State didn't have a case. No evidence other than the guy who admits to being there but minimized his role so he could get the sweet heart deal of no time spent.
@@anastasiabeaverhausen2996 Many people cower at the fear of life without parole or spending most of their lives in jail and will admit to things they didn't do. The fact that Tucker didn't take the deal only strengthens my point.
@@SunnyDays70she didn't take the deal because he would of got a lot of time for violating probation that's was why and the Da wanted him to take it . would save tax money.
I’m confused as to why the state and judge won’t let in evidence of the police interrogation. If I’m a jury that makes me think that the state is hiding something
Kudos to this man for standing up for himself. He’s not an eloquent speaker, he doesn’t know all the legal mumbo-jumbo, but I think he did a great job in his defense. I don’t think this should be recalled.
He defends himself very well and he makes the case that he is innocent. Even if he is guilty, the state could not prove their case. Too much reasonable doubt to convict.
@@Nefertiti0403What is the evidence against him? I’m new to this trial and have only watched bits & pieces but a lot of people are saying the state hasn’t proved their case or there’s too much reasonable doubt. I know sometimes comments are by design & defendants have people purposely posting that stuff …but there’s more of it in this case than I usually see.
@@cateellington4081 so far the evidence is just the word of another man who admits to being a "getaway driver" but seems to be the actual murderer. That guy also admitted to having a knife collection and could describe the murder weapon very well, knew it was a dive knife and exactly what it looked like. The state's argument is that three people were involved but the evidence seems to only show two people - the large black man who attacked Paula and the smaller white man who murdered Matthew. The state is trying to prove the smaller man was Tucker but they didn't do a good job of proving there was a third person involved at all. I don't think the truck was ever driven away from the scene until the "getaway driver" drove away after killing Matthew with the knife. As far as I can tell Tucker wasn't even there.
I disagree. The judge behaves like he has a personal beef w the prosecutor and wants to embarrass & undermine him before the jury. Tucker did a great job for a non lawyer but I lost count how many times he purposely played dumb and kept inserting arguments (without evidence to back it up) to make jurors think that the State his hiding all kinds of evidence. Implications that the judge already ruled Pretrial were not proper arguments before the jurors becs the evidence did not exist. But even with those rulings, Everytime the state objected to Defendant arguing evidence not properly before them…the judge sounded annoyed at the PROSECUTION for daring to Object to Tuckers totally impermissible arguments!
When the state objects, and the judge overrules, then the state requests a sidebar, this arrogant judge is not even LISTENING and Looking up at the lawyers explaining why he should sustain. Doesn’t look up just keeps on scribbling doing what he’s doing. That is arrogance beyond belief and inappropriate to the point of incompetence
I willed him to say "I did not do this" the entire way through. Even when at the end he was struggling for something left to say. Those words never left his mouth and there is obviously 'a reason for that'.
I like him! He's very real and organic and we're not used to seeing that in a courtroom. We're used to highly trained lawyers in suit and tie. That's why I think he's getting a lot of flak from a lot of people. It worries me how many people here have judged him on EVERYTHING BUT the evidence against him. No physical and no forensic evidence. As he said "you may not like me but.. look at the evidence. " And that's what a good jury does. I think he did a good job at defending himself and he is credible. He is very logical. When he took the stand to do his "narrative"' he was flawless. Same story as 6 years ago just from memory; no reading. That's got to be harder than answering questions as they come. I was very impressed with how flawless he was. We all know liars trip themselves up. He didn't! I think people should give him credit for representing himself on a murder charge. He just went there as himself; no law degree. Prosecutor kept objecting which was overruled several times. I think that was to try to derail him; to lose his train of thought. It was very clear the 2 had ego issues with each other. Surely the attorney would be worried about losing his case against a very intelligent layman, a hippy boatsman who dared to represent himself.
The man has the means to come up with this defense he is so FULL of himself that he believes he can con the jury the judge and yes even you viewers ! Insane to me that yall think he isn’t guilty ! He did it period !!! His wife financially has the means to help him defend himself and you best believe he has done just that . I’m blown away at those who think this man is innocent! What reason does the state have to go after him other than he is in fact guilty ? How about the driver ? He was and is telling the truth ! The guy did this . A man is killed because of this man . My Lord
It is not about liking him ....What about him knowing about the bloody knife? He could have worn gloves. A person can practice in jail or while out on bail. My opinion is that I think that he was there! Also why was he allowed to hang out with the victim who has been probably under the influence of medical drugs and maybe influenced by Millionaires who are suddenly her friends? You raise good points about how he memorized what he believes in. And a prosecutor's job partly is to object.What was he doing there though? I am eagerly awaiting the Jurys' answer too.
@@waynefoote3781 For a lot of people it's all about hating him for very stupid reasons! So yeah I like him and I have stated all the reasons why. Yes attorneys can object but I've never seen a closing argument interrupted so many times; and at times frivolously and it was promptly overruled! You say "I think he was there..." Can you PROVE he was? And can you PROVE him guilty of murder? Because we all know that in any trial, it's not about what anyone thinks or believes. It's all about PROVEN guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT!
@@StellaRaeVonNO ACTUALLY IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO GET OUT AND LEARN TO SEE PPL FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE!! Not By His Words! What you Have Failed At Miserably is the fact that He’s REPRESENTING HIMSELF! If that’s not your first clue, not to mention many others, then you Definitely Need to up your skills 💪🏼 Oh yeah doesn’t surprise me one bit that it’s a Woman who can’t see Reality for what it is 🤦🏻♀️ shameful
It seems to me that the prosecution couldn't find the murdered, so they tried to pin it on this guy. It is very disconcerning to see everyone comment that he a con artist or a narcissist. Where is the EVIDENCE he did this? It seems like everyone just wants to find anyone guilty. Doesn't say much for a potential jury.
