Husband and wife were completing their divorce with the wife getting $25M from it. Then it was alleged that Danny wanted the husband dead for fear of losing access to the husband's money. This makes no sense. How would Danny gain direct access to the husband's money whether the husband was dead or alive? Danny's access to the husband's money was through the wife and she was already getting $25M.
If the husband died while they were still legally married, the wife might have a claim for more than the $25 million she would have received in the divorce.
As a juror you have to put your emotions to the side. The facts here are there is no evidence to convict him. Nothing. How could you send a man to jail with nothing but accusations. Complete failure of a jury.
Yeah, whether Danny did it or not is something I guess we'll never know, but that jury didn't even seem sure of their decision. I can't believe his appeal was denied!
Yes, there was no direct evidence, but the Jury felt he was somehow involved or complacent. He himself admitted repeatedly to knowing more than he was letting.
Great example of why the justice system is terrifying. The jurors even admit in their interviews that there was no evidence against Danny, but they convicted him for having knowledge of where the hard drive was. Generosa could have told ANYONE where it was! It's horrifying that someone could be put in prison for 25 years like this.
The simple fact that a juror admitted that she doesn't know if he was even there....that should be grounds for a re-trial, given that the jurors clearly did not understand their job.
@@theoryofpersonality1420agreed!!! The jurors ARE allowed to comment once the verdict is handed down. Hence WHY they are NOT allowed to discuss cases when they are on JURY DUTY. People need stop being so EXTRA, when they don’t know what’s going on. SMH
The jury got it right, he's as guilty as sin. I seriously wonder about the naivety of some people commenting here. Anyone who honestly believes that guy was wrongly convicted, is a very poor judge of character. I pray they never sit on a jury!
@@glamdolly30 it doesn’t matter if we think he did it or now. It’s about whether it can be proven. There was no evidence to support that he was guilty or even at the crime scene.
@@MakeItMakeSense285 Which leads me to believe he would have told on himself if he did it. This guy couldn't keep a secret if his life depended on it. Look how easily influenced he is that people made him feel guilty about having a drink & smoke with his wife's ashes where they first met.
@Bigpoppieseed--I agree with you 100%. There was never enough to convict Pelosi, yet they did it anyway. It was a high profile case and the MEDIA already convicted him -that’s why a jury did.
What if she knew she was dying before Ted was murdered? Everyone says the wife despise Ted. I think she had her husband killed knowing she would be dead before she faced prosecution.
@@stasa-Xthe jurors are not even sure of their own decision. Im not saying he’s not guilty but if there is doubt they can’t just give a verdict that he was the killer. On what basis? They were assuming things. An innocent person can go to the prison for a crime they didn’t commit because they didn’t show emotions that fit the norm.
The jurors are either incredibly stupid or robots. You really don't understand why a man could get angry when he sees his father calling him a murderer on the stand? I can't imagine a bigger betrayal.
jurors making a lot of assumptions when they're supposed to look at the evidence and if the evidence doesn't support the charge the defendant is not guilty. I would never want these people on a jury.
that's the problem with dna.. everyone expects forensic evidence nowadays but there are still circumstantial cases. who other than the accused had the motive, means and opportunity to commit this crime in the way it was committed?
I think Allen is referring to the jurors own words at the end. He's not wrong. They convicted him on 2nd degree mdr when they had reasonable doubt that he had even held a weapon! Accessory is a completely different charge and he wasn't charged with that.
I hate to say it but she sounds like a nightmare. A control freak who gave instructions even after she was dead and even gave instructions as to how children should be raised and depriving them of their fathers family love
Yeah that whole nanny part was horrible. She must have really hated his family. Did she adopt them alone without her previous husband? Growing up as an orphan like she did you’d think she’d want them surrounded by love. I wonder how they vs Danny’s kids both turned out
There is no proof at all that he was there. In fact there is proof that he was elsewhere. That is enough reasonable doubt and he should have never been convicted.
@harshanid3636 Your Car Has A Brain And Records Show Where That Car Goes!! So If the Car And His Phone Shows He Wasn't There He Wasn't There!! I Believe His Wife Did It, Just Because He Was Hit So Many Times!! She Was Hiding In Places And Came Out And Hit Him?? Or She Had Someone Else Do It, Not Pelosi, There Was Also Somebody On The Beach That Night As Well, Cause The Husband Said Something Scared Him!! I Don't Believe He Did It And He Wasn't There!! She Might Of Talked To Him About Killing Him, But I Really Believe Him!!😑
I love vintage 48 Hours episodes. The writing, editing, photos, and the hosts all create such intriguing stories! Please upload more older episodes from the 90s and 2000s that are not available to watch on Pluto TV!! I’ve pretty much watched all of the older episodes on Pluto and have noticed there are hundreds of other episodes missing
The fact that that lady just said “I’m not sure if he did it” but convicted him is crazy. They just assumed and thought he “fit” more than anyone else. Beyond a reasonable doubt is just a suggestion I’m guessing?
It's not beyond all doubt. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable in light of the days of evidence they had to sit through. They deemed it unreasonable and as a jury that's their job.
@@theoryofpersonality1420 he didnt *say* beyond all doubt, he said beyond a reasonable doubt and there definitely seems to be a reasonable doubt amongst that jury, its kinda crazy that they convicted him and then admitted they really had no clue how it happened or whether he was even there just that he was probably involved in one way or another
The problem, along with the damning evidence his father presented about the question Danny asked him, was his friend's and his girlfriend's testimony. To say nothing of the fact that he said, his wife asked him to do it.
@@SpydersByte Being SURE someone did it is beyond ALL doubt. Saying they're NOT SURE, but still VERY LIKELY is beyond reasonable doubt. No one is ever SURE of a crime unless they were there and were the perpetrator.
Old episodes absolutely golden. The setup was phenomenal. Richard schlessinger delivers a cold and powerful rendition of this episode it is just absolutely fantastic 48 hours, been watching literally my entire life.
His same father said that he called him that night and asked him how to dismiss a body,i believe that he wasn't innocent at all, neither loved the woman, she never trusted her children , she preferred to give the protection of the children in nanny's hands.. He is a manipulator!!!
