- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 5,241
- Reaction score
- 33,190
So he knew Tylee and JJ were in his backyard!!Not while they were searching his property. He knew he was going down.
So he knew Tylee and JJ were in his backyard!!Not while they were searching his property. He knew he was going down.
Oh you think he had more money in a different account?but wouldn't he still have the $400K left in his account ( While back, it was reported he received 430K LI from that policy.)
This was probably the biggest sum he'd ever given any of the kids, ever. Trying to buy them? Just a thought
I think the decision to kill JJ was made when Lori found out she wasn’t the beneficiary to Charles life insurance. Whether she would have abandoned him/given him to Kay I’m still on the fence about as Lori would not have been entitled to the SS for JJ had she abandoned him.Everybody who was killed also brought a financial benefit to both. ( and we just heard today that Chad couldn't/wouldn't even purchase his own air tickets or burner phones)
also.....
Not sure who originated the ' rule' but when LV tried to recruit her old Hawaiian pal to the group, she told the friend ' you'll have to leave your kids behind.'
This might have been Chad's rule?
edited to add: I still haven't seen the Netflix & I guess we'll never know the truth but I'd still like to know when they switched from a plan to abandon the kids to a plan to totally eliminate them. (Nate Eaton reported today that they found the last refill for JJ's medication was in January 2019. (Is that related to a plan to kill or some other reason?)
InterestingI think defence made it clear from their very awkward opening speech that they (counsel) aren't saying she didn't do it, they're saying make sure the state's evidence proves it.
Just shows how quickly he/they blew through money!but wouldn't he still have the $400K left in his account ( While back, it was reported he received 430K LI from that policy.)
This was probably the biggest sum he'd ever given any of the kids, ever. Trying to buy them? Just a thought
I would add that it wouldn't have been possible to fool or trick Tylee about about JJ's zombification/ disappearance.I think the decision to kill JJ was made when Lori found out she wasn’t the beneficiary to Charles life insurance. Whether she would have abandoned him/given him to Kay I’m still on the fence about as Lori would not have been entitled to the SS for JJ had she abandoned him.
As for Tylee, IMO ( at the moment) she knew too much and as she got older, she would have been less easy to control. IMO, Tylee was not drinking the koolaid that Lori was offering.
Throw into the mix that Chad was done with child rearing and wasn’t going to do it again, and you have two dead children as a result.
Under US law, (IANAL, though) defendants don’t have to prove they didn’t do it; the prosecution has to prove they *did*. All the defendant has to do is defend, which is where things like alibis and character witnesses come in.That could explain what you’ve noticed. Real lawyers, speak up, pleaseI think defence made it clear from their very awkward opening speech that they (counsel) aren't saying she didn't do it, they're saying make sure the state's evidence proves it.
I think they're just constructing the broad outlines of the case so far: what the individuals around the conspirators knew and didn't know, the sequence of events. IMO they haven't yet introduced most of the forensic or more direct evidence about the crimes. I think they want the jury to be thoroughly familiar with the big picture, before they introduce the technical evidence (tho the financial details begin that process, IMO.
Of course. My post didn't say that wasn't the case.Under US law, defendants don’t have to prove they didn’t do it; the prosecution has to prove they *did*. All the defendant has to do is defend, which is where things like alibis and character witnesses come in.