Comments by "Kate Ashby" (@kateashby3066) on "Closing Arguments Recap: ID v Chad Daybell, Doomsday Prophet Murder Trial" video.

  1. He’s a defense lawyer- he’s gunna use every trick in the book to get a Casey Anthony verdict for his client.
    3
  2. Yup but did the jury catch that? That is the question.
    3
  3. Do you know what the def of perjury is? how do you prove that someone didn’t mis remember or misspeak, but rather intentionally misled the court? Like, how do you PROVE it so clearly that an entire jury will side with you and do so in an honest manner? There’s a reason why it’s almost never prosecuted. It’s impossible to prove someone’s INTENT. Prosecutors aren’t in the business of focusing on weak cases they can’t win. It won’t happen.
    3
  4.  @calico-kat-mom6204 it’s a terrible argument but you also misunderstand it.
    2
  5. It’s not called a delusion disorder for nothin 😂
    2
  6.  @tigerlancer exactly I guarantee you LB’s closing arguments (which are also JUST a theory) aren’t being called “BS” 😂, and I also guarantee that she’s not 100% right with her theory either unless she’s psychic and even psychics only get it right 75% of the time. Does that make her a liar like everyone is calling prior? These ppl have no clue how biased they are 😂
    2
  7. The other neighbors didn’t smell it.
    1
  8. That’s his job.
    1
  9. Prove that they lied and didn’t just remember wrong. If you can’t- neither can the prosecution. This is why it won’t happen.
    1
  10. Y’all are misunderstanding his argument. He never denied that Alex googled how to shoot through their car. He can’t because that’s a FACT. He’s denying that that person in black with that g u n pointed at Tammy was Alex and that it was a real g u n. Because he can’t explain why someone has a g u n pointed at TAMMY. So he’s still arguing that that was a paintball g u n and that wasn’t alex. he’s saying the googling evidence and that person are two separate events and two separate people and that together they are just a coincidence (haha yeah ok). And that Alex was always setting up Chad and was gunna k!LL him too.
    1
  11. He did NOT say that. Y’all are jumping to conclusions here and this misinformation is spreading like wild fire with no critical thinking going on with all the ppl just agreeing with it. Listen again! He’s saying that Alex googled how to shoot through a car that CHAD primarily drove (he’s set up this argument from the beginning!) and he’s STILL sticking with his argument that the man who was pointing that “object” at Tammy was NOT Alex and that was NOT a real g u n. Both can be true at the same time. Is it? I don’t think so but I’m not the jury.
    1
  12. He did NOT say that. Y’all are jumping to conclusions here and this misinformation is spreading like wild fire with no critical thinking going on with all the ppl just agreeing with it. Listen again! He’s saying that Alex googled how to shoot through a car that CHAD primarily drove (he’s set up this argument from the beginning!) and he’s STILL sticking with his argument that the man who was pointing that “object” at Tammy was NOT Alex and that was NOT a real g u n. Both can be true at the same time. Is it? I don’t think so but I’m not the jury.
    1
  13.  @AudieTheMastiff ffs this is why America is going to sht- because none of you ppl can use problem solving skills to reach a logical conclusion. You’re all jumping to illogical conclusions based on emotion. And that doesn’t typically end well. Prior doesn’t have SA charges- so that’s a lie, and he also never went back on his argument about the paintball g u n. He’s saying that Alex targeted Chad and that the man who pointed that thing at Tammy was some rando and it was just a paintball g u n and not a hit on her life. Two totally separate events with separate people and separate motives. Is it true? Def not but that’s his argument. Closing arguments is all about taking all the evidence you just collected in front of the jury and telling a narrative that works with that evidence and helps your client. You guys just assumed his narrative was X, when it’s actually Y.
    1
  14.  @SilentThundersnow he’s arguing, not lying 😂. Both sides are allowed to speculate during closing ARGUMENTS. That’s the entire point 😂. It’s not like LB knows what happened either- her entire close is also pure speculation based on the limited evidence she has, but you guys don’t call HER a liar 😂.
