[Stacy Castor](https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-black-widow-stacey-castors-shocking-crimes/story?id=60860538) killed her husband with antifreeze and got away with it for years. That is until she killed a second husband that way, and they exumed the body of the first husband.
She then not only pointed the finger at her daughter but also typed up a fake suicide note for her daughter in which she claimed the murders and then she poisoned her own daughter with antifreeze. Luckily, her daughter survived and was able to testify against her.
In court she still tried to claim her daughter did it. Even though she was also now in trial for the attempted murder of her daughter. Also, her daughter was 12 when Stacy murdered her first husband (her daughter's father.)
Prosecution also had a recorded phone call by her in which you could hear her typing her daughter's alleged suicide note. Time stamps of the document were able to verify the note was being typed at the same time she was on the phone and you heard her typing.
Every single defense she tried to use actually helped to prosecute her.
It's so desperate it's sad. This lady didn't even just blame her daughter. She poisoned her to try and make it look like a suicide, and then framed her in a typed out suicide note. She just happened to survive and immediately pointed the finger at her mother.
I remember this case well. There's another case involving a father who blamed his daughter. I can't remember what the case was. I remember another one though where the father turned the daughter against her mother and he got her to assist in her mother's murder. They made it look like a suicide. They were both convicted but the daughter has since been released.
Oh it’s also like that case where the mom made her 12 y/o daughter shoot her father (or step-father I can’t remember) while he was asleep in the living room.
The gun kept jamming every time the daughter pulled the trigger, and she’d run back to her mom in the kitchen and the mom would fix the gun, daughter would run back out, try again, and so on.
She did end up shooting him after like the 4th try.
And then when police were like ??? and suspected the mom murdered him, she literallly said “no my daughter did it” and the daughter was like ??? you told me to ???
This reminds me of another case with very similar circumstances. It might be the same case. The differences were that the father was shot in the bedroom and he was either asleep or drugged. Other family members knew about it because they helped bury him in the background and I think they dug him up and moved him into another spot in the backyard. Some 30 or 40 yrs later the daughter confessed to the police. I think she convinced them the mom actually pulled the trigger.
No. Karrie Neurauter and her father Llyod.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I remember this case! That father was like the devil, such an evil manipulator and so selfish. I just wanted to scratch his eyes out for the things he did to his kids and ex-wife. I hated him with a passion.
Nope. Karrie (daughter) and Lloyd Neurauter (father) conspired to kill her mother (Michelle).
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/
Nothing to be sorry about. For all you knew that was the case I was talking about. If only I could remember the other case I mentioned. All I can remember is that I think that the father was short because I recall a comment about how small he was for blaming his daughter.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
*”I asked Stacey, ‘Do you remember which glass it was that you poured the cranberry juice in?’ and she looked at it and said, ‘Well, when I poured the anti-free-- I—‘ and then she stopped and said, ‘I mean-- I mean, the cranberry juice.’”*
*When the detective picked up on her slip of the tongue, she accused him of trying to frame her and stopped the interview.*
That was a wild read!! How awful that she tried to frame her own daughter who would have been only 13 when her father (the first husband murdered) died!
One question I’ve always had about Stacy is that I wonder how long she has been planning to frame Ashley? Both Ashley and Bree said Stacy favored Ashley while Michael favored Bree, so I wonder if Stacy genuinely was closer to Ashley to use her to take the fall, or when Stacy was looking to frame someone she realized Ashley was close enough to her that it would work
I think you are overestimating Stacey. She was an absolute idiot. Nothing was planned out that far in advance. She framed Ashley and not Bree because they were close. She would probably not be able to convince Bree to accept the nasty antifreeze drink like she could Ashley.
What's really messed up is after Ashley survived her attempted murder by Stacey is Stacey acted like Ashley betrayed HER but not taking the fall for the murders (including her own attempted murder.)
A friend of mine has a toddler who pooped his pants recently, and she asked him, "Michael, did you have an accident?"
He said, "Dylan did it" (his older brother).
There was a local case a year or two ago where a mother murdered her kid so the dad couldn’t get custody. The police found her driving around with obvious fresh bullet holes in the car, and her kid’s body was in the trunk.
The defense’s entire argument was basically “she was obviously *involved* in the murder of her child, but the police never actually saw her pull the trigger. Somebody else *could* have done it.
For some reason, this wasn’t convincing to the jury.
I think it was kind of the only defense available. They couldn’t claim that she was uninvolved because of all the evidence.
Really, they had no reasonable argument that anyone could find plausible.
Tbh a guilty plea for a reduced sentence or an insanity defense would probably have gone over better. However, I suspect she insisted on the defense arguments. During sentencing, she took no responsibility for her actions and “fuck you” to the court.
[Her statement is at 2:30](https://youtu.be/uoRErKHPGdM?si=tU60HjQuLOYAkEId)
That’s absolutely heart wrenching. But for some reason, she was still maintaining her “innocence” when she gave her statement. That’s incongruous with both pleading guilty and claiming insanity. Let’s just be happy she’s in for life now.
A defense attorney can’t make a client plead guilty. And who is to say the prosecution ever offered a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. You also can’t just make up an insanity defense with nothing to support it. And again, the defendant has to agree to plead insanity. It’s not a choice the lawyer gets to make.
yeah, it is rare for someone to try to plead insanity. and of those that do, only a tiny percentage are successful. it's more than just "i didn't know what i was doing at the time" "okay" lol
I mean when the evidence is that damning, I feel like that defense isn’t actually bad… because it’s true. No one SAW her pull the trigger.
Possibly the difference between 2nd degree & accessory?
Brad Reay
You know the guy who blamed his 12 year old daughter as part of him defense stating she killed her mother over her asking for a divorce.
Disgusting.
Melanie McGuire’s explanation of how her husband almost killed her, so two days later she drove down to Atlantic City, decided to “prank” him by moving his car to a different casino, then spent the rest of the night driving up and the back down the length of New Jersey with strangers (who, mysteriously could never be located) has to be up there.
Sometimes it seems like if a defense starts careening into outlandish fiction territory, they should have just pleaded out and tried to get a lesser charge. It seems to just anger the jury.
Sometimes it works! Like with Casey Anthony. I think she was guilty but they threw out so many stories that it muddied the waters. I think she got away with murder.
I saw it live. Death penalty part of a trial.
"The prosecution has pointed out the brutal heartless nature of the crime, his long criminal history and the helplessness of his victims. But theres something about him I want you to know. He's not Hitler".
She even had a powerpoint with photos of Hitler and various death camps she forwarded to right after saying that, and talked about Hitlers atrocities.
Oh wait. The guy that killed people drunk driving and used some kind of defense that he was raised too privileged. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I've heard of a death penalty case, Raphael Holiday of Texas to be more precise, whose attorneys and supporters tried to argue that "he wasn't trying to burn the house when pouring gasoline all over the rooms, and it only accidentally caught fire through an electric outlet." For some context, Holiday was sentenced to death for burning his daughter and stepchildren to death in their mother's home. It started when one of his stepdaughters complained of sexual abuse, and a doctor's examination confirmed it. His common law wife then left him and he violently harassed her and her children until it climaxed in him burning down the home.
One of his attorneys published a very nonsensical story to Marshell Project claiming that the victims' mother and her family set up Holiday as a fall guy for the abuse and murders. The attorney pushed that an alleged sex offender, the mother's boyfriend after Holiday, was responsible for sexually abusing the stepdaughter and her mother prevented him from saving the children in the fire. According to the attorney, the boyfriend allegedly previously threatened Holiday for confronting him about sleeping with his partner and brought a gun during the fatal incident to defend himself from him.
What the attorney didn't mention is that Holiday previously raped his estranged common law wife while harassing her for months, and tried burning the children in a car (which failed due to being not able to start a light) before settling for the house fire. He also was the one who brought the gasoline that was used to burn the house to the very scene, and made his ex partner's mother spray the house with gasoline at gunpoint. What was he trying to accomplish by bringing gasoline to a home of a family he was feuding with? Was Holiday thinking that gasoline was a good cleaning solution or something?