If he was drunk and knocked out....How can he remember everything and also have a selective memory? This guy is smooth talking at times but I think that he was there. At first the Victim Paula said she didn't know who the other person was and then ......she met his Multi Millionaire Wife and changed her mind ....now suddenly Tucker and her are friends? Taking selfies in the hospital??? This guy In my opinion was there and might be found guilty in a few hours. I do NOT believe him plus I never ever recall hearing him say that he didn't do it!! The jury will decide the case whatever the outcome.
Dear waynefoote. What a wonderful review of the case. I couldn't have said it better. I wonder who paid for Paula's California trip? I think his wealthy wife has been helping out Paula.
The trip? Absolutely .....and I think that the Jury sees right through it if they are aware of the mushy moosh between all 3 of them. Thank you so much for your compliment!@@kimhastings5580
This is why I love comments/conversations on trials like these. It’s like a jury from the public. I do agree with you. But with all that said, would you still be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? I’m of the opinion that I’d have to be 99% convinced in order to put someone away for life in prison. And this one I’m not even close. I feel 60/40. So it would be a no for me. And that’s mostly the prosecutions fault. If they didn’t object as much, let the “facts” (even though there were very few) speak for themselves. I might get there. But their strategy killed them. Next time they should get a likeable female and let him talk down to her. And the state needs more evidence.
it looks really bad for the state to continually object during his closing. Also, Captain Phelps escaping the stand is incredibly suspicious since she's the one that tainted the entire investigation.
I think he did well in his closing argument. I honestly don't know if he was involved or not. I don't believe the prosecution met the burden of proof for a guilty verdict. I have reasonable doubts after watching the entire trial. Now, we wait to see what the jury thinks. Only time will tell.
He holds his composure well .............but the facts will dictate the outcome of the case. What about him knowing about the bloody knife info? Why was he anywhere around the scene of the murder?
@@waynefoote3781well, to be fair we don’t know what was said during the interrogation. He may know a lot more than the rest of the public. I’m not saying he’s not guilty, but I’m saying I would have a hard time convicting him based on the evidence.
I have researched Narcissism for the past few years because I was a victim of one for 30 years, married 25. This guy is one & he’s trying to con everyone. The way he’s acting aloof and shrugging off the case against him, is how a lying narcissist try’s to defend himself. He’s guilty. Don’t be fooled by this young people. Instead watch & learn. These people are a whole different breed. Also, be constantly saying how insulted & upset about the situation. They ALL play victim!
Too much reasonable doubt. Unless you are a psychologist stfu. The state offered him "time served." That speaks volumes. They had no evidence other than the convict that got the sweetheart deal and had everything to gain. Remember, there is another incarcerated guy that Tucker wanted him to testify but the courts made it nearly impossible because "he didn't know the rules." Even IF he is guilty.....the state was alright with giving him TIME SERVED.
No, only narcissist is the prosecutor. Can't stand the fact a pro-se defendant beat him. 😅 His career is done. D. O. N. E. Done! Lol bet he thinks twice before charging someone he can't prove did said crime.
Well, I don't know much about this case but having listened carefully to this defendant address the jury, I think that speech was seriously impressive. The prosecution kept objecting and yet this defendant maintained his composure and rode the storm with some considerable dignity. I found the prosecutors' objections irritating and I have no doubt that jurors would have felt the same. Indeed, I suspect these objections may well have drawn some sympathy among jurors and helped the defendant. I may well be wrong but it'll be interesting to see what the outcome is when the jury return their verdict.
During the trial though this defendant has had hard edges and should have had a lawyer. He is well spoken and seemed sympathetic in his close but the facts of the case will speak even louder. An irritating prosecutor doesn't change that Ty was probably there. I think that Paula meeting a millionaire in this case changed her mind though. Coercion in my opinion. I am really curious to see what the jury thinks.
I totally agree!!! The prosecutor is a tool, I cannot stand him. Tucker held himself very well and I think he did a fairly good job representing himself! He's right, if his wife is rich then he could have had Jose Baez as his attorney. I'm not sure why he represented himself but he did a decent job considering he's not a lawyer! I hope the jury makes the right decision!! People are way too quick to pull out the pitchforks nowadays, with little mercy. I hope these people realize that the way in which they judge others, that same judgment will be used against them on Judgment Day. Every man will have to stand before the Almighty God, which is why I choose mercy first, and give the benefit of the doubt. The state in this case did NOT prove their case beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
@@StellaRaeVon totally agree with you. Social media allows for everyone's 5 cents worth these days. I too believe he did a great job defending himself without a law degree. I believe him.
@@zayden0 Who said they didn't? However, it is up to the Judge to decide what does or does not come in as evidence. This pro se defendant walked around looking lost most of the time. And the debacle of Paula trying to testify.....there are no words for that. Judge Jones ran that courtroom, not Tyrone Tucker. So sorry that you have a problem with women, maybe you should save that for your therapist.
@@catwhspr I like you just fine love, but your ideology seeps through your comment. Anyway you're right the judge does decide but the point was and is, Tucker did not challenge anything.
I have a bad feeling with this guy.....i hope the wife has her assets secured and no life insurance or anything else ..... He maybe also have promised the victim financial help so that she wouldn't rat him out ......If he is guilty I hope karma strikes ...
How is the prosecutor allowed to claim none of the evidence was mishandled, when the evidence of mishandling was not allowed into the trial. Just on of the many screw ups in this trial.
You know I don't know what he did what crime he committed but I do want to give him a compliment I think he's doing an awesome job as an attorney to represent himself I think he's doing a good job
Truly tucker you are really pathetic! When someone is innocent, they have nothing but questions. When someone is guilty, they have nothing but answers.