    1
  15. Yup but to be fair, prior doesn’t have a good defense because of the MOUNDS of evidence against Chad- and Chad provided the worst stuff too by being sloppy (cop car video and raccoon texts). Priors job is to come up with a narrative that works with the evidence but acquits his client- and that’s ROUGH. 😂
    1
  16. Lori isn’t a psych0path. Chad is the person with ASPD. His tells: he has all the signs of a narcissist PLUS he has no fear! “I’m not coming back” as he giggles- that’s a psych0path brain right there. Lori is just a narcissist and histrionic (with delusions). It’s the narcissism that makes these ppl do this stuff. Almost all family k!llers are narcs. Chris watts, Casey Anthony, Anthony Todt, Chad doermann… all k!lled their kids (and some killed more than that) and they’re all just narcissists. I share this because ppl don’t seem to understand how dangerous these types are. They’re far more of a threat than the psych0path because they make up about 10% of the population whereas dangerous (impulsive) psych0paths only make up about .5%. They kill their own for any and all selfish reasons, whereas the psych0 kills for the THRILL of it. But that’s also very rare. Alex was also a narcissist. Chad was able to easily manipulate lori and Alex because he knew that their inflated egos were the key to getting them to do that he wanted. Same goes for most ppl in his cult..
    1
  17. Well if you listened, he explained why. Lori was k!lling off all her husbands (it so the patterns shows), and so he was naturally the next one. It’s actually a really good argument if you completely ignore the evidence against him lol
    1
  18. Ya think?
    1
  19. He’s not trying to convince the general public who is completely biased. He’s just trying to convince the 17 people sitting in front of him. And those ppl have a fraction of the info we do.
    1
  20. Lol yes that’s what started the entire debate over whether this house has stairs or not.
    1
  21. She was due in court a few days after chads trial started. For the FIRST TIME in FIVE YEARS she didn’t show up 😂. She let her lawyer handle it. For me that’s telling! A histrionic who doesn’t show up when cameras are present? That’s VERY unusual.
    1
  22. She’s a histrionic, he’s a psychopath, so yeah they both would have tried to k!LL each other once they surpassed the honeymoon phase 😂. They are like the Joker and Harley Quinn 😂 (same personality disorders)
    1
  23. Nope we sure aren’t 😂😂😂 carnivores have very long teeth to rip flesh from the bone. Some ppl Eating meat by choice doesn’t magically make all humans carnivores 😂
    1
  24. Nah he’s paid to defend Chad and he’s doing the best he can with this horrible case he’s been handed. Prior kniws Chad is going to be found guilty but he can at LEAST muddy the waters and hope it causes enough confusion so Chad gets life and not the DP
    1
  25. You do realize he’s paid $500 an hour to do just that, right? Y’all getting butt hurt because he’s being a DEFENSE lawyer is an interesting choice lol
    1
  26.  @fridaytieday they’re both working with the facts and both developing two separate THEORIES based on those facts. You’re in denial if you still don’t get that. No one is saying that LB’s theory isn’t more likely but it’s still a THEORY. She doesn’t have a video of Chad doing all of this stuff and is merely putting a puzzle together and then FILLING IN THE GAPS WITH A THEORY. 😂😂😂 Jesus..
    1
  27. It’s a good point to drive home. Her husbands seem to magically drop dead. Now she’s on the FIFTH? It buttresses his argument that Chad was her next target.
    1
  28. Well to be fair, 99% of these comments are biased AF so you’re not alone. Ppl are too emotional to look at this case objectively. I have faith that the jurors aren’t doing that. That’s why they were chosen.
    1
  29. He’s arguing that BOTH are true and yes both are possible. You can google how to shoot through a car in order to k!LL Chad and also have a TOTALLY separate incident where some weirdo points a paintball g u n at a random person to be a jerk. He is NOT saying that the paintball g u n is now an AR15. You assumed that.
    1
  30. No, you just misunderstood his argument. He’s saying that Alex googled how to shoot through a car that CHAD primarily drove (he’s set up this argument from the beginning!) and he’s STILL sticking with his argument that the man who was pointing that “object” at Tammy was NOT Alex and that was NOT a real g u n. Both can be true at the same time. Is it? I don’t think so but I’m not the jury.
    1