I mean it's possible I guess. The stoners certainly think so.If you are in a different room/floor, and the doors of the room where the gunis shot are closed, the sound pressure will not be high at all.
I mean it's possible I guess. The stoners certainly think so.If you are in a different room/floor, and the doors of the room where the gunis shot are closed, the sound pressure will not be high at all.
He also didn't recall exactly when he was in the garage...Sometime between 8:30 and 9:30, I believe. So, he might have opened the garage shortly after the shooting, but before she left the apartment. Might have just barely missed seeing her. As you say...really doesn't matter...he saw/heard what he did and didn't hear anything else notable.Seems unwise of Armstrong (assuming it was her) to shoot someone above an occupied garage as I assume sound insulation may not be as robust as between residential units but then she scarcely seems to have planned this with forensic rigour.
Nice try... No dice...She searched if pineapple removes fingerprints. Expect that to peak today on google.
Defense tried to get a mistrial. Apparently Strickland/Armstrong house was vandalized sometime after murder.
The arrest affidavit for Armstrong lists the address of the murder as 1708 Maple Ave Unit B . Google blurred out 1708. Armstrong put in 1704 Maple Ave to car or phone gps. (It’s in one of the things I read) Do that, and you get the garage on the alley, which you’re right, google didn’t blur.Yes, I would believe that's it:
View attachment 215081
You can drop the little man on Google into the back alley though, and get this street view:
View attachment 215082
And not only that, but they called in to report it. I guess one of them was in a crowded noisy bar when Armstrong said that and that she had a gun. So she wasn’t sure until this went down.And today two former friends testified that she said she'd kill her in reference to Wilson... I mean...
What I am surprised about is that her entire defense seemed to rely on the fact that there was no video evidence of her at the scene (just evidence of her gun, her car, her GPS, her motive, her going into hiding, and no alibi).It only took two hours of deliberation. I am not surprised at all.
I can only think it was ego. Maybe delusions, but ego seems more likely.What I am surprised about is that her entire defense seemed to rely on the fact that there was no video evidence of her at the scene (just evidence of her gun, her car, her GPS, her motive, her going into hiding, and no alibi).
How did her lawyer not talk her into the plea deal?
What I am surprised about is that her entire defense seemed to rely on the fact that there was no video evidence of her at the scene (just evidence of her gun, her car, her GPS, her motive, her going into hiding, and no alibi).
How did her lawyer not talk her into the plea deal?
I didn't follow play-by-play, but from the articles that I did read, they all seemed to mention that Strickland was absolved due to "a solid alibi". I believe it was due to traffic camera recordings showing him on his bike, and phone calls made/text messages sent on his way home.Scarcely followed as it seemed like only one conclusion but did the defence not attempt to throw any shade at Strickland as someone who had access to her car and gun?