FL - Brandi Peters, 27, & her 3 kids found murdered, Tallahassee, 20 Nov 2010 *Guilty*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

She nailed him to the cross!! That's all I can say. Wheeeew! He showed his true colors. He was irritable, angry, evasive, arrogant. Every time his sexual encounters were brought up he had a smirk on his face. Then he got so agitated when she pointed out he only had $100 in his bank account at the time of the murder. He argued he had just withdrawn $1,400. Wow, sorry sir!! You're a big baller, big time shot caller!! We didn't realize. You had a whole $1,400 in your bank account! You still owed $40k in back child support.

He's a broke, amoral, violent, cretin!!
 
The guest Lawyers on Court TV think he should walk. They thought the prosecution didn't score any points.

I don't think these people are listening to the same trial. HS is such a liar and very self serving. He thinks he is a gift to women. Uggg!
 
Jewels53 said:
The guest Lawyers on Court TV think he should walk. They thought the prosecution didn't score any points.

I don't think these people are listening to the same trial. HS is such a liar and very self serving. He thinks he is a gift to women. Uggg!
Click to expand...

Can't stand those CourtTV or L&C commentators. They're all a bunch of trolls!! JMO.
 
DTPeke said:
Cross is good! go go go! :):):)

He is getting testy

EDTA: WTH was that a nervous hiccup
Click to expand...

Did I hear him say ( when the judge told him be quiet, quiet now! )
Segura said something like - I’m a grown man! to the judge.
Wow. His temper!He’s a hot head!
He said over & over he - would never kill a child
or children, he would never kill children(after a long pause added ) or Brandi.
Edited to add- Which does make me wonder if the kids were collateral damage. Esp because his son was killed differently and Segura stated today that the boy was under the girls in the tub ( that’s prob where he put him so he did not have to look at what he did!)

I felt like the prosecutor was trying to point out the -truth in his lies-.
The part about he knew the girls drown. Which actually no one knew -how - they died the time of interview.
And him calling Brandi a -survivor- when in fact Brandi survived the gunshots only to be beat to death.

Because Segura brought up - then why don’t I have any bruises?
to the prosecutor. IMO he’s pretty proud of himself in the premeditation area. I’m thinking he not only wore gloves but other protective wear. Like a Dexter kill.
He gives himself away. I hope the jury sees this...he thinks he’s smarter,more important than everyone in that court room. When the judge admonished him I thought - MG, he would hurt the judge if he had access!

MOO
 
Last edited:
The way I understood the cross exam was that she wanted to demolish his excuse for lying about the secret phone and his whereabouts - saying he did it bc he didnt' want his wife to find out. That excuse fails on its face imo because he's been philandering and fathering children outside of his marriage since the 1st year of marriage so the idea that he's being questioned for the murder investigation of his baby mama and his son and would lie to protect his wife is total crap on its face. But once she demolished that excuse, the only thing that's left is that he lied because he is the murderer. Some ppl are going to get stuck on 'just because he's a cheater doesn't mean he's a murderer' and they're going to completely gloss over all his lies and evasiveness. Because on a visceral level ppl can relate to him not wanting his wife to find out about his cheating. But it's obvious he had no regard for his wife or any of these women and children he fathered.
 
What do you all make of the jury not asking any questions of Segura? They only asked one question at the last trial. And we know how that ended. Could be they believe him to be innocent already or they think he's a lying liar and they're not going to waste their time.
 
Weki said:
What do you all make of the jury not asking any questions of Segura? They only asked one question at the last trial. And we know how that ended. Could be they believe him to be innocent already or they think he's a lying liar and they're not going to waste their time.
Click to expand...
I am baffled by it! They haven't asked many questions of any of the defense witnesses though. In the long run I really don't think it means anything.
 
BeachSky said:
Did I hear him say ( when the judge told him be quiet, quiet now! )
Segura said something like - I’m a grown man! to the judge.
Wow. His temper!He’s a hot head!
He said over & over he - would never kill a child
or children, he would never kill children(after a long pause added ) or Brandi.
Edited to add- Which does make me wonder if the kids were collateral damage. Esp because his son was killed differently and Segura stated today that the boy was under the girls in the tub ( that’s prob where he put him so he did not have to look at what he did!)

I felt like the prosecutor was trying to point out the -truth in his lies-.
The part about he knew the girls drown. Which actually no one knew -how - they died the time of interview.
And him calling Brandi a -survivor- when in fact Brandi survived the gunshots only to be beat to death.

Because Segura brought up - then why don’t I have any bruises?
to the prosecutor. IMO he’s pretty proud of himself in the premeditation area. I’m thinking he not only wore gloves but other protective wear. Like a Dexter kill.
He gives himself away. I hope the jury sees this...he thinks he’s smarter,more important than everyone in that court room. When the judge admonished him I thought - MG, he would hurt the judge if he had access!
MOO
Click to expand...
I agree. It is so obvious. Caught in his truths and lies in that cross.

