Cool Cats
GRUMPY CAT RULES
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 11,590
- Reaction score
- 87,233
I guess they can try to say he could not stop them or if he did try he feared that BW would kill him. That he had no intent of ever killing anyone etc. They have to try something and if hey are going to say he had no intent I cannot think of any other way they can try to spin that.
There is a lot about complicity and intent in legal information but it is confusing.
I think the whole jury is going to say to each other that if George had no intent to kill 8 people, why did he go along and do nothing while being right there, allowing his brother and dad to kill 8 people?
I don't think the jury will buy this "George is innocent because he himself had no intent to kill 8 people."
Besides the jury will see his ACTIONS.
No intent but you buy a truck to be used in 8 murders?
No intent but you go along to the murder scenes while your dad knocks on Chris's door pretending to do a drug deal?
No intent but the best shoe print expert along with your own mother's testimony places you right in the middle of the murder scene where 2 people are killed?
No intent but your doing practice shooting checking to see how good suppressors work?
No intent when it was said in a hearing that Jake himself says George was involved with the crimes?
No intent when it was said George voted for the murders?
It was said George didn't shoot anyone yet also said they don't know who shot who.
At any rate, the jury will judge George's ACTIONS AND THINGS HE HAS SAID and the intent defense will go out the window.
In my opinion.
Last edited: