gorealtors
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 50
I certainly hope the jury believed Gracie. But I am utterly amazed at how different you guys are treating her testimony versus RZs testimony in the BC trial.
Who is RZ?
I certainly hope the jury believed Gracie. But I am utterly amazed at how different you guys are treating her testimony versus RZs testimony in the BC trial.
Found this at WRAL:http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=ral&Forum=340&Topic=10099Does anyone remember how much gas was a gallon back in Nov 2006 ?
I certainly hope the jury believed Gracie. But I am utterly amazed at how different you guys are treating her testimony versus RZs testimony in the BC trial.
Both husbands
- had not airtight alibis
- cell phone usage that was different than before
- would not go to police station to do interviews
- behaviors that others found strange, antisocial
- not grieving
- tried to limit contact of minor children with inlaws and maternal relatives
- passive/aggressive and occasionally volatile dealings with wife/victim
- affairs
- headed for divorce or at least separation
- computer usage, specifically Google searches which point to them as the perp
- missing clothes & shoes from night/day of murder
I certainly hope the jury believed Gracie. But I am utterly amazed at how different you guys are treating her testimony versus RZs testimony in the BC trial.
OT -- Fran, if I may be so bold as to ask -- what does your daughter do? And if you don't want to answer, ain't no thang... Thanks...![]()
That's not true. The husband in both cases were obvious suspects.
'Is the person here in the courtroom today?' "Yes 'mam, he's the vampire with red hair, sitting over there at the table, blinking constantly...."
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.