@@stasa-XWell you’re confused, he didn’t say a body, he said sone thing, and according to the prosecutors, he meant the hard - drive, did you listen to this, and the body wasn’t meant to be hidden
My theory goes as follows. I am convinced he didn’t do it, but he knew all about the details because he was made aware of everything that happened after it took place. She probably took the hard drive and asked him to dispose of it or he just wanted to do it to cover it up. He then asked his dad that question about getting rid of something. He sits in jail rotting, because he played with fire and got burned.
I agree with most of what you said. I don't think he should be in prison for life though, if all he did was not tell the police what he knew and throw away that hard drive.
Agreed. I could see him being some kind of virtual lookout for Generosa and her accomplices, using the cameras to make sure that the coast is clear, but there’s nothing tying him to the house
Unfortunately, if he had anything to do with it at all, even just the hard drive, he is an accomplice. I think he knows exactly who did it. He probably doesn't want to speak ill of the dead.
Apparently he's known to talk too much and went as far as saying Generosa must've killed Ted with the help of 2 others, but if he was really innocent, why wouldn't he save himself by revealing where the hard drive was, and mentioning all the other details he knows? And he claims that she married him just to keep him quiet. Isn't he now free to reveal all these details if he really is innocent!?That's what I don't get.
His father waited a year and all of a sudden he asked you how to get rid of something. He was probably mad Danny won’t giving him some money or something smh I don’t see how you convict with no real evidence. This is really messed up.
I hate when jurors try and call out someone's "rage" or "snappy" moments as if that makes them guilty. We are all human at the end of the day... A lot of emotions running and then to have your DAD get on the stand against you ? Tell me how you would have felt. You know how angry you get when someone try's to tell you that you did something and you know for sure you haven't done anything...
The jury got it wrong in my opinion. It’s scary that a lot of people go to jail because things “fit” and someone had pay for the crime. With no evidence at all and yet you send him to jail! The judge should’ve overturned the vote
I’ll tell you what, if I EVER am called to a jury there’s NO WAY I will be bullied or made to feel less if I choose a verdict that conflicts with the majority. This man should not be incarcerated. This b makes me heartsick.
All was framed by the lawyers who had a power of attorney over the entire Wealth so Mr Danny Pelosi as a Widower at that time could have been a very uncomfortable person to them so the easiest way to take him out if this situation was to get a very weird and shallow thinking Juri people and conviction was guaranteed … even without evidence thankfully to this hard working Prosecutor and the District Attorney who btw is already lacked-up in the jail .
There are two really toxic women in this story: Prosecutor Albertson & Generosa. Imagine leaving your kids with a Nanny they don't even like & not their family because you are upset with their family? I think she really wanted her ex-husband to move to the English countryside because she was jealous of him actually having a family (she was an orphan) and tried to isolate him. When he couldn't do that, she started to resent him. She had a lot of bitterness in her soul and it really affected the quality of her childrens' lives. Now that prosecutor Albertson- She judged Danny from the moment she laid eyes on him. She probably felt like he never deserved love from a "high-class" woman or even deserved any decent quality of life because of his background. Something about Danny triggered some personal emotions within the Prosecutor. Maybe she dated a guy like that before and he broke her heart. Idk, but her unfounded disdain for him is strange & unjustified. How can they convict poor Danny with such little evidence. This story makes me so sad.
His ex-wife could've gotten rid of the hard drive before she passed away. She said she'll do anything to protect him. When you have a lack of evidence, you can't convict a person.
If much of their decision relied on the surveillance tape being removed... the ex-wife also knew where it was and could have told someone to remove it. Flimsy case.
This is scary how he was convicted. There was zero evidence putting him there but the jurors literally said “well who else could it be” - you can’t convict someone with that line of thinking. There is insane doubt. They convicted him bc they felt he “knew about it at some point.” Unreal.
This is nonsense this man was convicted, jurors have to be held accountable for decisions they make in cases.they assumed alot of things.this case should have been a clear acquittal.his defense attorney was not gd enough
I assume the jury was mostly wealthy since it’s The Hamptons. Many wealthy types still think that us lower classes are all emotional sociopaths, just like they used to in the old days.
You nailed it! From Who's The Boss! Narrative from the sitcom somewhat similar to the real life situation of Danny and Generosa😅 Blue-collar falling in love with a white-collar. And the icing on the cake? Both had some Italian flavor😅
Generosa groomed him to do her dirty work. Made him believe she is in love with him, fed him with hate to her ex and fear of loosing money and lavish lifestyle. He killed ( or hired someone) her ex, hid recording. She married him so they could refuse to testify agains each other. When she find out she is dying, she left him as it was no need to stay with him anymore. That's why she didn't want kids to grow up with him. She passed away and left him to pay for everything....Very simple case ...
@@Mathsandengineering eh, That’s not true. Anyone who committed the crime can see there’s cameras there and would look for the hard drive. Also who’s to say generosa didn’t have that info and passed it along to a hired killer.
I first thought he was going to be used as a patsy too. They ki!!Ed him and then she married him for legal reasons and yes the cancer was definitely unexpected.
In my opinion imagine being spied on for 6 months in your own home and then dying in that terrifying horrible way.. My opinion = Bitter, angry, detestable wife, new boyfriend who was flattered that she would even look at him, he was probably putty in her ladyships hands and would do anything to live up to her honourable standards so I think she was at the root of it all, Poor Ted what a horrible way to go... rip Ted xx
If you read the investigation conducted by Vanity Fair about this case, you would never feel sorry for this man. He and Generosa deserved to spend their entire lives in jail. It's horrible that she never paid for her crime.
I've never seen this one before. So glad 48 Hours posted today, I really needed a distraction from my crappy life right now. Super sick family of 10......thank you 48 Hours 💯
They convicted him with a PILE OF REASONABLE DOUBT, even though the rule says it should be WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. Think about that for a second. Our legal system is a joke
This one bothers me. He did not have a fair trial. Whatsoever guilty by association. Even the jurors said they have no idea if he murdered him or not, but they just think he had something to do with it wild. The wife wanted him murdered she clearly hated the man by all accounts. She knew about the camera system as well. Just because he was the boyfriend he's guilty? Kinda crazy that you can be convicted with no evidence. Even the precieved Circumstantial evidence was bogus. Thus feels like he was guilty when he walked into court and it was on him to prove his innocence. Thoughts?
