First off, sorry for reviving an old thread. I hope this is not against the policies. This is my first post. I recently read that he's getting a new trial, so I assume this can be considered back in the news?
Well, I can not believe he's found guilty, and am very glad to hear that he's getting a new trial. I don't know if he's innocent or not, but I certainly do not think there's enough evidence against him. Nothing they have against him is ironclad.
1. The best evidence against him was the google search. But he didn't actually search how to inflict self injury without killing oneself, he searched some terms like chest, gunshot wounds, etc. a whole 6 months before the killing. I think it's a stretch to take that to mean he was researching about inflicting self injury. I would have been more convinced if they could prove that he had printed an article on the subject, or accessed it again more recently.
2. The blood flow proves NOTHING. she was left on the boardwalk for the longest period of time, so of course the blood would flow down as gravity would. He carried her and dragged her the rest of the time, I assume her body would be on his side so the blood would flow the same direction. Whatever blood came from the initial shooting could have easily been washed off in the water.
3. He only owes $50k. Who in their right mind would kill because of that, when he made over $100k a year??
4. So he has a mistress. Most married men do. Most married men do not kill their wives. The best thing they could say against him from the mistress was that she did not initially know he was married. Why would she? What kind of pompous
would he be if the first thing he tells a woman is that he's married?
5. Nowhere did they indicate that he knows how to use a gun, let alone be very accurate with it.
6. I thought that we can use forensics to determine when someone self inflict an injury. You can tell from the angle the bullet enters and speed (based on the depth of the bullet?) to determine how far away the shooter is. Why was this not done?
7. So the two witnesses who saw the second car couldn't agree on the color. Don't surprise me that much. It was dark. I've often mistaken cars colors in the dark of night. The important piece of info here is that there's another car.
8. He missed the McDonald's, Walgreens and Shell. But it sounds like to me he stopped at the first major intersection. It's not surprising to miss McD, Walgreens and Shell when you are in shock, driving 75 mph. I really don't see how this can be used against him.
I can go on.
