The pity/financial motive was presented by the prosecution, but I think there was more to it. Prosecutors generally avoid portraying victims as complete shits. But Paul was a complete piece of shit. And he was about to become a very expensive piece of shit.
Paul (the son) was set to stand trial for a drunk boating accident that killed a teenager. It was scheduled for just days after he was murdered. He had a history of alcohol abuse, being belligerent, and hitting his girlfriends. He got into lot of trouble that needed to be smoothed over. His family also called him the “little detective” because he liked to go through his father’s things and report any drugs he found. (Alex was abusing pills). That must have brought a mix of shame and hatred.
Alex’s father was also in hospice care at the time. He had been the family’s main fixer and local influencer for years.
My son killed a young woman and her family is coming after us with a costly and embarrassing trial
My dad’s not going to be around to help this time
When I have to pay for the trial they’re going to find out about the finances/crimes
My son, who is a shit, is monitoring my addiction and telling my wife what he finds
My son appears to have no intention of being less of a shit in the future
There were persistent rumors that Maggie was talking to a divorce lawyer, but I think that if they were true this would have been presented at the trial.
So basically, the son was an irritating shit who got into expensive trouble and was going to be bringing more trouble in days to come. He decided to kill Paul to make that go away. Then he added Maggie because at that point, why not? He’d be an obvious suspect if Paul was the only victim. If there are two victims from his family, it looks more like an outside party looking for retribution
Almost got away with it. Or not. Did he almost get away with it?
I understand the murder weapons are unrecovered and the only hard evidence tying him to the scene was the cell phone recording his son made, which was a stake through the heart of the defense, if you ask me.
Sounds like his kid killed that dude in the side of the road and he maybe threw the old housekeeper down some stairs or something? Thoughts on those?
I doubt there will ever be any good answers about the other deaths. The initial investigations (if any) were just too poor. In both cases there’s been a lot of rumor but no one (law or journalist) seems to be able to find convincing evidence.
It may be some comfort and solace to their families to know that if those weren’t accidents the likely participants are dead or in prison.
My main question is how he’s able to pay his lawyers. He was supposedly broke.
He killed his wife and son in an attempt to distract from the 22 counts of fraud.
He didn’t just kill them out of the blue, it was a calculated decision in an attempt to use their “mysterious murder” to try to protect himself.
How would that have worked?
He was holding the calculator upside down.
BOOBIES¿
31041134
The pity/financial motive was presented by the prosecution, but I think there was more to it. Prosecutors generally avoid portraying victims as complete shits. But Paul was a complete piece of shit. And he was about to become a very expensive piece of shit.
Paul (the son) was set to stand trial for a drunk boating accident that killed a teenager. It was scheduled for just days after he was murdered. He had a history of alcohol abuse, being belligerent, and hitting his girlfriends. He got into lot of trouble that needed to be smoothed over. His family also called him the “little detective” because he liked to go through his father’s things and report any drugs he found. (Alex was abusing pills). That must have brought a mix of shame and hatred.
Alex’s father was also in hospice care at the time. He had been the family’s main fixer and local influencer for years.
There were persistent rumors that Maggie was talking to a divorce lawyer, but I think that if they were true this would have been presented at the trial.
And there were the other murders/deaths. Wikpedia has a disambiguation page.
So basically, the son was an irritating shit who got into expensive trouble and was going to be bringing more trouble in days to come. He decided to kill Paul to make that go away. Then he added Maggie because at that point, why not? He’d be an obvious suspect if Paul was the only victim. If there are two victims from his family, it looks more like an outside party looking for retribution
Damn, you’ve making the dude sound logical.
Almost got away with it. Or not. Did he almost get away with it?
I understand the murder weapons are unrecovered and the only hard evidence tying him to the scene was the cell phone recording his son made, which was a stake through the heart of the defense, if you ask me.
Sounds like his kid killed that dude in the side of the road and he maybe threw the old housekeeper down some stairs or something? Thoughts on those?
Addict logic, I think. It’s not the best.
I doubt there will ever be any good answers about the other deaths. The initial investigations (if any) were just too poor. In both cases there’s been a lot of rumor but no one (law or journalist) seems to be able to find convincing evidence.
It may be some comfort and solace to their families to know that if those weren’t accidents the likely participants are dead or in prison.
My main question is how he’s able to pay his lawyers. He was supposedly broke.