Survivor? Considering the circumstance the worse word in the dictionary to use. I think he wants to say Fighter since she fought so hard.

He is so smug and he did have minor injuries and scratches. A woman and children are no match for any man. He is a big guy.

He is a career criminal. His record dates back to 1999. A lot of his cases were plead out and some were never pursued by the State. It is telling on a theft charge he is ordered to anger management classes.
 
I wish pros had made the point much clearer on the fact that he went willingly to a gun fight. He wasn't in a self-defensive position when he decided to back his cousin and insert himself into that situation. He could argue that his cousin was in danger and it was defense of others and then you could say well why didn't he call the police? But the fact that he drove all the way with a gun and engaged in a shoot out and then tried to pass it off as self-defense is ludicrous. Then when asked for the name of the cousin he said "why do you need that?" This is an innocent man?? Why do you need that? You've just spent 8 years in jail but you're still reluctant to give information.

Then when asked why he wouldn't kill his son. He answers "I have no reason to." Not I loved him. I'm not a killer. "I have no reason to." Essentially he's arguing. An innocent person doesn't try to argue and say why would I do it, it would be a matter of fact, NO! I didn't do it.

It would be like someone accusing me of stealing their car and my response being "I have no reason to steal your car." No, my response if I'm innocent is going to be an emphatic No and shock at even being accused of such a thing. I didn't steal your car, period!
 
Weki said:
I wish pros had made the point much clearer on the fact that he went willingly to a gun fight. He wasn't in a self-defensive position when he decided to back his cousin and insert himself into that situation. He could argue that his cousin was in danger and it was defense of others and then you could say well why didn't he call the police? But the fact that he drove all the way with a gun and engaged in a shoot out and then tried to pass it off as self-defense is ludicrous. Then when asked for the name of the cousin he said "why do you need that?" This is an innocent man?? Why do you need that? You've just spent 8 years in jail but you're still reluctant to give information.

Then when asked why he wouldn't kill his son. He answers "I have no reason to." Not I loved him. I'm not a killer. "I have no reason to." Essentially he's arguing. An innocent person doesn't try to argue and say why would I do it, it would be a matter of fact, NO! I didn't do it.

It would be like someone accusing me of stealing their car and my response being "I have no reason to steal your car." No, my response if I'm innocent is going to be an emphatic No and shock at even being accused of such a thing. I didn't steal your car, period!
Click to expand...
imo the only true "emotion" I have seen so far is the outburst towards the judge and his attitude on cross. I am sure he hated that a woman was questioning him. I even sensed a little animosity towards his wife regarding the timing of the divorce.

also in the questioning the day after he said he always wanted a girl seems like these children were replaceable to him. Who says that shortly after being told your son has been murdered?

he is the male version of Casey Anthony.

It's a damn shame that bullet in Mississippi did not kill him.
 
DTPeke said:
imo the only true "emotion" I have seen so far is the outburst towards the judge and his attitude on cross. I am sure he hated that a woman was questioning him. I even sensed a little animosity towards his wife regarding the timing of the divorce.

also in the questioning the day after he said he always wanted a girl seems like these children were replaceable to him. Who says that shortly after being told your son has been murdered?

he is the male version of Casey Anthony.

It's a damn shame that bullet in Mississippi did not kill him.
Click to expand...

BBM.

No doubt!! He was seething. Great strategy on the state's part! He tried to play off his wife leaving him by saying he had already found someone else who made him happy. What a load of crap! He wants to be viewed as a player. He's proud of that. Even though he's trying to use it to gain sympathy with the jury now like he's ashamed. I pray the jury can see through him after today!!
 
Weki said:
BBM.

No doubt!! He was seething. Great strategy on the state's part! He tried to play off his wife leaving him by saying he had already found someone else who made him happy. What a load of crap! He wants to be viewed as a player. He's proud of that. Even though he's trying to use it to gain sympathy with the jury now like he's ashamed. I pray the jury can see through him after today!!
Click to expand...
All of it is a load of crap.

Big playboy (he can't maintain relationships)
Sex Addict (man *advertiser censored*)

I am surprised it took so long for his wife to divorce him.

Going back though and reviewing some of his interviews I do sense a hint of jealousy in his relationships. Could this be the real trigger piled on top of ALL the other issues regarding child support/money?

Tyra's restraining order alleges his behavior was kind of stalker-ish, driving by her house, slashing her tires and he ends up in a fight with her guy friend.

On the stand he mentions Brandi has company coming over. Of course I don't believe half what he says but there is usually a little truth in a lie.
 

Henry Segura Retrial Day 4 - Henry Segura Takes the Stand Part 2

(There will be more video's they just are not uploaded yet.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 222 more.
Total: 3,477 (members: 223, guests: 3,254)

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
3,254
Total visitors
3,477
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,468
Messages
18,172,610
Members
232,607
Latest member
Stegs
Back
Top