the infamous police bodycam of Brian Laundrie smiling and doing his best 'innocent, nice guy' act, while elsewhere Gabby Petito sobs in a fragile, highly emotional state.
I want ALL cops to be familiar with this case, study that bodycam as part of their training, and see what a domestic murderer of women looks like, so they aren't totally taken in by one as the Moab cops were taken in by Laundrie - with tragic consequences for Gabby!
If that bodycam video of Brian Laundrie can be utilised in police training to ensure they handle domestic abusers appropriately in future (arrest them when they get a 911 witness report of a man hitting a woman, don't do a best pals act with them), then Laundrie will finally do something useful after his death!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
HOW THE HELL DID HE GET AWAY WITH THAT??? I HATE THAT ENTITLED, NARCISSISTIC CREEP! I HOPE THIS BEHAVIOUR BACKFIRES ON HIM BIG TIME! HE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL AND TAKEN HIS PUNISHMENT LIKE A MAN!
HE WILL REGRETS THIS - ALL OF IT - HE'S A CONVICTED CRIMINAL, AND HIS TV AND MOVIE CAREER AS ANY KIND OF CELEBRITY IS OVER. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THAT SMUG, LYING FRAUDSTER'S UGLY, GRIFTER FACE EVER AGAIN! A TOTAL CREEP AND CON MAN, ALL ABOUT 'ME, ME, ME'. HIS FAMILY AND EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED THE ENTITLED ARROGANT POS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES!
JESSIE SMOLLETT HAS SET THE CAUSE OF BLACK PEOPLE BACK BY DECADES, HE IS A TRAITOR TO HIS ETHNIC HERITAGE. LESS THAN 100 YEARS AGO, BLACK PEOPLE REALLY WERE BRUTALLY LYNCHED AND HANGED AND BURNED IN THE STREET IN RACIST ATTACKS. AND HE HAS THE AUDACITY TO PAY 2 BLACK MEN TO COVER THEIR FACES WITH SKI MASKS AND THROW BLEACH AND A NOOSE AROUND HIS NECK??? WHAT AN INSULT TO THOSE FALLEN VICTIMS OF RACISM!
SHAME ON HIM - HE NEEDS TO DISAPPEAR AND NEVER INSULT AUDIENCES AGAIN WITH HIS ODIOUS FACE! NEVER SHOWED ANY REMORSE, NEVER APOLOGISED, NEVER EVEN ADMITTED TO WHAT HE'D DONE IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. JUDGE SAID HE GOT ON THE STAND AND COMMITTED PERJURY - THEN HE DID IT AGAIN AFTER SENTENCING, LYING AGAIN, THAT HE WAS INNOCENT! HE SHOULDA GOT MORE JAIL TIME FOR THAT. NOW HIS OVERPAID LAWYERS HAVE SPRUNG HIM OUT ON A TECHNICALITY? US JUSTICE IS AN INTERNATIONAL LAUGHING STOCK!
ONE LAW FOR RICH AMERICANS AND ANOTHER FOR THE REST - AND ANY OTHER, NON RICH & PRIVILEGED BLACK MAN WHO'D PULLED THE STUNT SMOLLETT DID WOULD NOT HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT FOR A NANOSECOND!
DISGUSTING INJUSTICE - DISGUSTING EXCUSE FOR A MAN! JESSIE SMOLLETT NEEDS TO DISAPPEAR DOWN THE NEAREST TOILET ALONG WITH HIS CAREER AND STOP OFFENDING THE PUBLIC'S EYES AND EARS.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Supt Doug Carter is an embarrassing old ham, who led a famous, failed murder investigation. Over and over again Carter chased dead ends (Anthony Shotts), and false trails (the second, 2019 younger suspect sketch), til eventually his headless chicken act led Indiana Police back to the start to revisit the earliest leads. And that's how Richard Allen was finally caught.
Carter was wrong when he said the killer was 'hiding in plain sight' - Richard Allen wasn't hiding at all! He came forward to authorities and identified himself as 'Bridge Guy', the man filmed by Libby stalking her and Abby, within days of the 2017 murders. Allen even correctly identified the outfit he was wearing that day -- exactly the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy'.
But incredibly, detectives failed to follow up with Allen until 2022, and he was free to attack females for a further FIVE YEARS. If he didn't murder any other women or girls in that time, it's no thanks to Indiana Police.
Because of that extended failure, Allen had years to toss/clean up incriminating evidence, meaning today's prosecution case is inevitably weaker than it would be had he been identified from the start. Inexperienced cops under the woeful Carter, ran a ridiculously secretive investigation, kept far too many details close to the vest, and only succeeded in blocking the public from providing vital tips (they cannot help in an information vacuum!)
The level of secrecy by law enforcement was unprecedented, with even the victims' cause of death kept under wraps. Why? The fact the murder weapon was some kind of bladed tool creating blood was huge, and just might have jogged memories.
Whatever the verdict, Supt Doug Allen and Indiana Police must be held accountable for their shocking failings in the Delphi murder investigation. No such $hit show should ever be allowed to happen again, within a major murder investigation. Frankly I'm not convinced Doug Carter could find his own ass with both hands if someone shut the lights off.
2
-
@pricklypear7516 No evidence whatsoever there were two offenders involved in the abduction and murder of Libby German and Abby Williams. Police were always very clear they were looking for ONE suspect. And it's thought Libby DID try to make a break for it and run - which is how she, Abby and the killer wound up crossing the creek (the girls' bodies were found on the other side).
A predatory male can easily control two, frightened teens, Abby and Libby were just 13 and 14 years old. The "Guys - down the hill" audio supports the theory he subdued them with threats of a gun/knife, and that's another reason they obeyed him - as most kids would, suddenly faced with that terrifying situation.
The term "Guys" is often used towards children and in fact is exactly the kind of familiar, casual language a predator would use towards child victims, as in "Guys, do this and I won't hurt you". Besides, if he had an accomplice as you suggest, that accomplice is not seen on Libby's cellphone footage, suggesting he was already waiting 'down the hill'! There was no second killer!
Please don't spread misinformation in a case that's already featured much confusion, due to a bungled police investigation. And please don't victim-blame. Libby and Abby were just children, the odds were stacked against them that day and they were unable to escape a powerful adult male with murder in mind. They deserve nothing but praise for their courage in an horrific situation, and the fact Libby courageously shot video and audio of the killer in what turned out to be her final, tragic moments alive. God bless them both - may justice and truth finally prevail. Prayers to the Williams and German families, in the difficult weeks and months ahead.
2
-
2
-
@Court TV A heartfelt plea - Can you PLEASE stop your producers from adding annoying, loud and totally unnecessary background music to every piece of video you show?
It happens so often now - notably last week, when you played-in the tape of reporter Nate Eaton giving a guided tour of the soon to be demolished home of serial killer Chad Daybell. The pointless, repetitive background music you added throughout, was horribly distracting, and made it really hard to hear what Nate was saying.
In this episode about the murder of Madeline Soto, the same gratuitous, annoyingly repetitive music has been laid over the interrogation video of suspect Stephan Sterns. As a true crime channel, you are well aware it's already hard to hear police interrogation videos, as the audio is generally poor. So please don't make it even more incomprehensible for your viewers, by playing music over the top! It's madness and doesn't make your content look more slick, as intended, it only looks amateurish.
I hope you'll address this issue, as it's marring an otherwise excellent channel with superior true crime coverage.
2
-
2
-
Agreed, from his first embarrassing media conference it was clear Supt Doug Carter was WAY out of his depth on this double child homicide, making mistake after mistake, and frankly, just not up to the job!
His failed, five year murder investigation is the reason the defence can now make merry with various, contrasting theories and suspects, to fill that extended information vacuum while Carter & Co were kicking cans down the road. Cops confused everyone with two totally different sketches and criminal profiles of the killer - one middle aged, chubby and bearded, the other young, slim and clean shaven. The Keystone Cops' many mistakes over those five years might just create enough reasonable doubt to get Richard Allen off the hook at trial.
We recently learned Carter's inexperience and incompetence, were matched by staggering arrogance - because rather than admit Indiana Police needed professional help from more specialised detectives, it transpires he dismissed the FBI early on, saying his boys were doing just fine. The man is a buffoon!
Carter enjoyed those media conferences way too much. He struck poses, addressed the killer direct with a quivering lip and ridiculous statements like "You probably told someone you did this" (Er, probably not - killers rarely confess), suggested the murderer could be in the room at that very moment (he wasn't), and claimed he was 'hiding in plain sight'.
Carter was wrong on every count - Richard Allen wasn't hiding in plain sight. He wasn't hiding at all!
We subsequently learned Richard Allen as good as gave himself up within days of the murders, admitting he was there and even wearing the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy', because he knew Libby recorded him on video stalking her and Abi across the bridge. It was an obvious strategy to get his alibi in early, and get ahead of the damning video evidence against him that he was there that day. Libby taped him - and he WAS 'Bridge Guy'.
Yet no one saw fit to invite Allen to come in for a formal police interview! If they had, he would have been recognised as 'Bridge Guy', and arrested and charged within a week. Out of just 3,000 Delphi residents - and less than 1,500 of them adult males - Carter & co took five years to find him. That incompetent fool couldn't find his own ass with both hands if someone shut the lights off!
Establishing who was at the Monon High Nature trail on the day of the crime, interviewing and eliminating them, is the most basic kind of police work. The Keystone Cops failed to do that, allowing a highly dangerous man to remain at large for five years, and putting Libby and Abi's loved-ones through hell. And now that the likely guilty man is caught, their mistakes may yet get him out of jail!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tammysims5164 It's a shame you didn't watch the whole trial - which incidentally was ALL prosecution witnesses, because the defence couldn't produce a single, solitary person to give evidence in support of the defendant! And after seeing how aggressively he protested his innocence to detectives on their videos, it was telling that James Propokovitz declined to give evidence in court and tell it to the jury
A primarily circumstantial and historic murder case like this would always be harder to prove, so lawyers are bound to express surprise at the guilty verdict. But the defendant's guilt was firmly established to the jury, as the verdict shows - this has, I hope, enlightened people that circumstantial evidence can be just as strong as a so-called 'slam-dunk' forensic case.
The defence case was weak. In order to persuade the jury their client hadn't killed his wife Victoria, they had to exaggerate her history of depression and suicide attempts to make them believe she killed herself and somehow disposed of her own body (which was never found, despite 8 years of exhaustive professional police searches).
The two historic suicide attempts the defence attorney emphasised (the most 'recent' one a full 10 years before she went missing) happened so long ago, as to be pretty much irrelevant to her state of mind when she vanished.
The defence really went to town on Victoria's years-ago statement to family 'next time, you won't find me'. Common sense tells you she meant 'next time I attempt suicide, you won't find me in time to save me', NOT 'next time, you won't find my body'. Why would she even think about her corpse after she died, or about hiding it from her family? This was desperate stuff from the defence!
Victoria's children and stepchildren took the stand one by one, to say she was not depressed, much less suicidal before she went missing. On the day she was last seen she was upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up.
Her history of depression was obviously something her killer would immediately exploit to the full - as soon as she vanished, her husband was telling police about her past 'suicide attempts'. This of course was another reason he was so sure he could kill her and get away with it!
I would argue the lack of a body was actually more problematic for the defence than the prosecution. How on earth could Victoria have made her own fully clothed corpse totally disappear like that? If, as the defence claimed, she had somehow left home and killed herself elsewhere (despite not driving or being able to walk far), she would not have gone without her cigarettes - she was a chain smoker - nor would she have left her dentures at home. She was a proud woman of 59, who never went out without her teeth. The person who would want to leave her dentures at home was not her, but her killer.
It was established in court Propokovitz was easily able to get his wife's corpse into the chemical sludge pools at his works' disposal site. It was a dramatic moment in the trial, when one of the two senior detectives who took the stand said the defendant had told them he had a key to that site. He could access it 24-7. And very conveniently for him, there were no CCTV cameras there at all. He had ample time to kill and dump his wife, between her son Wes leaving the house at 7pm, and returning home at 4am, when he found his stepdad, supposedly searching for her in their yard. Propokovitz made sure she wasn't wearing her dentures, which as he mentioned to another inmate in custody would have identified her if she was found.
But of course he knew that toxic chemical sludge would destroy her remains quickly, and she was unlikely to ever be found. That's why he was so confident he'd got away with killing her, that he didn't even pretend to care she was gone!
It was Victoria's adult children and stepchildren who brought this case. They knew in their gut she had not killed herself, and even more damning, they knew Propokovitz their dad/stepdad was capable of killing her. And when they put the facts to seasoned detectives, they too shared that gut feeling and believed her husband was behind her sudden disappearance. Suicide victims are usually found, it is very rare that they are not. But murder victims can vanish forever as in this case - because their body is evidence against their killer, so he works hard to ensure it can never return to point the finger at him from beyond the grave.
2
-
@donnawest1126 You make an excellent point about Suzanne Morphews' daughters' silence. The reason Victoria Prokopovitz' husband finally went to jail for murdering her, is that her three adult children knew in their gut their stepfather had killed her, and told police about their suspicions. It was her son and two daughters who organised publicity and searches for her when she first went missing, and kept up the fight for answers. And when they repeatedly came up empty, they knew for sure their mom could not have killed herself and hidden her own corpse. They also knew their stepfather was capable of killing her, and had strong motives to, among them his new girlfriend.
I can't see any other logical explanation other than Barry Morphew murdered wife Suzanne and successfully hid or destroyed her body. I think she wanted a divorce and he wasn't going to let her walk away with half of their shared marital assets. Her public rejection would hurt his image and the financial loss would hit his wallet. It's the typical motivations for domestic killers.
You're right, if Suzanne's daughters won't fight for justice for her, the chances of him getting away with it are much improved. I hope to God he doesn't stay a free man for much longer. His conduct since she vanished has been deeply suspicious - like James Prokopovitz, failing to organise or even join in searches for one thing! And like Propokovitz, it's obvious he does not want his wife back. I wonder how long before we get confirmation Morphew has a girlfriend, like this sack of shit?
2
-
2
-
2
-
A great day for justice! The Victoria Propokovitz murder trial sends out a clear message to domestic abusers that 'No body - No crime' is a myth. Wife killers who successfully dispose of their partner's corpse, cannot assume they will get away with it.
Nor can men who choose murder over divorce relax, and think once sufficient time has passed and evidence gets cold, they are home free. The knock on the door from police can arrive at any moment! I hope a certain Barry Morphew, whose wife Suzanne vanished in equally suspicious circumstances last year, saw this Guilty verdict and shuddered. The investigating detectives did a fantastic job. They knew damn fine Victoria's death was no suicide, and their diligence and determination to deliver justice for a murdered wife, secured her killer's conviction.
The two senior officers were compelling prosecution witnesses. They showed the jury exactly who James Propokovitch is. His arrogance, belligerence and entitlement, seen by everyone on the police bodycam footage, gave a glimpse of the abusive husband who made Victoria's life a misery for years, before he finally murdered her.
I hope people now see that a primarily circumstantial case like this one can be just as compelling as one that features forensic evidence. Because the defence case was ridiculous! They asked the jury to believe that Victoria, a cancer patient with a bad leg who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night without cigarettes, dentures, a suicide note or any footprints, killed herself and somehow disposed of her own clothed body without trace! Police did extensive, sophisticated searches for her, but she was nowhere to be found. Suicide victims don't vanish into thin air - murder victims do, because their killer worked damn hard to make sure of it. The absence of any body in this case was damning evidence of foul play. And who but her husband had a motive to murder her? James Prokopovitch clearly didn't care one jot for his wife, and didn't want her back. He dumped her naked body in toxic sludge, denying her the dignity of a funeral so he could get away with killing her. His contempt for his wife in police interviews was horrific, telling officers he wished he could "Shit her out" so they'd leave his girlfriend alone!
Because if Victoria's sudden disappearance wasn't suspicious enough, his hot and heavy, brand new relationship with new girlfriend Kathy filled in the blanks and showed exactly why Victoria had become an inconvenience he wanted rid of.
Truth and justice caught up with James 'Curly' Propokovitch 8 years after he murdered his cancer-stricken wife Victoria, to enjoy a bachelor lifestyle of boozing and gambling with his new girlfriend. He'll die behind bars, as he deserves to. He has created many, devastated victims - Victoria and Kathy's children and loved ones are heartbroken at their deaths. Two women who both died miserable, unnatural deaths, as a result of their relationship with the defendant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@la-zh4231 The witnesses said plenty! And they were all witnesses for the prosecution. The defence didn't put up a single witness to speak for the defendant, or provide evidence in his favour. Not one!
Oh, and the accused who had so much to say in his defence when interviewed by police, refused the opportunity to appeal directly to the jury. Weird, huh? We all saw what kind of man James Propokovitz is - if he was innocent of his wife's murder, wild horses wouldn't stop him taking the stand and declaring it to the jurors!
He's as guilty as sin, and 8 years after killing the wife he so clearly despised, he thought he had got away with it right up to the end. He was fully expecting the judge to say not guilty, he's such an arrogant snake. Watching cops clamp the handcuffs on that bully and march him out to his new home - a cage - was poetry in motion! He will die in jail, a convicted murderer.
James Propokovitch got what he deserved, and a far better fate than he gave his poor wife. He brutally took her life aged 59, robbing her and her loved ones of her retirement years. He also stole any chance of them saying goodbye and giving her a proper funeral. He will be well cared for in his final years (he's sure enjoying the food in custody), with home comforts and ongoing contact with the relatives who support him, his sister and nieces among them. He'll have TV and newspapers for entertainment, and medical care on demand. And when the time comes, he'll have a peaceful death from natural causes, and a funeral - human dignities he denied his loyal wife. Jail is too good for him.
2
-
WHY does Court TV invite dirty ex-cop Chris McDonough onto its channel? Chrish McDoofus is a proven crook, liar and charlatan, who tried to frame three children for a murder they did not commit. The man has zero integrity or credibility. Frankly his inclusion on any true crime panel is a stain on that TV channel's reputation!
Anyone unfamiliar with McDonough's seedy past need only Google his name for details of his leading role in an appalling and deliberate, near miscarriage of justice - the murder of 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe on January 20th 1998.