You have nothing to prove this man is a narcissist. You all overuse that word way too much! Thankfully, you are not diagnosing anyone because anyone you don't like would be a narcissist. Also hung jury! They had no evidence. Thankfully, some people can put their feelings aside and follow the actual evidence.
Nobody in the room said anything smart. He spoke clearly, logically and humbly. The prosecution had nothing besides a desperate guy who was already caught red handed. Travis. You are a typical fool.
Ive only watched a little of this case. The prosecutor is a turd. Asking for side bar multiple times. I watched the brooks and yohn cases. Could tell they were toast from their opening argument. This prosecutor objections you can tell he is doing it to trip him up. Anytime he started to make positive ground for himself, "objection". Brooks tried to do that to trip up the state in the opposite way. Looks bad either way for the objector
I've watched the whole trial and regardless of his trustworthiness the state hasn't proven their case and they're the ones trying to lock him up for life.
Ya he’s a narcissist, I agree with the comments but what he seen they don’t have nothing on him , that’s why they offered him time served , him willing to not take the plea shows he was more likely there . Proves he’s able to defy logic at all cost and things that make you or I sick” he’s capable of stomaching “ special kind of person “ than him able. To hook himself to the stars ⭐️ with a millionaire wife to save the day after he was living in a warehouse , wow crazy I heard Denzel in touch for the movie 🍿
@@RcPlayer-tt2vw or he didn't take the plea deal because he's innocent and they have nothing on him. It's crazy for people to assume guilty until proven innocent. If someone accused me of murder I wouldn't be taking a plea deal either. I know the justice system is rigged but that's exactly why this case is so insane. I am not convinced that the prosecution even believes he's guilty. It's just how the system works.
I was married to one for way too long. Unless you've been in that situation you can't really understand it. But I can spot one from the minute they open their mouth.
This is going to be a nail biter.. it's a toss up..I sure don't want to see a guilty person set free.. but himrepresenting himself gives me hope for the average Joe that we can beat big brother and the systems against us.. Be empowered..He gave the State a run for their money.
I don't like him, but I abhor the guy on the state's team. It was a bad defense, against a non-prosecution. You can really tell when someone is used to getting their way versus the guy who's used to being the "problem". ESH lol
When the prosecutor objects to actual evidence or testimony was presented or given for the prosecution is as if they are now just throwing up anything. Not guilty.
If they’re gonna bring up his wife, in my opinion that should open the door to the fact that he COULD afford some really good attorneys, but when he brought that up they shut it down. Again, I don’t believe he’s innocent, but I don’t think they have the evidence to convict.
Main credibility he has is he could’ve walked time served “ and put his life on the line and without a lawyer , “ which makes me think the comment saying he’s a narcissist are true
Or how about when we was talking about “his” knife and slipped and said I couldn’t describe it back then and can’t do it now. What would you have to describe if you didn’t have your knife?
The state did not prove their case, and it's a travesty that the judge would allow this circus to go on after the victim recanted and said that the man wasn't involved. Also say what you will but a drunk carpenter beat two life long attorneys at their own game.
If a lawyer supports a defendant's strategy to lie under oath (perjury being illegal,) he or she can be disbarred. Part of the duty of a sworn officer of the court is to supply LEGAL counsel. That is why defendants choose to defend themselves. Also, certain personalities love the powerful feeling. Don't be surprised if Rex Heuermann or Bryan Kohberger decides to represent themselves in court.
Yes yes such an anointed TH-camr commenter. Let's see you speak as clearly and logically as this guy did when your life is on the line in a court room.
I’ve never seen defendant’s represent themselves that wasn’t guilty. Our nation has free legal representation so there is no need to testify on our own behalf. I call bs.
You couldn't be more wrong. You only get a free attorney if you don't have the means to pay for council. I heard his attorneys wanted him to plead guilty and take time served. But he wanted to clear his name.
@@TheOnlyGuitarFatherthe driver duh 🙄 3 guys went and that guy was credible! He obviously got Paula to lie for him! He is guilty as heck for murdering that neighbor! A dangerous thief too!
in a nutshell he trying to say hey i believe im innocent and i have faith defending myself even though i could afford an attroney , and you could look at that in many ways..& his wife put up the bail money so ..
He probably didn't want a lawyer complicating something that's so logically simple. They have nothing except a guilty guy getting a deal saying that Tucker was there.
Some people rather be out on the water 💦 instead of a court room , he says he made 300 a hour off the books that’s about the same as a lawyer and it’s legal if he pays taxes . Not sure I believe him he’s a bs artist
I came here to read comments, as I didn't really follow this trial, & have been trying to find articles that speak of the evidence. Haven't found any - so what was the actual hard evidence against him? Coming in cold & listening to just this, he sounds believable to me. This is the best defendant "lawyering" I've seen.
Why doesn’t he ever utter the words “I did not do this” or “I did not hurt these people”. A person who is honest about not doing something is going to argue by saying they did not do what they are being accused of doing. It’s common sense. It’s a very natural reaction to defend yourself when you know you did not commit the crime. He went out of his way to make sure he didn’t say those specific words or phrases. I’m conflicted in this whole ordeal. Both sides failed.
This is the first trial that I have seen in which the prosecutor tries to literally put a gag order on the opposing sides closing arguments. It is disgusting, and the judge should have put a stop to it. 🤬
#CourtTV Catch up on the #TreehouseMurderTrial here:
www.courttv.com/tag/franklin-tucker/?
Did I miss something? Why isn't the verdict watch count down clock up?
How long have the jury been deliberating the longer the better for Ty Tucker
He isnt doing as well as a good attorney, but he is doing as good as a bad one. The only person doing a worse job, is the prosecutor.
Thats because they don't have evidence.