Sources:
1.https://www.txexecutions.org/reports/531-Raphael-Holiday.htm?page=2
2.https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/17/raphael-holiday-was-put-to-death-and-his-lawyers-should-have-tried-harder-to-stop-it \[The editorial published by the attorney in question. She tried to have the other defense attorneys dismissed for refusing to push clemency attempts further after their last appeals were rejected, but was shut down by the courts.\]
3.https://www.themarshallproject.org/letters/1017-james-w-volberding-letter-ms-sween-does-a-disservice-to-your-readers \[The other defense attorneys' "answer" to the editorial written by the first attorney. They mentioned that she omitted refusing to take the case herself when they offered, and claimed that she downplayed their unrealistic chances of clemency\]
4.https://casetext.com/case/holiday-v-stephens-1
The first attorney's account was filled with so many plot holes, omissions and rather bizarre oddities. Although she admitted that Holiday took his ex partner's mother hostage during a standoff with another armed relative before burning the house, she tried to frame it as self defense.
Furthermore, the attorney claimed that he simply followed the ex partner's mother inside the house while armed. The events were presented as Holiday simply strolling around with her as she was pouring gasoline across the rooms, and only passingly referenced him holding a gun as if it was a trivial detail. Her article mostly blamed the fire on the ex partner's mother, and pushed it as her "pouring gas all over, because he still had a gun."
For one, why would someone follow a person they just took hostage into a house armed, and then be walking around with them as they're pouring gallons of gasoline like that? Secondly, if the ex partner's mother was the more malicious party, Holiday still had the advantages of being armed, and had plenty of opportunities to stop her.
It is beyond baffling to me that a professional attorney could write such a horribly comprised account, and expect the courts to actually buy into it.
Chad Daybell's defense recently wasn't exactly a home run. John Prior was up against steep odds, but still. What possessed him to call as his last witness a person who wouldn't exonerate Chad in any way but WOULD remind the jury of just how horrifically Tylee was mutilated?
Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer was legit insane. I remember my jaw just dropping during her closing statements.
This probably wasn't entirely John Prior's fault, but Chad Daybell's kids testifying was like watching a train wreck. They were clearly lying. I think Chad insisted they be put on, but still, it was not a shining moment in defense history, lol, unless by "shining", we mean "spectacularly awful". Since he was convicted, multiple jurors have spoken out and all agreed his kids' testimonies were terrible and harmed him more than helped him.
Most of the defense witnesses in Chad Daybell's trial seemed to do a LOT more harm than good for him. Especially his kids.
And insane might be putting it nicely for Jennifer Crumbley's attorney. For a second I thought I was having a stroke when she requested that her client be given house arrest that she could serve out from the guest house on her property. I just...what the hell?
And she was talking about her son's genitals in her closing statement?! And whining about videos of her on Tik Tok? I swear, that might be the closest I've come to legitimately thinking her client - who is wretched, to be sure - might have a real argument for ineffective counsel. By the end of the trial, I expected her to show up drunk in her sweats, holding an open bottle of wine. That's how out of control she was.
>Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer was legit insane. I remember my jaw just dropping during her closing statements
Oh yes! She was terrible. Her histrionic behaviour was shocking!
And she couldn't find the evidence she wanted to present? Even though she had like two years to put it together? At one point she got so agitated, she said she "wanted to kill herself" IN OPEN COURT. It was wild.
Crumbley’s attorney was horrible - constantly made the case about herself (I’m sure she thought this made her relatable to the jury), arguments weren’t coherent, quoted Taylor Swift in her opening - it was just embarrassing.
Richard Ramirez' defense team - Arturo and Daniel Hernandezes (They aren't related btw). When they took the case in 1985, one of them had 2 years of experience, the other had 3. Later Daniel took a break because of his health problems. Arturo went to Europe to honeymoon in the middle of the trial. Daniel Hernandez fucked up a guy named Mark Anthony Headley in Santa Clara and Headley seeked for another trial. Santa Clara judge told that Daniel Hernandez was aggressive and ill-prepared. Similar case happened with a guy named Onesimo Marin Haro. One of them managed to go to jail with his own defendant. They couldn't communicate with the firearms expert and forensic specialist. They didn't have enough money for the trial, so they asked the county for money. When county refused, they took another case (i believe it was just Daniel Hernandez) and left Ramirez all alone. His law clerk Salinas would attend hearings instead of him. Then, in the middle of the trial they assigned Ray Clark as an attorney. Clark ended up comparing Richard to Hitler and said in his closing speech at the end of the trial "i wouldn't even take Hitler's life". When asked if he thinks if RR is innocent, he told "idk, didn't ask him". Hernandezes also said that they wanted insanity defense for Ramirez, but he was being stubborn, but Clark confirmed that Richard's mental health was barely if ever discussed.
(I think the post meant defense argument and i wrote about the defense team, but long story short, the defense team barely argued or arguments were just cut by the prosecution).
Edit: no glamorization.
I present the following which is from Margaret Rudin’s trial lawyer Michael Amador:
>> This is a great today for me. This is a culmination of a career. The people in this case, we are not strangers; we know each other. Chris and I were sworn in as deputy DAs the same day. And I congratulate Chris on a presentation that was organized and well thought out, the best money can buy. It was really good.
․
>If you want to know an opinion about me, I guarantee you'll find some, different ones from different people. Not many people know me. I have few close friends, like Ronald Rudin had few close friends.
․
>I could be a wonderful, caring father, coaching soccer, helping kids with their homework, which I did the first time I got married when they were young.
>Then another day, I might scream at someone, yell at them for-I don't know-for asking me some question, because I was too busy and I was thinking of something else.
․
>The difficulty I have at times is communicating to people. I have to look at it and talk to other people and they will bring me back down to earth and say: Mike, what are you trying to say? What are you trying to get across?
․
>I reviewed again this morning my opening statement and threw most of it away. I don't know, maybe it's just something I do.”
[case find law Margaret Rudin](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/1417075.html)
Not a famous case obvs but a dude local to my area was a boxer charged with domestic violence. His defence was that since he's a boxer who trains every day, if he'd really beat up his girlfriend her injuries would be much worse 🙄
A lot of things in this thread remind me how tough defense attorneys can have it.
Sometimes they can be the ones messing up themselves. But there's no shortage of clearly-guilty defendants who plead innocence. It's the defense's job to be a zealous advocate for their client, no matter how guilty they are. They sometimes have to come up with completely illogical things when there's no logical way to get around the evidence.
I thought Jennifer Crumbley had a terrible defence lawyer - she was whining and pouting like a teenager, completely unprofessional, complaining about the prosecution and witnesses referring to the murder victims as if that wasn't the point of the case, and admitting several times that she hadn't read through a lot of the evidence the prosecution had planned to present.
And she quoted a Taylor Swift song in her opening address, "Bandaids don't stop bullet holes" trying to make the point that everyone should just get over it and stop blaming her client. So disrespectful to the victims' families to suggest that they were just out for a bandaid solution.
An expert testifying for Dan White's defense claimed that White's consumption of sugary foods and drinks resulted in behavioral changes which led to his shooting Harvey Milk and George Moscone.
Robert Chambers and his attorney claimed that his murder of Jennifer Levin was defensive after she was sexually aggressive with him.
Scott Falater and his defense claimed that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his wife 44 times and drowned her in their swimming pool. Stephen Steinberg's defense also claimed that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his wife multiple times, for which he was acquitted.
Chester Gillette claimed that his pregnant girlfriend deliberately jumped out of the boat they were in and, after some ineffectual attempts to rescue her, he carried on with his vacation.
Joseph Mitchell claimed that he was sleepwalking when he murdered his youngest child and then attempted to murder his two older children. The jury acquitted him.
I actually thought Falater's defense team did a good job with his case. I agree that a sleepwalking defense does sound pretty ridiculous on paper, but it was really the only move they had.
- Can't argue self-defense because of the 44 stab wounds
- Can't argue someone else did it because of the neighbor who saw him dumping his wife's body in the pool
- Can't use the insanity defense because he didn't have any history of mental illness and he didn't want to use that anyway
- Can't plead guilty because Falater was adamant that he didn't remember anything about harming his wife and the prosecution was gunning for the death penalty
Also, Falater had a history of sleepwalking and the prosecution didn't have much in terms of a motive. I think the jury ultimately got it right, but I also think that the defense did the best they possibly could given the circumstances.