Thanks to McDonough's corrupt and unlawful interrogation techniques, the victim's teen brother Michael Crowe, and his friends Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway were wrongly accused of the murder.
McDonough subjected the three innocent boys to hours of gruelling, psychologically abusive interrogation, during which they were deliberately isolated from their parents and had no access to lawyers. They were indited on murder charges, and pre-trial proceedings commenced.
McDonough applied his normal approach to 'solving' the crime ie, rather than keep an open mind and be led by the evidence, he decided from the start the boys were guilty because Stephanie had been stabbed to death at home in her bedroom, and there was no forced entry to the house. He then built a (flimsy) case to fit his view. McDoofus concluded, without any actual evidence whatsoever, that it had to be an inside job by the victim's elder sibling and his pals.
Thankfully a year later Stephanie's blood was (very belatedly) found on the shirt of her actual killer, transient man Richard Tuite. And then the full, shocking story of the bungled murder investigation under Chris McDonough's disastrous leadership, finally emerged.
Killer Tuite had not only been seen in the Crowes' neighbourhood on the night of Stephanie's murder by multiple witnesses, he was also reported to police by several neighbours for his strange and aggressive behaviour. Tuite, was clearly under the influence of drink/drugs, was yelling threats of murder, knocking on neighbouring front doors, and trying various different ruses to get inside residents' homes.
A police officer who attended that night in response to the 911 calls, briefly looked around and noted that he saw a door next to the Crowe's garage, close. This was a clear indication that someone had just entered it. The officer could not see who closed the door, and despite the earlier 911 reports of a transient male trying to enter houses, he did not investigate further. The cop left the scene at 9.56pm, reporting that the transient was 'gone on arrival'.
Stephanie was stabbed to death by Tuite in her bedroom between 10 - 11pm. There was no forced entry - Tuite got in through the unlocked door next to the garage. The policeman had witnessed the killer enter the house - and missed the opportunity to arrest him, and save Stephanie's life. She was found dead on her bedroom floor by her grandmother next morning at 6.30am. bloodied from frenzied blows with a 5-6 inch bladed knife.
Police briefly took Tuite in for questioning, fingerprinted him and took various items including clothing, fingernail scrapings and hair. They did only the briefest interview with him, and crucially failed to do a background check. If they had, they'd have found he had an extensive mental health and arrests history. Tuite was detained for a short time, and released. Under Chris McDonough, the investigation turned away from him, and focused in on entirely the wrong suspects - Stephanie's innocent brother and his two equally innocent and bewildered friends.
Tuite's shirt had been collected during the first days of the police investigation, but thanks to McDonough's arrogant certainty that he'd solved the case and nabbed the three teen 'killers', the garment was not fully tested until a whole year later.
Those poor boys (and their families, one of whom also lost a child to murder), needlessly endured a living hell, fully expecting to die in prison for a crime they didn't commit. Only due to the solid dna evidence proving their innocence, which emerged so crazily late due to police corruption, were they finally and fully cleared. Charges against the boys were dropped, and Tuite was convicted of Stephanie's murder.
If Chris McDonough had had his way, Michael, Aaron and Joshua, three totally innocent men, would still be locked up in prison today, for a heinous child homicide they had nothing to do with. I wonder how those three men feel when they see their former tormentor presented on TV shows like this as a respectable voice of true crime and justice?
After that disgusting scandal McDonough should have been kicked out of the police force in disgrace with no pension. Instead he was allowed to quietly retire, with his reputation - and fat pension - intact.
It is a measure of the man's enormous ego that he launched a post-retirement career as a true crime media 'expert' - despite his shocking and well-documented history of corruption and failure, and his notable lack of talent as a 'broadcasshter'!
Is this really the calibre of true crime 'expert' guest, Court TV is booking these days??? Get a clue, Vinnie!
2
-
2
-
I heard that the child did tell his father "You stabbed me". I wish they had shown that bit! I agree, he was only 8 when it happened, and has probably blanked a lot out through trauma anyway.
The piece of shit Ronnie O' Neal is pretending his girlfriend attacked the children, killing their daughter with an axe and stabbing their son. That way he can claim he only killed his girlfriend in self defence because she was armed and dangerous. Obvious bullshit, how could it be self defence when he chased the girlfriend to a neighbour's house (poor woman ran there for help), and battered her to death on the doorstep, then he set fire to the family home to destroy evidence.
Unluckily for him the son survived to tell the world it was his father, not his mother, who attacked him and his 9 year old sister. Ronnie O' Neal had a long history of domestic violence and had recently fathered a child with another woman. He's so obviously guilty! If I was a juror I'd be very scared about what he could do when the guilty verdicts are read out, he could go nuts especially as it's a death penalty case.
He doesn't appear to be wearing handcuffs or any form of restraint. If there are armed officers in the court, I hope they keep a close eye on their guns!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ninjazmbeegrl396 And don't you think Brian Laundrie's parents have invited such speculation, with their bizarre, indefensible conduct since Gabby was reported missing/murdered by their son?
The way they have mollycoddled him, hired a lawyer, refused to speak to police or to Gabby's desperate parents, and let their son hide behind his mother's skirts is appalling. It's also reminiscent of other narcissistic killers like Chris Watts. His mom and dad were also inappropriately protective of him. Indulgent parents breed dangerously entitled men! No one is saying they should reject their child, but to go so far the other way and protect him from the consequences of his behaviour is weird, warped and wholly unacceptable.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr and Mrs Laundrie are soon victim-blaming and publicly criticising Gabby, as the Watts family slandered their murdered daughter-in-law Shanann. If you study true crime as I have, this killing follows a depressingly predictable pattern seen in many domestic murders. Brian Laundrie is far from unique - alas there are many dangerous covert narcs like him out there, and more are walking free than are in prison!
My concern is that women learn about narcissistic abuse so they can recognise the red flags in a perpetrator's conduct and escape him before it's too late. If Gabby had been wise to her boyfriend's deeply toxic behaviour, she would probably be alive today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BLUEEYESLIKETHEOCEAN-ql8kw If Melody shot Gary out at the fire pit, why is his blood - and a bullet fragment - plus evidence of blood clean-up, present inside the house? (Melody even visited Target the following day to buy more house cleaning products, as listed on an itemised till receipt).
The forensic evidence tells the story - Gary was shot inside the house, and his body taken outside to the fire pit. Besides, Melody would not have dared fire a gun outside, at around 10pm, with the attention/questions that could attract. Bad enough that someone heard two shots fired from inside her home at that time (more evidence it happened indoors), but clearly the noise wasn't loud/obvious enough to warrant further investigation by that witness.
Melody made sure she was alone that afternoon/evening (even refusing a requested sleepover from one of her granddaughters - who she never refused). She had decided Gary had to go, and when Melody makes her mind up, there's no shifting her. I don't know how she got her 300 lbs hubby's lifeless body from the house to the fire pit, but I have no doubt she achieved it. Adrenaline is a powerful energiser!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimnasium7700 Yes, that dumb 2019 media conference, fronted by useless buffoon Supt Doug Carter, was a total $hit-show. He announced the new, much younger suspect sketch and age estimate to huge fanfare, like it was some major break in the case. It wasn't - it was yet another wrong turn, in a flawed investigation full of glaring eff-ups.
Frankly I doubt Doug Carter could find his own a$$ with both hands if someone shut the lights off. Whatever the verdict, when this murder trial is over, Carter and the Indiana Police should be held fully, publicly accountable for their incompetence, which let a highly dangerous sex killer walk free for five long years. If Allen didn't kill again during those years of freedom, it's no thanks to the Keystone Cops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No wonder Tammy was depressed, living with useless, spineless lump of lard Chad!
She carried and birthed his five children, and was sole breadwinner for the family for almost three decades, paying all the bills, putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.
All so her narcissistic abuser husband Chad didn't have to work. Thanks to Tammy, he gave up his job as a grave digger, and instead toured his inflated ego around various religious events promoting himself as the 'second coming', and an 'author'.
What a joke! His flat, monotone voice and total lack of charisma show he's no prophet - fake or otherwise! He's no author either, he can't write to save his life. The only way he would ever get his pi$$poor prose into print, was to self publish it.
No actual publishing house would have touched him or his badly written, ridiculous books with a dirty stick. He's an absolute joke! One of the most shocking aspects of this story, is that Chad persuaded one women to marry him, least of all two.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Typical media hype! These family murders had nothing to do with witchcraft, and everything to do with a dysfunctional mother cruelly favouring two sons over their elder half brother - prompting a legitimate anger and resentment in him, which tragically escalated to a murder plot.
To understand all is to forgive all, and Donald Hartung was badly mistreated by his family. In no way am I defending murder outside of self-defence, it is no way to resolve conflict. But to be cast aside and disinherited by his mom (even when he was arriving at the home she shared with his two half brothers every week, to cook them all a delicious dinner), was mean and heartless. No wonder he was angry!
Donald Hartung lived down the road with his beloved dog, in a modest bungalow, struggling to pay his bills on little money. Meanwhile his Mom had hundreds of thousands in the bank, a nice house and a steady income coming in from her two, working youngest sons (and they both had savings in the bank too). She was so well off she was a hoarder, constantly ordering so much stuff she didn't need off QVC, that half of it stood in her home unopened and still in its boxes!
Why did she disinherit Donald when he was so loyal to her?Is it because she hated his father? We will never know. But it clearly devastated him - and led to her murder, and the murders of her younger sons by him. You reap what you sow in this life, and I have very little sympathy for that self-centred, heartless mother!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChrisP3000x Ha! Ha! Thanks for the laugh! No idea what your definition of the well-known term 'played' is. But 71-year-old, confused, vulnerable and decrepit senior citizen Dr Thomas Burchard fully believed that ruthless, 25-year-old wannabe model Kelsey Turner was a decent person who loved and respected him.
If that isn't 'played,' Lord only knows what is!
Unlike yourself, Judy Earp, Burchard's loyal girlfriend of 17 years, fully understood the meaning of 'played', and how it applied to her elderly, vulnerable partner. Ms Earp was painfully aware of his escalating dementia and penchant for attractive young women in distress - drug addicts and prostitutes being the typical recipients of his patronage. She knew Kelsey Turner's game from the start.
Dr Burchard had a 'hero complex. He was overly trusting and generous to manipulative, much younger females like Turner, and saw himself as Santa Claus. And he was fast treated as such, by cynical women on the take who were young enough to be his granddaughter!
His partner Judy Earp knew Burchard's faculties were failing him, and that sadly it would be all too obvious to any young woman who exploited him. He started getting lost in parking lots he used frequently, didn't recognise Judy's adult daughter (who he'd known for years), when he ran into her at the supermarket, and forgot how to use the TV remote control.
Throughout his growing confusion, he remained his usual trusting self, typically carrying $1,000 cash everywhere he went, along with a little black book in which he'd studiously written down all his various bank account passwords. It may have looked like a sugar daddy relationship, but Kelsey Turner never actually slept with Dr Burchard. She didn't have to. The single mother exploited his dementia to the max to blackmail him into bankrolling her, threatening to tell law enforcement he was a paedophile - a totally unfounded allegation.
Within days of getting no response to her text messages, Judy was certain Thomas had been murdered. What's more, she knew precisely who had killed him - Kelsey Turner and her thug boyfriend. She was right of course. Dr Burchard was found dead in the back of his hired Mercedes, his head caved in through blunt force trauma.
He'd flown to Vegas in response to a cry for help from Turner, believing he was on a mission of mercy. But his blonde angel, was nothing of the kind - she was his nemesis, and he was walking into a deadly trap. You bet he was played! Though in fact 'played' is an inadequate description for the ruthless, cruel and horrific exploitation and murder of this vulnerable elderly man.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dianaprince3176 If you are a former lawyer, I'm amazed an ex professional would conduct herself in such a rude, undignified manner on a public forum.
You threw dumb insults at the original poster, calling her a 'Karen' and telling her if she doesn't like the US way she should move to Saudi Arabia (seriously?!). You even used childish 'Clown' and 'Rolling Eyes' emojis - the hallmark of every tragic troll who ever lost an argument.
The best, most compelling attorneys engage with the arguments, they don't just dismiss them out of hand! Nor do they lose their cool and sink to ill-mannered insults and name-calling. Were you struck off? It could explain your anger issues.
As a retired public defender you should know that a country's laws are not dictated by lawyers but reflect the wishes and values of ordinary citizens, most of whom have no legal qualification. The clue is in the historic term; 'The People Versus'. The original poster's eloquent condemnation of this child interrogation by his would-be killer was widely supported, with 207 upvotes to date, proving she made a perfectly reasonable and valid point.
It is arrogant, deluded nonsense, for you to claim nobody but a lawyer (practising, retired or struck off), can have a valid opinion on the law!
Nor does a poster have to be American to have a valid viewpoint on the US Constitution, law, and the unacceptable questioning of an 11-year-old child by the family annihilator who disembowelled and set fire to him aged 8, after murdering his mother and sister. It's a scenario reasonable, decent human beings of ALL nationalities find shocking and wrong, and are entitled to state a view on. It's a human rights issue. Your position: 'You're not American, therefore have no right to express an opinion on our courts', is just plain stupid!
It's disappointing you lack the intellect and basic courtesy to enter into an intelligent, respectful discussion on this fascinating subject. That the civil rights of the accused in America trump the rights of the child - which are rightly sacrosanct and the number one priority in every other forum in the US and other civilised nations - is a curious anomaly.
Here in the UK, greater efforts to protect minors involved in criminal proceedings are ongoing. In May 2019, a new law was passed unanimously in Scotland, meaning under-18s called in the most serious criminal cases can now provide their evidence in pre-recorded form. This spares them the traditional, formal court proceedings and the trauma of facing the accused either in person or via live link, as poor Ronnie O' Neal Jr had to endure.
The new legislation is based on the Scandinavian system of 'Barnahus' or 'Children's House', because minors are questioned in a sympathetic, informal environment, where they know they will not encounter the accused. It puts the care and welfare of the child at the centre of all decision making - a priority which was conspicuously lacking in Ronnie O' Neal's murder trial!
'Barnahus' puts all support services for child witnesses under one roof, recognising the trauma that multiple interviews in different locations with different agencies, can cause. To America's credit, 'Barnahus' was first developed in the US, before being adopted in Iceland in the late 'nineties, then rolled out across other Scandinavian countries where it is lauded as a big success story. Now it has arrived in the UK. It's deeply regrettable that the US, which was so brilliantly progressive in originating 'Barbahus', has yet to adopt and implement it.
Child psychology experts have long documented the harm that can be done to child victims/witnesses in cases of murder, sexual crimes, domestic violence and human trafficking, by re-traumatising them with an examination by lawyers, or worse as in this case, by the accused.
A major advantage of the 'Barnahus' system, is increased conviction rates in these serious crimes. Which suggests it not only benefits the young people it was set up to support, but also promotes justice.
As I've said in other posts, the laws and legal practices of any country cannot be unchanging, and forever set in stone. They must be organic, constantly monitored and if needs be amended, to accurately reflect the ever-shifting values and priorities of the ordinary citizens they represent. While you cling to a bad practice that negatively impacts on children, and repeatedly justify it with the 'C' word - constitution - you stubbornly stand in the past and deny the possibility of change.
I believe a child involved in serious criminal proceedings, has the right not to be confronted and terrorised by the accused as part of due process. Unlike you, I believe that is an injustice and a fundamental transgression of children's rights, which will inevitably be addressed and abolished in the future. Advancements in human rights always take longer than they should.
If you'd been around in the 1600-1800s, no doubt you'd have presented the same arguments you've constantly parroted here about the US Constitution, to defend slavery in America! In the centuries in which slavery was enshrined in US law, you'd have told me it would never be abolished, nor should it be.
For hundreds of years the prevailing attitude (even among those with some social conscience), was that black people were inherently inferior, and slavery was inevitable and would never end. Thankfully the Abolitionist movement in the US challenged and fought those blinkered, bigoted assumptions. Their courage and refusal to be defeatist, finally resulted in the adoption of the 13th Amendment of 1865, which officially abolished slavery.
In closing, I must point out you sent TWO responses, to something I wrote over a month ago. Poor Diana. You're obviously frustrated in your retirement, feeling impotent, irrelevant and unloved.
Who knows how many years of dreary stagnation lie ahead? Try to find better uses of your time than posting tetchy, ill-tempered drivel on public forums. All you're doing is exposing your poor debating skills, and revealing how rude, cantankerous and intransigent you are. And those are not admirable or appealing qualities at any age!
2
-
@midnightprizm1583 You must have missed Kathy Friday's son's evidence. He testified his mother was in a relationship with Jim Propokovitch from the start of 2013, ie months before Victoria's disappearance/death. And that was only one part of a patchwork of evidence showing Jim Propokovitch murdered his wife.
He and Kathy both admitted to perjury, confessing that they had lied about the circumstances of their first meeting to police and under oath in court. Why on earth would they have lied about it, if there was nothing to hide? C'mon now - you surely aren't as gullible as all that!
A jury has to use their intelligence and common sense in a case like this, and in fact, in all criminal trials. Truth does not come gift wrapped on a silver plate with a big bow! The work of a jury - and make no mistake, it is work - is crucial to any civilized society. Of course juries sometimes get it wrong and the justice system is imperfect - it's bound to be, it's run by human beings. But when it works as in this case, and delivers justice for someone murdered 8 years ago, whose killer believed he had beaten the system and got away with it, we see it at its best.
And I'll tell you this much - if society ever becomes' insensitive and unemotional' about the crime of murder, you and I are in big trouble my friend!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@errolrosa8720 Where was the 'theory' in my earlier post? I stated only facts. The victim's body was never found - FACT. A missing body is in itself suspicious and indicates not suicide but foul play - FACT. The defendant had means, motive and opportunity - FACT. The defence could not produce even one witness to back its claims - FACT. The defendant, so emphatic in his denials to police, chose not to take the stand and appeal his 'innocence' to the jury - FACT.
I repeat - what could this strange set of circumstances add up to, but a domestic homicide?