Totally, this isn't justice. By this criteria, anyone associated with someone killed is automatically a suspect, the implications for average Joe in the USA is you could all potentially find yourselves in Danny's position. Scary
I think the best indicator looking at all of this is the mothers wish for the children to be with the nanny. I trust her opinion on who she trusted with her children’s Estates and well-being.
My God. You mean to tell me the jurors couldn't see the unbelievable complete naivetivity in this man??. Stupid jurors and that woman prosecutor is the idiot of them all.
@@theoryofpersonality1420 Hey man, I don't even remember the story but guess what? Shame on you as well dude. Take care. Arivadelchi, and man...Take care🫡
Danny’s tone and voice on all those recordings is drastically different than his interview with the host. I wasn’t there, I don’t know them - I can’t say if he was a murderer or not, but he’s 100% a con artist.
Thank you! I thought I was the only one thinking this. Everyone is feeling so sorry for him in the comments, but he just doesn't seem like a completely honest person to me.
Generosa was a good friend of mine in college at UC Irvine. She was into art and I was into photography, so we did some projects together. We were both into bicycle touring and the last summer we hung out in 1975 we rode our bikes from Laguna Beach to San Diego, and then took the train back to Orange County. But by the end of the summer of 1976, I was not able to get a hold of her. She wasn't returning my phone calls. I never knew what happened to her until I saw these crime documentaries about her like this one. Very sad. Generosa was very closed about her life growing up. Now I know why. I hope she's at peace now.
No he didn't! It doesn't matter what he says anyway, and he doesn't decide his sentence. He could be the loudest vile tempered man on earth if he wanted to be, the jury are supposed to go on the EVIDENCE...and the EVIDENCE proved him to be elsewhere at the time! They even admitted they reasonable doubts! Therefore they are supposed to declare not guilty. Instead they went with their emotions. He should have never been convicted.
@@drewbranch7700if you’re interested in police footage, interrogations, and a break down of the mental health behind the person committing the crimes, there’s a TH-cam channel called “Beyond Evil” and it’s got all of those things! It’s really good. I do want to note that their episodes are a bit more intense than 48 hours. It can get pretty gritty, with the 911 calls. But they do usually include trigger warnings on each episode about material they’re going over. Happy trails! Ohhhh edited to include another channel! It’s called “EXPLORE WITH US”. (In all caps) It’s another true crime gem!
Absolutely no physical evidence of any kind. This was a miscarriage of justice. He may be an idiot, but he's not a murderer. Our justice system is completely broken.
Then why didn't she exonerate him once and for all before she died by confessing to the crime in her last wish, sharing some inside knowledge to prove it?
Danny doesn’t seem like he would’ve carried it out by himself, honestly what he says about his ex wife and two other people make sense, he is also the perfect fall guy for anyone higher powered to set up. The jury don’t know what happened, they admit they all think there’s more than one person involved… crazy to convict on that 😮
Oh, I hundred percent agree, that’s more than more than enough for the rest of our life why didn’t she just let it all go they call it pride didn’t they just pride and a little bit greed so sad and the thing is I don’t think Danny done it
Exactly. She was a horrible narcissist and an evil sociopath. The funny thing is the joke is on her. Instead of enjoying a luxurious life and indulging in the fact that she hit the lotto marrying way up, she chose anger and resentment. Even with their divorce, coming from a middle class (or even lower) background, 25 million is an astounding amount of money. She could have lived a happy relatively stress free life with her children. Instead she spent her remaining years entangled in a bitter court battle over nothing. She didn’t take a dime with her. It reminds of me the Betty Broderick case. Truly pathetic
@@twatts1523Welll people on here sone how think that since it’s missing he took it and that makes him the murderer, they are lacking logically thinking skills
It's disturbing to me that the jurors, at least some of them, after the trial are sitting there giving their own theories as to what happened to the murdered victim in this case and their own theories do not have evidence presented in the trial to support them. It's like they voted guilty because it seemed like he could have done it, not because the evidence the State presented to them proved he did it. So this is just ridiculous. I don't know if this Pelosi dude is guilty or not but from what I learned here, I couldn't have voted guilty if the case had to be deemed a mistrial.
That crime scene has tons of DNA evidence not just the victim but the perpetrator as well...but obviously they did not DIG enough...Poor detective work ..Beyond reasonable doubt..
There definitely should have been a retrial. The jury didn't comprehend the task. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. One juror said she didn't know if he was there!! Our courts are broken!
The role of a juror is a challenging one, requiring a balance between impartiality and scrutiny of the facts presented. It's alarming to think that someone could be convicted on the basis of accusations alone, without concrete evidence. This scenario raises serious concerns about the integrity of our judicial process and the potential for miscarriages of justice. It highlights the critical need for rigorous standards of proof in criminal trials to ensure that verdicts are fair and just.
It’s so heartbreaking to send an innocent man to jail. The jury got this all wrong and shame on them and the American Justice system that I never have believed in.
And the fact that his appeal was denied tells me that there's something at play higher up. I think they just wanted to throw him behind bars because blue-collars shouldn't mess with rich people.
They found him guilty because they didn't like him. Totally forgetting that the wife knew where the harddrive was at. Wow!! Totally dumb. Listen to them. I hope they never slept well after this.
Hola soy de Argentina, me parecen excelentes las investigaciones de 48 hs. Por favor incluyan un subtitulado en español de buena calidad, porque el automático resulta casi imposible de leer. Gracias
Click here to watch more “48 Hours” full episodes: th-cam.com/play/PLcFHkKbd_jTJiRmfUfLX2Ay_hnf5j3cxH.html
We need more stories from nyc
0ppp
You just remade an old az show and twisted the facts.
God is shedding light on many things and man is working just as hard to keep them hidden
These old episodes are far superior than the newer ones. No melodrama or ridiculous fillers.
Totally agree, also a complete lack of ridiculous female vocal frys from contributors. Post 2020 episodes are unwatchable.
Yea agree 💯
@@strictlynorton agreed! Seems everything post 2020 is ridiculous IMO lol
And way juicer crimes back then. That’s weird to say but it’s true lol
Absolutely!
Husband and wife were completing their divorce with the wife getting $25M from it. Then it was alleged that Danny wanted the husband dead for fear of losing access to the husband's money. This makes no sense. How would Danny gain direct access to the husband's money whether the husband was dead or alive? Danny's access to the husband's money was through the wife and she was already getting $25M.
Greed....they wanted all of his money.