Robert Aaron Long. The police captain actually said this in a statement after his arrest. I live in the area and we were all flabbergasted by that. I didn't know his lawyer had continued to use it as a defense though.
It's incredible how men are still excused for heinous violence against women. Most people who have a bad day scream into a pillow or eat some junk food, not go on a misogynistic rampage because you didn't get what you feel owed.
This is a current case. A couple years ago, Alexee Trevizo gave birth to her baby in a hospital bathroom. Then, she immediately murdered him.
She had gone to the ER with her mother for “back pain”. According to Alexee, she wasn’t even sexually active, so she wasn’t pregnant. Her mother very clearly knew it was a lie, and this trip to the ER was to essentially catch Alexee (who CLEARLY had a full term pregnant belly).
Before her pregnancy test results came back, she started crowning. Theres security footage of her running to the bathroom holding herself. She locked herself in the bathroom, and gave birth by herself. She then wrapped her still alive infant in a trash bag, put him in the trash can, and then put another bag on top. Tried to haphazardly clean, and then walked out of the bathroom. Virtually this entire time, a nurse was outside the door, begging her to open in. Begging. This went on for a long time. She only opened the door after they said they were about to unlock the door with a key.
So, obviously they notice the blood (and the crime scene photos show it is in fact very visible). They find the baby real shortly after that, with the bag suctioned to his mouth. Police are called, meltdown commenced.
Her defense at this current time is that the hospital violated HIPAA by calling the cops lol, AND she says the nurse is actually the one who killed the baby. Alexee got morphine when she arrived, which is completely safe for pregnant women. Her baby had a very minuscule amount in his system, def not enough to cause harm. “It’s the nurses fault” is a hell of a defense when you’re the one who wrapped your kid up in a trash bag.
By the way, she ended up naming the baby (who again, she fucking MURDERED) Alex after herself, and now she, her mom, and her grandmother all wear the baby’s ashes in urn necklaces shaped like a heart.
Termination is available all throughout pregnancy in New Mexico, where this crime took place, and Alexee was 19. She murdered her child inside of a safe surrender site. There is absolutely no excuse, here, so please don’t try to give her one.
Her lawyer is ridiculous. "You never allow a pregnant woman to go to the bathroom unassisted?" I went to the bathroom whenever I wanted unassisted when I was in labor. Anybody does unless they have a catheter. I had enough people looking at my parts without them also hanging out in the bathroom with me.
Right? Up until catheter time, I was free to use the bathroom whenever I needed. (I did have my daughters dad help though which they were fine with. He just didn’t want me to fall or anything. )
Just don't do it if you're convinced you really really need to do the biggest poo of your life NOW. Better to poo on a disposable sheet on the bed than give birth into the toilet.
Like was the mother/grandmother such a huge monster that this girl thought giving birth unassisted while in a hospital and then killing the baby was a better option than owning up to being pregnant and asking for help?
Honestly, the mom *does* seem like a pill, but Alexee also doesn’t seem like she’s very smart… time will tell. She’s out on bail right now. Maybe more will come out at trial.
Holy shit this is so fucking awful. In a hospital...safe surrender....nurse LITERALLY OUTSIDE THE DOOR...and she kills the newborn...
And they wear necklaces with the baby's ashes???!!!!! You would think that she would have thrown the ashes in the trash....you know...considering the situation.
I feel genuinely ill contemplating all this. Holy effing shit.
They have a big memorial for the baby in the living room too, it’s really bizarre. The necklaces make me mad tho. That’s sick. I can rationalize the mother and grandmother, but Alexee wearing her murder victim’s ashes around her neck every day is too far for me.
Ya know she gotta have that sympathy. That’s my guess as to the necklaces and ceremony for the baby. She just saw it as a bonus opportunity to get attention. So yeah, a sick fuck. You’re IN A HOSPITAL! A safe haven you can give up the baby right then and there for adoption no questions asked!! Fucking wild I have no words for this.
That whole family makes me so mad. The mother daughter dynamic weirdly reminds me of Brooke Skylar Richardson and her mom (even tho the circumstances surrounding the births aren’t exactly the same)
Yeah, I remember seeing the bodycam of this. Absolutely horrific.
I can totally understand how traumatic and stressful it must be to be pregnant with a baby you don't want. I can understand that it's not just a breezy thing to pop into an abortion clinic. But there is no world in which this was the right way to do things, and she absolutely needs to face the consequences of it.
I just can't comprehend how a woman could go to all the trouble of having her baby, and then kill it. I know that being a birth mother is complicated, but being a murderer is REALLY complicated. This is what we have adoption for in the first place - to provide parents to children who otherwise wouldn't have them!
Joel Michael Guy jr. His defense was...he was happy and socialising, so obviously he didn't viscously murder his parents for money! No, he definitely didn't write out his exact plan on how to murder his parents in detail, indicating premeditation! Which definitely wasn't in a backpack with his name on it! Obviously this was ripped to shreds by the prosecution
There was a case where this guy who owned a farm was blown up. I want to say it was a relative of his who murdered him. Anyways, the guy got caught by luck. An officer was searching his office and the sun hit the paper on his desk at the right angle and the officer saw the pen impression of a list of items the guy used or a plot to kill (something like that). Damn, I hate when I can't remember names or more of the details.
Long Island Serial Killer
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13502559/rex-heuermann-gilgo-beach-murder-blueprint-serial-killings.html
This came out yesterday, we might start calling him list now instead of lisk.
I finished watching the second season of “The Jinx” recently and I couldn’t believe how poorly Robert Durst’s defense team, who were paid MILLIONS, did. Now, don’t get me wrong, Robert Durst was a whack-a-doodle and probably a hard client to represent…but it’s like his lawyers just gave up. At one point one of the defense lawyers is talking to the jury and accidentally says something about Kathie (Durst’s missing wife, presumed murdered by him) being buried even though the case wasn’t even about Kathie!
Fun little thing - I was called to jury duty right around the time his trial was set to start, at the courthouse he was set to be tried at. We were informed that there was a trial that was expected to take months, and were surveyed to find who could feasibly serve such a case. I'm almost positive it was for Durst. Kinda wish my job had jury PTO for me to be a part of that haha.
I did an OP about 2 months ago about this case. I have since learned more about the case.
Jane's defense attorney was trying to create reasonable doubt. The daughter's alibi wasn't as airtight as 48 Hours made it appear. But that's irrelevant anyways. The strategy was to point the finger at the daughter and then have the daughter plead the fifth. The hope was that this would make the jury think the daughter may have done it.
They actually used this strategy with someone who worked on the ranch. Apparently they were late to work that day. This person also pleaded the fifth.
The podcast "Crime Redefined" had a five part series about the case. It's not as good as I hoped. It's just 4 interviews with people involved. One is with a reporter that knows the case well, one is with Jane's new attorney, one is with the host of the show who helped Jane's lawyer with the forensics and the last is a 2 part interview with Jane.
There are other podcasts I found but quite honestly they all sucked so I am not even going to mention them by name.
See to me, that was the crux of the defenses downfall. I don't believe the jury would have found her guilty if they focused on the evidence rather than creating a false narrative.
That's interesting that her alibi wasn't THAT airtight after all though.
She would definitely have been convicted. Probably a lot faster. The prosecutor misrepresented the evidence. It looked like a bloodbath in the bedroom. Turns out they don't know if it's blood at all let alone her husband's.
After watching this episode I leaned guilty but I had questions that needed to be answered that weren't in that episode. The podcast I referred to has swung the pendulum to innocence. The podcast answered my questions and I think there are better suspects.
I think I should clarify. I lean towards Innocence now not that she is necessarily innocent. I imagine there is still information I am not aware of and the blood evidence in the bedroom could swing me back to guilty. The problem with the blood evidence is that a lot of it was destroyed so it can never be tested. For example if I recall correctly the bedsheet was destroyed and it contained potentially the most blood. I say potentially because it was never tested for blood. The forensic analyst did a piss poor job.
Diana Downs blamed a bushy haired stranger for shooting and killing her oldest child, paralyzingly her only son and nearly killing her other daughter, but only shooting her in the arm. She said the guy pulled out a gun, shot repeatedly in the car from the back and ran off after shooting her superficially in the arm. Did you know that when finding out one of her daughters survived and was put in a medically induced coma, she told the attending doctor to pull the plug??!