Juries have to navigate complex evidence and use their critical thinking skills (if they have them), to join the dots and find the truth between the prosecution and defence narratives. It's a tough job. Seems you want them to be handed incontrovertible facts on a plate, but life - and criminal trials - are not like that. They require much more brain work from the jury!
Murder trials such as the Jessica Chambers calamities, have shown juries to be sadly inadequate to the tasks requested of them. Thankfully this jury took their time, paid close attention, and reached the right verdict - Guilty.
it's shocking how many people fail to recognise the value of circumstantial evidence, putting all their faith instead in forensics. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and pieced together can paint a picture more clear and compelling than forensics.
2
-
@Peace2humankind You are over simplifying what I said, of course you don't convict someone solely on the basis of 'what else could it be'. That was simply my overview of a mass of compelling circumstantial evidence, which together told the story of Victoria Propokovitz' murder by her husband.
The point is, it was the job of the defence to convince the jury 'what else ' it could be, other than murder.
In the absence of an alien abduction, the only alternative possibility to murder the defence could present was suicide, which required them to exaggerate Victoria's historic mental health issues, and throw great significance onto two, long-ago, supposed suicide attempts. One could not even be confirmed as a suicide attempt, and both happened so long ago as to be utterly unconvincing. One by one, her children and stepchildren took the stand to confirm she was in good spirits when last seen, not suicidal at all, but upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up.
One of the biggest challenges for the defence was explaining what happened to Victoria's body. The absence of a body was a huge problem for them, because it points not to suicide, but to third party involvement and murder.
Mr D' Angelo had to ask the jury to believe that somehow Victoria, who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night unseen minus her dentures, cigarettes and purse, left no suicide note or footprints, killed herself and hid her own, fully clothed body so well that no trace of her was found in 8 years, despite many, exhaustive professional searches. It was a big ask!
Thanks to police inquiries there was actually little mystery as to Victoria's tragic fate. In an early interview with law enforcement, Prokopovitz let slip he had a key to the industrial sludge pools he used in his work. When a senior detective took the stand and revealed this fact under defence cross-examining, it was a huge slam-dunk moment for the prosecution - as D'Angelo's obvious shock at the news and subsequent stammering showed! The chemical waste pools were easily accessible to Propokovitz 24 hours a day, and had no CCTV cameras. It doesn't take a genius to work out where he dumped his wife's naked body, minus her teeth, on the night of her murder. The powerful cocktail of chemicals contained in those paper by-products rapidly accelerated degradation, and made short work of her remains. As Propokovitz himself said, he was fully confident she'd never be found. He even mentioned her lack of identifying teeth, which of course reflected his certain knowledge of both her violent death and her squalid disposal.
I'll tell you what is (to use your words), "insane, cruel and grotesquely unjust": An abusive husband killing his sick wife and expecting to get away with it, because he successfully destroyed her corpse.
James Propokovitz had the means, motive and opportunity to murder his wife Victoria. A strong, multi layered and corroborated, primarily circumstantial case showed beyond a reasonable doubt he did. Like so many wife killers before him, he chose murder over divorce to avoid splitting the jointly held marital assets 50-50. He had a new girlfriend - and a gambling habit - to support! The pornographic photos he took of his girlfriend Kathy in a hotel room, and the staggering, six-figure sums he blew with her gambling in casinos, revealed the self-indulgent hedonism at the core of both the killer and the crime.
No one but the defendant had any reason to want rid of Victoria. This case had all the ingredients of an all-too common, spousal murder, with the predictable, age-old motives of money and sex. Why would Propokovitz have conspired with his girlfriend to commit the serious crime of perjury, without very good reason? He had to lie to the authorities about their affair and persuade Kathy to do the same, to cover up the murder he'd committed! Perjury after all, is a far lesser criminal offence than murder. For Kathy, the burden of conspiring with her lover in his murder cover-up was too much. She committed suicide while in custody awaiting sentencing for perjury and obstructing police.
It is concerning that some people put such blind faith in forensic evidence (which is far from irrefutable and open to manipulation), and regard circumstantial evidence as somehow inferior. Thankfully this was a smart jury, with the common sense and critical thinking skills to navigate a primarily circumstantial case and see that it clearly reflected the defendant's guilt.
Sadly some juries are not up to the challenge, and practically expect to be handed a photograph of the murder in progress, signed by the killer, before they will convict. The Jessica Chambers mistrials are a good example. The circumstantial evidence was powerful and considered in totality, showed a clear and compelling story of defendant Quentin Tellis' guilt. But jury members lacked the basic logic and analytical capacity to work that out. After hearing all the evidence, the questions they asked from the jury room showed they were totally out of their depth. When a jury literally doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'Unanimous', you know justice is in big trouble!
Quentin Tellis remains in custody and will face charges this year for the murder of another young woman, which should finally see him convicted. But thanks to two woefully inadequate juries, no one has been convicted of Jessica Chambers' murder, and her family has been denied justice.
I'm seeing that same deficiency in some of the comments here questioning the guilty verdict. James Propokovitz had a fair trial and was convicted on more than enough, very compelling evidence. I hope people will start to realise circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and that the truth does not come gift wrapped on a silver tray, wrapped in a big bow! It requires a smart jury to search for the truth, among the known facts. You can be sure the truth is hidden among all the evidence, both circumstantial and forensic. But it can only be found through an in depth process requiring common sense, critical thinking and intelligent, grown up analysis.
Thankfully this jury was equal to the task, and their guilty verdict taught James 'Curly' Propokovitz some important truths. He learned, to his obvious surprise, he isn't smarter than all the detectives and lawyers who pursued him. He also learned that destroying his wife's corpse did not destroy the case against him. And finally he found out all those years he spent napping in his recliner with a beer, vacationed with his girlfriend and generally enjoyed life to the full without the loyal wife he'd killed, he had not got away with her murder at all.
He was wrong when he assumed he'd beaten justice. Justice was watching him, biding its time, waiting in the wings until finally, 8 years after Victoria took her last, desperate breath, justice caught up with him in one, life-changing word in a hushed courtroom. GUILTY.
Any other verdict would have been a travesty. Propokovitz will rightly die in jail, a convicted murderer who cruelly ended one life and ruined many others. May Victoria now rest in peace, and may all the people hurt by this evil man begin the long road to healing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Vinnie hasn't been paying attention to this murder trial if he thinks it's 'Complicated', 'Different people have different motives', 'It's all over the place', and 'It's not easy for the jury'. Huh?! Has he been watching the same court case?!
In fact it's pretty simple. The defendant Melody Farris is the ONLY family member with a motive to kill Gary Farrer. She and she alone stood to inherit his $4.5 million estate - as his wife of 38 years it all automatically went to her on his death, along with a hefty life insurance payout, and their four kids would not get a look in! In addition Melody was having a hot and heavy affair with a man who'd discussed marriage with her. Motive was strong for her to want hubby gone!
Melody was the only person present at the location of her husband's murder, at the relevant time (cellphone records - BOOM!), plus there are indications she borrowed the murder weapon from a relative. It's only too obvious why prosecutors honed in on her exclusively!
Forensic evidence of a post-murder clean-up inside the marital home (Gary's blood and a bullet fragment), plus a Walmart receipt for cleaning materials purchased on a shopping trip Melody made alone the day after, are powerfully incriminating.
Testimony from multiple witnesses, some of whom have no 'dog in the race', paint a grim picture of the defendant's character and the marriage. Money and material possessions were Melody's obsessions, and along with her multiple affairs with different men, big sources of friction in the marriage. Love had left their relationship many years before. Melody's affairs seemed to get more intense in her middle age - to the embarrassment and anger of not only her husband, but her four adult children too.
Melody actually left Gary for another man at one point. She returned to their home a few months later and the marriage resumed, with no discussion about the crisis, or indeed, any explanation or apology from Melody. Naturally this created major unspoken resentments within the family, and Gary's trust in his wife was irreparably broken. It also prompted him to tighten the purse strings and cut up his wife's credit card. His response to her infidelity was to control her by financial means - and she hated it. She is a woman who spends lavishly, as photos of their palatial home decor confirms.
After that affair, Melody and Gary were a couple in name only, living and sleeping in separate parts of the house. Melody positively flaunted her next affair with a man called Rusty, the not-so-secret relationship she was having at the time of her husband's murder.
Around a year before he died, she had invited Rusty to their daughter's big society wedding. She shamelessly kissed, danced, cuddled and canoodled with him in front of all the guests (as could be seen on multiple photos of the wedding dance floor, shown at trial). Gary kept his cool in public, but was secretly seething, and later told his kids: "That's the last time she embarrasses me like that". He was correct, it would be the last time, but for tragic reasons he could not have predicted.
The defence attempt to frame the victim's son Scott for the murder, despite his clear lack of motive to kill his dad (and indeed zero evidence he did it), smacks of desperation. No wonder the attorneys seem half-hearted in their delivery - they know jurors are highly unlikely to buy what they're selling!
In fact Scott, who lived and worked on his parents' farmstead after a military career, stood to lose the most from his dad's death - his home and his job. In common with his older brother Chris and sister Emily, his relationship with his mother was strained. Without his dad's patronage, she was unlikely to continue the arrangement his generous father had set up. Gary's death left Scott very vulnerable - and as with all the children, no financially better off, as the entire estate went to Melody.
All four of the children gave evidence, and all four showed authentic, heart-breaking grief when discussing their father's violent murder and squalid end, his body destroyed on a fire pit. They loved him, and though there's a three-to-one split with Chris, Scott and Emily opposing Melody, against the youngest child Amanda who supports her and testified for the defence, they are united in grief at the loss of their dad and the ruination of their family. I cannot imagine jurors believing any one of Gary's children capable of killing him.
Amanda is the only child to remain loyal to her mother, and to believe in her innocence (though her answers on the stand about that were cagey to say the least). This is a sad case of a narcissistic parent manipulating an emotionally needy child. Bad enough that Melody robbed her kids of their loving father, but in addition she's divided those siblings, by adopting Amanda as her personal confidante, cheerleader and spy.
Amanda as a result is estranged from the brothers and sister whose support she (and they) need more than ever, since the murder. The older siblings have reluctantly recognised their mother's guilt in their father's murder. They've seen a ton of evidence, throughout their lives, of her callous contempt for him, her repeated betrayals, and the way she prioritises money and possessions over people. Her ruthless treatment of her kids was a regular theme running through even the loyal Amanda's evidence.
Sadly Amanda is in denial about the depths of her mother's depravity, and her status as her dad's killer. I hope the inevitable Guilty verdict will ultimately move the siblings on, and prompt healing. Their dad Gary would not have wanted his beloved kids to be estranged because of his murder by their mother. The toxic, destructive Melody has done quite enough damage to people she claimed to love. When justice is served and she's locked in the cage she will die in, I pray the rest of this emotionally battered and bruised family can start the long road to recovery, as I'm sure their dad would want for them.
2
-
2
-
THIS! Agree 100% what the hell does Johnny's booze and drug intake have to do with anything? He told us about it himself, and freely admits it! But he totally denies ever laying a finger on his ex wife or any other woman.
I believe him and I don't trust a word that comes out of Amber Turd or her supporters' mouths. She's a toxic, manipulative, narcissistic abuser and a pathological liar. SHE was the monster and abuser in the relationship, not Johnny Depp. You only have to hear her yelling obscenities at him on the audio recordings, or read her obsessive, bossy texts to him (sent repeatedly, over and over, when he was not replying to her), to know she's dangerously out of control!
It's frankly terrifying that dreadful woman now has sole custody of a defenceless child she paid a surrogate to carry and birth for her. The Turd is such a lazy, gold-digging grifter, she didn't even give birth to her own baby!😱😱😱
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's hardly surprising Victoria Propokovitz had depression, living with an abusive husband like him! The police bodycam showed exactly what kind of man and partner James Propokovitz was, a belligerent, arrogant, aggressive bully. He had abused his first wife too, the mother of his children, but she escaped with her life. Victoria wasn't so lucky.
The defendant's motives for murdering the wife he repeatedly referred to as "That woman", were clear. She had become an inconvenience to him, her cancer treatment and medical bills were trying his patience and their finances. He had a new girlfriend and wanted to be a free agent to see her - without handing over half of the jointly owned marital assets in a divorce. Once he had got rid of Victoria, his lifestyle changed suddenly and dramatically. He was having a high old time, taking pornographic photos of his girlfriend in hotel rooms, and blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars with her, gambling in casinos. Hedonistic, selfish pursuits he could not have got away with if Victoria was alive.
Suicide was the only possible alternative to murder the defence could come up with, but it just wasn't credible. Victoria was too physically weak to have killed herself away from the house - she could hardly walk, and didn't drive. And how would she have made her own, clothed body, totally disappear? Over the last 8 years, police have done many exhaustive professional searches for her. When a woman vanishes into thin air in suspicious circumstances, it strongly points to foul play and spousal murder. Human bodies don't disappear unless someone worked very hard to make them disappear! The chemical sludge ponds Propokovitz had a key to, gave him the perfect opportunity to destroy his wife's corpse quickly and efficiently. He thought he'd committed the perfect murder, and could not be prosecuted. He was wrong. Victoria's children had a gut instinct this was not suicide, but murder. Soon police felt the same way, and they worked tirelessly to provide quality evidence that proved it to a jury. Kudos to them for helping deliver justice to a murder victim and her loved ones.
James Propkovirz is guilty as sin. Thankfully this was a smart jury, able to navigate all the evidence, see the truth and deliver the right verdict. This case and other 'no-body' cases like Patrick Frazee's, tells abusive men they cannot assume they'll get away with murdering their partner, if they successfully dispose of her body. And justice can catch up with them, many years later!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joycemarie9702 Exactly! Chandler clearly had no ambition whatsoever, beyond a wholly unproductive life as a parasite. Ironically, murdering both parents, dismembering and dumping their remains, is the hardest he ever worked in his 23 years on the planet.
More ironic still, is that he killed the only people in the world who loved him deeply, and would continue to care for him regardless of his narcissism and entitlement. No one else cares a damn about him now!
He has many long, lonely hours ahead of him in a prison cell to think about that. And to realise there's no more mom and dad to call on - no source of emotional support or even cash, as thanks to his ruthlessness and greed every cent of it (a cool $1 million), has gone to his brother.
Not the sharpest tool in the box, is he?!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Anne-pk8gs That 'giant, rude & aggressive bully' as you slander murder victim Chad Oulson (who incidentally weighed less than his big, burly killer), was SHOT DEAD by the supposedly vulnerable 'elderly man'.
Curtis Reeves was 71 years old when he swaggered into that movie theatre and started a fight with law abiding husband and father Chad. A man whose only 'crime' was to text his 3-year-old's childminder during the TRAILERS, as he and his wife (and everyone else), awaited the actual movie, during an afternoon, matinee date.
Chad and Nicole rightly expected to watch a movie without the threat of murder. They could have been any couple that day, sitting in the dark when a belligerent ex cop - who thought he still was one and worse, believed he had a licence to kill - threw his considerable weight around. It's pure luck he didn't kill other innocent movie goers that day - he clearly didn't give a damn who he killed just as long as he 'won' the crazy argument he started.
We can only imagine the abuse Curtis Reeves must have got away with when he wore a police uniform. He was still drunk with power years after retiring!
I sincerely hope you meet a bully like Reeves someday, Anne. You really deserve that. Chad Oulsen and his widow Nicole, however, did not.
Karma is coming for his killer, and for toxic creeps like you who support him. You're disgusting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Her story makes no sense at all. She and her boyfriend were having a great day together at her place, and next they're having a spontaneous game of hide and seek (two grown adults playing hide and seek, in a tiny, 2 bedroom apartment, yeah, right, lol).
Then for no good reason he gets into a suitcase - and suddenly he turns into this 103lb ogre she's too terrified to allow out of the suitcase? Huh? When did Dr Jeykyll turn into Mr Hyde?! And when did she intend to free him - a week later?!! GUILTY as charged.
Yes he was abusive, and so was she. He shouldn't have even been at her damn house that night - she'd taken out a restraining order against him. Yet there they were, drinking wine and having fun together - until she pulled her nasty, drunken revenge trick, went up to bed, and left him alone in the dark in that canvas tomb, to suffocate to death.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The defence was reaching, big time! Common sense tells you Victoria was talking about being found in time to save her - it was a reference to her second suicide attempt in 2003 (ten years before her murder), when her son Wes found her in time, and she was rushed to hospital and survived the prescription pills overdose.
Victoria had swallowed the pills out of anger that her husband, the defendant, was cheating on her. When she came round in hospital she was still angry with him and said she had wanted to die, and was angry she had been saved. She told her family she didn't expect her son to come home and find her - her plan was for her husband to find her later that day, dead. Hence her comment 'Next time you won't find me'. She was getting at her cheating husband, saying next time she'd make sure her suicide was successful and no one found her in time for rescue.
She was not saying no one would ever find her dead body! That makes no sense at all. Why would anyone think about their own corpse, or about hiding it from relatives?
The defence made a big deal of that statement and gave it a meaning it didn't have, because their entire case hinged on persuading the jury that Victoria wasn't murdered but killed herself and, ludicrously, hid her own, clothed body. Quite how she was supposed to have achieved that, they didn't explain!
James Propokovitz was confident he would get away with murdering his wife for two reasons. First because her history of depression and her two, historic suicide attempts would be an easy explanation for her disappearance, and second because he had access to a fantastic place to dispose of her corpse forever, his employer's industrial sludge ponds containing a powerful, mix of corrosive chemicals he knew would destroy her remains. Thankfully he was wrong!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed - I realise everyone has the right to legal defence, but this made me so sick to my stomach I had to switch it off. The sooner this freak is locked in the cage he'll die in, the better.
He stalked Aimie, and when she made it clear she wasn't interested in a relationship and blocked his calls, he drove 50 miles to her home with a syringe of deadly poison, broke-in and lay in wait for hours, then strangled her, and threw her off her balcony. How on EARTH is that not murder?! He literally went there with THREE methods of murder in mind!
It's appalling that vile, abusive, pitiful excuse for a man is still here, and the beautiful, smart and charismatic Dr Aimie Harwick, who contributed so much positivity to the world, is gone. All because of the age-old, macho narcissistic motive; 'If I can't have her, no one will'. Sickening!
