I'm in no way saying anything good about these racist killers, but I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that they should be eligible for parole. Their first hearing wouldn't be for 30 years, and even then they only get a hearing; they don't necessarily get out. Charlie Manson had a parole hearing every couple years, but he died in his cell. As a prison management issue, inmates behave better if they are trying to earn parole vs. knowing they have no hope. I'd also like to believe that most human beings (yeah, not all) are capable of redeeming themselves.
 
It really was odd. It's really, really hard for me to imagine how that would have helped the defense in any way. Maybe things were different in the courtroom, but I was baffled by this.

I am not by any means defending what she said or why...BUT...according to her (from what I remember) it was to combat the idea that Arbery was an avid runner. In that avid runners have to take religious care of their feet and toenails because of the stress the foot endures. So how can Arbery be an avid runner if he didn't even care for his feet in the slightest?
 
"How fast can he run" was always a pointless red hearing.

And she didn't present it as some sort of counter-argument to some "runner narrative" from the prosecution that she entered into evidence and was using to make a factual point, it was just some off hand insult to the dead she throw out during closing arguments.

If she had said during the back and forth of the actual trail "Oh if Mr. Arbury was such an avid running then why did his nails look like this?" into some direct argument from the prosecution, that would have been one thing, this was nothing like that.
 
Last edited:
I am not by any means defending what she said or why...BUT...according to her (from what I remember) it was to combat the idea that Arbery was an avid runner. In that avid runners have to take religious care of their feet and toenails because of the stress the foot endures. So how can Arbery be an avid runner if he didn't even care for his feet in the slightest?

Who says the defense claim is even true? And if it is, so what? Maybe he's a casual runner instead of an avid runner. Maybe he never got the memo about foot care. Surely (alleged) poor hygiene isn't grounds for murder.
 
I am not by any means defending what she said or why...BUT...according to her (from what I remember) it was to combat the idea that Arbery was an avid runner. In that avid runners have to take religious care of their feet and toenails because of the stress the foot endures. So how can Arbery be an avid runner if he didn't even care for his feet in the slightest?

The worst thing is, this isn't even true. Not all avid runners have their toenails manicured!
 
That was a slam dunk on the "You shouldn't judge an entire life on only a few minutes of conduct" excuse.
 
I am not by any means defending what she said or why...BUT...according to her (from what I remember) it was to combat the idea that Arbery was an avid runner. In that avid runners have to take religious care of their feet and toenails because of the stress the foot endures. So how can Arbery be an avid runner if he didn't even care for his feet in the slightest?

Who says the defense claim is even true? And if it is, so what? Maybe he's a casual runner instead of an avid runner. Maybe he never got the memo about foot care. Surely (alleged) poor hygiene isn't grounds for murder.


According to the mom, his foot hygiene was indeed questionable:

"He was messy, he sometimes refused to wear socks," said Wanda Cooper-Jones, dabbing her eyes with a tissue as she spoke in Glynn County Superior Court. "I wish he would have cut and cleaned his toenails before he went out for that jog that day. I guess he would have, if he knew he would be murdered."


I'm not sure I believe he was just "out for a jog" that day. But, I'm certain they had no grounds to kill him.
 
Last edited:
IIRC the defense got the toenail thing from the autopsy, it's nothing that would have come up to anyone on the initial scene or anything like that.

And "Long" is a relative term would could many anything from "not neatly trimmed" to actually long in any meaningful sense. "Dirty" is just straight up well poisoning.
 
Life plus twenty.
Life plus twenty.
Life with possible parole plus ten.
 
Last edited:
Prosecution is requesting an additional rider on the sentences to prevent the 3 from making any money off of a book, movie, social media, TV, etc deal.

Judge says he will consider it and make a ruling later.
 
Prosecution is requesting an additional rider on the sentences to prevent the 3 from making any money off of a book, movie, social media, TV, etc deal.

Judge says he will consider it and make a ruling later.

I would assume he'll apply it.
 
I would assume he'll apply it.

That's the way I read it, he just came across as he wanting it in writing and he wanted time to cross-reference some already established laws against that sort of thing that are already on the books. It sorta did sound like it was gonna happen.
 

Back
Top Bottom