Agee agree
Agreeeeeeeeeerrer
No way they can convict him on this. Do I think he did it?? Yes. Could I convict him, absolutely not.
The narrative of crime often focuses on redemption for the criminal, but what about restoration for the victims?
State didn't have a case. No evidence other than the guy who admits to being there but minimized his role so he could get the sweet heart deal of no time spent.
He spent 4 years before he was offered the same deal as Tucker to flip on his accomplices and he’s still on paper now.
@@anastasiabeaverhausen2996 Many people cower at the fear of life without parole or spending most of their lives in jail and will admit to things they didn't do. The fact that Tucker didn't take the deal only strengthens my point.
They offered this man time served with a guilty plea & he turned it down. WHAT GUILTY PERSON WOULD TURN THAT DOWN??? 🤔
One who is pretending to be innocent!!!!
A narcissist
@@SunnyDays70she didn't take the deal because he would of got a lot of time for violating probation that's was why and the Da wanted him to take it . would save tax money.
A stupid one
@@tinab3627 🤭
A little passive on his closing argument. If i was a juror i cuold not send him to prison and feel good about it.
I’m confused as to why the state and judge won’t let in evidence of the police interrogation. If I’m a jury that makes me think that the state is hiding something
Travis doesn’t know how to legally bring it in, the prosecutor knows how to keep it out
Exactly 💯
Kudos to this man for standing up for himself. He’s not an eloquent speaker, he doesn’t know all the legal mumbo-jumbo, but I think he did a great job in his defense. I don’t think this should be recalled.
Prosecution did not prove their case unfortunately
To me they did!
He defends himself very well and he makes the case that he is innocent. Even if he is guilty, the state could not prove their case. Too much reasonable doubt to convict.
Mmmm No I disagree
I think hes gonna win.
@@Nefertiti0403What is the evidence against him? I’m new to this trial and have only watched bits & pieces but a lot of people are saying the state hasn’t proved their case or there’s too much reasonable doubt.
I know sometimes comments are by design & defendants have people purposely posting that stuff …but there’s more of it in this case than I usually see.
@@cateellington4081 so far the evidence is just the word of another man who admits to being a "getaway driver" but seems to be the actual murderer. That guy also admitted to having a knife collection and could describe the murder weapon very well, knew it was a dive knife and exactly what it looked like. The state's argument is that three people were involved but the evidence seems to only show two people - the large black man who attacked Paula and the smaller white man who murdered Matthew. The state is trying to prove the smaller man was Tucker but they didn't do a good job of proving there was a third person involved at all. I don't think the truck was ever driven away from the scene until the "getaway driver" drove away after killing Matthew with the knife. As far as I can tell Tucker wasn't even there.
@cateellington4081 that's what I'm wondering what do they have on this guy..
Whether you think he is guilty or not, I don't see how they can convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. They really have no case against him.
The judge here is awesome. He is fair and patient in a pro se situation.
I disagree. The judge behaves like he has a personal beef w the prosecutor and wants to embarrass & undermine him before the jury.
Tucker did a great job for a non lawyer but I lost count how many times he purposely played dumb and kept inserting arguments (without evidence to back it up) to make jurors think that the State his hiding all kinds of evidence.
Implications that the judge already ruled Pretrial were not proper arguments before the jurors becs the evidence did not exist.
But even with those rulings, Everytime the state objected to Defendant arguing evidence not properly before them…the judge sounded annoyed at the PROSECUTION for daring to Object to Tuckers totally impermissible arguments!
When the state objects, and the judge overrules, then the state requests a sidebar, this arrogant judge is not even LISTENING and Looking up at the lawyers explaining why he should sustain.
Doesn’t look up just keeps on scribbling doing what he’s doing.
That is arrogance beyond belief and inappropriate to the point of incompetence
I think the judge did a better job today, but I do think he was pro-prosecution at first.
I agree
The judge should step up and throw the case out on merit. There is nothing there but a story with no evidence...none.
I willed him to say "I did not do this" the entire way through. Even when at the end he was struggling for something left to say. Those words never left his mouth and there is obviously 'a reason for that'.
Only person who did a good job representing themself
I like him! He's very real and organic and we're not used to seeing that in a courtroom. We're used to highly trained lawyers in suit and tie. That's why I think he's getting a lot of flak from a lot of people. It worries me how many people here have judged him on EVERYTHING BUT the evidence against him. No physical and no forensic evidence. As he said "you may not like me but.. look at the evidence. " And that's what a good jury does. I think he did a good job at defending himself and he is credible. He is very logical. When he took the stand to do his "narrative"' he was flawless. Same story as 6 years ago just from memory; no reading. That's got to be harder than answering questions as they come. I was very impressed with how flawless he was. We all know liars trip themselves up. He didn't! I think people should give him credit for representing himself on a murder charge. He just went there as himself; no law degree. Prosecutor kept objecting which was overruled several times. I think that was to try to derail him; to lose his train of thought. It was very clear the 2 had ego issues with each other. Surely the attorney would be worried about losing his case against a very intelligent layman, a hippy boatsman who dared to represent himself.
The man has the means to come up with this defense he is so FULL of himself that he believes he can con the jury the judge and yes even you viewers ! Insane to me that yall think he isn’t guilty ! He did it period !!! His wife financially has the means to help him defend himself and you best believe he has done just that . I’m blown away at those who think this man is innocent! What reason does the state have to go after him other than he is in fact guilty ? How about the driver ? He was and is telling the truth ! The guy did this . A man is killed because of this man . My Lord
@kathypeterson13 where is the evidence?!? One word against another is not evidence. Tell me what the evidence is. I'll wait for it...