That's exactly what I was wondering
If the husband died while they were still legally married, the wife might have a claim for more than the $25 million she would have received in the divorce.
@@angelamccrackin5243 They? There is NO evidence that Danny has anything to do with the crime.
😂🙄😢@@gaiagreen2690
As a juror you have to put your emotions to the side. The facts here are there is no evidence to convict him. Nothing. How could you send a man to jail with nothing but accusations. Complete failure of a jury.
Yeah, whether Danny did it or not is something I guess we'll never know, but that jury didn't even seem sure of their decision. I can't believe his appeal was denied!
Nah, him and her did it 100%, but with her the original og, the King of all Kings allready had giver her the ultimate sentence.
So, in other words if you're really good at covering your tracks you go free. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
@@JanaduIt does make sense. If you can’t PROVE that someone committed a crime, then why should they be convicted of it?
Yes, there was no direct evidence, but the Jury felt he was somehow involved or complacent. He himself admitted repeatedly to knowing more than he was letting.
Great example of why the justice system is terrifying. The jurors even admit in their interviews that there was no evidence against Danny, but they convicted him for having knowledge of where the hard drive was. Generosa could have told ANYONE where it was! It's horrifying that someone could be put in prison for 25 years like this.
What about the housekeeper? She'd have known.
Exactly. Appalling they could convict them sit there and say idk if he was there or not but he's responsible. There's no evidence!!
@@DeboraHolland-ei2yqExactly! And yet he was denied a new trial on appeal. That's New York's broken justice system for you.
I agree completely. Along with a jury of your peers comes peer pressure.
@@Strollmanxthis is the most important comment here… people are completely useless or completely useful when in groups
The simple fact that a juror admitted that she doesn't know if he was even there....that should be grounds for a re-trial, given that the jurors clearly did not understand their job.
No. You don't understand how the system works.
@@theoryofpersonality1420 Stop trolling.
@@theoryofpersonality1420-😂😂😂
@@theoryofpersonality1420agreed!!! The jurors ARE allowed to comment once the verdict is handed down. Hence WHY they are NOT allowed to discuss cases when they are on JURY DUTY. People need stop being so EXTRA, when they don’t know what’s going on. SMH
Guilty! throw away the key
Truly. Of all the cases I have seen over the years - something is so off about this conviction. Someone free this man.
He's already spent 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. NOBODY can come out of a situation like that and be made whole.
When there's too much of money at cases like these, you will find all kinds of liars come up to the stand.
The jury got it right, he's as guilty as sin. I seriously wonder about the naivety of some people commenting here.
Anyone who honestly believes that guy was wrongly convicted, is a very poor judge of character. I pray they never sit on a jury!
@@glamdolly30 it doesn’t matter if we think he did it or now. It’s about whether it can be proven. There was no evidence to support that he was guilty or even at the crime scene.
These juror's have no concept of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.
This man should not have been convicted.
The missing hard drive and the testimony his father gave is hard to overlook. He also blabbed to a bunch of people. Had financial motive.
100% agreed, especially because no forensics place him there. I don't know if he did it or not, but there is more than reasonable doubt.
@@MakeItMakeSense285 Which leads me to believe he would have told on himself if he did it. This guy couldn't keep a secret if his life depended on it. Look how easily influenced he is that people made him feel guilty about having a drink & smoke with his wife's ashes where they first met.
Yes I agree, 100%
@Bigpoppieseed--I agree with you 100%. There was never enough to convict Pelosi, yet they did it anyway. It was a high profile case and the MEDIA already convicted him -that’s why a jury did.
What if she knew she was dying before Ted was murdered? Everyone says the wife despise Ted. I think she had her husband killed knowing she would be dead before she faced prosecution.
That's a good point!!
Wild!
Nonsense. Danny Palosi did it and started planting stories about her at the end to raise reasonable doubt
The jury: We’re not sure if he was there, but he definitely did it.
They admit there is no physical evidence and still vote guilty. What a joke!!
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Yes they’re just guessing
Exactly!!!
They can be. I mean, it's a crap shoot. You get 12 Americans. Imagine pulling 12 people randomly from the comments.
American broken justice system for ya.
"I saw him grit his teeth several times!" are these jurors actually stupid?? I would grit my teeth too if someone accused me of killing someone!
I agree with u😅
Who knew teeth gritting was a capital offense
I grit my teeth while I'm sleeping
@@zoe6723murderer! 😂
@@zoe6723 my mom too😅😅😅
Sometimes I feel the jurors are really stupid
The jury in OJ'S criminal trial certainly were very stupid and biased.
So was the suspect... it was a jury of his peers.
🙄
I guess you are the smart one 🤣!!!
@@stasa-Xthe jurors are not even sure of their own decision. Im not saying he’s not guilty but if there is doubt they can’t just give a verdict that he was the killer. On what basis? They were assuming things. An innocent person can go to the prison for a crime they didn’t commit because they didn’t show emotions that fit the norm.
The jurors are either incredibly stupid or robots. You really don't understand why a man could get angry when he sees his father calling him a murderer on the stand? I can't imagine a bigger betrayal.
MGTOW
jurors making a lot of assumptions when they're supposed to look at the evidence and if the evidence doesn't support the charge the defendant is not guilty. I would never want these people on a jury.
that's the problem with dna.. everyone expects forensic evidence nowadays but there are still circumstantial cases. who other than the accused had the motive, means and opportunity to commit this crime in the way it was committed?
You are only hearing part of the evidence.
I think Allen is referring to the jurors own words at the end. He's not wrong. They convicted him on 2nd degree mdr when they had reasonable doubt that he had even held a weapon! Accessory is a completely different charge and he wasn't charged with that.
You went there to hear days worth of evidence. You're watching a media production for entertainment. Not even close to the same thing.
@@theoryofpersonality1420 He's going off of what the jurors themselves said!
The only thing Danny is guilty of is talking a lot and looking like Tony Danza 😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I was thinking Sid the sloth character from Ice Age.
😂😂😂😂
Tony Danza is much hotter
I think he looks like Tom Cruise
Beyond a reasonable doubt meant nothing to these jurors!
Unbelievable that some of those jurors weren't even sure about their decision to send him to jail for life. I think his appeal should've been granted.
Shame on you
Read the comment section anywhere and those are the people who could potentially be on your jury
@@theoryofpersonality1420 for having an opinion? The jurors acknowledged they weren't sure he did it.