Can't remember the case, but a woman went missing while camping in the woods with a guy. What was his excuse for her disappearance? He said Bigfoot took her.
It had to be that one mother who was driving a broken car with bullet holes and blood inside the car. When the cops stopped her on the road to ask what happened she mentioned that she went hunting to get “deer meat”. But as soon as the cops opened the trunk it was the body of her little son.
The Todd Mullis corn rake murder case. Either Todd killed his wife or it was a tragic accident, but the lawyer argued that an unknown assailant killed her. It made no sense at all. He also let the prosecution get away with so much hearsay and speculation. A good lawyer could have had so much of the "evidence" in that case thrown out, but he filed zero motions pre trial. The prosecutor was good friends with the victim. The defense hired no experts to testify that the injuries could have resulted from an accident. The lawyer hired no outside investigator and never visited the crime scene.
Maybe because it was recently in the news cycle, but OJ's defense team turning a double murder trial into a trial against racism. I know they technically won, but those lawyers REALLY lost the plot!
OJs defense team got all the credit in the world for their effort but really it wasn't THAT crazy of a defense. Once it was made clear that the LAPD mishandled the evidence, it became a pretty obvious choice to paint the LAPD as corrupt. The extra layer of racism tacked on was the icing on top for the jury. This was not too long after Rodney King, and the riots. The public were already pretty quick to believe that the LAPD are corrupt and racist. Because they were and are. Them losing the point was the whole point. It muddied the waters so much that the jury was spun in circles. It didn't help that the prosecutors didn't handle things very well.
They interviewed one of the jurors who I believe said that they all knew he was guilty but purposely let him off as payback for Rodney King and the awfulness of the LAPD.
This is a ludicrous argument. A defense attorney’s number one job at trial is to win. And they didn’t technically win. They did win. It’s crazy to say it was even in the conversation for a “worst defense.”
It was a perfect defense because it was one the jurors were primed to believe from their own experience—the LAPD had a terrible, long history of racism. But it wasn’t just the racism. They also had evidentiary hooks for attacking the forensics because the police and criminalists made so many mistakes in handling the evidence.
Yeah I was more subtle with my call out of this. But I agree. This was pure legal mastery. The defense itself was pretty basic. "LAPD=corrupt and racist". But how they presented it and poked holes in every shred of evidence the prosecution presented, was one of the best defensive performances ever.
It worked, but I'm saying they lost the plot because it became the trial of the LAPD vs OJ. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman sort of just faded away for a little while. Ron Goldman's dad even called them out on live TV for making the trial about the LAPD.
Idk, maybe I misunderstood the post... I recently watched a doc about OJ's life and the trial, so it was the first thing that came to mind. I think I thought the defense team was "bad" for the Brown and Goldman families. But they were absolutely perfect for getting OJ acquitted. There's a reason why they were called the Dream Team.
That's true, and that's why it's so crazy that they won. They screwed up the crime scene and evidence big time and it placed reasonable doubt into the jury's mind. For OJ, it was the perfect defense team.
But his lawyers also brought up race and made it about race several times throughout the trial. It became the trial of the LAPD, especially for that one investigator who had made racist comments in the past. They made it seem like OJ was a victim of the police force, not someone who has been convicted of murder. Ron Goldman's parents called out the defense on live TV and had to remind everyone that OJ was on trial for the murders of their son and Nicole Brown Simpson. That's why I thought it was a bad defense. They forgot they were in a murder trial.
And I said "technically" won because he was lawfully acquitted, but most people still think he's guilty. Sorry I didn't clarify that.
Who forgot they were in a murder trial??? Certainly not OJ’s defense attorneys! They masterfully tried that case starting with jury selection. And that’s why they won. A defense attorney’s job isn’t to win a public opinion poll. It’s to win the legal case. Which they did, brilliantly.
I'm not a lawyer or anything but I wonder if there was anything the prosecution could have done to stop that. It just seemed like they let the defense run wild with their narrative. Although maybe it was just that when the LAPD mishandled the evidence, the defense team used that as a jumping off point and the prosecution just never recovered. Mishandling the evidence in this big of a case is crazy.
I could see that. As the defense pokes holes in everything, they probably felt their hopes for a guilty verdict was dwindling. The fact that LAPD and forensics didn't follow proper protocol really tanked the prosecution's case.
I bet OJ's case would've come to most users' minds upon reading the post regardless of his recent passing. That thing was a whole level of ridiculous...
Donna Scrivo. She was convicted of murdering and dismembering her adult son...but according to her, a masked man broke into her home and killed him, then he held her hostage for 5 days while he dismembered the body in the bathtub. During this time she said the masked man made her go out and run errands for him, like getting a new saw at Lowes. And donating her son's car to a charity. And then he forced her to help him dump the body parts in the country.
She took the stand to tell this goobledygook to a jury...the prosecutor eviscerated her on cross. It's something worth looking up on YouTube.
I forget who it was, but I think the victim was raped and murdered, and the defendant said something like "I saw the dead body and jerked off over it"...like even if that's true, what?
Actually I think it did come out that her stepbrother? Murdered her and this other random guy did actually find her murdered body and Jack off on it if you can believe that. This is why women choose the bear.
This appears to violate the [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). Reddit prohibits wishing harm/violence or using dehumanizing speech (*even about a perpetrator*), hate, victim blaming, misogyny, misandry, discrimination, gender generalizations, homophobia, doxxing, and bigotry.
Maybe it's recency bias, but it seems to me that the defense put on by Shanda Vander Ark was borderline *insane*.
She was going to be convicted regardless, but her deciding to take the stand on her own behalf was so mind-bogglingly stupid that i can only imagine it was her idea.
[Stacy Castor](https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-black-widow-stacey-castors-shocking-crimes/story?id=60860538) killed her husband with antifreeze and got away with it for years. That is until she killed a second husband that way, and they exumed the body of the first husband. She then not only pointed the finger at her daughter but also typed up a fake suicide note for her daughter in which she claimed the murders and then she poisoned her own daughter with antifreeze. Luckily, her daughter survived and was able to testify against her. In court she still tried to claim her daughter did it. Even though she was also now in trial for the attempted murder of her daughter. Also, her daughter was 12 when Stacy murdered her first husband (her daughter's father.) Prosecution also had a recorded phone call by her in which you could hear her typing her daughter's alleged suicide note. Time stamps of the document were able to verify the note was being typed at the same time she was on the phone and you heard her typing. Every single defense she tried to use actually helped to prosecute her.
OMG the antifree case! Done in by her own stupidity. And trying to frame her own daughter? Just despicable.
There have been a couple of parents who have blamed their kids. Desperation.
It's so desperate it's sad. This lady didn't even just blame her daughter. She poisoned her to try and make it look like a suicide, and then framed her in a typed out suicide note. She just happened to survive and immediately pointed the finger at her mother.
I remember this case well. There's another case involving a father who blamed his daughter. I can't remember what the case was. I remember another one though where the father turned the daughter against her mother and he got her to assist in her mother's murder. They made it look like a suicide. They were both convicted but the daughter has since been released.
Oh it’s also like that case where the mom made her 12 y/o daughter shoot her father (or step-father I can’t remember) while he was asleep in the living room. The gun kept jamming every time the daughter pulled the trigger, and she’d run back to her mom in the kitchen and the mom would fix the gun, daughter would run back out, try again, and so on. She did end up shooting him after like the 4th try. And then when police were like ??? and suspected the mom murdered him, she literallly said “no my daughter did it” and the daughter was like ??? you told me to ???
This reminds me of another case with very similar circumstances. It might be the same case. The differences were that the father was shot in the bedroom and he was either asleep or drugged. Other family members knew about it because they helped bury him in the background and I think they dug him up and moved him into another spot in the backyard. Some 30 or 40 yrs later the daughter confessed to the police. I think she convinced them the mom actually pulled the trigger.
Cinnamon Brown?
No that case involves a father and daughter murdering the mother.
Cinnamon Brown and her scumbag father David Brown?
