Football player accused of killing girlfriend asked pals to hide gun

[basquebromance]

he's ripped so i hope he doesn't go to jail!

https://nypost.com/2018/05/04/footb...utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

 

[emilynghiem]

This reminds me of a case where Robert Durst got out of murder charges
after admitting he killed the victim, but argued he discarded the dead body out of fear afterwards.

How did Robert Durst chop up a body and not get convicted for murder?

When Durst killed 71 year old Morris Black, and chopped up the body to hide the evidence,
his legal defense successfully argued that Durst didn't intend to kill Black, but it happened
during a struggle over a gun in self defense. And the reason Durst hid the evidence was he
"panicked" out of fear of getting prosecuted for murder -- similar to this case with Riley Gaul.

It is totally feasible, given Gaul's previous two attempts to "fake" a disturbance or crime
to "win back" the sympathy of his ex-girlfriend, that he shot at her house near her bedroom
to try to "scare" her into calling him for help. Then it makes sense he panicked when he
found out she had actually been killed, and feared getting charged with murder, panicked
and took desperate measures to cover up and hide as much as he could, which only made him look worse.

In Durst's case, as a billionaire, he could afford the best legal defense who outmaneuvered the DA
similar to the OJ Simpson case where the DA made weak arguments and didn't pursue the murder
charges aggressively enough because they thought they had a clear cut case and didn't expect to lose.

In this case of Gaul and Walker, the public sympathy is more on the side of the murder victim,
and Gaul does not have the financial or political clout to "buy his way" out of the public pressure to convict him of murder.

If Durst could get out of murder charges, Gaul should be able to, given the fact you cannot prove intent unless he confesses
that he intended to kill her or made some statements to others that they can prove by corroborating testimony.

Given there is no proof that he intended to kill her instead of scare her back into his arms,
he "technically" should be able to establish "reasonable doubt" based on his actions in the previous
days, trying to fake crimes from kidnapping to a stranger stalking her, where his intent was to get her attention
and compel her to call and talk with him so he could try to stay in her life and keep a relationship or chance at it.

However, Durst had more legal weight to push that argument and introduce DOUBT in the minds of the jurors.
I don't know if they are are going to be as sympathetic with Riley Gaul.
With Durst, there was not as much sympathy for the 71 year old man who was the alleged murder victim;
but with Emma Walker, the sympathy for her and her parents is likely going to outweigh sympathy for the defense.

Even though I would call it pretty even to believe either side, to argue for either murder if you believe he was trying to kill her
so if "he couldn't have her, nobody could" or for "reckless homicide" or "involuntary manslaughter" if he only intended to scare her,
given any doubt or lack of sold established proof such as a statement he intended to kill her,
legally the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution, so that Riley Gaul would get convicted
of "reckless homicide" instead of murder.

I just sense that given the human element of sympathy, for one side more than the other, the jurors may likely vote for a murder conviction
because of the victim in this case and greater sympathy and support for the family who testified on her behalf.

Riley Gaul might win if he had the kind of lawyers that Robert Durst or Casey Anthony had.

 

[dcbl]

he's ripped so i hope he doesn't go to jail!

 

[GHook93]

he's ripped so i hope he doesn't go to jail!

https://nypost.com/2018/05/04/footb...utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

Nice! He is now trading in a GF would be abuse, for a BF who will abuse him


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com