Comments by "Glamdolly" (@glamdolly30) on "A confidential informant took the stand today, but will it be enough to get a conviction? | COURT TV" video.

  1. 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
  2.  @charmainesanders8734  This idiot cannot hold his end up in an intelligent discussion about a murder trial. He's weirdly personally invested about this case - he's gutted that a wife killer was convicted - and his only response to people who say the jury got it right is to accuse them of being 'emotional', or 'personalising' the case. Which describes himself to a tee! Projecting, much? Thank God this was a jury of 12 intelligent men and women (six of each), who possessed the necessary intellect to navigate a primarily circumstantial case. If there were people like 'Midnight Prism' on the jury, it would have been a mistrial or worse, a not guilty verdict for a man who clearly murdered his wife. Because people like 'Midnight Prism' are so devoid of common sense and critical thinking skills, they need to see a time-stamped photo of the defendant committing the crime before they'll believe he did it!
    2
  3. 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
  4. The crazy thing is, THEY OFTEN DO!
    2