Comments by "Glamdolly" (@glamdolly30) on "GUILTY on all charges. Do you think justice was served in the No Body Murder Trial? | COURT TV" video.
-
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
-
8
-
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
-
6
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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