It is not about liking him ....What about him knowing about the bloody knife? He could have worn gloves. A person can practice in jail or while out on bail. My opinion is that I think that he was there! Also why was he allowed to hang out with the victim who has been probably under the influence of medical drugs and maybe influenced by Millionaires who are suddenly her friends? You raise good points about how he memorized what he believes in. And a prosecutor's job partly is to object.What was he doing there though? I am eagerly awaiting the Jurys' answer too.
@@waynefoote3781Exactly…. he knows a lot for being home and
blacked out from drugs and alcohol poisoning
@@waynefoote3781 For a lot of people it's all about hating him for very stupid reasons! So yeah I like him and I have stated all the reasons why. Yes attorneys can object but I've never seen a closing argument interrupted so many times; and at times frivolously and it was promptly overruled! You say "I think he was there..." Can you PROVE he was? And can you PROVE him guilty of murder? Because we all know that in any trial, it's not about what anyone thinks or believes. It's all about PROVEN guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT!
I actually believe this dude
Dear michieldekock. I agree with you. I am starting to believe his story. Will we really ever know?
Me too!!! Just what I wrote above
I do too!
OMG,Lord we need help in this world smh
you are being manipulated wake up! take your meds!
Oh yay, another “charming” sociopath
Your intuition needs a tune up!
Agree 💯 guilty
EXACTLY THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FROM THE START
@@StellaRaeVonNO ACTUALLY IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO GET OUT AND LEARN TO SEE PPL FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE!! Not By His Words! What you Have Failed At Miserably is the fact that He’s REPRESENTING HIMSELF! If that’s not your first clue, not to mention many others, then you Definitely Need to up your skills 💪🏼 Oh yeah doesn’t surprise me one bit that it’s a Woman who can’t see Reality for what it is 🤦🏻♀️ shameful
@@Nefertiti0403 oh my god imagine being a woman and using someone else's womanhood as an insult to their intelligence good grief
I haven't heard him say he didn't do it.
What?
Does he have to say it he Ben said wasn’t there y’all just trying to find anything
That would be lying under oath, he just trying to say if he did prove it
I noticed that!@@godivagirl6325
I totally believe that he is guilty and also believe that he is a con artist.
Exactly! Not sure why these others are defending this criminal mastermind narcissist! The wife needs to run far away from this guy!
And a crack head with a huge ego
I’m finding him guilty
Yes!
@@Juke582those of the same ilk will defend him
It seems to me that the prosecution couldn't find the murdered, so they tried to pin it on this guy. It is very disconcerning to see everyone comment that he a con artist or a narcissist. Where is the EVIDENCE he did this? It seems like everyone just wants to find anyone guilty. Doesn't say much for a potential jury.
He should of took the deal and rode off into the sunset with his honey bunch and her millions. He’s taking a heck of a chance on a jury.
He beat it😂
If he took the deal, he would have violated probation and gotten more time.
If he was drunk and knocked out....How can he remember everything and also have a selective memory? This guy is smooth talking at times but I think that he was there. At first the Victim Paula said she didn't know who the other person was and then ......she met his Multi Millionaire Wife and changed her mind ....now suddenly Tucker and her are friends? Taking selfies in the hospital??? This guy In my opinion was there and might be found guilty in a few hours. I do NOT believe him plus I never ever recall hearing him say that he didn't do it!! The jury will decide the case whatever the outcome.
Dear waynefoote. What a wonderful review of the case. I couldn't have said it better. I wonder who paid for Paula's California trip? I think his wealthy wife has been helping out Paula.
The trip? Absolutely .....and I think that the Jury sees right through it if they are aware of the mushy moosh between all 3 of them. Thank you so much for your compliment!@@kimhastings5580
Thank you very much for your compliment. I think she has been too!@@kimhastings5580
Thank you for the compliment. i am not sure about that trip...There is no proof. But we all have our own opinions that is for sure.@@kimhastings5580
This is why I love comments/conversations on trials like these. It’s like a jury from the public. I do agree with you. But with all that said, would you still be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? I’m of the opinion that I’d have to be 99% convinced in order to put someone away for life in prison. And this one I’m not even close. I feel 60/40. So it would be a no for me. And that’s mostly the prosecutions fault. If they didn’t object as much, let the “facts” (even though there were very few) speak for themselves. I might get there. But their strategy killed them. Next time they should get a likeable female and let him talk down to her. And the state needs more evidence.
Not guilty. No hard evidence linking him.
They did not prove thier case at all. Sorry even if you don't like this guy does not make him murder. Where are the fact. Outside of hearsay.
The State has nothing, literally.
It will be interesting to hear what Bruce Rivers has to say.
Seriously
Every objection and sidebar only frustrates the jury and does not help this prosecutor. He's blowing any chance he may have had.
it looks really bad for the state to continually object during his closing. Also, Captain Phelps escaping the stand is incredibly suspicious since she's the one that tainted the entire investigation.
Never once says , “I didn’t kill MB” or “I didn’t hurt my friend , Paula”. Just I was a sleep or I wasn’t there.
He didn't have to, you know why because the evidence speaks for its self!
I think he did well in his closing argument. I honestly don't know if he was involved or not. I don't believe the prosecution met the burden of proof for a guilty verdict. I have reasonable doubts after watching the entire trial. Now, we wait to see what the jury thinks. Only time will tell.
Yes he represented himself well and I have reasonable doubt. I pray justice is served!
I think plea deals are screwing the justice system!
When will the jury deliberate? Court tv doesn’t have a jury watch clock going
He is talking way to long. Loves to hear himself talk
Dear Edward-wh6kd. This guy could talk forever. He thinks he is so smart. I think this guy is a total loser.
Yes he can do that in jail 😅
I want to see how much time he gets
The End 😮
@manuelramirez-hw1to, these comments sure turned around and bit you right in the ass!
They did not prove their case.