1
-
@imakeajiffypuff4525 The Vallow-Daybell case - and specifically the July 2019 murder of Charles Vallow - is extraordinary for many reasons, not least the bizarre inaction of the investigating police officers, which arguably allowed two child murders to be committed by the same suspects soon after.
I think there are strong grounds for a full and frank, independent public enquiry into the conduct of Chandler Police. WHY weren't Alex Cox and Lori Vallow arrested and charged with Charles Vallow's murder??? They weren't even detained that night, but were instead released to return to the crime scene, Lori's home, for a pool party. Neighbours reported it was loud - presumably the attendees were celebrating Lori's new status as a 'millionairess' (thankfully it never came to pass - Charles had secretly switched the beneficiary from Lori to his sister Kay, not trusting his estranged wife Lori to take financial care of his three sons).
Lori and Alex should not have been partying that night, they should have been locked up. And if they had been, Tylee, JJ and possibly Tammy Daybell too, would all be alive today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SusanDevine-kv2rs Too bad Tammy read that devastating email from Charles Vallow, and chose denial. If she'd only faced up to her grotty husband's affair, thrown him out and got a restraining order, there's a chance she might have survived.
She bore Chad Daybell 5 children, she was the main breadwinner for years, working hard to pay the bills so he could just swan about posing as an author and prophet - and he re-payed her with the most despicable betrayals. The affair with Lori, her murder, and his rapid re-marriage while her body was barely cold, their new married life funded by her $460,000 life insurance blood money. UGH!
Tammy was always way too good for that self-serving, no-neck slob - if only she had known it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Richard Allen is the notorious Delphi murderer of Libby German and Abby Williams, police will have some very difficult questions to answer about why it took them almost 6 years to make an arrest - when their suspect lived just a stone's throw from the crime scene!
What's more, Supt Doug Carter had himself addressed the killer in an early media conference and said: "I believe you are hiding in plain sight". With the arrest of Richard Allen, it seems that statement was absolutely true. So again, why did almost six years pass before his arrest - six years in which that highly dangerous man was free to kill and sexually assault females.
believe it will soon emerge Supt Carter and his detectives wasted time on a red herring, the fake 'Antony Shots' social media account, and bogus murder suspect Kegan Kline who had nothing to do with the double child homicide. Many teen girls are cat-fished by perverts like Kline, alas that's not unusual. But online predators rarely become actual killers - the murders of Abby and Libby in an outdoor, public location during a daytime walk were a massively rare event, and massively against the odds.
May truth and justice finally prevail for Abby, Libby and their poor, devastated loved ones. May all good people who followed this horrific case hold the Williams and Germans up in prayer in the difficult coming weeks and months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Vinnie Politan says he wishes the dog was inside the building to defend the family, instead of being tied up outside. It does seem ironic they apparently kept the dog for personal security, yet isolated and secured him in such a way he couldn't help them when they became victimis of crime.
That said, I doubt the dog could have protected the family against a man with a gun. As an animal lover, I'm just glad he wasn't killed too, along with his owners, as this psycho POS would undoubtedly have done had the family kept the dog with them.
What kind of cowardly freak murders a defenceless family, including a tiny, 8-month-old baby? I pray that walking piece of excrement survives his pathetic suicide attempt. He deserves to live a long, miserable life in a cage, looking over his shoulder every day fearing attacks by bigger psychopaths.
And the so-called 'professionals' who decided he was safe to be released from prison to walk among decent people again, should be named and shamed! He had a documented history of violence, no parole board on the planet could guarantee he wouldn't hurt someone again given the chance. Now he's killed four innocent people, including an infant. The people who decided to give him the freedom to commit that atrocity, must be held accountable for their disastrous judgement!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Child killer Richard Allen hasn't aged due to any conscience - it's a fundamental misunderstanding of psychopaths to assume he feels guilt for his savage murders of two children.
The man capable of stabbing two girls to death in broad daylight for fleeting, sexual kicks, is incapable of feeling guilt or remorse. His only regret is that he was caught. He's aged/lost weight because he's smart enough to know his life, in any meaningful way, is over.
Allen is the most dangerous category of murderer, a sex killer, and is therefore highly likely to re-offend and take more females' lives, in a similarly brutal fashion.
It's no thanks to that utter buffoon Supt Doug Carter, that Allen was caught at all, after roaming freely at liberty for a staggering FIVE YEARS, presenting as serious a danger to females as it's possible to be. If anyone needs reminding, Allen was free to kill again for all that time, after committing this audacious double murder in broad daylight, a mere 5 minute drive from his home address.
Doug Carter was wrong when he struck poses at media conferences, and claimed Libby and Abby's killer was quote, 'Hiding in plain sight'. It has since emerged Allen wasn't hiding at all! In fact the killer as good as gave himself up to the authorities within mere days of the murders, admitting he was at the crime scene at exactly the same time and date as the crime, wearing exactly the same clothes as the suspect Libby bravely videoed on her Smartphone. But the cops didn't see fit to even interview him!
Could Richard Allen be responsible for more sex killings, in that near five year window between murdering 14 year old Libby and 13 year old Abby, and being taken into custody? Sure he could - it's now crystal clear the Delphi/Keystone Cops were unlikely to have caught him if he had.
If ever a murder investigation needed to be taken over by another police force/superintendent, Delphi is it. Doug Carter is not fit for purpose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why does Court TV invite dirty ex-cop Chris McDonough onto its channel? Chrissh McDoofus is a proven crook, liar and charlatan, who tried to frame three children for a murder they did not commit. The man has zero integrity or credibility. Frankly his inclusion on any true crime panel is a stain on that TV channel's reputation!
Anyone unfamiliar with McDonough's seedy past need only Google his name for details of his leading role in an appalling and deliberate, near miscarriage of justice - the murder of 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe on January 20th 1998.
Thanks to McDonough's corrupt and unlawful interrogation techniques, the victim's teen brother Michael Crowe, and his friends Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway were wrongly accused of the murder.
McDonough subjected the three innocent boys to hours of gruelling, psychologically abusive interrogation, during which they were deliberately isolated from their parents and had no access to lawyers. They were indited on murder charges, and pre-trial proceedings commenced.
McDonough applied his normal approach to 'solving' the crime ie, rather than keep an open mind and be led by the evidence, he decided from the start the boys were guilty because Stephanie had been stabbed to death at home in her bedroom, and there was no forced entry to the house. He then built a (flimsy) case to fit his view. McDoofus concluded, without any actual evidence whatsoever, that it had to be an inside job by the victim's elder sibling and his pals.
Thankfully a year later Stephanie's blood was (very belatedly) found on the shirt of her actual killer, transient man Richard Tuite. And then the full, shocking story of the bungled murder investigation under Chris McDonough's disastrous leadership, finally emerged.
Killer Tuite had not only been seen in the Crowes' neighbourhood on the night of Stephanie's murder by multiple witnesses, he was also reported to police by several neighbours for his strange and aggressive behaviour. Tuite, was clearly under the influence of drink/drugs, was yelling threats of murder, knocking on neighbouring front doors, and trying various different ruses to get inside residents' homes.
A police officer who attended that night in response to the 911 calls, briefly looked around and noted that he saw a door next to the Crowe's garage, close. This was a clear indication that someone had just entered it. The officer could not see who closed the door, and despite the earlier 911 reports of a transient male trying to enter houses, he did not investigate further. The cop left the scene at 9.56pm, reporting that the transient was 'gone on arrival'.
Stephanie was stabbed to death by Tuite in her bedroom between 10 - 11pm. There was no forced entry - Tuite got in through the unlocked door next to the garage. The policeman had witnessed the killer enter the house - and missed the opportunity to arrest him, and save Stephanie's life. She was found dead on her bedroom floor by her grandmother next morning at 6.30am. bloodied from frenzied blows with a 5-6 inch bladed knife.
Police briefly took Tuite in for questioning, fingerprinted him and took various items including clothing, fingernail scrapings and hair. They did only the briefest interview with him, and crucially failed to do a background check. If they had, they'd have found he had an extensive mental health and arrests history. Tuite was detained for a short time, and released. Under Chris McDonough, the investigation turned away from him, and focused in on entirely the wrong suspects - Stephanie's innocent brother and his two equally innocent and bewildered friends.
Tuite's shirt had been collected during the first days of the police investigation, but thanks to McDonough's arrogant certainty that he'd solved the case and nabbed the three teen 'killers', the garment was not fully tested until a whole year later.
Those poor boys (and their families, one of whom also lost a child to murder), needlessly endured a living hell, fully expecting to die in prison for a crime they didn't commit. Only due to the solid dna evidence proving their innocence, which emerged so crazily late due to police corruption, were they finally and fully cleared. Charges against the boys were dropped, and Tuite was convicted of Stephanie's murder.
If Chris McDonough had had his way, Michael, Aaron and Joshua, three totally innocent men, would still be locked up in prison today, for a heinous child homicide they had nothing to do with. I wonder how those three men feel when they see their former tormentor presented on TV shows like this as a respectable voice of true crime and justice?
After that disgusting scandal McDonough should have been kicked out of the police force in disgrace with no pension. Instead he was allowed to quietly retire, with his reputation - and fat pension - intact.
It is a measure of the man's enormous ego that he launched a post-retirement career as a true crime media 'expert' - despite his shocking and well-documented history of corruption and failure, and his notable lack of talent as a 'broadcasshter'!
Is this really the calibre of true crime 'expert' guest, Court TV is booking these days??? Get a clue, Vinnie!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you mean by 'giving'? Children need emotional support and guidance. They need their parents' time, attention, and healthy, consistent boundaries and expectations set down. Because along with rights, come responsibilities. They also need love - real, unconditional love.
Despite his adoptive parents' wealth, I believe Christopher Sutton's childhood was a deprived one, during which these fundamental needs were not met.
Kids don't need to live in mansions, have lots of money spent on them, or be pressured to live up to the achievements of an unusually successful, high-powered lawyer like John Sutton. Just because the Suttons were rich and privileged, didn't automatically mean they were good parents!
Strikes me this wealthy, infertile couple adopted a tiny, days-old baby boy (and later a baby girl), to check 'parenthood' off their lifestyle list, along with living in a beautiful home, owning nice cars and enjoying annual vacations in 5 star resorts. But they were clueless about how to be good parents.
When Christopher showed signs of anti-social behaviour/anger in his teens (mysterious conduct that was unexplored in this TV report), the Suttons didn't seek a psychiatrist to counsel him. They sent him away to a remote, tropical boot camp, for literally years. He had become an inconvenience they wanted rid of. They even extended his incarceration overseas, by an additional year - despite knowing he was miserable. That was an unforgiveable parental betrayal, and confirmed Christopher's darkest fears - his mother and father did not love him. I think this experience destroyed any love he had for the couple, and set the stage for the assassination plot.
It is astonishing that John Sutton at no point acknowledges his own parental failure. For someone to go from being the much-wanted, adopted baby of rich and successful parents, to living out their days in a maximum security prison, which they will only ever leave in a body bag, is an extraordinary reversal of fortune!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ladytruth303 The term 'frail' was clearly used by the OP in reference to those twisted people who claim Curtis Reeves should have got away with murder because of his advanced age.
Common sense and the unchallenged facts of the case, show at no time was Reeves even remotely 'scared' for his life - because he started that conflict (during the trailers before a damned afternoon matinee), and unbeknown to the other guy, he brought a loaded weapon along to it! With his finger secretly on the trigger, Reeves knew full well he had no reason to fear anyone.
Curtis Reeves is an entitled, arrogant bully who clearly missed the power of his police badge, and spent his retirement as he no doubt spent his career - throwing his considerable weight around and belligerently treating people is if he still was a cop. And it's only too obvious what kind of dirty cop he must have been - the kind of malignant narcissist who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the uniform that gave him immense power over others.
We don't know the half of what that maniac Curtis Reeves got away with in his privileged life! So privileged, that he literally got away with murder. His confident manner in court (complete with prop walking stick), shows he was never in any fear of being convicted and sent to jail either.
It's clear to any reasonable person Reeves is a highly volatile, dangerous individual who was always likely to kill someone, some day. Chad Oulson, an unarmed, law abiding husband and father was the unlucky citizen in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could just as easily have been your husband, son, brother or friend who displeased bullying Curtis Reeves over something trivial and got a bullet to the chest. You'd no doubt be singing a very different tune if it had been your loved one he shot dead in a movie theatre.
If you seriously think Curtis Reeves' behaviour was in any way proportionate or reasonable that day, you have severely stunted critical thinking skills!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's plainly obvious why Indiana Police don't want the second, clean-shaven, much younger suspect sketch (which they produced to media fanfare at a sudden press conference, two years after the murders), shown in court. That second sketch was way off the mark and a major mistake on their part, and exposes what an utter farce their murder investigation was!
The first suspect sketch, of a bearded, older/middle aged man, is of course far more like the suspect seen in Libby's Smartphone video, and is far more like Richard Allen.
Under Supt Doug Carter, the police investigation into the Delphi killings was a total shambles. Indiana Police were inexperienced at handling a crime of this magnitude. Only by re-visiting the evidence from ground zero five years on, in 2022, did law enforcement realise their huge error. They'd let the killer Richard Allen slip through their fingers from the start.
Incredibly, Allen presented himself to authorities immediately after the murders, and stated he'd been on the bridge/at the crime scene at the time of the murders, and was wearing the same clothes seen in Libby's video. He was confessing to being the man in that video, while denying he was the killer! No doubt he was terrified of capture, after seeing himself on that video, on TV news reports.
Of course police should have formally interviewed him at that time, as a result of his significant admission. If they had, he'd have been arrested and charged with the two murders, within 2 weeks. Police mistakes are the reason this infamous crime went unsolved for a staggering five years.
1
-
It's plainly obvious why Indiana Police don't want the second, clean-shaven, much younger suspect sketch (which they produced to media fanfare at a sudden press conference, two years after the murders), shown in court. That second sketch was way off the mark and a major mistake on their part, and exposes what an utter farce their murder investigation was!
The first suspect sketch, of a bearded, older/middle aged man, is of course far more like the suspect seen in Libby's Smartphone video, and is far more like Richard Allen.
Under Supt Doug Carter, the police investigation into the Delphi killings was a total shambles. Indiana Police were inexperienced at handling a crime of this magnitude. Only by re-visiting the evidence from ground zero five years on, in 2022, did law enforcement realise their huge error. They'd let the killer Richard Allen slip through their fingers from the start.
Incredibly, Allen presented himself to authorities immediately after the murders, and stated he'd been on the bridge/at the crime scene at the time of the murders, and was wearing the same clothes seen in Libby's video. He was confessing to being the man in that video, while denying he was the killer! No doubt he was terrified of capture, after seeing himself on that video, on TV news reports.
Of course police should have formally interviewed him at that time, as a result of his significant admission. If they had, he'd have been arrested and charged with the two murders, within 2 weeks. Police mistakes are the reason this infamous crime went unsolved for a staggering five years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tamicyrusOUproud Amen! GLARING police mistakes in the Delphi case, are one of the most shocking, heinous, and blatant cases of police incompetence in modern criminal history.
I believe once Richard Allen's murder trial has concluded early next year (2024), Delphi cops will be exposed and discredited - and specifically, their boss on this notorious double child murder case, DOUG CARTER, will finally be held publicly accountable and fully disgraced, exactly as he deserves.
Doug Carter is an utter buffoon, and is not fit for purpose as a senior law enforcement officer - as has been plainly obvious at every public media conference he's hosted on this globally infamous crime. To date he is extremely lucky the relatives of the two murdered girls have not challenged his shocking ineptitude.
Supt Carter is a perfect example of a man promoted far above his abilities. It's no exaggeration to say he could not be trusted to hand out parking penalties.
That Carter is STILL in charge of the Delphi child murder case is an appalling insult to its victims, Liberty German (14), and Abigail Williams (13). Those children lost their whole lives - and for almost FIVE YEARS Richard Allen, undoubtedly the man who killed them for sexual kicks in a public place, in broad daylight - a crime scene he lived a mere 5 minute drive from - believed he had got away with it. With good reason - the Keystone Cops were clueless!
The scary thing is Richard Allen nearly did get away with it, thanks to unbelievable police failings. Utterly shameful!
The Delphi child murders will go down in history as a disgusting and totally inexcusable police failure. We can only hope Richard Allen did not kill any more girls or women, in the five years he enjoyed at liberty after committing this outrageous double child homicide. Who knows if he killed again in that time? Frankly if he did, Carter & Co wouldn't have the first idea!
1
-
@Red4banger Yes the conservation officer who spoke with Richard Allen right after the murders obviously bears heavy responsibility for not following up.
However he did follow correct procedure at the time, and he did place the report of his encounter with Allen in the right way. It's significant that police did not blame him personally in their subsequent explanation, following Allen's almost 5-years-delayed arrest, but instead blamed a 'clerical error'.
If police could have scapegoated that man for what was an enormous mistake with horrifying potential consequences (more murders), they absolutely would have done!
There is something seriously amiss with police procedure/its implementation, when they omit to do that most basic thing of accounting for all persons present at the Monon High Bridge/surrounding trail area, on the date and relevant time of the murders.
It truly beggars belief they did not - particularly when Richard Allen even said he was on the bridge itself at the exact same time as the two victims (yet claimed he didn't see them at any point), and was wearing the exact same clothing seen on 'Bridge Guy' on Libby's Smartphone video. He was clearly trying to explain his presence there, knowing he had been captured on video!
After Allen's trial has concluded, there had better be full accountability by police (and that buffoon Supt Doug Carter in particular) for their shocking, 5-year incompetence in the Delphi Murders investigation. The victims and the public deserve nothing less!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is outrageous and disgusting - I can't listen to the utter crock his defence lawyer came out with to get him off life in prison. It's totally obvious that attorney doesn't believe a single word that's coming out of his own mouth!
Gareth Pursehouse is such a vile PoS, he won't even own what he did like a man. Instead he's a man-child, who fights to avoid responsibility with a Not Guilty plea, and needlessly puts Dr Aimie Harwick's loved-ones through further pain.
