Quote:
Originally Posted by darklord700
1. Damage to the rear bumper on the death car matches the damage to the front end of the Lexus, broken pieces of the Lexus headlight found at the scene prove that the death car was rammed by the Lexus before falling into the river. The son admitted to ramming the death car with the Lexus "by mistake".
2. The police testified that all the bodies when first found in the river inside the car lied in a wired way, that they were on top of each other. The police cannot identify who's driving the car and there was no sign of trying to escape by the victims even though one front passenger window is fully down. Strong evident that the four victims were either dead or incapacitated when the death car plunges into the water.
3. The son after ramming the death car into the river, watching 4 of his family members drown, didn't call 911 or even tell their parents but drove back to Montreal because he had some urgent business to take care of. What the son did in Montreal was staging a fake car accident to mask the damage to the front end of the Lexus.
4. This one is funny. The Dad admitted to being at the crime scene watching the death car plunging into the river on June 30, 2009 2AM. The very next morning, not 12 hours after knowing that 4 people were dead, the Dad was trying to get a deal on a motel room.
5. Earlier on the Jun 30, 2009 evening, just a few hours before the killing happened, a motel manager asked the son and dad rooms for how many people, they answered for 6 people.
Let's see, 7 children, 2 wives and the dad, the clan had 10 people at the beginning of the trip. But the dad and son knew there'll only be 6 left at the end of the evening before 4 of them were dead.
Many times the 3 accused admitted to being at the crime scene, knowing about what happened, only later to recant their statements at the trial, they are just too numerous to list. It'll be up to the jury what version of the truth to believe in.
|
The damage argument doesn't fly for me, at least not for first degree murder, the possibility of an accident followed by panic is strong enough to keep me from getting beyond a reasonable doubt. Now the addition of the potential incapacity would be big, but unless you didn't include it (and it's obviously unfair of me to expect you to give me a detailed list of the evidence) there seems to be a theory there but no actual concrete evidence to tie it together.
The rest of the evidence is all quite circumstantial, and I don't put a lot of faith in recanted statements. I think they likely did it, but I don't know that I'd be overly confident in a guilty verdict without something that makes it more certain that this wasn't an accident followed by bizarre behavior due to the trauma. It just seems that there's enough there for a jury to grab onto in terms of reasonable doubt.