Too much. I need the condensed version. At least to get an idea of the basics. Then I might read more.
Ok, I read it. I still kinda’ think she did it or she had help doing it. Money can buy a lot of bad characters.
But I don’t know...
Accused her own daughter, conceding 99% of the states version of the facts???
So I kinda want to know if the spatter found wasn’t blood...what was it?
I can’t really say if she was guilty or not. Its unsettling tho that she had to fight so hard to be heard whilst others are released without charge and raised middle fingers.
There’s a difference between determining the trial wasn’t adequate, and being “found innocent”.
None of these released convicted murderers ever prove they are innocent.
Instead, they create reasonable doubt, almost always decades after the murder.
Notice, also, that the investigating Police officers, detectives, and the prosecutors, never say one word, because they fear being bankrupted by legal fees in civil court.
On the flip side, the released murderers almost never sue for wrongful prosecution, because they have no case.
It’s an interesting story, but it’s CBS. You can’t tell how much of it is outright lies.
"Matthew Troiano: The defense made a strategic decision. … Are we going to dispute that a crime happened in this location or … are we essentially gonna concede that it happened there and then come up with a different narrative of how it happened there? And they chose the latter.Dumbass defense atty Kerry Steigerwalt.And that decision, Troiano says, likely led the defense to point the finger at Claire for the murder."
I believe she did it.
It’s an intriguing story, but as always critical issues are not developed sufficiently to reach conclusions.
Blood evidence is discussed but it’s not clear whether it was shown to be non-human or otherwise excluded the victim’s.
Then there is the big issue of motive. If the couple had split up 1.5 years before, why not simply split up again? What was the evidence that she didn’t want to pay alimony? Would there even BE any alimony (if “Bob” was capable of working as an engineer, a judge might suggest he get a job making more than the wife. The kids were grown, so child support seems a non-issue). There might have been concern about having to sell the home/lose the horse lifestyle — but was proof submitted to the court? As presented in the article, the motive is just thin supposition.
That the sons believed their mother capable of killing their dad is strong stuff. Would be curious to know their opinions now.
I was surprised by this news. From my memory of the case, the only doubt was whether she was strong enough to load his body onto her truck. So who helped her?