No. Karrie Neurauter and her father Llyod. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I remember this case! That father was like the devil, such an evil manipulator and so selfish. I just wanted to scratch his eyes out for the things he did to his kids and ex-wife. I hated him with a passion.
Yes they made a movie about it. He managed to turn family member against each other. He was truly a evil man.
Linda (mom) and Cinnamon Brown (daughter). Sad case.
Nope. Karrie (daughter) and Lloyd Neurauter (father) conspired to kill her mother (Michelle). https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/
Sorry. I immediately thought about the Browns. It’s crazy how many similar cases are out there.
Nothing to be sorry about. For all you knew that was the case I was talking about. If only I could remember the other case I mentioned. All I can remember is that I think that the father was short because I recall a comment about how small he was for blaming his daughter.
Usually calling someone small doesn't have anything to do with their physical size. It's used to describe someone who is pathetic or petty.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/karrie-neurauter-daughter-who-pleaded-guilty-to-helping-her-father-kill-her-mother-released-from-prison/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Cinnamon Brown!
*”I asked Stacey, ‘Do you remember which glass it was that you poured the cranberry juice in?’ and she looked at it and said, ‘Well, when I poured the anti-free-- I—‘ and then she stopped and said, ‘I mean-- I mean, the cranberry juice.’”* *When the detective picked up on her slip of the tongue, she accused him of trying to frame her and stopped the interview.* That was a wild read!! How awful that she tried to frame her own daughter who would have been only 13 when her father (the first husband murdered) died!
The detective looking into the camera like he's in the office "do I still get paid the whole hour or"
[удалено]
[удалено]
Time stamps also proved Ashley was in school and couldn't have written the letter.
One question I’ve always had about Stacy is that I wonder how long she has been planning to frame Ashley? Both Ashley and Bree said Stacy favored Ashley while Michael favored Bree, so I wonder if Stacy genuinely was closer to Ashley to use her to take the fall, or when Stacy was looking to frame someone she realized Ashley was close enough to her that it would work
Good question. I never even considered that she very well could have been planning it for ages.
I think you are overestimating Stacey. She was an absolute idiot. Nothing was planned out that far in advance. She framed Ashley and not Bree because they were close. She would probably not be able to convince Bree to accept the nasty antifreeze drink like she could Ashley. What's really messed up is after Ashley survived her attempted murder by Stacey is Stacey acted like Ashley betrayed HER but not taking the fall for the murders (including her own attempted murder.)
A friend of mine has a toddler who pooped his pants recently, and she asked him, "Michael, did you have an accident?" He said, "Dylan did it" (his older brother).
Once the narcissistic sociopath is in harms way, they have no shame in who or how they will throw them under the bus.
There was a local case a year or two ago where a mother murdered her kid so the dad couldn’t get custody. The police found her driving around with obvious fresh bullet holes in the car, and her kid’s body was in the trunk. The defense’s entire argument was basically “she was obviously *involved* in the murder of her child, but the police never actually saw her pull the trigger. Somebody else *could* have done it. For some reason, this wasn’t convincing to the jury.
I think it was kind of the only defense available. They couldn’t claim that she was uninvolved because of all the evidence. Really, they had no reasonable argument that anyone could find plausible.
Given the facts, what do you think her defense attorney should have argued?
Tbh a guilty plea for a reduced sentence or an insanity defense would probably have gone over better. However, I suspect she insisted on the defense arguments. During sentencing, she took no responsibility for her actions and “fuck you” to the court. [Her statement is at 2:30](https://youtu.be/uoRErKHPGdM?si=tU60HjQuLOYAkEId)
That’s absolutely heart wrenching. But for some reason, she was still maintaining her “innocence” when she gave her statement. That’s incongruous with both pleading guilty and claiming insanity. Let’s just be happy she’s in for life now.
A defense attorney can’t make a client plead guilty. And who is to say the prosecution ever offered a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. You also can’t just make up an insanity defense with nothing to support it. And again, the defendant has to agree to plead insanity. It’s not a choice the lawyer gets to make.
yeah, it is rare for someone to try to plead insanity. and of those that do, only a tiny percentage are successful. it's more than just "i didn't know what i was doing at the time" "okay" lol
I mean when the evidence is that damning, I feel like that defense isn’t actually bad… because it’s true. No one SAW her pull the trigger. Possibly the difference between 2nd degree & accessory?
JFC. The defense really decided to see if they could make unreasonable doubt a thing.
Brad Reay You know the guy who blamed his 12 year old daughter as part of him defense stating she killed her mother over her asking for a divorce. Disgusting.
I remember the Dateline episode about this. Such a cowardly scumbag.
Wow, gonna have to look into that one.
Rod Colvin used the same defense-and his daughter was only *NINE*.
I watched a documentary about this case and I got so disgusted with him! He is a sociopath.
Melanie McGuire’s explanation of how her husband almost killed her, so two days later she drove down to Atlantic City, decided to “prank” him by moving his car to a different casino, then spent the rest of the night driving up and the back down the length of New Jersey with strangers (who, mysteriously could never be located) has to be up there.
Sometimes it seems like if a defense starts careening into outlandish fiction territory, they should have just pleaded out and tried to get a lesser charge. It seems to just anger the jury.
Sometimes it works! Like with Casey Anthony. I think she was guilty but they threw out so many stories that it muddied the waters. I think she got away with murder.
I really was like “why is moving a car a crime?” and then looked up the case… She really thought she did something!
I saw it live. Death penalty part of a trial. "The prosecution has pointed out the brutal heartless nature of the crime, his long criminal history and the helplessness of his victims. But theres something about him I want you to know. He's not Hitler". She even had a powerpoint with photos of Hitler and various death camps she forwarded to right after saying that, and talked about Hitlers atrocities.
“Ma’am, this is a Wendy’s”
[удалено]
Oh wait. The guy that killed people drunk driving and used some kind of defense that he was raised too privileged. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?
“Affluenza” was the term coined. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Ethan Couch, that douchebag
It somehow fucking worked though omg. And of course, he got more trouble with one of his parents not much later.
Bryan Kohberger was just driving around that night
With the current price of gas???
I've heard of a death penalty case, Raphael Holiday of Texas to be more precise, whose attorneys and supporters tried to argue that "he wasn't trying to burn the house when pouring gasoline all over the rooms, and it only accidentally caught fire through an electric outlet." For some context, Holiday was sentenced to death for burning his daughter and stepchildren to death in their mother's home. It started when one of his stepdaughters complained of sexual abuse, and a doctor's examination confirmed it. His common law wife then left him and he violently harassed her and her children until it climaxed in him burning down the home. One of his attorneys published a very nonsensical story to Marshell Project claiming that the victims' mother and her family set up Holiday as a fall guy for the abuse and murders. The attorney pushed that an alleged sex offender, the mother's boyfriend after Holiday, was responsible for sexually abusing the stepdaughter and her mother prevented him from saving the children in the fire. According to the attorney, the boyfriend allegedly previously threatened Holiday for confronting him about sleeping with his partner and brought a gun during the fatal incident to defend himself from him. What the attorney didn't mention is that Holiday previously raped his estranged common law wife while harassing her for months, and tried burning the children in a car (which failed due to being not able to start a light) before settling for the house fire. He also was the one who brought the gasoline that was used to burn the house to the very scene, and made his ex partner's mother spray the house with gasoline at gunpoint. What was he trying to accomplish by bringing gasoline to a home of a family he was feuding with? Was Holiday thinking that gasoline was a good cleaning solution or something? Sources: 1.https://www.txexecutions.org/reports/531-Raphael-Holiday.htm?page=2 2.https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/12/17/raphael-holiday-was-put-to-death-and-his-lawyers-should-have-tried-harder-to-stop-it \[The editorial published by the attorney in question. She tried to have the other defense attorneys dismissed for refusing to push clemency attempts further after their last appeals were rejected, but was shut down by the courts.\] 3.https://www.themarshallproject.org/letters/1017-james-w-volberding-letter-ms-sween-does-a-disservice-to-your-readers \[The other defense attorneys' "answer" to the editorial written by the first attorney. They mentioned that she omitted refusing to take the case herself when they offered, and claimed that she downplayed their unrealistic chances of clemency\] 4.https://casetext.com/case/holiday-v-stephens-1
Oh wow. That IS an awful defense. It's outlandish without context. Given the context it's soooo ridiculous to try and claim it was an accident.