Everytime the prosecutor speaks I think there’s reasonable doubt and everytime he talks I think he’s guilty
That means there is reasonable doubt
Reasonable doubt, absolutely! Let's hope the jury brings justice
Lol AGREED.
every time the prosecutor objects, i think it lends more credibility to the defense.
@@Ilicetexactly totally agree. The objections are so obstructive and meaningless. Really bad response and made me believe him more too.
Conman. Slick. Guilty
IMO even if you think he’s guilty, the evidence isn’t sufficient. NG
He seems to be acting with more dignity than the other 2.
Narcissistic guy
He holds his composure well .............but the facts will dictate the outcome of the case. What about him knowing about the bloody knife info? Why was he anywhere around the scene of the murder?
@@waynefoote3781well, to be fair we don’t know what was said during the interrogation. He may know a lot more than the rest of the public. I’m not saying he’s not guilty, but I’m saying I would have a hard time convicting him based on the evidence.
What are the ethical considerations in the extradition of criminals to countries with different legal standards?
What was narcissistic about this guy? He spoke clearly, logically and humbly. Go outside for once.
He did fairly well and gives logical explanations. We have seen worse.
Darrell Brooks and Brad Yohn😂😂😂. Those cases are very entertaining. They are professional narcissists
The Prosecution's spaghetti didn't stick to the wall.
The state's case is full of holes. Reasonable doubt.
Of to me! 2-3 key evidence prove he was there and I believed Travis Johnson!
I do too........and why didn't ty accept plea deal? I don't get that.
Nope! The circumstantial evidence and getaway drivers testimony was credible! He’s guilty.
I think he absolutely participated.
Based on nothing
You would be a horrible juror
I think there is reasonable doubt.
His arrogance will get him 25 to life in prison.
Psychopathy at its best
You literally don't even know anything about this case other than he's representing himself and has a millionaire wife.
Praying so
He had a chance to walk away even if he’s not guilty, still pretty crazy
@@Sup3rB4dVideos Glad you know what I know and don't know
The man has a right to defend himself.There seems to be holes in the findings of this case.
Geez the prosecutor. Is this his first case too?
I believe Tucker. The state did not prove their case. NOT GUILTY!
I have researched Narcissism for the past few years because I was a victim of one for 30 years, married 25. This guy is one & he’s trying to con everyone. The way he’s acting aloof and shrugging off the case against him, is how a lying narcissist try’s to defend himself. He’s guilty. Don’t be fooled by this young people. Instead watch & learn. These people are a whole different breed. Also, be constantly saying how insulted & upset about the situation. They ALL play victim!
Except there’s no evidence against him…
Regardless, it's about whether the STATE proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO, they failed. It's not about personality disorders.
Too much reasonable doubt. Unless you are a psychologist stfu. The state offered him "time served." That speaks volumes. They had no evidence other than the convict that got the sweetheart deal and had everything to gain. Remember, there is another incarcerated guy that Tucker wanted him to testify but the courts made it nearly impossible because "he didn't know the rules." Even IF he is guilty.....the state was alright with giving him TIME SERVED.
Narcissist or not you do need to have concrete evidence.
No, only narcissist is the prosecutor. Can't stand the fact a pro-se defendant beat him. 😅
His career is done. D. O. N. E.
Done! Lol bet he thinks twice before charging someone he can't prove did said crime.
It’s annoying that they keep interrupting him. Just let him finish. It’s like they are trying to mess him up
Right or wrong that's the states strategy.
Jury's going to have split decision
Psycho path or not, there's too much reasonable doubt.
That poor jury having to listen to him.
Amen sashmo. I can't imagine what this poor jury is thinking. I can't even stand looking at this guy.
Poor us we're watching it
😂😂
Well, I don't know much about this case but having listened carefully to this defendant address the jury, I think that speech was seriously impressive. The prosecution kept objecting and yet this defendant maintained his composure and rode the storm with some considerable dignity. I found the prosecutors' objections irritating and I have no doubt that jurors would have felt the same. Indeed, I suspect these objections may well have drawn some sympathy among jurors and helped the defendant. I may well be wrong but it'll be interesting to see what the outcome is when the jury return their verdict.
During the trial though this defendant has had hard edges and should have had a lawyer. He is well spoken and seemed sympathetic in his close but the facts of the case will speak even louder. An irritating prosecutor doesn't change that Ty was probably there. I think that Paula meeting a millionaire in this case changed her mind though. Coercion in my opinion. I am really curious to see what the jury thinks.
Totally agree! I just wrote something similar above.
I totally agree!!! The prosecutor is a tool, I cannot stand him. Tucker held himself very well and I think he did a fairly good job representing himself! He's right, if his wife is rich then he could have had Jose Baez as his attorney. I'm not sure why he represented himself but he did a decent job considering he's not a lawyer! I hope the jury makes the right decision!! People are way too quick to pull out the pitchforks nowadays, with little mercy. I hope these people realize that the way in which they judge others, that same judgment will be used against them on Judgment Day. Every man will have to stand before the Almighty God, which is why I choose mercy first, and give the benefit of the doubt. The state in this case did NOT prove their case beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.
@@StellaRaeVon totally agree with you. Social media allows for everyone's 5 cents worth these days. I too believe he did a great job defending himself without a law degree. I believe him.
@@justme33126let's hope the jury makes the right decision!
Sounds just like every other sh*t-talking con artist I've ever encountered! 😂😂😂
Yep, smartest guy at the bar, just ask him!
Funny how he thinks he "let them" do this or that. Thinks he's in control of everything!
The defense does have the right to challenge evidence and the state has to prove relevance. It's not a matter of control.... women smh
@@zayden0 Who said they didn't? However, it is up to the Judge to decide what does or does not come in as evidence. This pro se defendant walked around looking lost most of the time. And the debacle of Paula trying to testify.....there are no words for that. Judge Jones ran that courtroom, not Tyrone Tucker. So sorry that you have a problem with women, maybe you should save that for your therapist.