The Jury just did not like Danny.
Those jurors should be ashamed of themselves. They've done a terrible thing.
I agree 100%
Danny can prove he wasn't there and the jury still convicted him. How is that even possible?
Because Danny Pelosi was tried and convicted in the media. There was no way he would ever get a fair trial.
He could not prove. The witnesses were his sister and niece. The location of the phone doesn’t mean that he had to be where his phone was.
Gov wanted the millions
@@trulyyoursish It is the sole province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses.
BuT tHe ReCoRdInGs - what a joke, someone could have found the recordings if they were looking for them.
I hate to say it but she sounds like a nightmare. A control freak who gave instructions even after she was dead and even gave instructions as to how children should be raised and depriving them of their fathers family love
But not a murderer
Yeah that whole nanny part was horrible. She must have really hated his family. Did she adopt them alone without her previous husband? Growing up as an orphan like she did you’d think she’d want them surrounded by love. I wonder how they vs Danny’s kids both turned out
There is no proof at all that he was there. In fact there is proof that he was elsewhere. That is enough reasonable doubt and he should have never been convicted.
Who took the tape out of somewhere nobody knows about then?!
@@mardiniwilldernyou don’t think Genovesa knew where the hard drive was?
I agree. There is not nearly enough proof. His appeal should've been granted.
Pelosi could of had someone take his phone and drive it to his sister's house for an alibi.
I didn't believe his niece. Who is up a 3am?
@harshanid3636 Your Car Has A Brain And Records Show Where That Car Goes!! So If the Car And His Phone Shows He Wasn't There He Wasn't There!! I Believe His Wife Did It, Just Because He Was Hit So Many Times!! She Was Hiding In Places And Came Out And Hit Him?? Or She Had Someone Else Do It, Not Pelosi, There Was Also Somebody On The Beach That Night As Well, Cause The Husband Said Something Scared Him!! I Don't Believe He Did It And He Wasn't There!! She Might Of Talked To Him About Killing Him, But I Really Believe Him!!😑
I love vintage 48 Hours episodes. The writing, editing, photos, and the hosts all create such intriguing stories! Please upload more older episodes from the 90s and 2000s that are not available to watch on Pluto TV!! I’ve pretty much watched all of the older episodes on Pluto and have noticed there are hundreds of other episodes missing
The fact that that lady just said “I’m not sure if he did it” but convicted him is crazy. They just assumed and thought he “fit” more than anyone else. Beyond a reasonable doubt is just a suggestion I’m guessing?
It's not beyond all doubt. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable in light of the days of evidence they had to sit through. They deemed it unreasonable and as a jury that's their job.
@@theoryofpersonality1420 he didnt *say* beyond all doubt, he said beyond a reasonable doubt and there definitely seems to be a reasonable doubt amongst that jury, its kinda crazy that they convicted him and then admitted they really had no clue how it happened or whether he was even there just that he was probably involved in one way or another
The problem, along with the damning evidence his father presented about the question Danny asked him, was his friend's and his girlfriend's testimony. To say nothing of the fact that he said, his wife asked him to do it.
@@SpydersByte Being SURE someone did it is beyond ALL doubt. Saying they're NOT SURE, but still VERY LIKELY is beyond reasonable doubt. No one is ever SURE of a crime unless they were there and were the perpetrator.
You are easily manipulated by media courtney
The jurors are confused themselves about their own decision to convict Daniel? WTF!!!
Unfair conviction. Jury swayed by emotion, not concrete evidence.
And, not the evidence on the stand.
Yeah, because you were in that jury box. 🙄😒🤡🤪
So was the prosecutor
Of course he did it. No one else had a motive.
@@Riley0509They never even looked at anyone else
Old episodes absolutely golden. The setup was phenomenal. Richard schlessinger delivers a cold and powerful rendition of this episode it is just absolutely fantastic 48 hours, been watching literally my entire life.
Not completely sure why but I find the prosecutor so irritating.
over-caffeinated, she sounded. like playback speed of 2.
Same
She was angry all the time for no reason.
@@AmorDivino-e5q I concur!
Because she is irritating
If she was dying, she should have at least confessed on her death bed.
I don't think Danny had anything to do with this, sad to see tunnel vision in these cases
Or just your delusions.
Lack of physical evidence is odd.
Easier to blame the blue collar guy.
His same father said that he called him that night and asked him how to dismiss a body,i believe that he wasn't innocent at all, neither loved the woman, she never trusted her children , she preferred to give the protection of the children in nanny's hands.. He is a manipulator!!!
@@stasa-XWell you’re confused, he didn’t say a body, he said sone thing, and according to the prosecutors, he meant the hard - drive, did you listen to this, and the body wasn’t meant to be hidden
I'm not sure if he did it or not but he absolutely knows everybody who was involved.
My theory goes as follows. I am convinced he didn’t do it, but he knew all about the details because he was made aware of everything that happened after it took place. She probably took the hard drive and asked him to dispose of it or he just wanted to do it to cover it up. He then asked his dad that question about getting rid of something. He sits in jail rotting, because he played with fire and got burned.
I agree with most of what you said. I don't think he should be in prison for life though, if all he did was not tell the police what he knew and throw away that hard drive.
Agreed. I could see him being some kind of virtual lookout for Generosa and her accomplices, using the cameras to make sure that the coast is clear, but there’s nothing tying him to the house
Unfortunately, if he had anything to do with it at all, even just the hard drive, he is an accomplice. I think he knows exactly who did it. He probably doesn't want to speak ill of the dead.
He is sitting in jail because the jurors were not fit for the job.
Apparently he's known to talk too much and went as far as saying Generosa must've killed Ted with the help of 2 others, but if he was really innocent, why wouldn't he save himself by revealing where the hard drive was, and mentioning all the other details he knows? And he claims that she married him just to keep him quiet. Isn't he now free to reveal all these details if he really is innocent!?That's what I don't get.
His father waited a year and all of a sudden he asked you how to get rid of something. He was probably mad Danny won’t giving him some money or something smh I don’t see how you convict with no real evidence. This is really messed up.
I hate when jurors try and call out someone's "rage" or "snappy" moments as if that makes them guilty. We are all human at the end of the day... A lot of emotions running and then to have your DAD get on the stand against you ? Tell me how you would have felt. You know how angry you get when someone try's to tell you that you did something and you know for sure you haven't done anything...
