He would've gotten convicted because The DA could of easily made the argument, that the defendants entire DVD scheme was simply an extremely desperate attempt on getting off. let's go through some of the arguments he would've most likely went through.
Their is so many ways to destroy this dvd defense its not even funny.
Because the DVD scheme by its very nature is meant to misinform, and raise doubt. It's contents were not made without prejudicial intent. he could argue the dvd wasn't made out of some neutral endeavor to expose corruption it was made with the intent on getting a murderer off.
The contents of the DVD didn't contain any evidence of his innocents, we see no picture of his LEG without a bite mark, before the dog is bought.
We see no evidence that the dog actually bit him within the video, merely he came out of a room and stated the fact (the movie we see) I guess the more logical arguement would be all we see is his leg with a bite pictured next to a news paper the days after the murder. Not a single picture of his unbitten leg post murder date.
The Defendent having ruined his cloths and knife and favorite shoes via the blood of the victim was forced to purchase them all again.
He could argue that no reasonable person would intentionally place themselves within a murder investigation, and if someone did how can we even trust what they say. When their entire point is nothing outside malicious misleading. Their alleged actions would've put an entire police investigation off, wasted hounded of thousands of tax payer money, and allowed a murder more time to escape and cover their tracks. Would any reasonable person do this??? or is it more likely they picked this particular investigation and homicide, because they infact did it themselves.
We found blood evidence on his cloths, he says he ripped off the tags of these newly purchases cloths to make evidence, but if we can't establish the time in which the pants were made/purchased (via the barecode) how can they even state that the pants in question, are from after the murder, how can anyone now prove that???
Their basis for fact can't even be established, infact I'd say the question is only put out their to try and disprove our experts, despite the fact again their theory contains no concrete evidence. our experts stated they found blood on the pants from the victim, concrete DNA evidence, Pants found within his home.
The DVD shows him purchasing a switchblade, illegal in the state, at a price even he seems to think to be way to much for such an illegal dangerous item. How would he know what an illegal switchblade should normally cost if he didn't purchase one before??? (Personal note: this line of questioning would help imply he has a criminality mindset/past)
Again how can he sit their in that DVD and claim that the knife he bought is in fact not the murder weapon the knife we have in our evidence and is infact a different knife when their is no evidence to suggest otherwise. we didn't release a description of the knife except that it was a 4 inch blade.
we found a knife that was a 4 inch blade in his home, that had the same size as the stab wound. now it appears it's the same one in the video, however, isn't it possible isn't reasonable that he simply bought a duplicate for the video it's self.
Infact I'd make the argument he had to pay 350 dollars a price so outrageous because he needed to show he bought the knife, a replica of the murder weapon on video after the fact, to try and show doubt.
However the knife we found was washed, cleaned so we couldn't ascertain any evidence, the defense will claim that is because the knife we have is the second knife From the video, however why would you clean a knife off with bleach??? A brand knew never before used switch blade???
They stated to plant evidence, but why would any reasonable person want to plant evidence of their own guilt within a murder trial??? He claims it's to expose corruption from the prosecution. Their is multiple ways outside of this asinine plan to expose corruption, especially if you're an investigative reporter.
I'd submit he's only using his profession as an albi because he himself lacks one during the time of the murder.
Now the shoes, the defendant claims he got the information from police about the special shoes, shoes that are not sold wide spread, and have infact been discontinued for years. I'd make the argument like everything else on the DVD, the defendant simply replaced his favorite set of shoes, because his old shoes were covered in blood.
Infact ladies and gentlemen of the jury I say that all we have here is a murderer realizing what could lead to his arrest and tried to cover up the evidence of his misdeed with the help of a friend. Because again, his DVD doesn't rebuke a single thing, it doesn't show that evidence was planted, it doesn't show anything, except him replacing items that would've been tainted by the victims blood, and this DVD is a vain attempt to get off.
Because again, what person in their right *beep* mind is going to plant evidence pointing towards themselves in a *beep* murder trail. The penalty is death.
reply
share