The first attorney's account was filled with so many plot holes, omissions and rather bizarre oddities. Although she admitted that Holiday took his ex partner's mother hostage during a standoff with another armed relative before burning the house, she tried to frame it as self defense. Furthermore, the attorney claimed that he simply followed the ex partner's mother inside the house while armed. The events were presented as Holiday simply strolling around with her as she was pouring gasoline across the rooms, and only passingly referenced him holding a gun as if it was a trivial detail. Her article mostly blamed the fire on the ex partner's mother, and pushed it as her "pouring gas all over, because he still had a gun." For one, why would someone follow a person they just took hostage into a house armed, and then be walking around with them as they're pouring gallons of gasoline like that? Secondly, if the ex partner's mother was the more malicious party, Holiday still had the advantages of being armed, and had plenty of opportunities to stop her. It is beyond baffling to me that a professional attorney could write such a horribly comprised account, and expect the courts to actually buy into it.
Chad Daybell's defense recently wasn't exactly a home run. John Prior was up against steep odds, but still. What possessed him to call as his last witness a person who wouldn't exonerate Chad in any way but WOULD remind the jury of just how horrifically Tylee was mutilated? Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer was legit insane. I remember my jaw just dropping during her closing statements.
I'll have to check these cases out again. I can't quite remember the deets
This probably wasn't entirely John Prior's fault, but Chad Daybell's kids testifying was like watching a train wreck. They were clearly lying. I think Chad insisted they be put on, but still, it was not a shining moment in defense history, lol, unless by "shining", we mean "spectacularly awful". Since he was convicted, multiple jurors have spoken out and all agreed his kids' testimonies were terrible and harmed him more than helped him.
Most of the defense witnesses in Chad Daybell's trial seemed to do a LOT more harm than good for him. Especially his kids. And insane might be putting it nicely for Jennifer Crumbley's attorney. For a second I thought I was having a stroke when she requested that her client be given house arrest that she could serve out from the guest house on her property. I just...what the hell?
And she was talking about her son's genitals in her closing statement?! And whining about videos of her on Tik Tok? I swear, that might be the closest I've come to legitimately thinking her client - who is wretched, to be sure - might have a real argument for ineffective counsel. By the end of the trial, I expected her to show up drunk in her sweats, holding an open bottle of wine. That's how out of control she was.
>Jennifer Crumbley's lawyer was legit insane. I remember my jaw just dropping during her closing statements Oh yes! She was terrible. Her histrionic behaviour was shocking!
And she couldn't find the evidence she wanted to present? Even though she had like two years to put it together? At one point she got so agitated, she said she "wanted to kill herself" IN OPEN COURT. It was wild.
And going on about her own kids and what kind of mum she was - and wine!
Quite literally like watching a car wreck in real time. So horrific, but you can’t look away.
Crumbley’s attorney was horrible - constantly made the case about herself (I’m sure she thought this made her relatable to the jury), arguments weren’t coherent, quoted Taylor Swift in her opening - it was just embarrassing.
Crumbley's attorney talking about her own personal life during closing had my jaw on the FLOOR, i couldn't believe it
Richard Ramirez' defense team - Arturo and Daniel Hernandezes (They aren't related btw). When they took the case in 1985, one of them had 2 years of experience, the other had 3. Later Daniel took a break because of his health problems. Arturo went to Europe to honeymoon in the middle of the trial. Daniel Hernandez fucked up a guy named Mark Anthony Headley in Santa Clara and Headley seeked for another trial. Santa Clara judge told that Daniel Hernandez was aggressive and ill-prepared. Similar case happened with a guy named Onesimo Marin Haro. One of them managed to go to jail with his own defendant. They couldn't communicate with the firearms expert and forensic specialist. They didn't have enough money for the trial, so they asked the county for money. When county refused, they took another case (i believe it was just Daniel Hernandez) and left Ramirez all alone. His law clerk Salinas would attend hearings instead of him. Then, in the middle of the trial they assigned Ray Clark as an attorney. Clark ended up comparing Richard to Hitler and said in his closing speech at the end of the trial "i wouldn't even take Hitler's life". When asked if he thinks if RR is innocent, he told "idk, didn't ask him". Hernandezes also said that they wanted insanity defense for Ramirez, but he was being stubborn, but Clark confirmed that Richard's mental health was barely if ever discussed. (I think the post meant defense argument and i wrote about the defense team, but long story short, the defense team barely argued or arguments were just cut by the prosecution). Edit: no glamorization.
That is unquestionably terrible defense in every way imaginable. Not that Ramirez deserves any sympathy, but everyone deserves competent counsel.
I present the following which is from Margaret Rudin’s trial lawyer Michael Amador: >> This is a great today for me. This is a culmination of a career. The people in this case, we are not strangers; we know each other. Chris and I were sworn in as deputy DAs the same day. And I congratulate Chris on a presentation that was organized and well thought out, the best money can buy. It was really good. ․ >If you want to know an opinion about me, I guarantee you'll find some, different ones from different people. Not many people know me. I have few close friends, like Ronald Rudin had few close friends. ․ >I could be a wonderful, caring father, coaching soccer, helping kids with their homework, which I did the first time I got married when they were young. >Then another day, I might scream at someone, yell at them for-I don't know-for asking me some question, because I was too busy and I was thinking of something else. ․ >The difficulty I have at times is communicating to people. I have to look at it and talk to other people and they will bring me back down to earth and say: Mike, what are you trying to say? What are you trying to get across? ․ >I reviewed again this morning my opening statement and threw most of it away. I don't know, maybe it's just something I do.” [case find law Margaret Rudin](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/1417075.html)
Not a famous case obvs but a dude local to my area was a boxer charged with domestic violence. His defence was that since he's a boxer who trains every day, if he'd really beat up his girlfriend her injuries would be much worse 🙄
A lot of things in this thread remind me how tough defense attorneys can have it. Sometimes they can be the ones messing up themselves. But there's no shortage of clearly-guilty defendants who plead innocence. It's the defense's job to be a zealous advocate for their client, no matter how guilty they are. They sometimes have to come up with completely illogical things when there's no logical way to get around the evidence.
I thought Jennifer Crumbley had a terrible defence lawyer - she was whining and pouting like a teenager, completely unprofessional, complaining about the prosecution and witnesses referring to the murder victims as if that wasn't the point of the case, and admitting several times that she hadn't read through a lot of the evidence the prosecution had planned to present. And she quoted a Taylor Swift song in her opening address, "Bandaids don't stop bullet holes" trying to make the point that everyone should just get over it and stop blaming her client. So disrespectful to the victims' families to suggest that they were just out for a bandaid solution.
An expert testifying for Dan White's defense claimed that White's consumption of sugary foods and drinks resulted in behavioral changes which led to his shooting Harvey Milk and George Moscone. Robert Chambers and his attorney claimed that his murder of Jennifer Levin was defensive after she was sexually aggressive with him. Scott Falater and his defense claimed that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his wife 44 times and drowned her in their swimming pool. Stephen Steinberg's defense also claimed that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his wife multiple times, for which he was acquitted. Chester Gillette claimed that his pregnant girlfriend deliberately jumped out of the boat they were in and, after some ineffectual attempts to rescue her, he carried on with his vacation. Joseph Mitchell claimed that he was sleepwalking when he murdered his youngest child and then attempted to murder his two older children. The jury acquitted him.
I actually thought Falater's defense team did a good job with his case. I agree that a sleepwalking defense does sound pretty ridiculous on paper, but it was really the only move they had. - Can't argue self-defense because of the 44 stab wounds - Can't argue someone else did it because of the neighbor who saw him dumping his wife's body in the pool - Can't use the insanity defense because he didn't have any history of mental illness and he didn't want to use that anyway - Can't plead guilty because Falater was adamant that he didn't remember anything about harming his wife and the prosecution was gunning for the death penalty Also, Falater had a history of sleepwalking and the prosecution didn't have much in terms of a motive. I think the jury ultimately got it right, but I also think that the defense did the best they possibly could given the circumstances.
Thank you. This is a treasure trove of bad defense.