Totally.
Wait, so the jurors admit there's no evidence, yet still convicted him?
I think she hired someone to do it. But he knows what happeded.
I think they both were watching the cameras while it was happening
Why then won't he reveal the truth and the hard drive location to save himself at least at the last minute when he took the stand!?
@@daphnesolomon8582he would be an accessory after the fact and conspiracy charges would also be added. He's lucky he go 20 years
I believe he knows who did it the wife was Rich she hired a hitman
The jury got it wrong in my opinion. It’s scary that a lot of people go to jail because things “fit” and someone had pay for the crime. With no evidence at all and yet you send him to jail! The judge should’ve overturned the vote
How bizarre one juror still isn't sure Danny is guilty. How did they manage a conviction?!
Must've been peer pressure.
I’ll tell you what, if I EVER am called to a jury there’s NO WAY I will be bullied or made to feel less if I choose a verdict that conflicts with the majority. This man should not be incarcerated. This b makes me heartsick.
@@gg79139 wow you're so great, here's a pat on the back.
All was framed by the lawyers who had a power of attorney over the entire Wealth so Mr Danny Pelosi as a Widower at that time could have been a very uncomfortable person to them so the easiest way to take him out if this situation was to get a
very weird and shallow thinking Juri people and conviction was guaranteed … even without evidence thankfully to this hard working Prosecutor and the District Attorney who btw is already lacked-up in the jail .
There are two really toxic women in this story: Prosecutor Albertson & Generosa. Imagine leaving your kids with a Nanny they don't even like & not their family because you are upset with their family? I think she really wanted her ex-husband to move to the English countryside because she was jealous of him actually having a family (she was an orphan) and tried to isolate him. When he couldn't do that, she started to resent him. She had a lot of bitterness in her soul and it really affected the quality of her childrens' lives.
Now that prosecutor Albertson- She judged Danny from the moment she laid eyes on him. She probably felt like he never deserved love from a "high-class" woman or even deserved any decent quality of life because of his background. Something about Danny triggered some personal emotions within the Prosecutor. Maybe she dated a guy like that before and he broke her heart. Idk, but her unfounded disdain for him is strange & unjustified.
How can they convict poor Danny with such little evidence. This story makes me so sad.
I totally agree with you on Missy Prosecutor's disdain for Danny.
Absolutely!
I know this story from back in the day. Generosa sounded like an awful woman. The prosecutors Long Island accent is irritating.
@@AnastasiaRomanov-w9x as a Long Island native- i will always love classic LI, NYC, and Jersey accents.
@@teekolinski491 I grew up near nyc too but the Long Island accent is obnoxious. In my opinion.
His ex-wife could've gotten rid of the hard drive before she passed away. She said she'll do anything to protect him. When you have a lack of evidence, you can't convict a person.
Even the jury seemed unsure of their decision. His appeal should've been granted.
To protect him because “he had nothing to don with it,” that’s what she said.
I think she used Danny and just didn't care. She cut Danny off so she wanted to leave him standing as the sole murderer
If much of their decision relied on the surveillance tape being removed... the ex-wife also knew where it was and could have told someone to remove it. Flimsy case.
There is a ton of reasonable doubt!! Not guilty!!
There's doubt but it wasn't reasonable in light of the days of evidence they heard.
This show didn't bring all the evidence
This is scary how he was convicted. There was zero evidence putting him there but the jurors literally said “well who else could it be” - you can’t convict someone with that line of thinking. There is insane doubt. They convicted him bc they felt he “knew about it at some point.” Unreal.
This is nonsense this man was convicted, jurors have to be held accountable for decisions they make in cases.they assumed alot of things.this case should have been a clear acquittal.his defense attorney was not gd enough
At the very least, his appeal should've been granted. It's shocking that even the jury didn't seem convinced of their decision!
What, you’re going to jail them if they get it wrong?
He probably had a choice of jury or judge. Shoulda picked the judge. He understands the law.
The prosecution's greatest feat is getting 12 jurors selected who would convict with such weak evidence.
I assume the jury was mostly wealthy since it’s The Hamptons. Many wealthy types still think that us lower classes are all emotional sociopaths, just like they used to in the old days.
This is insane. Everyone is guessing, there is so much doubt that there isn't even a theory of what he did.
I thought it would be hung jury. Sitting here, listening to this show, I would not put him jail.
Why these 2 remind me of Tony and Angela from who's the boss
Omg 😂😂😂😂😂😂 Right.
❤😂
Hahaa
You nailed it! From Who's The Boss! Narrative from the sitcom somewhat similar to the real life situation of Danny and Generosa😅
Blue-collar falling in love with a white-collar. And the icing on the cake? Both had some Italian flavor😅
Me too!!!
Generosa groomed him to do her dirty work. Made him believe she is in love with him, fed him with hate to her ex and fear of loosing money and lavish lifestyle. He killed ( or hired someone) her ex, hid recording. She married him so they could refuse to testify agains each other. When she find out she is dying, she left him as it was no need to stay with him anymore. That's why she didn't want kids to grow up with him. She passed away and left him to pay for everything....Very simple case ...
Exactly 💯
Except when she was offered immunity to turn on him after she had been diagnosed, she flat out turned them down.
Her plan from the beginning--except the cancer part.
@@jimwerther She was evil that's why she did not care. He played with fire and got burned.
@@Nicolethomas51312
Again - if she didn't care about him at all, why didn't she turn on him?
These jurors made a decision with a lot of unknowns. That makes them idiots in my opinion. Listening to them was so annoying.
Not as annoying as listening to Danny..😅
Stealing the hard drive was something only the killer who installed it would do
@@MathsandengineeringPlease elaborate on that
@@Mathsandengineering elaborate. we are waiting.
@@Mathsandengineering eh, That’s not true. Anyone who committed the crime can see there’s cameras there and would look for the hard drive. Also who’s to say generosa didn’t have that info and passed it along to a hired killer.
Hot Take: Danny’s ex-wife was gonna use him as a patsy and the cancer was a curveball she wasn’t ready for.
Hotter take: Generosa faked her own death and is living on Epstein's Island. Danny brought his dog's ashes to the bar and crossdresses in jail
I first thought he was going to be used as a patsy too. They ki!!Ed him and then she married him for legal reasons and yes the cancer was definitely unexpected.
