Detectives Track Down A Secret Child Murderer | The Prosecutors |  

ABSOLUTELY, WELL SAID HUN 👏🏽 👍🏾 ❤

@@nireland1742 good morning. Thank you!

Russians are trying to get to oil

Russo

​@@Hannah_The_Elon_Jew What's "Russo" mean???

This coming summer a father will go on trial for shooting and killing his three young sons. Search here for the bodycam footage of the police when they got to the house. I don't remember his name.

That's true but most times the father goes for visitation through the court system not because they have any love for the child, but to despite the mother, and judges lack of ethical understanding goes by law

I wonder if she saw him ‘hug’ her 😢 and couldn’t process it.

She was repeating what she's heard

@@sweetcocoa She heard right, smart girl

What a beautiful child Renee is

Why capitalize almost everything?

@@Flamsterettewhat a strange thing to comment on

@@shannilmerrill426 What a strange thing to NOT comment on, you mean.

²² 1

@@carolinelynn4381 What?

Emelita was scamming him for a green card, leaving her child with him so she could go out and party.

In my experience, when you lose a child, there’s a part of you that never stops weeping

My parents lost two. I remember them, but only vaguely.

Lose

And it doesn't matter whether the lost child is an actual child or an adult, it's still the same

​@@denisemoore6134 same, how many siblings do you have?

@@denisemoore6134I am sorry .

A mother or father are both capable. Sadly. The ones I know, are ALL at getting back at their spouse. 😢

If there is actually such a thing. It’s never been proven, which makes it more sad and fucked up.

​@@MissChrissyM1wow

Money 🤑💰

@@MissChrissyM1 It's been proven, he's locked up.

😘😋✌

In addition, he murdered his three wives! He does not stop!

Isn't that crazy? Forget justice, to the attorney it's all about winning. I know he was guilty, but they didn't have enough evidence???

The lawyer was just doing his job. Or do you want to suggest that some people don't deserve a fair trial?

If they can't afford a lawyer the Court appoints one for them . These lawyers have no choice but to try and defend the criminals even if they know they client is guilty.

Unless he is sharing with another Wife killer.They can share their gruesome stories.

😊😊😊😊😊​@@trishaprett7721

😊😊

guaranteed Inmates hate sex and child abusers I worked as an RN in jail and prison we have to separate them…of course sometimes we make mistakes

They always do

Is…….very, guilty.

Ah,a twist on the old parent line…

He's a serial killer.

What does tuat mean?

🤦‍♀️😔

Takes a certain personality type to choose that career.One must remember that innocent people are at times charged with crimes,so defence lawyers are essential for a fair judicial system.

@@trishaprett7721 Quite right. The defense attorney's job is to ensure a fair trial. That means overcoming emotional biases in the jury and reminding them when evidence is circumstantial rather than hard. It can sometimes mean pointing out flaws in an investigation or even misconduct by the prosecutor. If you're a court appointed attorney (thus an attorney working for the DA), this can involve pointing such out about your coworkers or even *boss.* My brother-in-law studied to be an attorney and was involved in defending someone in a case where the evidence was badly handled and the defense wasn't even allowed to see the evidence in person before the trial. I found out about it because I'm trained as a commercial artist and my brother-in-law wanted to know if there was any chance of enhancing this photo of a knife so he could figure out what the trademark was. I said the photo sucked, like it'd been taken at the lowest resolution with no attempt at focusing in poor lighting.

👍👍👍👍👍👍

Agree! They are evil !

​@@juulclark2651 You really believe no one is ever innocent and they don't have a right to a defense?

Sadly it happens alot especially with custody stuff

Agreed. Horrible!

Many many fathers love money more than their childten.

Chris Watts did

It's a bit unusual that it was the father. It tends to be the mother when it's for financial gain, or out of spite.

Yes, wrong for any amount of money. Small hands can change the world. The poor little darling wasn't even given the chance to show the world what she could do

Innocent defenseless kids are the victims of broken marriages Divorce is between both spouses, But innocent childrens has to pay for their sins..😢

Except that the first autopsy missed the cause of death that evil sob should have been put in prison then..not have had any amount of freedom..just so sad..she was a child who wasn't sick or anything..guess it just maks no sense at all

Either intensionally, unqualified or they just didn’t do their jobs which either way is sickening.

Incompetence its disgusting

Sloppy work by coroner

I agree 100%. That coroner never wanted to do his work, just took a shortcut.

Qqqqqq 😊​@@Aleka1943

😅😅

I agree

@@Aleka1943iii

Big casket for a little baby.

Why should he pay child support on a kid he didn’t want?

​@@AmyStuffingsits the law. If you cause it's existence you pay for it. If you don't want one you keep it in your pants.

​@AmyStuffings If he didn't "want" a child, he shouldn't have had unprotected sex. They had the child together. Why should he get away with helping , and leave the mum with everything?! How old are you? He partook in the "fun", he can help with the result🙄

@@trishmcl9055 the large silver part on the outside was a covering for the little white coffin.

Oh ya!

That sentence will either be very short or very lonely.... Either way, perfect!