I don't know how his defence team can sleep at night, insulting the memory of a heinously stalked and murdered woman. Amie was a fantastic, vital and much loved human being, doing good things in the world. She was ambushed, strangled and thrown to her death, in her own home, just because she told her killer 'No'. Her last moments alive, knowing her worst fears had come true, are the stuff of horror films.
Women are allowed to say no to men. Women are allowed to reject men. Women can even break men's hearts, hurt and disappoint them - it's allowed. Everyone gets rejected sometime, most people handle it and move on.
What isn't allowed, is those men deciding murder is the best way to heal their hurt pride. Pursehouse is such an arrogant, controlling narcissist he would not let her be happy without him, but decided if he couldn't have her, no one else would.
It's hard to know what else Aimie could have done to keep herself safe. Her inner woman's intuition told her this creep was a very real and serious danger to her. That she wrote herself that email, outlining his weird, hysterical conduct at the red carpet event, shows exactly how terrified she was.
She improved her locks, bought pepper spray, and alerted her male housemate to the danger of her ex boyfriend turning up, uninvited. I struggle to understand why he didn't investigate when he heard a crash inside the house (Pursehouse breaking through the French doors). If he'd only realised Pursehouse had broken in, hours before Aimee's return and called police, she would have had a warning and would be alive today.
And for some reason her housemate didn't have a phone that night. When he heard her being attacked, he had to go to the next door neighbour's house to call 911. It's not the housemate's fault Aimie was murdered, that's down to Gareth Pursehouse alone. But I can't help wishing he'd been on rather higher alert, after Aimie had asked him to be.
1
-
Jennifer Soto offered her daughter up on a silver platter to that paedophile, to do his worst - and he did. For years she let that creep go to bed with her precious, defenceless little girl, and have full, unsupervised access to her. It is plainly obvious she knew he was sexually abusing Maddie, and she was clearly absolutely fine with it.
Jennifer Soto actively enabled her child's rape and murder, she must get proper jail time for her criminal child neglect. Her crocodile tears in front of police are all for herself. She's a poor excuse for a mother. Child neglect is child abuse, and this is some of the worst category. Make an example of her - prosecute and lock her up!
Bad enough she opened up their home to that lazy parasite who contributed nothing (Madeline told her counsellor he ate all their food, and made her feel uncomfortable). That alone is a red flag that Madeline's needs/wishes were zero priority to her mother. Why did she let him move in at all?
What the hell did Jennifer Soto even get from that relationship? Sterns spent no money on them, in fact he was a drain on their family resources, and was even suspected of stealing from them, eg Maddie's birthday cash (he made a habit of this, he stole money and jewellery from his parents too). Jennifer obviously didn't even want to sleep with him - she pushed that chore onto her innocent child.
She's obviously one of those pathetic women who must have a boyfriend at any cost, for appearance's sake. She can't bear to be single for 2 minutes, even when being single is a far better option than dating a man who is not only a creepy misfit and loser, but is abusing and endangering your child!
1
-
Agreed - this so-called 'professional' and her blatantly pro Amber Heard, anti Johnny Depp bias made me so angry I had to switch off! The way she slandered him as a rapist made my blood boil. In truth, the evidence to date has roundly rejected any such notion, showing instead that Amber Heard abused Johnny Depp in every possible way - she trashed his good name, lost him lucrative acting roles, put him in hospital, regularly physically and emotionally abused him, and even defecated in his bed!
Amber Heard's betrayal of all the REAL female victims of domestic abuse out there is utterly sickening. Her heinous lies about Johnny Depp and her own, hideous domestic abuse against him, have done ALL women a terrible disservice. And in taking Heard's money to prop up her lies, this female psychologist has kicked women in the teeth a second time!
I hope she never lives down this disgraceful performance on the stand backing Heard, and it loses her any shred of professional credibility she had (though she's so unimpressive and unlikable, I struggle to believe she ever did have any!)
As it is, most women don't report domestic abuse for fear they won't be believed. Now Heard has made it doubly difficult, because she has helped perpetuate the misogynist myth that women invent stories about men abusing them. On the all too rare occasions females report and prosecute abusive males, the vast majority are telling the truth.
Women rarely lie about this stuff. But spoiled, narcissistic Amber Heard had many self-serving reasons to invent her abuse claims against superstar Johnny Depp. As Dr Curry the impressive psychologist who did Heard's testing confirmed, she faked symptoms of PTSD but in fact has toxic personality disorders explaining her vile abusive history.
Just look at the timing of the libellous op-ed written in Heard's name (she was too lazy to have even written it herself!) She stipulated it must be published to coincide with the release of her 'Aquaman' movie - in other words, it was all about self promotion, bolstering her career and presenting herself as a heroine of the 'Me Too' movement by lying about Johnny Depp.
As his lawyer Ben Chew said today - no one would be interested in an article by Amber Heard, she's still a little known actress, despite her past association with superstar Depp. So she cynically libelled her famous ex husband to get the publicity she craves! Clearly if he hadn't sued her, she would have continued to dine out on his name by constantly trashing him in the media.
Ditto the restraining order she took out against Depp right after he told her the marriage was over (thanks to 'PooGate'). He had left the US on a European tour, so was thousands of miles away from her. She had no reason to fear him harassing her - and of course she didn't, she clearly took that action to paint him as an abuser and get maximum bucks out of him in the divorce settlement.
I pray justice prevails in this high profile court case. Johnny has already won in the court of public opinion. But after the years of toxic abuse and defamation he has suffered from Amber Heard, he deserves to nail her lies once and for all and fully restore his good name. The reputations of Amber Heard and all who supported her abuse and pathological lies should be forever stained!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes the evidence of Kathy Friday's son showed her affair with Propokovitz DID start months before he murdered his wife. That affair was his motive to kill Victoria, that is why he involved his girlfriend in lying to the authorities under oath about when they got romantically involved. Kathy wound up convicted of perjury, a very serious criminal offence which would have landed her in jail - but she committed suicide in custody before she could be sentenced.
The defence claim that Victoria Propokivitz, who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home in the dark and killed herself, yet her body was never found, is ridiculous. Suicide victims' remains are generally found - murder victims often aren't, because their killer worked hard to dispose of them.
Victoria was a proud woman, who would not have left home without her dentures, the person who would leave those at home was her husband, because, as he told a fellow prison inmate, they would identify her body if found with her.
And her daughter testified she was a chain smoker, who would never be without her cigarettes even if she was planning to commit suicide. She testified if her mom walked out the house to kill herself, they would have found a trail of cigarette butts marking her route.
1
-
1
-
@teresathayn5170 Doesn't surprise me at all, the woman is nuts. I feel her ex and their little boy have at least had a very good result from this horrible tragedy - Sarah Boone is going to prison for life, and both are free of her.
She's an alcoholic, narcissistic abuser on such an extreme scale, she's killed someone. I think it was always going to happen, sooner or later. Her child did not need that pathologically self-serving, destructive woman messing up his life.
Poor kid, I bet she sends him umpteen letters each week from jail, in the same, crazy handwriting she harasses the judge with. Letters can be ignored, burned or trashed - it's harder to get rid of an abusive parent who keeps turning up on your doorstep uninvited. Thankfully her son will know exactly where she is from now on - safely behind bars where she can't bother him. I wish him and his father all the very best for their Boone-free future.
1
-
1
-
@pricklypear7516 Nothing wrong with intelligent, informed speculation. But you're inventing detailed scenarios for which there is no evidence whatsoever - that's telling fairy tales, so utterly worthless and totally unhelpful.
Yes I was once 13 years old (brilliant deduction on your part). So were you, which only makes your lack of empathy for the paralysing terror these children would have experienced all the more unimpressive. Two little girls (and at 13 and 14 Abby and Libby were only just teens), are no physical or mental match for an adult male predator with an horrific agenda of sexual violence.
They had no lived experience of such an immediate, criminal threat to their lives, to have the first clue how to handle it. Your blase assumption they could have escaped one man so there had to be two, is factually incorrect and an insult to those brave children. As I've pointed out, police believe Libby and Abby DID try to make a break for it and ran across the brook to escape their captor, but were quickly caught and subdued.
The killer had luck on his side too, in that his crime was not interrupted by any witnesses who could have saved the girls.
There's no reason to assume as you do that Kegan Kline's cat-fishing automatically means he/his father were connected with the Delphi murders. Police pursued that line of enquiry exhaustively, without making any corresponding arrests (if every owner of a fake Instagram profile were investigated for murder, there would be many police man hours wasted!)
Such shady online activity is sadly common, and countless teen girls are its targets. In contrast the Delphi double homicide in a public place in broad daylight is a very different crime, a million miles more heinous and audacious than an everyday incident of internet fraud. Having prior online contact with Libby is not, as you state, 'compelling' evidence Kline was involved in her and Abby's murders - it's no evidence at all!
It's obviously escaped your notice, but there are creepy men everywhere. Hell, even the late Ron Logan who owned the land where the murders took place had a history of violence against women, and at least one ex partner told police she was 'frightened' of him. Logan didn't help his cause by asking a family member to lie for him re his alibi on Monday 13th February 2017. Like the Klines, Logan's home was searched by police and his DNA taken - and also like the Klines, he was not charged in connection with Libby and Abby's deaths. Being a creepy guy does not necessarily make you a killer! Depending on your precise location, there could be literally hundreds of convicted sex offenders living within a 5 mile radius of your US home - and who knows how many more dangerous, predatory/abusive men who've never been charged with a crime.
This double homicide shows every indication of being the work of a loner who had no relationship with the victims - and stranger killings are notoriously hardest of all to solve. If Abby and Libby's killer turns out to be a total stranger to them and this was a crime of opportunity as I believe, police will no doubt rely on that to explain/excuse their near six year failure to catch him.
However, if Richard Allen is the Delphi killer tough questions will inevitable be asked as to why it took law enforcement so long to identify him when he was right under their noses, living a stone's throw from the crime scene. It would be particularly ironic when from the start of the murder investigation Supt Doug Carter suggested the killer could be a local man, and even addressed him directly with the words: "We believe you are hiding in plain sight".
Monday's media conference should bring some much needed clarity to this case. Hopefully that will shut down online BS like yours, which, in the absence of even the most basic facts from police woefully inexperienced in handling homicide cases, has been able to flourish unchecked.
1
-
Amen, great work by the prosecution, and respect to the two senior detectives whose diligence and determination finally nailed this evil killer. Victoria's children knew her husband Jim had murdered her - the idea she had killed herself then vanished off the face of the earth, was preposterous!
His stepkids had no axe to grind, they had known him since children and called him dad - he even walked one stepdaughter down the aisle and gave her away. But they could not stand by, and let him get away with murdering their beloved mom. So they told those detectives what they knew, and what they suspected. And pretty soon those officers shared the family's gut feeling that this was no suicide, but was a spousal murder, by an abusive husband.
The guilty verdict was the right one, and it took a smart jury to deliver it. Thank God they were up to the job of navigating all the evidence (much of it circumstantial), and seeing the truth.
James Prokopovitz chose murder over divorce. His wife's medical issues were testing his patience and his wallet. He wanted the freedom to be with his new girlfriend, but didn't want to hand over 50% of the shared marital assets in a divorce. With easy access to his works chemical sludge ponds, the perfect place to dissolve a corpse, a murder plan formed in his mind. That terrible night, after Victoria's adult son left their house, he overpowered and killed his cancer-patient wife, and dumped her body where he was sure it would never be found. And he was right, it never was. But he was wrong in his assumption the absence of a body would get him off a murder conviction!
I hope Barry Morphew, whose wife Suzanne disappeared in equally suspicious circumstances last year, watched this trial and trembled. It showed that 'No body - No crime' is a myth, and that even when years have passed, a killer can still get the police knock on the door! It took 8 years, but justice finally came for James Propokovitz, and I believe it will come for Barry Morphew too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@metal.mellisa With respect, however compelling the evidence appears in any criminal trial, a jury can never be 100% sure of the truth. They weren't there! But yes, some verdicts are easier to call than others (Arias accidentally took a photo of herself dragging her victim's bloodied body across the floor, which was something of a problem for the defence!)
I worry that today people put unshakeable faith in forensic evidence, which in turn diminishes the value of circumstantial evidence in their eyes. That's dangerous. Forensics aren't always irrefutable, and can sometimes be misleading. Of course before the development of forensic science, ALL criminal trials were based on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, and people shouldn't forget that!
I'm a journalist and once asked a senior British criminal barrister to explain the value of forensic versus circumstantial evidence. I've always remembered his reply, I think it's an interesting one.
He said forensic evidence, eg fingerprints, DNA etc, is regarded in legal terms as the gold standard. He likened forensic evidence to a single, thick, unbreakable steel cable.
Circumstantial evidence, while not carrying the same evidentiary weight one-to-one as forensic evidence, can in sufficient quantity be just as powerful and even more so, than a forensic-based case.
He likened circumstantial evidence to a thinner steel wire which, joined together with multiple other thin circumstantial wires, could form a cable just as thick and strong as the single, thick, unbreakable steel cable of forensic evidence - and indeed could be even stronger than a forensics based case.
When the jury considered all the circumstantial evidence, it became clear that the most reasonable explanation for Victoria's disappearance was murder, in a domestic homicide at her husband's hands. No other explanation makes sense, and the defence claim of suicide certainly doesn't. The poor woman was sick, she could not realistically have left her home on foot and committed suicide, and she was even less likely to make her own, clothed body vanish without trace. The total lack of a body was in itself powerful circumstantial evidence of foul play, by a third party. Who else but the defendant had any reason to want rid of Victoria? As he made clear with his fast affair and contemptible comments about Victoria to police ("I wish I could shit her out!"), he did not love her, and did not want her back. He was enjoying a new and hedonistic life with Kathy that was much more fun - taking naked, pornographic photos of her, spending upward of $200,000 a year gambling in casinos etc - free of the burdens and expense of a disabled wife with her colostomy surgeries and medical bills. Soon after Victoria disappeared, as her frantic children organised searches and wrote Facebook appeals, Jim crowed that the heating bills had gone down without her living in the house!
It's obvious Jim chose murder over divorce, which would have lost him half of their shared marital assets. That would not appeal to him, with a new girlfriend and a gambling habit to support. The perjury and lies both he and Kathy told to throw cops off the scent of their affair as a motive (her son confirmed it began months before, not after, Victoria's disappearance), was yet more circumstantial evidence of that terrible crime. I have no doubt James Prokopovitch is now where he fully deserves to be, behind bars.
1
-
@lynnd5342 Kathy Friday could not possibly have known the pornographic photo of her would be used in evidence at Jim's murder trial - it took the defence by surprise, if you remember. It was an afterthought by the prosecution, intended only as supporting evidence of their affair. Propokovitz' attorney John D' Angelo tried unsuccessfully to have it struck from the record, but the judge allowed it.
I'll grant you old 'Curly' had been discreet in hiding evidence of his affair, before he killed his wife. It's obvious it began before, not after Victoria Propokovitz' death - why do you think both Jim and Kathy lied to police and on oath about their affair, committing the serious crime of perjury, unless it was the motive for her murder? Use some common sense here!
Prosecutors believe he and Kathy used 'burner' cellphones, purchased especially for the purpose, and that's why incriminating phone records couldn't be found. Many people who embark on extra marital affairs communicate by secret, cellphones purchased for the purpose. Doesn't take a criminal mastermind to think that up, it makes perfect sense - a married man can't risk long and frequent phone chats with his lover on the home phone. If his wife doesn't hear him whispering sweet nothings to another woman in the house, she will spot the unfamiliar phone number appearing repeatedly on the family phone bill - and she might possibly call it! And you can't have phone sex with your girlfriend, if your wife is listening on the extension! Remember how after Victoria disappeared, Jim justified his romance with Kathy to Victoria's son Wes, saying he had 'needs'?
That sly cellphone scheme served Jim and Kathy well, when they lied to police that they first met not after her partner's death in late 2012, but totally by chance in a casino after Victoria went missing in 2013.
Unlucky for Jim that he hadn't reckoned on Kathy's children letting the cat out the bag to murder detectives that they actually met early 2013!
Why do you say Kathy was, quote: '...accused of something she didn't do'? Kathy was guilty as charged - she committed perjury by lying to police and under oath in court, and she admitted it, pleading guilty, as did Jim. There was no question of any miscarriage of justice over that. She was clearly terrified about the legal consequences of her crime - she killed herself in custody, just 3 days before she was due to be sentenced for it.
She was 68 years old, facing prison and no doubt fearing she could face further charges regarding Victoria Propokovitz' murder by Jim. I think Kathy was a gentle lady (as was Victoria - the type of woman abusive men like him target), and she got in over her head with a highly toxic and dangerous man.
Don't be fooled into sympathising with the killer because he's 75. You could clearly see his explosive temper in police body cam and interview footage! His wife Victoria is the one deserving of sympathy. She left her first abusive husband, because he beat and terrorised her, only to marry an even worse bully who wound up murdering her when she was just 58, depriving her of a retirement and of time with her children and grandkids.
What do you think happened to Victoria Propokovitz' dead body? People who commit suicide are usually found, especially if they are physically weak as she was. She could not walk further than a few yards and needed a walking stick - she could not have made her own corpse disappear! When a woman in an unhappy relationship suddenly vanishes without trace, you can bet her partner killed her and worked hard to hide her body. Men like James Propokivitz and Patrick Frazee assume if they can just get rid of their victim's body, they can create a mystery about their disappearance that will get them off a murder charge. Thank God for dedicated police who proved those men wrong, and brought justice for Victoria and her heart broken loved ones after 8 years.
No one but James Propokovitz had the motive, means and opportunity to want Victoria dead. He will die in prison, as he deserves to. His fate is far kinder than the one he inflicted on his poor wife! He can still talk to the people who care about him, he'll have free medical care, meals cooked for him, home comforts and entertainments. And in time he will have a natural death, followed by a funeral - human dignities he ruthlessly denied his loyal wife when he murdered and dumped her in toxic chemicals.
1
-
@konnichiwala889 James Prokopovitz' threats to kill his first wife proved he was an abusive husband and gave useful context - but they were not the only evidence he killed his second wife Victoria, as you suggest. There were two weeks of convincing prosecution witnesses and evidence which showed that, and convinced the jury he was Victoria's murderer. I guess you didn't watch the whole trial.
