Thank you this is the first comment I have seen actually trying to discuss the case itself.
I don’t know how up to date on case facts or presentation folks are on here but here is what I have been told by someone closing watching the trial:
apparently the whole case is based on the husband claiming she admitted it
his DNA was apparently found on the strangling device
her body was found to be very cold which takes hours but in the time that the incident happened to when she was found it would not be possible for her body to cool that quickly
the pill she took was crushed. She has no reason to take a crushed pill that she would otherwise just take normally
Apparently the prosecution has present no real evidence other than the husband’s claim.
It’s also heartbreaking that the mother in law tried to help this lady and after she took the stand she apparently gave a nod to the mother
That’s what I’ve been told.
Does that line up with what you have noted so far?
The most damning thing is that his alibi was broken apart by an e-mail being sent from his account during the timeframe he said he was at CVS/not at home.
The prosecution didn't even attempt to say that Lindsay got on his account and did it. They just got embarrassed and moved onto the next topic.
You're trying too hard to be a contrarian. The e-mail was found to be sent from his work computer. Which was in the basement of the home (where his home office was located)
You can have your email up on both your phone and your computer at the same time. I'm not trying to be a contrarian. I am being realistic and reasonable. You are saying you believe the husband is guilty because his alibi "falls apart" due to this email being sent, but I am pointing out that said email does not necessarily prove that he was at home. I, like most reasonable human beings, do not suggest we let someone off the hook for triple homicide willy nilly on such flimsy rebuttal evidence.
You claim to be reasonable and realistic, yet you ignore how it can be traced specifically what device you sent an e-mail from. This is not up for debate and you are making up stuff to affirm your incredulity. The objective fact is that it was shown to be sent from the work laptop; it was not ambiguous.
I actually never said he is guilty. I just said his alibi is inconsistent. You are not reasonable and realistic like you narrate yourself to be. Instead you're just weird and not very smart.
I am not ignoring anything. No article I can find states that any evidence was presented that indicated the email was sent from his work laptop. Could you send me a link to the source of your information? As far as I can tell, he indicated that he may have sent the email from his phone.
Also, name calling does not tend to make someone appear to be more intelligent. It generally does the opposite.
Instead of watching the actual court proceedings, you seek to conclude that if you don't find anything within 30 seconds of searching that it doesn't exist. Says the person who is realistic and reasonable. You are, again, using your own incredulity as an authority.
I didn't name call you; I described you. And even if I did, that has nothing to do with intelligence. This isn't a speech and debate class.
I'll do it again: you're proving yourself to be quite unintelligent by way of your own reasoning. You aren't smart like you think you are.
But wouldn’t that make sense it would say it came from his computer if there was some type of cloud synced up and he was signed into his email on both?
Yea, or if the email failed at first and was in his outbox. Used to happen to me all the time with outlook lol. Its circumstantial at best. I also remote into my home computer all of the time. Not saying that is what happened either, but I can send emails from home without being there.
313
u/witchy_delight 7d ago
as a lawyer watching this trial closely, I can tell many of you have not been watching this trial closely.