Yes

Lower than Subhuman 😢

@@JSWolfethat’s a ton murdered human life you have on your hands… really no remorse for that many murders?

The case was completely circumstantial .

They didn’t do it properly.

@@pinklion2237If they even did it at all.

Because they did a sh*tty job.

Certainly was. Revenge. 😢

Bit slow.

28 and 2 weeks? Are these your biological children?

That's my opinion too 👍

Neither would I .

She wanted child support money. She by choosing that ensured his right to visitation. You can't demand money to raise a child and not let them see the child without a solid reason.

He shouldn't have gotten her pregnant if he didn't want a baby

@@Joelswinger34 she knew he didn't want the child, she did. Why shouldn't she be required to pay the bills herself or give the baby up for adoption?

And it's the defense attorney's job to remind the jury that the officer is *not* "a psychologist or a mind reader," and so not qualified to say for certain. While the officer *did* qualify his statement with "seemed" and "my opinion," it's easy for people to ignore those parts. The attorney would feel "offended" that a non-expert opinion like that would be allowed into consideration. After all, his job is to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial. A job that's already difficult because of the nature of the crime.

@@brigidtheirish Considering the defendant eventually admitted to the crime, we now know for a fact that the officer's impression was spot on accurate. For justice to prevail, juries need as much truthful information, relevant to the case, as possible.. including the honest impressions and observations of first responders. The responding police officer simply stated what he saw as it appeared to him. It would have been dishonest of him to leave out the part of the story in which the father behaved in an over the top and theatrical manner. Most of us prefer our police officers to be observant. Only in a totally corrupt and morally bankrupt society is the purpose of a defense attorney to prevent murderers from facing justice. In a healthy society with a truly just justice system, truth and justice are the shared goals of both sides of the court room. Unfortunately, in western countries, truth and justice are CLEARLY NOT factors in our justice systems. Although both sides can be guilty of this disgusting behavior, it's become the expected standard for defense attorneys.

@@yankeetherebel Yes. But that couldn't be said for certain at the time of the trial. The defense attorney was doing his job trying to ensure only strictly factual, non-prejudicial evidence was presented to the jury for consideration.

@@brigidtheirish If the defense attorneys only presented information that was strictly factual (provable), I would agree with you. However... For the vast majority of cases, including this one, defense teams build their whole defense around entirely made-up hypothetical theories that are so incredibly outlandish that juries rarely consider them to be within the realm of possibility or reason (aka reasonable doubt). In fact, if the defense attorney wants to play the "offended" game, he should know that it's probably offensive to assume that jurors are stupid enough to buy into their nonsense.

@@yankeetherebel How do you know that it's the "vast majority of cases" and what about this case was built about "entirely made-up hypothetical theories that are so incredibly outlandish that juries rarely consider them to be within the realm of possibility or reason?"

Doctoring evidence is stupid . Adding that word , “not “ , was wrong .

@@BlackStump172she should really have either,got him to initial it,or added a note explaining that she (the older girl) was still asleep.

It’s a game to them, not real life. They lack a basic level of empathy. It’s disgusting really. These are people’s lives.

​@Katiee0592 it's what they have to do. They have to build a solid defense for the defendant so that the trial is fair. There's a lot of innocent people that get locked up due to defense lawyers that don't take their jobs seriously. Technically speaking there really WASN'T enough evidence to convict the dad for life in prison. The only evidence was the second autopsy which only told us that a homicide occurred. The problem with this is that the second autopsy occurred after 8 months of decomposition. The second autopsy was also only observed by the Doctor preforming the autopsy and the detective building a case against the dad, so there could be bias due to the detective being in the room. It's also difficult to determine which autopsy yielded correct results. To say the first autopsy was done incorrectly discredits the first technician. This would also discredit other autopsies that they have preformed. This could mean all autopsies preformed by that first technician are now questionable. Besides this, there is unfortunately no other evidence. If the victim had ended using a crossed arm technique they proposed, then there would have to be skin cells from the attackers arms on the victims shirt. In addition to this, there was no evidence of a struggle or skin cells under the nails or anything on the victim. If everyone else was sleeping, this would mean the victim didn't scream or alert anyone while she was being attacked. She was only 2 so a struggle would not been successful but a struggle would still occur. Also, no bones were broken. A child's ribcage is very fragile, it would be difficult to not break a bone using the cross arm technique that was proposed to end the victim. The evidence that was presented in court were all charater statements given by people that don't like him, an officer and a child. Obviously the ex wife will have a negative charater statement. The police officer saying his crying was fake is an opinion, this is presumably the first time the officer met him so he cannot definitely say he was fake crying when he does not know how that man would grief. Children are impressionable, if everyone is saying he did it then the child will say it as well especially if they do not know who did it. All this to say, unfortunately this case should have been thrown out. The prosecution presented no evidence that points to the dad being responsible. They also tampered with his previous statement which isn't a good look. Using charater statements to direct the jury to a guilty verdict instead of collecting actual evidence is horrendous. I'm not saying he is not guilty but this is a horrible case. If the first autopsy was correct and the child passed during the night then an innocent man was just imprisoned for life.