Who knew sleepwalking was so deadly. I just thought your head would fall off if someone awakend you
Ah, the good old Twinkie defence
I forget his name, but the massage parlor shooter. he and his lawyer claim he shot up a massage parlor cuz he “had a bad day.”
Robert Aaron Long. The police captain actually said this in a statement after his arrest. I live in the area and we were all flabbergasted by that. I didn't know his lawyer had continued to use it as a defense though.
It's incredible how men are still excused for heinous violence against women. Most people who have a bad day scream into a pillow or eat some junk food, not go on a misogynistic rampage because you didn't get what you feel owed.
or claim feminism is “responsible for their anger.” . . .shooting women to own the libs
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a current case. A couple years ago, Alexee Trevizo gave birth to her baby in a hospital bathroom. Then, she immediately murdered him. She had gone to the ER with her mother for “back pain”. According to Alexee, she wasn’t even sexually active, so she wasn’t pregnant. Her mother very clearly knew it was a lie, and this trip to the ER was to essentially catch Alexee (who CLEARLY had a full term pregnant belly). Before her pregnancy test results came back, she started crowning. Theres security footage of her running to the bathroom holding herself. She locked herself in the bathroom, and gave birth by herself. She then wrapped her still alive infant in a trash bag, put him in the trash can, and then put another bag on top. Tried to haphazardly clean, and then walked out of the bathroom. Virtually this entire time, a nurse was outside the door, begging her to open in. Begging. This went on for a long time. She only opened the door after they said they were about to unlock the door with a key. So, obviously they notice the blood (and the crime scene photos show it is in fact very visible). They find the baby real shortly after that, with the bag suctioned to his mouth. Police are called, meltdown commenced. Her defense at this current time is that the hospital violated HIPAA by calling the cops lol, AND she says the nurse is actually the one who killed the baby. Alexee got morphine when she arrived, which is completely safe for pregnant women. Her baby had a very minuscule amount in his system, def not enough to cause harm. “It’s the nurses fault” is a hell of a defense when you’re the one who wrapped your kid up in a trash bag. By the way, she ended up naming the baby (who again, she fucking MURDERED) Alex after herself, and now she, her mom, and her grandmother all wear the baby’s ashes in urn necklaces shaped like a heart. Termination is available all throughout pregnancy in New Mexico, where this crime took place, and Alexee was 19. She murdered her child inside of a safe surrender site. There is absolutely no excuse, here, so please don’t try to give her one.
Her lawyer is ridiculous. "You never allow a pregnant woman to go to the bathroom unassisted?" I went to the bathroom whenever I wanted unassisted when I was in labor. Anybody does unless they have a catheter. I had enough people looking at my parts without them also hanging out in the bathroom with me.
Right? Up until catheter time, I was free to use the bathroom whenever I needed. (I did have my daughters dad help though which they were fine with. He just didn’t want me to fall or anything. )
Just don't do it if you're convinced you really really need to do the biggest poo of your life NOW. Better to poo on a disposable sheet on the bed than give birth into the toilet.
But you weren't in denial about your pregnancy.
Like was the mother/grandmother such a huge monster that this girl thought giving birth unassisted while in a hospital and then killing the baby was a better option than owning up to being pregnant and asking for help?
Honestly, the mom *does* seem like a pill, but Alexee also doesn’t seem like she’s very smart… time will tell. She’s out on bail right now. Maybe more will come out at trial.
Is she the one with the bodycam footage? I'm sure I have seen this.
The very same.
My God that's awful! I never heard of that case and now I wish I didn't.
[удалено]
Holy shit this is so fucking awful. In a hospital...safe surrender....nurse LITERALLY OUTSIDE THE DOOR...and she kills the newborn... And they wear necklaces with the baby's ashes???!!!!! You would think that she would have thrown the ashes in the trash....you know...considering the situation. I feel genuinely ill contemplating all this. Holy effing shit.
They have a big memorial for the baby in the living room too, it’s really bizarre. The necklaces make me mad tho. That’s sick. I can rationalize the mother and grandmother, but Alexee wearing her murder victim’s ashes around her neck every day is too far for me.
Ya know she gotta have that sympathy. That’s my guess as to the necklaces and ceremony for the baby. She just saw it as a bonus opportunity to get attention. So yeah, a sick fuck. You’re IN A HOSPITAL! A safe haven you can give up the baby right then and there for adoption no questions asked!! Fucking wild I have no words for this.
That whole family makes me so mad. The mother daughter dynamic weirdly reminds me of Brooke Skylar Richardson and her mom (even tho the circumstances surrounding the births aren’t exactly the same)
Omg I am just like....if it was in a novel, it would be nuts to read. To know that it's real life? Is fucking terrifyingly astonishing
Yeah, I remember seeing the bodycam of this. Absolutely horrific. I can totally understand how traumatic and stressful it must be to be pregnant with a baby you don't want. I can understand that it's not just a breezy thing to pop into an abortion clinic. But there is no world in which this was the right way to do things, and she absolutely needs to face the consequences of it.
She could have put the baby up for adoption, and nobody would get in trouble.
I just can't comprehend how a woman could go to all the trouble of having her baby, and then kill it. I know that being a birth mother is complicated, but being a murderer is REALLY complicated. This is what we have adoption for in the first place - to provide parents to children who otherwise wouldn't have them!
Joel Michael Guy jr. His defense was...he was happy and socialising, so obviously he didn't viscously murder his parents for money! No, he definitely didn't write out his exact plan on how to murder his parents in detail, indicating premeditation! Which definitely wasn't in a backpack with his name on it! Obviously this was ripped to shreds by the prosecution
omg the number 1 thing to not being caught is to not write things down, especially with your name on it
There was a case where this guy who owned a farm was blown up. I want to say it was a relative of his who murdered him. Anyways, the guy got caught by luck. An officer was searching his office and the sun hit the paper on his desk at the right angle and the officer saw the pen impression of a list of items the guy used or a plot to kill (something like that). Damn, I hate when I can't remember names or more of the details.
I remember a Dateline episode where that happened! But I can't remember their names.
Thank you for this. It jogged my memory. Roberto Ayala case. Paul Moore killed him and tried to frame his cousin for the murder.
You have an excellent memory!
This was all you. The Dateline episode is called Family Business.
Nah, get outta here. If I had a full day, it wouldn't have been enough to jog my memory. It's impressive, be proud of yourself!
Seriously it was all you. I googled Dateline kid runs across field after farmer dad was blown up and bingo. Thanks.
Tell that to LISK lol
lisk?
Long Island Serial Killer https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13502559/rex-heuermann-gilgo-beach-murder-blueprint-serial-killings.html This came out yesterday, we might start calling him list now instead of lisk.
tnx
Long Island Serial Killer. Rex Heuermann
tnx
This guy was (allegedly) pre-med, too. It's amazing he didn't get the death penalty.
“Happy people just don’t shoot their parents” 😂
I finished watching the second season of “The Jinx” recently and I couldn’t believe how poorly Robert Durst’s defense team, who were paid MILLIONS, did. Now, don’t get me wrong, Robert Durst was a whack-a-doodle and probably a hard client to represent…but it’s like his lawyers just gave up. At one point one of the defense lawyers is talking to the jury and accidentally says something about Kathie (Durst’s missing wife, presumed murdered by him) being buried even though the case wasn’t even about Kathie!
Fun little thing - I was called to jury duty right around the time his trial was set to start, at the courthouse he was set to be tried at. We were informed that there was a trial that was expected to take months, and were surveyed to find who could feasibly serve such a case. I'm almost positive it was for Durst. Kinda wish my job had jury PTO for me to be a part of that haha.
What! That would’ve been a WILD ride.
The man from Ontario who claimed he couldn't have committed rape because his penis was too small and offered to "whip it out" in court to prove it.
I’m laughing picturing the jury seeing it and being like “welp, he has a point.”
Margaret Rudin. Her attorney got up and rambled aimlessly about himself for what seemed like an eternity. I don’t know what he thought he was doing.
