"Nothing of value was taken from the house." That's reasonable doubt right there. The defendant was sneaking into cars at night and trying to not get caught. He was trying to avoid confrontations and stay under the radar. So why would he break into Samantha's house, kill her, and not even steal anything? That doesn't make any sense. I think the defendant is an easy person to point the finger at because he admitted to engaging in criminal activity. But just because somebody is a criminal that doesn't mean they're a murderer.
That's not a waterproof argument in my opinion. If a thief ends up murdering someone in their home, you could make the opposing argument that stealing items from that house only raises the chance he'll get caught. Tech items like laptops and phones have unique serial numbers that can easily be traced back to the seller. Other items like jewellery can be found if they try to sell at pawn shops or online. Selling an item you snatched from a car may not be followed up, but cops would be crawling all sources to find any stolen items from her home. You could also say that after murdering someone, it's reasonable for the person to feel pressured to flee at the earliest opportunity as each minute that passes raises the chance that someone discovers them in the house. There's a whole bunch of reasons why the killer could have been spooked to run ASAP, eg they might have been concerned about the security system, they may have heard a siren in the background and grew paranoid, they might have heard voices/steps outside, they could be injured (or worried they're injured), etc. I don't think an argument alone holds anywhere near the same weight as a fact, so I'm hoping to see less of the former and more of the latter as the trial progresses.
Does it pain you to see a minority with higher social status than you? Notice how you focused on a black mans hair instead of the white judge who appears to be overweight. Says more about YOU , than it does a a professional lawyer. This is my humble opinion.
Every time I see this lawyer it reminds me that anybody can be a lawyer, just do the assignments and pass tests/bar. He doesn’t even know how to speak correct English. So sloppy.
Please ignore the ex-boyfriend confession, he's just a poor weed smoking jew. And please donate your money to that poor Ukrainian jew grandma that's been in those charity commercials for a decade or more.
"Nothing of value was taken from the house." That's reasonable doubt right there. The defendant was sneaking into cars at night and trying to not get caught. He was trying to avoid confrontations and stay under the radar. So why would he break into Samantha's house, kill her, and not even steal anything? That doesn't make any sense. I think the defendant is an easy person to point the finger at because he admitted to engaging in criminal activity. But just because somebody is a criminal that doesn't mean they're a murderer.
Agree
Agree to this whole statement. And I’m trying to figure out tooo.
Exactly
That's not a waterproof argument in my opinion. If a thief ends up murdering someone in their home, you could make the opposing argument that stealing items from that house only raises the chance he'll get caught. Tech items like laptops and phones have unique serial numbers that can easily be traced back to the seller. Other items like jewellery can be found if they try to sell at pawn shops or online.
Selling an item you snatched from a car may not be followed up, but cops would be crawling all sources to find any stolen items from her home. You could also say that after murdering someone, it's reasonable for the person to feel pressured to flee at the earliest opportunity as each minute that passes raises the chance that someone discovers them in the house.
There's a whole bunch of reasons why the killer could have been spooked to run ASAP, eg they might have been concerned about the security system, they may have heard a siren in the background and grew paranoid, they might have heard voices/steps outside, they could be injured (or worried they're injured), etc. I don't think an argument alone holds anywhere near the same weight as a fact, so I'm hoping to see less of the former and more of the latter as the trial progresses.
I like the defense atty and think he’ll win his case. I’m convinced the defendant isn’t guilty.
Dat? Where did this defense lawyer come from?😂
Somewhere where he passed the bar
This case is very interesting. Hate to be the jury. There’s definitely reasonable doubt.
You can’t rule out the ex- based on alibi or evidence.
Why not the boyfriend?????
Wow you think the lawyer would make his hair more presentable
Does it pain you to see a minority with higher social status than you? Notice how you focused on a black mans hair instead of the white judge who appears to be overweight. Says more about YOU , than it does a a professional lawyer. This is my humble opinion.
He is a Rastaman you ignoramus.
His hair presentable. You dont get to decide what’s “presentable” or not
His hair is fine. Not everyone has silky straight hair to slick back.
Over kill. She new him. Poor lady 😢
Every time I see this lawyer it reminds me that anybody can be a lawyer, just do the assignments and pass tests/bar. He doesn’t even know how to speak correct English. So sloppy.
Please be quiet.
He looks fine. Hes more qualified than most lawyers
Like it or not, his appearance and grammatical errors might effect the judge and jurors opinion of him and of his client.
Everytime I read comments like yours, it reminds me racism is alive and well.
His speech is clear and understandable. His clothing is presentable and professional, what's your problem?
Please ignore the ex-boyfriend confession, he's just a poor weed smoking jew. And please donate your money to that poor Ukrainian jew grandma that's been in those charity commercials for a decade or more.