In contrast, the defence couldn't produce a single, solitary witness to provide evidence that the defendant was innocent - not one. Nor did their client, so emphatic to police that he didn't do it, grab the opportunity to put his case direct to the jury. He refused to take the stand.
It's hilarious how people who obviously did not follow the two week trial are ignoring all the prosecution evidence against Propokovitz and jumping on here to parrot the weak and feeble, arguments of the defence, that the victim wasn't murdered by her abusive husband but killed herself. That claim was highly unlikely, as anyone with an ounce of logic or common sense could see.
The defence had a very tough task to sell the notion that Victoria, a cancer patient who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night without cigarettes or dentures (and without leaving a suicide note or any footprints), killed herself some distance from home and then hid her own, clothed body so well that 8 years of exhaustive police searches never found it. No wonder they failed to convince the jury!
The defence lawyers had to exaggerate the victim's two supposed, historic suicide attempts to make it seem more likely that's how she died. But it soon became clear the suicide attempts were not terribly useful to them, because both happened such a long time ago, they didn't prove a thing.
Victoria's adult children knew in their gut their mother didn't kill herself, and told police they suspected their stepfather of involvement in her sudden, mysterious disappearance. When cops looked into it at their request, they shared that suspicion, and their investigations quickly pointed to her husband Jim.
One by one Victoria's children and stepchildren took the stand to say she was not depressed, much less suicidal when she disappeared. On the last day she was ever seen, she was upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up.
The very fact her body vanished without trace, indicated foul play and a killer who worked damn hard to get rid of his victim. Suicide victims' remains are usually recovered, it is rare that they aren't - but murder victims' often aren't found because the person who killed them hides/destroys them, fearing their remains will provide clues to the identity of their murderer.
So desperate were the defence arguments, they even twisted a long-ago statement Victoria made to her family; "Next time you won't find me", to suggest she had killed herself and deliberately hidden her own corpse! Common sense explains what she actually meant - she was telling them that next time she attempted suicide, they wouldn't find her in time to save her. Nothing whatsoever to do with hiding her own dead body - who would even think of that, it makes no sense at all.
Some juries are so intellectually challenged, the critical thinking skills needed to navigate circumstantial evidence are utterly beyond them. These second rate juries need a ton of forensic evidence to reach a verdict (because they better understand, and have blind faith in physical evidence), while failing to comprehend the meaning and significance of circumstantial evidence - which can be every bit as powerful in revealing innocence or guilt.
When your momma asked you if you ate a cookie as a child and you said no, she knew you were lying. She didn't see you eat it, and she didn't count the cookies. So how did she know? Well first off, the knew you, her child, better than the back of her hand. So she was an excellent judge of whether you were being deceptive. She also knew you were hungry, not having eaten since breakfast, and that she'd left you alone in the kitchen where the cookies were kept. Finally, she saw cookie crumbs around your mouth.
A smart jury who understands the value of circumstantial evidence like that, would convict you of cookie theft. A not so smart jury, who thinks only forensic evidence has any real worth, would only find you guilty if they were given a time-stamped photo of you eating the cookie.
And that pretty much sums up the folly of people who fail to value or respect circumstantial evidence. There was a ton of it proving James Propokovitz killed his wife, that's why a smart jury convicted him.
1
-
1
-
The ARROGANCE and ENTITLEMENT of that fool! Holding his fist aloft in a black power salute as he leaves the court - a convicted felon! Narcissistic creep.
Jussie Gussett is a disgrace to the black race. He has brought shame and embarrassment down on his black heritage - all because he was greedy, and felt he deserved MORE fame, MORE adulation and MORE MONEY! Well he sure as hell achieved the first, 'more fame' - he's now a globally infamous liar and buffoon, even more stupid than his very stupid name!
Jussie Smollett is so massively, pathologically entitled, even years later against a mountain of evidence of his guilt - and now a conviction by a jury - he won't admit his wrongdoing or apologise. Worse, he has continued to lie even after the judge nailed his cynical perjury in his final sentencing remarks (proclaiming his innocence and perjuring himself yet again, right after the judge's speech!)
Smollett is very lucky he didn't face extra jail time for his additional perjury and contempt of court! He only got 150 days - most people would have liked to see him get more time behind bars in recognition of the many aggravating factors in this sickening crime if deception. But instead of doing the decent thing, 'manning up' and confessing, Smollett got busy campaigning for celebrity support, hiding behind the skirts of every famous and celebrated public figure and star he ever sucked up to (shame on those like Samuel L Jackson and Rev Jessie Jackson who wrote him letters of support).
Yup, the little known actor who was so lucky to land a highly paid role on a TV series called 'Empire' (no - me either), looked at black stars like Samuel L Jackson, Idris Elba, Cuba Gooding Jr and Denzel Washington and thought HE deserved to be up there with them earning the big bucks in big movies. He's totally deluded!
Little Jussie Gobshite, whose hammy acting in and outside court faking victimhood and innocence, showed the world exactly how 'talented' an actor he is (not at all). Hell, he doesn't even have the charisma and sex appeal he thinks he does! He's pathetic.
I'm confident Jessie got himself a Life Sentence in the court that matters most for any public figure - the court of public opinion. Because he will never live down this horrendous, humiliating crime and his dreadful mishandling of its aftermath. If he was a better actor - and man - he might even have been able to move on from it. It would have taken huge courage - obviously far more courage than he possesses - but if he'd stood up and owned his mistakes he could have turned it around.
But this spoiled wannabe megastar could not have messed up worse, from start right down to sentencing! He clearly didn't expect to spend even a day in jail, hence his big ol' temper tantrum after sentencing. 150 days is NOTHING for the damage he did the image he did to all black people - most not them even close to being as privileged and protected as he is. He should be ashamed of himself, but we saw no remorse, Jussie's only regret is he got busted and the hero status he was so sure of turned to $hit before his eyes!
Jussie Smollett is now a slang term for cheats. He took his own image, career and reputation, the three things that mattered most to him - and flushed them down the toilet. He is never going to emerge from that $hitty U-bend ever again!
As one of the many 'memes' on the case said at the time:
'WHEN AMERICA IS SO GREAT, YOU HAVE TO HIRE 2 DUDES FROM NIGERIA TO OPPRESS YOU'! 🤣🤣🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kerryruppert6275 We can speculate forever. Only two people know how he wound up zipped inside the suitcase he died in - one of them is dead, the other is a psychopath/compulsive liar, whose word can't be trusted.
But it's academic anyway. The fact is, he told her repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, yet she callously taunted him, and abandoned him overnight to die a horrible death by suffocation. Only a very young child would imagine he was safe and not in any danger, trapped inside that small suitcase for many hours.
Sarah Boone is not a child. When she ignored his pleas to release him and instead went upstairs to bed alone, she had to know she was playing Russian roulette with her boyfriend's life. You wouldn't do that to a beloved pet, least of all your partner! A normal, caring non-psychopath feels love and empathy for others, and wouldn't sleep a wink knowing they had put another sentient being's life in peril.
It's clear Boone didn't love her boyfriend. Her desire to sadistically torture him to such extremes that he did not survive the night, reflects the murdering monster she is. Drink/dysfunction doesn't excuse or explain her breathtakingly callous actions. She's dangerous, and I hope for her little boy's sake above all, she is never released from prison.
1
-
@kerryruppert6275 We can speculate forever. Only two people know how he wound up zipped inside the suitcase he died in - one of them is dead, the other is a psychopath/compulsive liar, whose word can't be trusted.
But it's academic anyway. The fact is, he told her repeatedly that he couldn't breathe, yet she callously taunted him, and abandoned him overnight to die a horrible death by suffocation. Only a very young child would imagine he was safe and not in any danger, trapped inside that small suitcase for many hours.
Sarah Boone is not a child. When she ignored his pleas to let him out and instead went upstairs to bed alone, she had to know she was playing Russian roulette with her boyfriend's life. You wouldn't do that to a beloved pet, least of all your partner! A normal, caring non-psychopath feels love and empathy, and wouldn't sleep a wink knowing they had put another sentient being's life in peril.
It's clear Boone didn't love her boyfriend. Her desire to sadistically torture him to such extremes that he did not survive the night, reflects the murdering monster she is. Drink/dysfunction doesn't excuse or explain her breathtakingly callous actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DocProcRealm The unknown DNA found inside Suzanne's car (not the bike helmet), is merely touch DNA, ie the most common, insignificant type of DNA, left by a fleeting touch, and it is a PARTIAL match to an unidentified sex offender (not a 'serial killer', as you incorrectly stated). A partial match means that DNA did not come from the sex offender himself, but merely from a relative of that criminal.
That it's only a partial match to a sex offender, is a very important fact being omitted by Barry Morphew's lawyers and supporters, in a desperate attempt to create a non-existent murder suspect to blame his crime on! In reality there is zero evidence anyone but Barry Morphew ended Suzanne's life.
The most dramatic thing anyone can say about that DNA, is that a RELATIVE of a rapist at some time touched the interior of Suzanne Morphew's car. That could be any number of random people, from a garage mechanic, to a teen friend of one of her daughters, she once gave a ride to.
And let's not forget, Suzanne's vehicle was not even involved in her disappearance/murder!
That touch DNA is entirely irrelevant in the death of Suzanne Morphew, which all evidence indicates was a sadly all-too common case of domestic murder by her husband. But Barry Morphew's defence team will exploit that DNA red herring to the max, to keep their guilty client out of prison.
Barry Morphew had a documented history of domestic abuse against Suzanne, and 4 days before her murder she had told him in writing (by text), she wanted a divorce. His history of emotional and physical domestic abuse, and her plans to end the relationship (both documented and proven), point to a textbook domestic killing. Put simply, the narcissistic, wealth and status-obsessed Barry Morphew was not going to let his wife publicly reject him, and walk away to a happy future without him - taking her money with her.
In a high percentage of spousal murders, the victim is killed by her abusive partner/ex partner when she leaves/states an intention to leave him. Suzanne's last location is proven - she was sunbathing in the back yard of the marital home and sending WhatsApp messages (and her last selfie photo), to her long-distance boyfriend.
Texts/cellphone data confirm Barry Morphew was on his way home from a local errand, while she was enjoying that extended romantic conversation. It doesn't take a genius to work out her husband caught her sending those sexually charged messages to another man, and his anger still simmering over her recently-stated intention to divorce him, he exploded into violence.
Cellphone pings show when Barry Morphew returned home, he was running around outside the house. He was hunting Suzanne with a tranquilliser gun, like she was one of the countless animals he terrorised and killed for fun.
A tiny woman, and weakened by cancer, once hit by the powerful sedative she was totally defenceless. I believe another textbook aspect of her murder was her cause of death - statistically most likely to be strangulation. That method would also explain the lack of blood at the crime scene.
Barry Morphew is a despicable, cowardly wife killer, who for three years has got away with his heinous murder. But Suzanne's body has risen to point the finger at him, from beyond the grave. The truth will out. Barry Morphew's luck has finally run out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raptorman48 Hilarious! Behave yourself @raptorman48. 🙄🙄🙄
No so-called 'psychic investigator' has ever provided an accurate analysis/true facts of a factual criminal case, beyond sheer chance/dumb luck!
Solving crimes, especially those as serious and notorious as the 2017 Delphi double child murder, always comes down to a combination of skilled police work, and good leads from the public. Which is why this case took a staggering FIVE YEARS to solve.
Inexperienced Indiana law enforcement simply weren't up to the job of solving a crime this big. But under narcissistic police chief Supt Doug Carter, they would not admit that, or seek professional help from the FBI.
Because they were so out of their depth, police were crazily protective about the evidence, refusing to share even the most basic, pertinent facts with the public, for example, the victims' cause of death. Much as the public wants to help the police investigation, especially in a crime as heinous as this, they cannot do so in an information vacuum!
Thanks to a weak and nervous Indiana Police investigation full of serious mistakes, and a resulting lack of valuable tips from the public, it was a staggering five years before Richard Allen's arrest. Yet Allen had come forward soon after the murders, and told authorities he was at the crime scene that day, and was wearing the same clothes seen on victim Libby's Smartphone video. In trying to get ahead of the damning video evidence showing him there, Allen as good as made a murder confession!
Yet incredibly his statement slipped through the net, and was not properly looked at or acted on until a 'ground zero' re-investigation of the evidence in 2022. This case did not need a psychic to solve it, it merely needed competent police officers.
Once this murder trial has concluded, I hope Supt Doug Carter and Indiana Police will be held fully accountable for their appalling, shabby work in this case, which allowed a highly dangerous killer to walk free for five years! It is no thanks to those police officers he did not commit further murders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lori Vallow started using her brother Alex as her personal 'enforcer' and hit man, years before, when he attacked her second husband with a Taser (no doubt on her instructions).
In June of last year Alex shot dead her husband Charles (who from January had been speaking to police about her mental health and expressing concern for the children's safety). The murder took place after Lori lured Charles to her home - he was ambushed by Alex in her lounge, mysteriously empty of furniture. Both children Tylee and JJ likely witnessed this appalling event.
Alex and Lori told the cops Charles hit him with a baseball bat and he shot him dead in self defence AND POLICE BELIEVED THEM! Alex was a felon - why the hell didn't they arrest him and take him into custody? He had just killed a man!
Police bodycam shows Lori standing on the street with her daughter Tylee (who she would also have murdered by Alex, just 3 months later). Lori is smiling and wisecracking without a care in the world, as her husband Charles lays dead inside her house. She was no doubt excited because she believed she was sole beneficiary to Charles' $1 million life insurance policy - she later found he had changed the beneficiary to his sister, so the murder didn't net her a single cent!
Lori Vallow's motive for having her brother kill her husband was obvious - not only was he becoming a thorn in her side over the children, she would become a millionaire with his death (or so she thought). Her motives for killing both children, with the help of brother Alex (who likely did the deed) and married husband-to-be Chad Daybell on whose land they were buried, are harder to understand.
Chad Daybell obviously wanted the kids off the scene - they were not his, he had 5 children of his own with wife Tammy (who would soon be found dead in her bed supposedly from 'natural causes'). I believe Chad prompted the murders of Lori's two kids - he told her this religious BS about them becoming 'zombies' as an excuse to have them killed. Brother Alex was only too happy to help his sister with two further murders - this time of children, his 17 year old niece and 7 year old nephew. Lori maybe offered him a big payout from Charles' insurance? It's all baffling to any reasonable human. If Lori wanted out of life as a wife and mother she could have just divorced Charles and given the children to him - Taylee was almost an adult anyway. She didn't have to have them both murdered! Lori Vallow is evil personified - and with the help of equally evil sub-humans, her brother Alex and soon-to-be fourth husband Chad Daybell, she wreaked violence and tragedy on so many innocent people.
1
-
Agreed, it's obvious the police are no nearer catching this killer than they were on day one. Under the totally useless Doug Carter, the police investigation was badly mishandled. Holding back every detail of the crime from the public was a schoolboy error, due to inexperience and poor judgement.
Police don't solve crimes - ultimately they are solved by the public. But the public has be be given sufficient clues to do that, and in the information vacuum that followed Delphi, no one had enough facts to join the dots and suspect their father/brother/son/husband/employer/friend/colleague of being 'bridge guy'.
Libby was so brave secretly videoing him in her last, terrified moments, so police had both moving pictures and audio of the killer. But that golden clue she provided, the video, was not shared far and wide, and in FULL, with the media from the start, as it should have been.
The first week or two after a crime is the golden window of opportunity, when people who know the killer can identify him to police. Memories are fresh, and they'll recall something suspicious within those early days after the murder - a guy who turned up to an appointment late, scruffy, dirty or acting agitated. Maybe he had a scratch across his face he gave a far-fetched explanation for. A man who murders two children in broad daylight, in public, is not going to be acting normally afterwards. This is a sex killer - he will have been energised, excited and definitely different than usual. Even a waitress who serves him coffee in the same greasy spoon every Tuesday might notice something odd about him after he did that.
But because police messed up the early investigation, those people just didn't have their memory jogged by anything, and couldn't call in with his details. That is down to Doug Carter and the terrible, low-key strategy they agreed on. That's why this double homicide remains unsolved, and the killer remains free to kill again 5 years later. And he will - if he hasn't already.
1
-
@automatoncollectives7237 Taking all known facts into account, no reasonable person with brain cells in above double figures would accept Curtis Reeves' assertion he believed his life was in danger that afternoon. It's plainly obvious not for a nanosecond was he in fear. That's the basis of his self defense claim - so it's a total crock.
What he was, was pumped up, aggressive and spoiling for a fight with a younger man he knew he'd win, because he was armed with a loaded gun.
The Curtis Reeves who walked into a movie theatre and picked on a stranger (for the 'crime' of texting his child's babysitter during the trailers, not the movie), was the real Curtis Reeves - a macho, egotistical bully, used to forcing his will on others - previously with help from his police uniform, and since retirement with his nasty attitude and hidden firearm.
He was and is the opposite of the feeble, eminently calm and 'reasonable' old man he acted in court (complete with prop walking stick). Curtis Reeves is a big, burly bully, who since retirement clearly missed wearing his police uniform, abusing his police powers, and calling the shots everywhere he went.
If you honestly believed the murderer - be careful. He isn't the only manipulative, highly dangerous narcissist out there, far from it! You could easily become another victim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesmcmanus I urge you to do some research on this case, your post is woefully ignorant, ill informed.
Richard Allen came forward within days of these shocking child murders, committed in broad daylight in a public location, and identified himself as 'Bridge Guy'. There's no question about it - he absolutely did!
No, he didn't say he murdered the girls - obviously not! But crucially he did confess he was at the relevant location, specifically on the bridge, and said he was wearing the exact same clothes seen on Libby's cellphone footage.
It's clear Allen was freaked out at seeing himself on TV news stills (Bridge Guy), and in addition knew the multiple female witnesses had seen him.
Allen was scared, and decided to 'get ahead' of the story by calling the tip line and pretending he was a WITNESS at the Monon trails that day, rather than the SUSPECT/KILLER he really was.