@@catwhspr I like you just fine love, but your ideology seeps through your comment. Anyway you're right the judge does decide but the point was and is, Tucker did not challenge anything.
@@zayden0 Are you sure we watched the same trial?
I have a bad feeling with this guy.....i hope the wife has her assets secured and no life insurance or anything else .....
He maybe also have promised the victim financial help so that she wouldn't rat him out
......If he is guilty I hope karma strikes ...
I absolutely think so ....her story changed after meeting Millionare.
A guilty person cuddling up to the victim to kiss 🍑 isn't uncommon.
That's what money can do
That’s what crack can buy
Honestly I think he did it but the state did NOT prove it ….
How is the prosecutor allowed to claim none of the evidence was mishandled, when the evidence of mishandling was not allowed into the trial. Just on of the many screw ups in this trial.
This guy may have talked himself guilty.
How? For saying he didn't do it? What do they have on this guy?
I didn't say he was guilty. A real defense lawyer would not have kept rambling. Jury may take that wrong
You know I don't know what he did what crime he committed but I do want to give him a compliment I think he's doing an awesome job as an attorney to represent himself I think he's doing a good job
Truly tucker you are really pathetic! When someone is innocent, they have nothing but questions. When someone is guilty, they have nothing but answers.
I’m really surprised why he would represent himself when his wife is a multimillionaire lol.
He was scared of the bubba system there
*es
Guilty on all charges Tucker
Wow! Clearly a narcissist- really believing he’s the smartest guy in the room. So arrogant! This guy’s used to getting his way.
You have nothing to prove this man is a narcissist. You all overuse that word way too much! Thankfully, you are not diagnosing anyone because anyone you don't like would be a narcissist. Also hung jury! They had no evidence. Thankfully, some people can put their feelings aside and follow the actual evidence.
Nobody in the room said anything smart. He spoke clearly, logically and humbly. The prosecution had nothing besides a desperate guy who was already caught red handed. Travis. You are a typical fool.
Ive only watched a little of this case. The prosecutor is a turd. Asking for side bar multiple times. I watched the brooks and yohn cases. Could tell they were toast from their opening argument. This prosecutor objections you can tell he is doing it to trip him up. Anytime he started to make positive ground for himself, "objection". Brooks tried to do that to trip up the state in the opposite way. Looks bad either way for the objector
If this guy gets off, I want him to be my lawyer. In case I'm wrongfully accused.
If you did that you'd be as stupid as he is in hireing him for a lawyer.
there goes that "right" thing again, believe me, please believe me, please!
I haven’t followed this case at all but I would never trust this guy.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I've watched the whole trial and regardless of his trustworthiness the state hasn't proven their case and they're the ones trying to lock him up for life.
Ya he’s a narcissist, I agree with the comments but what he seen they don’t have nothing on him , that’s why they offered him time served , him willing to not take the plea shows he was more likely there . Proves he’s able to defy logic at all cost and things that make you or I sick” he’s capable of stomaching “ special kind of person “ than him able. To hook himself to the stars ⭐️ with a millionaire wife to save the day after he was living in a warehouse , wow crazy I heard Denzel in touch for the movie 🍿
@@RcPlayer-tt2vw or he didn't take the plea deal because he's innocent and they have nothing on him. It's crazy for people to assume guilty until proven innocent. If someone accused me of murder I wouldn't be taking a plea deal either. I know the justice system is rigged but that's exactly why this case is so insane. I am not convinced that the prosecution even believes he's guilty. It's just how the system works.
This is the way lying narcissists lie. Trust me. I was married to one for 25 years.
this guy is a total narcissist, and he is going to prison(my guess)
I was married to one for way too long. Unless you've been in that situation you can't really understand it. But I can spot one from the minute they open their mouth.
@@TheOnlyGuitarFatherwell said
@@catwhsprloser
@@shaneemerson7843 Don't you have some killers to defend? Because you obviously have no way to defend your position, other than name calling. Grow up!
He's a storyteller
This is going to be a nail biter.. it's a toss up..I sure don't want to see a guilty person set free.. but himrepresenting himself gives me hope for the average Joe that we can beat big brother and the systems against us.. Be empowered..He gave the State a run for their money.
I don't like him, but I abhor the guy on the state's team. It was a bad defense, against a non-prosecution. You can really tell when someone is used to getting their way versus the guy who's used to being the "problem". ESH lol
This guy is guilty.
Why do they have all the evidence of the crime without a single hair or drop of sweat from him then?
What really gets me is the point they did bring up his wife which he was right what did that have to do with any of this it didn't I say he's innocent
Agreed!
When the prosecutor objects to actual evidence or testimony was presented or given for the prosecution is as if they are now just throwing up anything. Not guilty.
Go back and take your meds this dude is GUILTY !!!
If they’re gonna bring up his wife, in my opinion that should open the door to the fact that he COULD afford some really good attorneys, but when he brought that up they shut it down. Again, I don’t believe he’s innocent, but I don’t think they have the evidence to convict.
@@jocelynastheart2732😂😂 poor you!
Not guilty 😮
This judge is OVER it😂 Also, Ty says at 7:51 "I'm angry, I'm not going to say I'm not, that would be a lie too" anyone else catch that?
Yes I did , but he meant them saying it’s him
Main credibility he has is he could’ve walked time served “ and put his life on the line and without a lawyer , “ which makes me think the comment saying he’s a narcissist are true
I immediately thought, wait, what was the first lie?
He meant that would be a lie to as in, all the lies that Travis has said and the prosecutor
Or how about when we was talking about “his” knife and slipped and said I couldn’t describe it back then and can’t do it now. What would you have to describe if you didn’t have your knife?