@@Kolazola No, this isn’t necessary. They don’t have to make up grossly far fetched nonsense to defend their clients. Combating the facts presented by the prosecution and offering a defensive perspective that aligns with reality and evidence is one thing. This is making a mockery of our court and justice systems.

So sorry for your loss. 🙏🏽

No , God will not forgive him , unless he actually repents . That does not seem likely .

He will go through the same pain in his next life... Karmic debts...

Why God forgive him?

Sorry for your loss ❤

She died at a visit with him... and he paid the policy.

The insurance company wouldn’t know he didn’t want the child. As he paid the policy he gets the money.

Can we please get over the notion that men who initially don't want a child to be his that he is going to be a bad father. plenty of men get trapped into raising other men's children and few want children via a mate they don't get along with.

@@DK-Coffee if someone is a bad father to one child they are a bad father to that child… doesn’t matter if he’s good to other kids he’s a bad father in that situation…

@@diosalanegra1958 no idea what you are commenting on . As I never made comments excusing him being bad to the one. But he didn't want to be stick paying for her to a hostile ex

Is it better to lose the case and they get off? A good example of appropriately using a plea deal is a cold case, little evidence, 15 years have passed. Det go back and talk to people again , and one person gives them a name, saying yea this person did it . But all evidence is circumstantial, give 20 year plea and the person gets out in 10-12. Not worth losing the case after all that time and the family going thru the agony of trial. Happens all the time. But if that person interviewed had told cops the perps name 15 years earlier, theyd prob get a life without parole. My point is, weak evidence is a very legit reason for lesser sentences

@@kenw2225 If the evidence is insufficient, then people should get off. You think about this with hindsight. The usual reason people "get off" because of a lack of evidence is that they're innocent. I know you're quite happy with plea deals in the US. We're not quite as keen on it, as it increases the risk that innocents are convicted.

​@@danhanqvist4237 yet this man confessed. the doctor who did the second autopsy found concrete evidence of blood in parts of muscles where it shouldn't of been. thats pretty concrete and proves murder. the original doctor didn't check the Lower back of this young girl because this type of suffocating is not usual and doctors probably rarely ever see it. most ppl are suffocated by the throat. this father is extra disgusting considering he had to hatch the plan to suffocate his daughter in a more unrevealing way. the second doctor is just as credible if not more because he checked the entire body. he knew it was murder. and it what brought this man to justice. the first doctor seemed to be just checking off boxes more of just doing his job type of autopsy. the old bag didn't check this child as thoroughly as he acts like he did. also the law is full of loopholes. murderers get let off all the time, from simple mistakes that the defense will exploit. the entire point of a lawyer. to manipulate the justice system to get what they want. what your talking about is some sort of morally perfect justice system that doesn't even exist in reality. you know it and I know it so its ether your just fishing for attention or your stupid and don't understand the law at all. the law is far from perfect and as we see everyday. drug dealers get 10+ years and a child rapist gets off in 3 years and just has to file as a child predator. or someone getting 25 years for 2nd degree murder and someone getting 10 for pre planed intentional murder. the verdict of the law depends on many things, the different ppl in the jury have different experiences and no matter what will always have some sort of bias based on personal life experience. the lawyers can exploit different loopholes for different crimes. or maybe the judge just didn't get his dick sucked that night. then you better watch out.

Me too 😅

Because he wasn't going to kill the other kids

He didn’t want her to begin with .. so he figured he could gain financially as well

Didn't he say something about having a couple of thousand on them through his work policy?

Because they weren't looking for signs of murder.

the original doctor didn't check the Lower back of this young girl because this type of suffocating is not usual and doctors probably rarely ever see it. most ppl are suffocated by the throat. this father is extra disgusting considering he had to hatch the plan to suffocate his daughter in a more unrevealing way. the second doctor who performed the second autopsy checked the entire body.(passionate) he knew it was murder. and its what brought this man to justice. the first doctor seemed to be just checking off boxes more of just doing his job type of autopsy. the old bag didn't check this child as thoroughly as he acts like he did. there's a difference when your invested and passionate about your work, the first old bag who performed the first autopsy is probably way passed his passion for the job and it was most likely to him, just another body, just another day of work. you can see this day to day with normal police, some treat ppl innocent until proven guilty like the law should be upheld, (passionate) while other police are just doing a job, harass and give our unlawful tickets and make unlawful arrest. just to be that star on paper with a extra ordinary quota. ( 0 passion just a job)

I agree and know a few

Inquiring and getting are two different things. He actually got it ,she didnt.

The girlfriend enquired,about her own children,because she wanted to find out if he’d taken one out,on a child(Renee).I do wish people would listen.She pretended she wanted one,to get the agent to tell her what she wanted to know.

Its normal to get life insurance on kids when born in some families.

@@DK-Coffee Most financial planners advise their clients not to buy children’s life insurance, unless the child was born with a medical condition that will make it unlikely they’ll be able to qualify for life insurance in the future, or they’ll pass away prematurely from the condition. It would be better to open an account where interest can be earned, that the child can access at age 18.

Child’s coffin shown was a re-enactment. The larger was actual video of it being brought up.

He knew she was dead hours before , so why would he try to hring back a dead for hours kid he killed?