No other male was seen by any witness. Richard Allen is it - he has admitted he'd that guy! Wake up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trezell West was clearly very controlling during the weirdly 'off' roadside interview with the media. But he's so arrogantly narcissistic, that he really believed he could fool the assembled reporters he was a great guy who had nothing to do with his adopted toddlers' suspicious disappearance. Very Chris Watts - as many people remarked at the time!
We are told the children were murdered by the Wests three months before that press conference. Sincere and Classic had been dead for 12 whole weeks. You'd think between them, their killers could have come up with a more convincing story than that garbage about both boys vanishing into thin air while 'Daddy' fetched firewood from the back yard.
Obviously I don't know the couple and have never met them. But even seeing their conduct during that appeal - hiding behind convenient Covid face coverings - threw up red flags. How could two such unsophisticated individuals have been entrusted with the sole charge of two small children, particularly when they already had FOUR children to care for (two of them biological)? Child Services have many questions to answer!
My understanding is neither Trezell nor Jacqueline West had any kind of job. So they were living very comfortably off the income they got from the four children in the home who were not their own. How many people out there seek to raise other people's children not for love, but for money?
Jacqueline's body language showed she was under her husband's spell, and fully enabling his child abuse. Her constant swaying from side to side and evasive eye contact, and Trezell's defensive self-hugging throughout, screamed GUILT on both their parts. Police believe the whereabouts of Sincere and Classic were no mystery to the Wests at the time. They knew exactly what happened to those defenceless babies, the youngest in their home - and that they had killed them. It doesn't take too much imagination to picture the horrific dynamics inside that house. Poor, defenceless little souls!
I am angry that those precious little boys were delivered into the hands of sadistic abusers and soon to be murderers, to do with them as they pleased behind four walls. How the hell aren't social workers better trained, to recognise toxic couples like the Wests?
This sick pair already had four children in their care - so why the hell were they given little Sincere and Classic anyway? Didn't two such young and needy children deserve to be raised in a household that didn't already have four kids in it, where they would get the time and loving attention they needed and deserved?
Serious questions must be answered by the alleged child killers, but also by the many people involved in failing little Sincere and Classic. And by the way - why is anyone still calling them by the name of their alleged murderers 'West', and with the changed first names that they gave them? I say give them back their birth names - their alleged killers don't deserve the privilege of putting their names on those babies for even a minute longer.
Those poor babies must have suffered terribly and had the most confusing, frightening and miserable short lives in this cruel world. Did they witness each others' abuse at the hands of monsters made flesh? Did one brother witness the other's murder, before he too was fatally attacked by an adult who was supposed to love and protect him? Barely yet able to speak, Sincere and Classic had no chance of raising the alarm and getting rescue. This is why Child Services must be so very careful who they entrust with the full time, unsupervised care of voiceless, powerless,totally vulnerable infants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChrisP3000x As a journalist it's really tedious discussing a true crime case with someone who's not only astonishingly ill informed, but lacks the logic and insight to offer anything approaching meaningful analysis.
If you've watched this 8 minute 'Court TV' report on Dr Thomas Burchard's murder, then you obviously haven't understood a word of it! I'm genuinely sorry for you you're so out of your depth, through lack of education, intellect or most likely a combination of both. Every new post you write exposes greater depths of ignorance. You bit off more than you could chew challenging me, and now you look silly and are trying to find a dignified exit. So I'll help you out.
Don't be embarrassed that you made a fool of yourself on a public forum. Just learn the lesson. In future, do some research on the subject at hand before you jump into threads with nothing relevant, accurate or illuminating to add. There are many videos about this case to be found on YouTube, and much more information online. Google is your friend!
I realise it's a rare treat for someone like you to converse with someone like myself. I've been generous, but I can't give you any more time. It's like conversing with a two year old - charming up to a point, but the returns are ever more diminishing, and the stench of stupid is worse than a dirty diaper! You are dismissed.
1
-
1
-
From his first embarrassing media conference it was clear Supt Doug Carter was WAY out of his depth on this double child homicide, making mistake after mistake, and frankly, just not up to the job!
His famous claim the killer was 'hiding in plain sight' was baloney - he wasn't hiding at all! Richard Allen gave himself up within days of the murders, admitted he was at the Monon trails that very day and time, and even confirmed he was wearing the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy' - the prime suspect captured on Libby's Smartphone video.
The failed, five year police investigation is the reason the defence can now make merry with various, contrasting theories and suspects, to fill that extended information vacuum created while Carter & Co were kicking cans down the road.
Doug Carter failed to exploit the best evidence he had, ie Libby's video and audio of the killer, far and wide, as a matter of urgent priority while the day was fresh in public memories. Instead he released it in stages, slowly and grudgingly over time - first a still image, then a 2 second moving image, then a short snatch of audio, then a longer voice recording. This was clearly poor leadership from a cop who was clueless about best practice!
And he shared no details of the crime that might jog people's memories and help identify the killer - not even the girls' cause of death. The amount Supt Carter kept close to the vest and refused to share was unprecedented in a murder case - and counterproductive to getting the tips he desperately needed to solve the notorious double child homicide. His reticence only exposed his own woeful inexperience in handling a crime of this magnitude.
Cops don't solves crimes - the public does, as a senior British police officer once told me. But in order to help, the public needs information. People cannot help in a vacuum! Why didn't police tell the public the killer would likely be covered in blood? Soon after the murders, the killer's wife/family might recall him showering and washing clothes that day, for no apparent reason. Witnesses might have seen blood on a man in a weirdly inappropriate setting - or witnessed him washing in a stream.
Two years later and no further forward, Indiana Police confused everyone with a brand new sketch and criminal profile of the killer - that looked nothing like 'Bridge Guy'! The first image, released weeks after the crime, had showed a middle aged, chubby and bearded man, resembling both the suspect on video, and Richard Allen. But the later sketch was totally different, showing a young, slim and clean shaven male, who many likened to Justin Timberlake. The two men could not have been more different
On first revealing that new sketch at a media conference (so hastily arranged, that Abi and Libby's confused families weren't given proper notice), Supt Doug Carter emphasised that the two images, were of different two men. He was very clear on that point. What's more, he stated that the new image was the killer, and it replaced the first picture of the older, bearded guy - that original sketch could now be discarded, he said.
But in interviews Carter gave after Richard Allen's arrest, when quizzed about those two starkly different sketches, he did a total about-turn and totally changed his story, saying the two sketches WERE the same man, ie, the killer!
Don't even get me started on the desperate wild goose chase around the 'Anthony Shotts' fake online profile - which turned out to have zero connection to Abi and Libby's murders, and was yet another police mess up!
We recently learned Carter's inexperience and incompetence, were matched by staggering arrogance. Because rather than admit Indiana Police needed professional help from more specialised detectives, it transpires Carter dismissed the FBI early on, insisting his boys were doing just fine. The man's a buffoon!
Carter enjoyed those media conferences way too much. He struck poses, addressed the killer direct with a quivering lip, and dumb statements like "You probably told someone you did this" (Er, probably not - killers rarely confess), suggested the murderer could be in the room at that very moment (he wasn't), and claimed he was 'hiding in plain sight'.
Carter was wrong on every count - Richard Allen wasn't hiding at all, and five years later we learned the shocking truth. Allen as good as gave himself up within days of the murders, admitting he was there, wearing the same clothes as 'Bridge Guy'. Allen knew Libby had recorded him on video stalking her and Abi across the bridge, before he abducted and killed them. So he decided to take the bull by the horns, thinking attack would be the best form of defence. It was an obvious strategy to get his alibi in early, and get ahead of the damning video evidence against him that he was there that day. Libby had taped him - he WAS 'Bridge Guy', therefore the prime suspect - and almost certainly the killer.
Yet incredibly, after his admission, no one saw fit to invite Allen to come in for a formal police interview! If they had, he would have been recognised as 'Bridge Guy', and arrested and charged within a week - two weeks, at most. This audacious double child murder in broad daylight could and should have been solved almost immediately.
Out of just 3,000 Delphi residents - less than 1,500 of them adult males - Carter & co took five years to find their prime suspect. Catching Allen, who lived and worked within a 5 minute drive of the crime scene, was akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Or it would have been, with a competent police force running the show. Doug Carter couldn't find his own ass with both hands, if someone shut the lights off!
Establishing who was at the Monon High Nature trail on the day of the crime, and interviewing and eliminating them (or not eliminating them), is the most basic police work. Yet the Keystone Cops failed to complete that most fundamental task, allowing a highly dangerous man to remain at large for five years, and putting Libby and Abi's loved-ones through hell.
And now that the prime suspect (and likely the killer) is in custody, those many, very serious police mistakes may yet create enough reasonable doubt in jurors' minds to get him out of jail!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Barry Morphew's attorney, the vile Iris Eyetan, is totally reaching! It's ridiculous to attack the authorities for telling Barry, but not his daughters about Suzanne's recovery. Isn't Barry the one always making out how close he is to Mallory and Macy?!
If the authorities HAD told the daughters separately of their mother's discovery, no doubt Eyetan would have criticised that, and said they should have backed off and let Barry tell them!
It's 100% clear Barry Morphew originally placed Suzanne's body at a different location. Then with the heat on, he panicked that it wasn't a good enough hiding place (maybe he had put her much closer to the house - or somewhere he heard was due to be searched?) and so moved her to the field where she was found this week. It's clearly an easy access dumping site, where Barry could pull up and dig a shallow grave, likely disposing of the mother of his children's body within 15 minutes, before driving off.
It's laughable Barry's lawyers are pinning all their hopes of getting away with murder, on a partial match to an unidentified rapist - the fact it's only partial means it's NOT the rapist himself, but merely someone related to him. Doesn't Vinnie Politan realise this??? It's the last guy who serviced her car or got a lift from her - who likely has no idea his great nephew is a pervert!
1
-
Barry Morphew's attorney, the vile Iris Eyetan, is totally reaching! It's ridiculous to attack the authorities for telling Barry, but not his daughters about Suzanne's recovery. Isn't Barry the one always making out how close he is to Mallory and Macy?!
If the authorities HAD told the daughters separately of their mother's discovery, no doubt Eyetan would have criticised that, and said they should have backed off and let Barry tell them!
It's 100% clear Barry Morphew originally placed Suzanne's body at a different location. Then with the heat on, he panicked that it wasn't a good enough hiding place (maybe he had put her much closer to the house - or somewhere he heard was due to be searched?) and so moved her to the field where she was found this week. It's clearly an easy access dumping site, where Barry could pull up and dig a shallow grave, likely disposing of the mother of his children's body within 15 minutes, before driving off.
It's laughable Barry's lawyers are pinning all their hopes of getting away with murder, on a partial match to an unidentified rapist - the fact it's only partial means it's NOT the rapist himself, but merely someone related to him. Doesn't Vinnie Politan realise this??? It's the last guy who serviced her car or got a lift from her - who likely has no idea his great nephew is a pervert!
1
-
1
-
@LakeGirl24 Thank you for that. Far too often sloppy mistakes creep in, even on supposedly professional true crime channels like @CourtTV. It's generally when the presenter/guests haven't done enough research on the case under discussion.
There's another mistake @19:10 when the medical expert mis-identifies the two still images of the suitcase taken from Sarah Boone's videos.
PHOTO ONE depicting the FIRST position of the suitcase is not the image on the Right, as she incorrectly says. From that wrong conclusion, she goes on to make another mistake and say Boone flipped the suitcase over so the zipper was underneath victim Jorge Torres, and that the PHOTO TWO, the SECOND position of the suitcase, is seen on the Left. In fact the opposite is true.
PHOTO ONE, depicting the original, FIRST position of the suitcase is the image on the LEFT. As we clearly saw in the disturbing Sarah Boone cellphone video which that screenshot was taken from (shown at the beginning of this show @ 3:32), the suitcase is first, partially laying on the rug with the zipper underneath Jorges.
PHOTO TWO, showing the SECOND position of the suitcase after Sarah Boone flipped it over, is the still image on the RIGHT of the screen @19:10. We can see the case was flipped over to land some distance across the floor and away from the rug, with the zipper now positioned uppermost, above victim Jorge Torres.
Vinnie should have picked up on this and corrected the guest.
1
-
1
-
@bbaciliere Yes, husband number 3 Joseph Ryan (Tylee's bio father), was found dead in his modest apartment April 3rd 2018. The coroner ruled natural causes/heart attack, but he was too decomposed when found, around one week after he died, to determine foul play. Lori had his body cremated as priority, before even telling his sister he had died.
Lori's brother Alex Cox (nicknamed 'the family hitman'), had previously served jail time for a vicious taser attack on Joseph in a parking lot, during a 2007 access visit to his daughter Tylee, then aged four (a meeting that Lori had to have given Alex the exact date, time and location of). Alex later told a friend he planned to bundle Joseph into the trunk of his car that day, drive him to a remote location and shoot him dead. Luckily for Joseph the taser failed to deploy correctly, and he was able to flee the scene and call police. I need hardly add little Tylee witnessed part of her Uncle Alex's violent assault on her dad, just as 12 years later she would witness Alex murder her stepdad.
Lori received a significant pay day from Joseph's death - and waddayano, just over a year later on July 11th 2019, she and her creepy brother murdered estranged husband number 4 Charles Vallow, during his access visit to adopted son JJ.
Again Lori expected a substantial cash windfall from his death, as the sole named beneficiary of his $1 million life insurance policy (a fact you might think police would have recognised as a clear financial motive for his murder - along with noticing Alex was a convicted felon, once jailed for a serious violent assault on her previous husband). But she would subsequently be enraged to learn Charles had secretly switched the beneficiary to his sister Kay, to ensure in the event of his death, his sons would be financially taken care of.
Lori didn't even gift his two adult sons the valuable watches he'd always promised to them (they believe she sold them), so Charles' suspicions about her keeping the $1 million insurance payout, were well founded. Too bad he didn't tell her she wouldn't become a millionairess on his death, and remove her motive for murdering him.
In 2020 police announced they were looking again at Joseph Ryan's 2018 death as a possible homicide. But their investigations came to nothing - no doubt hindered by the fact Lori had him cremated, a 'courtesy' she repeated for Charles Vallow, again neglecting to consult his family, most notably his sons, about their wishes.
There were so many points at which Lori Vallow, Alex Cox and Chad Daybell could and should have been stopped. Because of the shocking police inaction, particularly after Alex Cox shot an unarmed Charles Vallow dead in a blatantly premeditated ambush at Lori's home, the evil trio believed they were untouchable.
Emboldened, they escalated their crimes to two child murders within a fortnight of each other, and mere weeks after Tylee and JJ's murders, the homicide of Chad's wife Tammy, and the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreaux, the heavily insured, estranged husband of Lori's niece Melanie.
The three psychopaths were out of control. I believe Alex Cox's murder was Chad and Lori's final crime, believing with him dead they could exploit him as scapegoat and walk free for all their crimes. This pair of middle aged fantasists are so deluded, I bet to this day they can't believe they're residing not in married bliss in Hawaii, but in orange jumpsuits in prison cells.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@midnightprizm1583 You didn't follow the trial then - Propokovitz gave police many conflicting testimonials about his wife's disappearance, he couldn't keep his story straight! If your partner vanished without trace, it would be a day you would never forget. And every time you repeated the story of that day, the details would be exactly the same without deviating at all, no matter how many times you told it, or how many years went by. Because people remember the truth - but they cannot recall their own lies.
Propokovitz kept saying "It was one and a half years ago, I don't remember", then "It was three years ago, I don't remember". Bullshit! And the search he claimed he made for her in his car that night, including driving onto on a gas station forecourt, was proved to be a lie too. Detectives got hold of the relevant CCTV and BINGO, there was no sighting of his vehicle whatsoever!
This miserable old bastard isn't sensitive to other people's opinions, he couldn't give a shit what people think about his affair. If he had nothing to do with his wife's suspicious disappearance, he would have told the truth about his relationship with Kathy Friday unapologetically. The fact that he didn't is hugely indicative of guilt. He he not only lied about it to police and in court, but he also told her to lie under oath. Perjury is a serious offence - but not half as serious as murder. He's a gambling addict, he knew how high the stakes were. He was scared to death about the truth of that affair's start date coming out, because he knew damn fine it was central to his motive for killing his wife.
And it doesn't take a genius to work out what he did with Victoria's body. He made the mistake of telling one of the lead detectives he had a key to the works dumping site, where the sludge ponds of corrosive chemicals were based. When the cop mentioned that crucial key, under cross examination by defence, it was a real slam-dunk moment for the prosecution! Turned out Propokovitz had access to the dump site 24-7, and what's more, there was no CCTV there. Visiting the plant regularly gave him the idea for the perfect murder. It was obvious he thought cops would never get him, because he had successfully destroyed his wife's corpse. Her dentures deliberately left at home, and his comment that her corpse could not be identified by teeth, spoke to his personal knowledge of her murder and disposal.
He's where he belongs and will die in jail. He has a far better deal than he gave his poor wife, who he killed when she was just 59. He gets to live out his senior years in comfort, with ongoing contact with those who remain loyal to him (his sister and nieces among them). He'll have TV, newspapers and other entertainments, medical care on demand and will no doubt play up his senior status for extra perks.
In due course he'll die a peaceful, natural death, and be given a funeral, fundamental human dignities which he denied his wife. Victoria didn't get to enjoy her retirement years, because her abusive husband decided she was an inconvenience to him, and murdered her. Her kids and other loved ones were deprived of her forever. And the squalid way her husband dumped her body deprived them of giving her a funeral, or creating a lasting memorial to her.
The fact Victoria's children all believed their stepfather was capable of murdering her, spoke volumes! They didn't have a grudge against him - they knew him from children and called him dad. He had walked one of his step daughters down the aisle on her wedding day. Facing up to what he had done to their mother was incredibly painful and very courageous. They helped deliver justice for Victoria, after 8 long years. She would be so proud of them. I hope she can finally rest in peace, and that all those hurt by evil James Propokovitz can begin the long walk to healing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wesleyfulton2186 Nope, Jussie Smollett was NOT punished before - it was a whitewash, a BS, pseudo 'punishment' because he's a wealthy celebrity. It was the second, failed con he tried to pull on the system/public, this time by pulling strings with his influential friends - a minor $10k fine (peanuts to him - he is paid $2 million a year), and some cushy 'community service' of his choosing.