The state did not prove their case, and it's a travesty that the judge would allow this circus to go on after the victim recanted and said that the man wasn't involved. Also say what you will but a drunk carpenter beat two life long attorneys at their own game.
there you go show them your true nature. "I am noticeably irritated and angry." what is in the nature of the beast cannot be changed.
If a lawyer supports a defendant's strategy to lie under oath (perjury being illegal,) he or she can be disbarred. Part of the duty of a sworn officer of the court is to supply LEGAL counsel. That is why defendants choose to defend themselves. Also, certain personalities love the powerful feeling. Don't be surprised if Rex Heuermann or Bryan Kohberger decides to represent themselves in court.
Guilty or not he hasn’t lied about anything you can prove , I think he’s a bs artist but where’s the evidence, you can’t lock guy up on a limb
@@RcPlayer-tt2vwthank you! It's scary how quickly society raises the pitchforks! Innocent until proven guilty flies by the wayside in modern society
Well he has me convinced hes innocent. Even if he is guilty theres definitely NOT enough evidence.
If the guy identified him went to the beach to avoid police raid, how come his accomplis stayed behind to open the door for them?
If I had a dollar for every time he said 'u know', I would also be a multimillionaire😂
Yes yes such an anointed TH-camr commenter. Let's see you speak as clearly and logically as this guy did when your life is on the line in a court room.
@@ZeroPhilosopher he says it all the time when he's being interviewed too ..... times that he relishes because he craves the spotlight
Sounds like envy to me. Get off the internet and go develop some speaking skills.@@all4paws508
I’ve never seen defendant’s represent themselves that wasn’t guilty. Our nation has free legal representation so there is no need to testify on our own behalf. I call bs.
Really, I'll have to look that up. Interesting. ✌️
You couldn't be more wrong. You only get a free attorney if you don't have the means to pay for council. I heard his attorneys wanted him to plead guilty and take time served. But he wanted to clear his name.
Your country allows attorney's etc, to earn millions whilst pple die of simple health issues.
Only in mind fkd Amerikkka
@@benjaminlewis671 You only have to ask for legal representation. He didn’t.
@@benjaminlewis671 EXACTLY. Why plead guilty if you didn't do it. He is risking a lot. The state has no evidence.
Impressive for a pro se.
paula the vitim said it wasnt him so hes innocent point blank
God he’s a master manipulator! Please tell me they didn’t fall for his crap😡
@@TheOnlyGuitarFatherthe driver duh 🙄 3 guys went and that guy was credible! He obviously got Paula to lie for him! He is guilty as heck for murdering that neighbor! A dangerous thief too!
Why would Paula lie for him?@@Juke582
We know his wife has money so I'm not understanding why he didn't hire a lawyer. He is on trial for murder! Can anyone help me? Thank you.
He would want to prove he didnt marry her for her money??? Im sure she has a friend/ attorney who has been "helping" behind the scene.
He was afraid of the bubba system there
in a nutshell he trying to say hey i believe im innocent and i have faith defending myself even though i could afford an attroney , and you could look at that in many ways..& his wife put up the bail money so ..
He probably didn't want a lawyer complicating something that's so logically simple. They have nothing except a guilty guy getting a deal saying that Tucker was there.
Reasonable Doubt: It's more likely he did it than he didn't do it.
You just defined Balance of Probability not reasonable doubt
That's for a civil case, not a murder trial....
A small difference to Darrell Brooks...🤔
Mister nice guy. this is him on his best behavior. how is he when no one is looking?
Great question for the X
He is no dummy. Doesn’t mean he is innocent. He could have easily become a attorney instead of illegal living
Where is the evidence of illegal living??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? You're insane
Some people rather be out on the water 💦 instead of a court room , he says he made 300 a hour off the books that’s about the same as a lawyer and it’s legal if he pays taxes . Not sure I believe him he’s a bs artist
That’s what this trial is..murder is illegal , no?@@Sup3rB4dVideos
Well too bad ur not on his jury.for him@@RcPlayer-tt2vw
He did it! He was a drag addict at that time!!! He just changed once he me thsy woman
He was a drug addict so that means he did it?
I would vote, not guilty after listening to the trial.
I came here to read comments, as I didn't really follow this trial, & have been trying to find articles that speak of the evidence. Haven't found any - so what was the actual hard evidence against him? Coming in cold & listening to just this, he sounds believable to me. This is the best defendant "lawyering" I've seen.
"If you're sick, we can take a break...." no no. lol. Law is tricky
Why doesn’t he ever utter the words “I did not do this” or “I did not hurt these people”. A person who is honest about not doing something is going to argue by saying they did not do what they are being accused of doing. It’s common sense. It’s a very natural reaction to defend yourself when you know you did not commit the crime. He went out of his way to make sure he didn’t say those specific words or phrases. I’m conflicted in this whole ordeal. Both sides failed.
This is the first trial that I have seen in which the prosecutor tries to literally put a gag order on the opposing sides closing arguments. It is disgusting, and the judge should have put a stop to it. 🤬
I just love all the opinions from all the different walks of life.
Yupp And now let us see what happens in the retrial if that happens!
He reminds me of walter white lol
I think we are all friends now, please know I’m not the liar I am!
He’s believable and consistent. He’s a scapegoat for a corrupt prosecutor.
A 100% psychopath
For sure! Narcissist con man criminal and thief!!!
I'd believe the psychopath over the serial liar druggie. That's what this case comes down to.
and that's what you're supposed to do, fall for a psychopath and con artists lies@@love4theworld826
He's going in circles 🤣🙃
What? He made his points and rehashed his points. Would love to see you publicly speak in a court room. People like you are too typical.
@@ZeroPhilosopher oc