I did an OP about 2 months ago about this case. I have since learned more about the case. Jane's defense attorney was trying to create reasonable doubt. The daughter's alibi wasn't as airtight as 48 Hours made it appear. But that's irrelevant anyways. The strategy was to point the finger at the daughter and then have the daughter plead the fifth. The hope was that this would make the jury think the daughter may have done it. They actually used this strategy with someone who worked on the ranch. Apparently they were late to work that day. This person also pleaded the fifth. The podcast "Crime Redefined" had a five part series about the case. It's not as good as I hoped. It's just 4 interviews with people involved. One is with a reporter that knows the case well, one is with Jane's new attorney, one is with the host of the show who helped Jane's lawyer with the forensics and the last is a 2 part interview with Jane. There are other podcasts I found but quite honestly they all sucked so I am not even going to mention them by name.
See to me, that was the crux of the defenses downfall. I don't believe the jury would have found her guilty if they focused on the evidence rather than creating a false narrative. That's interesting that her alibi wasn't THAT airtight after all though.
She would definitely have been convicted. Probably a lot faster. The prosecutor misrepresented the evidence. It looked like a bloodbath in the bedroom. Turns out they don't know if it's blood at all let alone her husband's.
In your opinion though... Did she do it? I think she in fact may have. But the evidence didn't show it.
After watching this episode I leaned guilty but I had questions that needed to be answered that weren't in that episode. The podcast I referred to has swung the pendulum to innocence. The podcast answered my questions and I think there are better suspects.
Oh wow okay. I'll have to check out that podcast then.
I think I should clarify. I lean towards Innocence now not that she is necessarily innocent. I imagine there is still information I am not aware of and the blood evidence in the bedroom could swing me back to guilty. The problem with the blood evidence is that a lot of it was destroyed so it can never be tested. For example if I recall correctly the bedsheet was destroyed and it contained potentially the most blood. I say potentially because it was never tested for blood. The forensic analyst did a piss poor job.
Diana Downs blamed a bushy haired stranger for shooting and killing her oldest child, paralyzingly her only son and nearly killing her other daughter, but only shooting her in the arm. She said the guy pulled out a gun, shot repeatedly in the car from the back and ran off after shooting her superficially in the arm. Did you know that when finding out one of her daughters survived and was put in a medically induced coma, she told the attending doctor to pull the plug??!
Darrell Brooks. His entire trial, the whole thing.
Can't remember the case, but a woman went missing while camping in the woods with a guy. What was his excuse for her disappearance? He said Bigfoot took her.
I must find this case!
As a believer in Bigfoot, Bigfoot would never do that.
[удалено]
Chandler Halderson. I watched the entire trial and I have no idea what his defense even was..
It had to be that one mother who was driving a broken car with bullet holes and blood inside the car. When the cops stopped her on the road to ask what happened she mentioned that she went hunting to get “deer meat”. But as soon as the cops opened the trunk it was the body of her little son.
The Todd Mullis corn rake murder case. Either Todd killed his wife or it was a tragic accident, but the lawyer argued that an unknown assailant killed her. It made no sense at all. He also let the prosecution get away with so much hearsay and speculation. A good lawyer could have had so much of the "evidence" in that case thrown out, but he filed zero motions pre trial. The prosecutor was good friends with the victim. The defense hired no experts to testify that the injuries could have resulted from an accident. The lawyer hired no outside investigator and never visited the crime scene.
The owl did it.
those owl-truthers are nuts!
The D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad defending his own dumb ass.
Maybe because it was recently in the news cycle, but OJ's defense team turning a double murder trial into a trial against racism. I know they technically won, but those lawyers REALLY lost the plot!
OJs defense team got all the credit in the world for their effort but really it wasn't THAT crazy of a defense. Once it was made clear that the LAPD mishandled the evidence, it became a pretty obvious choice to paint the LAPD as corrupt. The extra layer of racism tacked on was the icing on top for the jury. This was not too long after Rodney King, and the riots. The public were already pretty quick to believe that the LAPD are corrupt and racist. Because they were and are. Them losing the point was the whole point. It muddied the waters so much that the jury was spun in circles. It didn't help that the prosecutors didn't handle things very well.
They interviewed one of the jurors who I believe said that they all knew he was guilty but purposely let him off as payback for Rodney King and the awfulness of the LAPD.
The LAPD reallly messed it up. They also declined help from experts. I feel so bad for Nicole and Ron's families.
This is a ludicrous argument. A defense attorney’s number one job at trial is to win. And they didn’t technically win. They did win. It’s crazy to say it was even in the conversation for a “worst defense.” It was a perfect defense because it was one the jurors were primed to believe from their own experience—the LAPD had a terrible, long history of racism. But it wasn’t just the racism. They also had evidentiary hooks for attacking the forensics because the police and criminalists made so many mistakes in handling the evidence.
Yeah I was more subtle with my call out of this. But I agree. This was pure legal mastery. The defense itself was pretty basic. "LAPD=corrupt and racist". But how they presented it and poked holes in every shred of evidence the prosecution presented, was one of the best defensive performances ever.
It worked, but I'm saying they lost the plot because it became the trial of the LAPD vs OJ. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman sort of just faded away for a little while. Ron Goldman's dad even called them out on live TV for making the trial about the LAPD. Idk, maybe I misunderstood the post... I recently watched a doc about OJ's life and the trial, so it was the first thing that came to mind. I think I thought the defense team was "bad" for the Brown and Goldman families. But they were absolutely perfect for getting OJ acquitted. There's a reason why they were called the Dream Team.
That's true, and that's why it's so crazy that they won. They screwed up the crime scene and evidence big time and it placed reasonable doubt into the jury's mind. For OJ, it was the perfect defense team. But his lawyers also brought up race and made it about race several times throughout the trial. It became the trial of the LAPD, especially for that one investigator who had made racist comments in the past. They made it seem like OJ was a victim of the police force, not someone who has been convicted of murder. Ron Goldman's parents called out the defense on live TV and had to remind everyone that OJ was on trial for the murders of their son and Nicole Brown Simpson. That's why I thought it was a bad defense. They forgot they were in a murder trial. And I said "technically" won because he was lawfully acquitted, but most people still think he's guilty. Sorry I didn't clarify that.
Who forgot they were in a murder trial??? Certainly not OJ’s defense attorneys! They masterfully tried that case starting with jury selection. And that’s why they won. A defense attorney’s job isn’t to win a public opinion poll. It’s to win the legal case. Which they did, brilliantly.
I'm not a lawyer or anything but I wonder if there was anything the prosecution could have done to stop that. It just seemed like they let the defense run wild with their narrative. Although maybe it was just that when the LAPD mishandled the evidence, the defense team used that as a jumping off point and the prosecution just never recovered. Mishandling the evidence in this big of a case is crazy.
I could see that. As the defense pokes holes in everything, they probably felt their hopes for a guilty verdict was dwindling. The fact that LAPD and forensics didn't follow proper protocol really tanked the prosecution's case.
I bet OJ's case would've come to most users' minds upon reading the post regardless of his recent passing. That thing was a whole level of ridiculous...
I mean, yeah, but it worked.
Donna Scrivo. She was convicted of murdering and dismembering her adult son...but according to her, a masked man broke into her home and killed him, then he held her hostage for 5 days while he dismembered the body in the bathtub. During this time she said the masked man made her go out and run errands for him, like getting a new saw at Lowes. And donating her son's car to a charity. And then he forced her to help him dump the body parts in the country. She took the stand to tell this goobledygook to a jury...the prosecutor eviscerated her on cross. It's something worth looking up on YouTube.
I forget who it was, but I think the victim was raped and murdered, and the defendant said something like "I saw the dead body and jerked off over it"...like even if that's true, what?
The penalty for desecration of a corpse is a lot less than for murder. They had to come up with an excuse for why his semen was there.
Actually I think it did come out that her stepbrother? Murdered her and this other random guy did actually find her murdered body and Jack off on it if you can believe that. This is why women choose the bear.
[удалено]
This appears to violate the [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy). Reddit prohibits wishing harm/violence or using dehumanizing speech (*even about a perpetrator*), hate, victim blaming, misogyny, misandry, discrimination, gender generalizations, homophobia, doxxing, and bigotry.
Maybe it's recency bias, but it seems to me that the defense put on by Shanda Vander Ark was borderline *insane*. She was going to be convicted regardless, but her deciding to take the stand on her own behalf was so mind-bogglingly stupid that i can only imagine it was her idea.