Thankfully Smollett failed in that con too. His powerful friends weren't quite powerful enough to save him from the appropriate legal sanctions he fully deserved, because it was recognised by the system and the public as the outrageous fraud it was, and he was ultimately made to face proper legal consequences for his appalling hoax.
A cynically premeditated, fake hate crime that got him global headlines he thought would boost his box office and status, as a famous victim of 'racism'. What a joke - unlike non-privileged black folk, he has experienced only preferential treatment and privilege his entire life!
Smollett faked that assault on himself knowing it could have triggered violence (and possibly even large-scale organised race riots), all to selfishly raise his own profile and bring him the bigger success he narcissistically believed he deserved (I'm not sure why - to date his lousy, hammy performances in his own defence show he's no Denzel Washington!)
When his con was exposed, Jussie Smollett set the cause of black people back decades - black people who unlike him, live real lives in the real world, and aren't cushioned by VIP status and wealth. I doubt Smollett has ever experienced a single, negative thing from being mixed race - on the contrary, he has milked his ethnicity for all it's worth and benefited from it at every possible opportunity - playing the race card is a lifelong habit with him.
If he was any kind of MAN he'd have confessed to what he did way back when he was first blabbed on by the two Nigerian guys he hired to don ski masks and pretend to be white supremacists - who somehow recognised him on the streets at 2am, while carrying bleach and a noose to attack him with! (Sorry Jussie - even before this circus, you were not that famous!)
Smollette should be thoroughly ashamed of his betrayal of his black ancestors. He cynically exploited the real, historic racist lynchings of black people with that fake-ass noose he put round his own neck. A powerfully symbolic visual image he knew would bring massive outrage, anger and hurt to decent people of ALL colours.
Clearly any high-profile, virtue-signalling charity/social justice appearances he made in the past were not selfless at all, but like this crime were entirely driven by self-promotion!
Smollett's appalling conduct right down the line since his ugly fraud was exposed 3 years ago, show he's a pathological narcissist without shame or remorse. That he has continually denied his crimes in the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, and point blank refused to be accountable for them, shows how dangerously out of control his ego is.
If you are a person of colour as your profile photo suggests, Jussie Smollett's crimes should anger you as much, if not more, than the average, decent non-black person on the street. Smollett betrayed you. Why aren't you angry? Do you think he should get a free pass and continue to dodge justice for his heinous acts against black people, because he is black?! That makes no sense.
As a successful, privileged and high-profile person of colour, Smollett had a responsibility to be a great role model for black people! As we know, racism is still a huge issue in the US - his actions have unleashed ill-will and resentment against ordinary black people and they will suffer in multiple subtle, and not so subtle ways thanks to Jussie Smollett. He is a total disgrace!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Liz_H9319 Thank you for confirming my understanding of the different paternity of these murdered babies - as I made clear in my earlier post, I wasn't 100% sure.
I referenced it not to stigmatise the innocent children (all of whom are perfect, and born to this world by miracles, whatever their imperfect parents' circumstances), but for clarity on the complete cast of people who played a role in their ultimate tragedy (in this case not one but two biological fathers).
I think clarity in the circumstances in which this horrific double child murder was possible is critical, don't you? My priority is justice for two murdered children. And justice doesn't only mean a criminal prosecution for their murderers, but a frank and open public enquiry into the full facts of the case. That means a 360 degree study of everyone involved, including the three biological parents the CPS and the entire fostering and adoption protocols which somehow went so disastrously awry for Cincere and Classic.
Why were these little boys removed from their blood family and given to the Wests, allegedly deeply dangerous people? Only a forensic investigation can satisfy all who care about child protection, to ensure that everything humanly possible has been done to stop it happening to another child.
I feel very strongly that the priority here should be giving a voice at last, to the two voiceless, entirely defenceless little boys who died cruel premature deaths at 3 and 4 - not covering up the inadequacies of the many people who failed them in their short and tragic lives. Talk of 'absent fathers' may be entirely appropriate. That said, I accept your point that it's too soon to point the finger and name specific individuals who failed these vulnerable infants, until a full, wide-ranging enquiry is completed.
Hopefully the killers of Cincere and Classic are now behind bars, and justice will be done to ensure they can never harm another child. But what a terrible, additional disservice it would be to the infant boys so cruelly taken from this world, if ALL who played a role in their ultimate tragedy are not held accountable.
It's too early to say exactly who those people are. Child Protection Services, who literally handed the infant siblings to their alleged killers (already fully occupied with FOUR children by the way, two of them adopted), are surely culpable. From what I've seen of Trezell and Jacqueline West they are textbook, manipulative abusers, who knew exactly how to behave and play the system for their own ends (ie easy cash). These two alleged child murders may expose the need for better training of social workers to recognise narcissistic abusers, and block them from accessing the children they see as meal tickets. The abusers' M.O. is all too predictable, as multiple violent crimes confirm!
I've read that Trezell West's mother Wanda has a long professional history/connections employed in some capacity by the Child Welfare System. Was she adept at playing that system primarily for money, not the love of children - passing on her cynical skills to her son Trezell? There's no evidence Trezell West or indeed his wife Jacqueline had - or needed any kind of jobs paying for their comfortable lifestyles!
What you say about the biological father being 'willing' to take on both boys (including the one who was not his biological son), with the help of his mother, should be properly investigated as part of a major, thorough and totally transparent public inquiry into this child protection failure/scandal.
As we know, hindsight is a wonderful thing. That one father's claims, history and personal circumstances must be thoroughly checked out. No one's story in this scandal - including the paid officials - can be accepted at face value!
Now the ugly truth about Cincere and Classic's terrible fate is beginning to emerge, the accusations will be flying thick and fast from all directions. It may well be hard to sort the fact from fiction. But for their sakes and the sakes of all infants who will follow in their footsteps, the truth of this tragedy - and how it could have been avoided - must be found. If even one child's life can be saved as a result of lessons learned from these babies' murders, I can think of no better, or more noble legacy for their beautiful souls.
1
-
1
-
@googleuser2226 Please pay attention! You have it all wrong. There is already way too much misinformation about these multiple murders!
The situation you are describing applied to the late CHARLES VALLOW, Lori's estranged (but still legal) husband, who she got her brother Alex Cox to ambush & shoot dead in July 2019 when he came to her home one morning, totally unsuspecting, to collect their adopted son JJ (his great nephew by blood), and take him to McDonalds - en route to school.
Clearly Charles died by foul play (multiple bullets in the chest could be nothing else), but unbelievably, police accepted his killer (and sister's) lie it was self-defence. Seems they didn't even look into the question of motive - CV was heavily insured to the tune of $1 million, which Lori fully believed at the time of the crime, would come to her.
Lori was wrong as it turned out, because unbeknown to her, Charles had switched the $1m recipient to his sister Kay Woodcock - biological grandmother to his adopted son JJ.
Unfortunately the coroner ruled Alex Cox died of natural causes - same as in 2018 they ruled Lori's ex husband Joseph Ryan's sudden death (Tylee's father), was natural.
Anyone with brain cells in double figures knows there was nothing natural about the sudden deaths of middle aged men with no known history of serious illness, Joseph - and his murderer Alex Cox!
Please fully acquaint yourself with the basic facts of this infamous true crime, before you post online again.
1
-
@TretreeGG4997 Exactly right, there was a ton of evidence Melody is the killer. She was the only one with a motive for a start - a $4.5 million dollar motive to be precise! She was also the only one at the house with the victim that day - it's plainly obvious she did it.
She was small, but she was not disabled - quite the opposite, she was strong and fit from regular gym workouts. She had the best farm vehicles, tools and plenty of time to get his body onto that fire. She's smart, she worked it out. Adrenaline and determination not to get caught are also great motivators! It was pretty pathetic the defence's best argument was that she supposedly couldn't have moved his body - of course she could!
She murdered Gary out of malice and sheer greed. A 50-50 split of assets in a divorce wasn't good enough for her. She wanted ALL her husband's estate to fund a new life with lover Rusty, and she was ruthless enough to kill him to get it. She even tried to frame her own son for the murder she committed. She's utterly despicable, and it's fitting she will die in a cage like the animal she is!
It was clear Gary was deeply loved by all four of his children, as their genuine emotion on the stand confirmed. My heart goes out to them. He can rest easy now, knowing justice has been served. I hope they will rebuild happy lives for themselves, as their dad would want.
1
-
1
-
6:35 Take a look at this Colorado law ladies. There's a helluva lot more 'hate crime' going on in Colorado and around the world than is ever acknowledged in law or indeed culturally - I'm talking about male violence against FEMALES. Regular viewers of 'Court TV' know male violence against women is an epidemic in America (as it is in every other country). Yet women and girls are not even mentioned in this Colorado hate crime legislation!
I don't mean the less than 1% of men who 'identify' as woman (so-called 'trans women'). They are not women, despite their aggressive, bogus mantra 'trans women are women'. No mammal ever changed sex or ever will, it simply isn't possible. Trans identified men/'trans women' remain biological males from birth to death, regardless of their feelings or any surgery/hormone treatments. In addition they have not experienced the physical, emotional, cultural or economic challenges of a born female, and therefore cannot claim to have (or even understand) a female's lived experience.
I'm talking here about hate crimes against actual women, who globally make up more than 50% of the world's population. Females are targeted my males for hate crimes more than any quote: 'race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation'.
Note the word SEX (as in a person's sex, male or female), is not clearly specified in that list of potential hate victims. And yet there's no question the female sex are the most sinned against group for violent hate crime and abuse, by a mile. Misogyny is a hate crime far more widespread and toxic than racism - more toxic, because while racism is rightly recognised and universally condemned, so much misogyny is not even acknowledged, least of all punished.
Reading the Colorado law, it's clear hate crime against females isn't recognised, therefore it is not outlawed!
1
-
These vile, blank-eyed killers were once beautiful newborn babies, without a bad bone in their bodies. Every baby has the potential to be good or evil. What happened to them, to be in trouble with the law by 12 years old? 12 years - in fact, far less than 12 years - is all it takes to mess up an innocent child, born brimful of potential to do good.
The answer is for society to prioritise the well being and protection of the next generation. Every country's most precious resource by far, is its children. I repeat - every newborn baby is a precious bundle with the promise of becoming a loving, kind, thoughtful, selfless, successful adult. Even babies born with the classic 'psychopath's brain', ie weakened neurological pathways to the frontal lobes controlling emotions like love, empathy and remorse, can become a loving adult if raised with love, and clear boundaries and expectations for good behaviour.
Some may read this and misinterpret it as sentimental or unrealistic. In fact it is totally realistic and practical - I don't want any more beautiful babies to grow into dangerous, damaged adults like these!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm amazed there isn't a limit on the number of times a defendant can switch lawyers, when it's a public defender, paid for not by themselves, but by the taxpayer. This murdering skank is clearly playing the system and stalling justice, with her constant letters of complaint to lawyers and the judge, and her power trips with people far smarter and better qualified than her!
Is Boone unaware how indefensible her position is? She not only killed her boyfriend, she made a freaking SNUFF VIDEO of her crime - complete with her own voice adding insult to injury, mocking and "F You"-ing him, as he begged for his life. And she thinks she has a hope of persuading a jury SHE was the domestic violence victim?
Oh I wish the judge ordered her to represent herself. That would be a bigger circus than the Darrell Brooks fiasco!
But we know how insanely deluded Sarah Boone is, from her haircut alone. And boy has she stacked on weight behind bars. What has she been eating in prison? By the looks of her, everything, including the canteen furniture!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fit_spoonie6760 You didn't fall for that garbage from the defence? They had to find whatever they could to support their far fetched claim that she killed herself.
The two supposed, historic suicide attempts were actually very unconvincing - one of them couldn't even be confirmed to be a suicide attempt, and both happened such a long time ago as to be irrelevant.
But obviously the defence exaggerated them to create reasonable doubt, just as they misinterpreted her statement 'next time you won't find me'. Common sense tells you she was saying 'next time I attempt suicide you won't find me in time to save me'. She plainly wasn't commenting on anyone not finding her dead body! Why would she think about her own corpse, much least want to hide it?
Victoria's children and stepchildren took the stand one by one and said their mother wasn't depressed, and certainly wasn't suicidal before she mysteriously vanished. On the day she was last seen, she was upbeat, well dressed and wearing make up. Her children's gut instinct that she hadn't killed herself, is the reason police looked into it. Her kids knew her better than anyone, their opinion on this should not be dismissed.
They called Jim, their stepfather 'Dad' and had known him since they were small. He gave one of Victoria's daughters away at her wedding. They had no axe to grind with him - it was a source of great sadness to them that they believed him capable of murdering their mother, and still do. I'm glad after 8 years they finally got justice for their mom.
Suicide victims don't generally disappear - murder victims do. When people kill themselves, their remains are found. But when a woman suddenly vanishes without a trace, and is never seen or heard from again, it indicated third party involvement, ie murder. And an abusive husband is usually the culprit.
Who else but Jim had any reason to want rid of Victoria? He had the motive, means and opportunity. He was losing patience and money, thanks to her poor health and medical bills. After she vanished, he spoke disparagingly of her to detectives - it was plain he did not want her back (he even remarked how glad he was his heating bills had gone down). With her gone, he became less discreet in contacting his mistress Kathy Friday - who her son confirmed had been seeing him since the start of 2013, months before Victoria went missing.
No mystery why he wanted his inconvenient wife out the way. He chose murder over divorce, because he wasn't going to let her have her 50% share of their joint marital assets. He had other plans for that money. Soon he was spending it on hotel trips with his girlfriend, taking pornographic photos of her and having a great time losing literally hundreds of thousands of dollars gambling in casinos with her. He told anyone who asked him that Victoria had killed herself - exaggerating her history of depression to make the lie more credible.
Police even know where he put his wife's body. His employers' chemical sludge ponds, which he had a key to, and which weren't covered by CCTV, were the perfect disposal site. He knew the corrosive contents would destroy all trace of her remains quickly, and without a body he was certain he'd get away with murder. He was wrong.
The defence case was ridiculous. They had to convince the jury a cancer patient who couldn't walk far and didn't drive, left home at night without her cigarettes and dentures (without leaving a suicide note or any footprints), killed herself by unknown means some distance from the house, and then made her own corpse magically disappear. No wonder the jury didn't buy it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
A magnificent woman, of whom her children can be so proud. Their father is a spineless, despicable coward, without sufficient decency or humanity to even own his crime - least of all apologise for it.
You reap what you sow, and Ron will die in prison. Heather's survival as a quadriplegic is remarkable and inspiring. I'm thrilled she hung around for her loved-ones, and is doing good things in this world, publicising the scourge of domestic violence, which blights and ends the lives of so many women and children. Her story is a textbook tale, demonstrating the different stages of the 'Cycle of Narcissistic Abuse'.
The way Ron and Heather met is the classic narcissists 'love bombing', that happens at the start of an abusive relationship. The narcissistic abuser pursues the victim, showers her with compliments and gifts, and persuades her to enter a committed relationship with him (through living together, or marriage and/or having children).
Heather was a glamorous air stewardess, when she caught the eye of super-rich businessman and first class passenger Ron. And he made it his business to find out her phone number. She was flattered at the effort he went to to track her down, and agreed to date him - though she later admitted it was not love at first sight for her. He splashed the cash, took her on lavish vacations, and worked hard to impress her. She was hooked, and they were soon married.
Once the victim is committed, the narc shows his true colours during the next, 'de-valuing stage', and his controlling, abusive ways emerge. For Heather, she said the catalyst was the birth of their first child, Ronnie Jr. That was when Ron's TRUE character emerged, and the charming mask came off - in Heather's words, he became "Scary and controlling".
And the de-valuing meant his compliments turned to insults. This is the time when the narcissistic abuser exerts their power over the victim by telling them they are worthless, useless, and generally chips away relentlessly at their self esteem. Narcissists want to be in control, and what better way to achieve that, than to weaken their partner's self confidence and self belief?
After the de-valuing stage - which can go on for many years - comes the narcissist's final discard. This is the rejection, and whatever form it takes, it is invariably brutal. This means a bitter split, an acrimonious divorce, or even murder. In Heather's case, Ron delivered all three - though thankfully, by a total fluke, she survived his hit man. And she got to have her day in court and see her would-be killer, the father of her three children, locked up for the rest of his life. Bravo Heather - your narcissistic abuser did you terrible harm. But you survived him, exposed his true, evil toxicity to the world, and had him locked up forevermore, so he can't hurt anyone else! An incredible true story.
1
-
1
-
OMG that lovely young couple, murdered by a woman-hating LOSER who couldn't bear to see them happy! Kylen's Dad is right - they deserved safe, affordable housing, and only if they could have had it maybe they'd be alive today. Two women alone in a camper van were an easy target for a sicko with a gun.
Respect to those much-loved twin souls who can never be parted, and to their loved ones who fought for truth and justice. The ending is a tragic one, but at least their murderer cannot harm anyone else. He has gone to Hell, demanding no taxpayer-funded bed and board for the next 40 years.
Two big-hearted, decent, hard working young people with their whole lives ahead of them, brutally taken from this world at the pull of a trigger. America's gun laws are so crazy,
1
-
Agreed - When this murder trial is done and that evil PoS is locked in the cage he'll die in, the Keystone Cops MUST be held accountable for their disastrous botcheddouble murder investigation!
Richard Allen wasn't 'hiding in plain sight', as that buffoon Supt Doug Carter claimed - He wasn't hiding at all! He lived and worked a stone's throw from the crime scene, and pretty much gave himself up to a marshal the day after the February 2017 murders, confessing he was there the entire time Libby and Abby were - even on the bridge - wearing the same blue jeans and coat as 'Bridge Guy' on the infamous video.
Yet police failed to invite Richard Allen in for interview! That didn't happen until October 2022 - almost five years later, following a re-evaluation of the early investigation.
Richard Allen, a highly dangerous man, has been at liberty all that time, free to kill more females, be they women or children. The police failed to keep the public safe - and failed to deliver justice for two much loved little girls, enjoying a walk at a popular beauty spot, on a fresh Winter's day, as any kid should.
1