I love when you show the ones that are from 90s and early 2000s! Love waking up to a notification for a 48 hours drop! Coffee and crime time! 😊
In my opinion imagine being spied on for 6 months in your own home and then dying in that terrifying horrible way.. My opinion = Bitter, angry, detestable wife, new boyfriend who was flattered that she would even look at him, he was probably putty in her ladyships hands and would do anything to live up to her honourable standards so I think she was at the root of it all, Poor Ted what a horrible way to go... rip Ted xx
The juror isn't sure if he was there or not and doesn't know what role he could have played but still found him guilty 🙄🙄
If you read the investigation conducted by Vanity Fair about this case, you would never feel sorry for this man. He and Generosa deserved to spend their entire lives in jail. It's horrible that she never paid for her crime.
I've never seen this one before. So glad 48 Hours posted today, I really needed a distraction from my crappy life right now. Super sick family of 10......thank you 48 Hours 💯
May God be with you
Praying healing for your family 🙏
Do you mean they are mentally or physically sick and if so with what?
I'm praying for you all for speedy recovery ❤
I'd be sick too if my mom put my whole life on TH-cam 🤡
They convicted him with a PILE OF REASONABLE DOUBT, even though the rule says it should be WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. Think about that for a second. Our legal system is a joke
This one bothers me. He did not have a fair trial. Whatsoever guilty by association. Even the jurors said they have no idea if he murdered him or not, but they just think he had something to do with it wild. The wife wanted him murdered she clearly hated the man by all accounts. She knew about the camera system as well. Just because he was the boyfriend he's guilty? Kinda crazy that you can be convicted with no evidence. Even the precieved Circumstantial evidence was bogus. Thus feels like he was guilty when he walked into court and it was on him to prove his innocence. Thoughts?
Yep. I believe the wife hired people and had Danny remove the hard drive. Definitely not enough evidence to convict imo.
Totally, this isn't justice. By this criteria, anyone associated with someone killed is automatically a suspect, the implications for average Joe in the USA is you could all potentially find yourselves in Danny's position. Scary
I think the best indicator looking at all of this is the mothers wish for the children to be with the nanny. I trust her opinion on who she trusted with her children’s Estates and well-being.
You won’t learn more from a person than you will from their spouse, and she had made an opinion
My God. You mean to tell me the jurors couldn't see the unbelievable complete naivetivity in this man??. Stupid jurors and that woman prosecutor is the idiot of them all.
She said defendants are presumed innocent, not intelligent. I was thinking "pot calling the kettle black..."
Shame on you
@@theoryofpersonality1420 Hey man, I don't even remember the story but guess what? Shame on you as well dude. Take care. Arivadelchi, and man...Take care🫡
I think Pelosi's mouth and arrogance played a huge part in his conviction.
Danny’s tone and voice on all those recordings is drastically different than his interview with the host. I wasn’t there, I don’t know them - I can’t say if he was a murderer or not, but he’s 100% a con artist.
I agree with you. I think Danny is not to be trusted. I'd never be alone with the man if I had something I thought he wanted.
True. A typical gold digger and a liar, at the very least!@@jdstep97
Thank you! I thought I was the only one thinking this. Everyone is feeling so sorry for him in the comments, but he just doesn't seem like a completely honest person to me.
Generosa was a good friend of mine in college at UC Irvine. She was into art and I was into photography, so we did some projects together. We were both into bicycle touring and the last summer we hung out in 1975 we rode our bikes from Laguna Beach to San Diego, and then took the train back to Orange County. But by the end of the summer of 1976, I was not able to get a hold of her. She wasn't returning my phone calls. I never knew what happened to her until I saw these crime documentaries about her like this one. Very sad. Generosa was very closed about her life growing up. Now I know why. I hope she's at peace now.
Danny talked himself right into a prison sentence
No he didn't! It doesn't matter what he says anyway, and he doesn't decide his sentence. He could be the loudest vile tempered man on earth if he wanted to be, the jury are supposed to go on the EVIDENCE...and the EVIDENCE proved him to be elsewhere at the time! They even admitted they reasonable doubts! Therefore they are supposed to declare not guilty. Instead they went with their emotions. He should have never been convicted.
Where is the proof
@@elishevarosenfeld6755 This video
One lesson to be learned here is not all that glitter is gold. The woman saw Danny as the perfect opportunity
And it worked both ways. He was her patsy.
Damn it, me and my addiction.
I saw this episode like twice 😂
😂😂 you won the cutest comment on the net! May the victim rest in peace!
I remember this case,and I understand. Curious,which crime documentaries do you watch or listen to,I need some recommendations.
@drewbranch7700 investigation discovered.
The first 48. Crime watch daily.
@drewbranch7700 I tried to give you recommendations but youtube just deleted it.
@@drewbranch7700if you’re interested in police footage, interrogations, and a break down of the mental health behind the person committing the crimes, there’s a TH-cam channel called “Beyond Evil” and it’s got all of those things! It’s really good.
I do want to note that their episodes are a bit more intense than 48 hours. It can get pretty gritty, with the 911 calls. But they do usually include trigger warnings on each episode about material they’re going over. Happy trails!
Ohhhh edited to include another channel! It’s called “EXPLORE WITH US”. (In all caps) It’s another true crime gem!
Absolutely no physical evidence of any kind. This was a miscarriage of justice. He may be an idiot, but he's not a murderer. Our justice system is completely broken.
Who else would know more and have the motive than Danny.... Generosa.
Yep.
Then why didn't she exonerate him once and for all before she died by confessing to the crime in her last wish, sharing some inside knowledge to prove it?
🤝🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽🤝🏽
@@PianoGesangBecause she knew more people were involved and endanger him.
@@PianoGesang because that would reflect on her children.
To clear his name, why didn't he make a copy of the hard drive for evidence, in case things went wrong? Now he’s left holding the bag.
Yeah he didn't have to get rid of it. he could have kept it for proof he wasn't involved. Bottom line is the jurors did not believe his testimony.
maybe someone took the hard drive before he could copy it?
It is absolutely ridiculous his conviction!!! There was absolutely NO evidence he was there!!
I can't believe they found him guilty. There is absolutely no evidence that he did it.
They acted emotional and that's not justice 😢
The jurors put him in jail without any evidence. 😮
Happens too often, and guilty people go free,
Not true. There was circumstantial evidence.
