I keep hoping for more out of these witnesses...but at this point, I am betting this is how the whole case is going to go.
I was with you guys on a conviction, but questioned how they would get it.
I think the DA's office is tanking their case. If DD is any representative of how it's going to go....I think we are going to see a whole lot of inconclusive BS.
I stand by the idea that if I were on the jury, hearing this case, I would have to have DNA and/or a spoofed call (and proof thereof) for 1st degree. OR a litany of google searches related to poison, strangulation, etc. That would help.
BTW, the live feed doesn't do justice to how one-sided and inflated all of this feels in the court room. The defense is doing an excellent job so far capitalizing on what loose ends the DA is leaving lying around.
Were any of this DD stuff convincing, I would be leaning the opposite way, but it feels like a nosy/angry neighbor and the jury is nodding off. Because it doesn't sound like it's true. It sounds hollow and desperate. Not a keen way to kick off a trial, whether he did it or not.
The finance stuff is ridiculous, but it's just going to tick the jury off. Not in the prosecutions favor. Which is why I kept saying (two years ago) that the argument would almost have to be second degree. I even think they could have gone for Felony Murder here, arguing that he had committed felony assault in the domestic violence form, therefore accidentally killing her. Treated the same as first degree. But, they are going to try and convince these folks that he just snapped and PLANNED a murder? No way.
Also, you guys who are arguing he was "controlling" the finances and what not. Well...somebody should have been. He (in my opinion) was not doing enough to keep their dollars straight. There was a LOT more that should have been going on in order to keep both of their sides in order there. Again, financial devastation over time, man snaps, chokes/strangles wife, go for Felony murder or second degree. I would buy that for this case way more than I am buying what they are trying to sell me.
I think the guys a weirdo. I think the marriage was a shambles. I think they had no idea what they were doing or how to get out of it. I don't think Nancy had thought any more ahead than he had.
The problem with this over reach is the same as the Raymond Cook case. You can't "prove" a drunk person was intending to commit harm. You can't even prove they intended to drive. That's the whole point of it being a problem proving them drunk. They were drunk. They had poor judgement that lead to someone's death. Felony by motor vehicle? Yes. Murder with malicious intent? No. Moron? Yes. Cold-blooded killer? Yes, but by default of being a moron. Not second degree.
With this logic, we could point the finger at Alice Stubbs (NC's divorce lawyer) and say she made him snap, which made him kill her, which makes her a conspirator.