@l.a.3479 Not enough, if there was jurors would have been more sure of their verdict.
Danny doesn’t seem like he would’ve carried it out by himself, honestly what he says about his ex wife and two other people make sense, he is also the perfect fall guy for anyone higher powered to set up. The jury don’t know what happened, they admit they all think there’s more than one person involved… crazy to convict on that 😮
Don’t get why the ex wife was so mad- she got $25 million- that would be enough to assuage any anger I had.
Right? She wanted one per year... that's 25 years! She could have used half to invest and lived luxuriously for the rest of her life!
Greed got her into her grave.
Ted Ammon was worth $97 million. Maybe the wife felt entitled to more than $25 million.
Oh, I hundred percent agree, that’s more than more than enough for the rest of our life why didn’t she just let it all go they call it pride didn’t they just pride and a little bit greed so sad and the thing is I don’t think Danny done it
Exactly. She was a horrible narcissist and an evil sociopath. The funny thing is the joke is on her. Instead of enjoying a luxurious life and indulging in the fact that she hit the lotto marrying way up, she chose anger and resentment. Even with their divorce, coming from a middle class (or even lower) background, 25 million is an astounding amount of money. She could have lived a happy relatively stress free life with her children. Instead she spent her remaining years entangled in a bitter court battle over nothing. She didn’t take a dime with her. It reminds of me the Betty Broderick case. Truly pathetic
Those jurors are idiots. They're responsible for putting an innocent man in jail
Agree, but then again jurries get it wrong all the time
For the first time i don't think the convicted is the killer
He did it lol. The hard drive proves it
@@Mathsandengineering How does the hard drive prove it? I thought is was missing.
@@twatts1523Welll people on here sone how think that since it’s missing he took it and that makes him the murderer, they are lacking logically thinking skills
It's disturbing to me that the jurors, at least some of them, after the trial are sitting there giving their own theories as to what happened to the murdered victim in this case and their own theories do not have evidence presented in the trial to support them. It's like they voted guilty because it seemed like he could have done it, not because the evidence the State presented to them proved he did it. So this is just ridiculous. I don't know if this Pelosi dude is guilty or not but from what I learned here, I couldn't have voted guilty if the case had to be deemed a mistrial.
Been listening to reruns all morning, glad y’all dropped one I haven’t seen!
I don’t think Danny done it No No Way
Only thing he chats too much
Imagine your own father ratting you out that’s treacherous
Yeah...but he's just supposed to smile and whisper "love you Papa!" according to the jury....🙄
Not if what the father said was all truth.
That crime scene has tons of DNA evidence not just the victim but the perpetrator as well...but obviously they did not DIG enough...Poor detective work ..Beyond reasonable doubt..
Suffolk PD is beyond corrupt
Exactly…
SCAPEGOAT.
What the hell, did the jury forget reasonable doubt? this is insane!
There definitely should have been a retrial. The jury didn't comprehend the task. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. One juror said she didn't know if he was there!! Our courts are broken!
It said at the end that his appeal was denied.
Release him asap…this guy is innocent…the only guilty ones are those jurors, who assumed too much
What? He admitted that he was involved on the stand.
@@PC4everhe all, but admitted in this short doc that he knew the wife did it.
How was this beyond a reasonable doubt? 😮😐🤨🤐😬
The jurors failed their duty in this case.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
The role of a juror is a challenging one, requiring a balance between impartiality and scrutiny of the facts presented. It's alarming to think that someone could be convicted on the basis of accusations alone, without concrete evidence. This scenario raises serious concerns about the integrity of our judicial process and the potential for miscarriages of justice. It highlights the critical need for rigorous standards of proof in criminal trials to ensure that verdicts are fair and just.
I don't know man. Danny seems innocent to me. His personality is endearing. But, who knows. I dont know him or any of them.
There certainly was not enough evidence to put him behind bars.
He hired the gunman is my guess.
@@cynthiakritika5047 there was no gun, was there? I thought he was beaten to death [ over the head ? ]
He and Generosa may have hired the murderer.
We only see what he wants us to see.
It’s so heartbreaking to send an innocent man to jail. The jury got this all wrong and shame on them and the American Justice system that I never have believed in.
I don’t think he did it sorry I think the investigator are Lazy and don’t want to do their job and there’s more to the story
And the fact that his appeal was denied tells me that there's something at play higher up. I think they just wanted to throw him behind bars because blue-collars shouldn't mess with rich people.
How in the world does someone get convict of a crime without any evidence??! How stupid are those jurors!!!
Shocking jury. They wanted to convict him regardless of doubt.
Yeah, they just didn't like him
They found him guilty because they didn't like him. Totally forgetting that the wife knew where the harddrive was at. Wow!! Totally dumb. Listen to them. I hope they never slept well after this.
You're so right. They looked down on him because he's a high school drop-out. It began with that uptight prosecutor.
Rise and shine! It's time to conquer the world with your brilliance. Believe in yourself and make this day count🌞❤😊
Thank you!
I hate affirmations.
@@davidc3839 Oh, too bad.. there's an affirmation for that. Would you like to see it😀🐝
@@Empresslore 🌼🙌🌼
Wow! Thank you! I will make this day count!
There's no way he shouldnt be able to get this appeal over turned.
Sat on a Jury and believe me, some of the most intelligent stupid people i was sat with.
They go on their feelings, rather than fact and evidence.
mustve been women eh?
@@doodlebob2023 actually they were old white men 😂
Sounds a lot like the Trump jurors.
@@doodlebob2023or Rainbow “men”…
@@LinDuhLou🌈 rainbow group that begins with letter...L😂
I appreciate stories from where I was born and raised.
Hopefully the children will have a good life with their nanny.
She
I think the dead, rich ex-wife had it done and left the blue collar average Joe holding the bag. 🤷🏼♀️
Totally possible
the jurors are clowns, they all have doubts but they still convict him? How is that even called guilty beyond reasonable doubt
I don't think he killed him
I think you mean *him
@@drewpro81 oh yeah... tnx for that
i think u did it.
@@doodlebob2023 yeah
Hola soy de Argentina, me parecen excelentes las investigaciones de 48 hs. Por favor incluyan un subtitulado en español de buena calidad, porque el automático resulta casi imposible de leer. Gracias
This jury is such bunch of incompetent nitwits. Children would have been more objective.
Agree!