because he told you that it was just random vigilantes from the boat case in which there s no evidence whatsoever that you ve seen in this record. trial depending on evidence. this has to be evidence to make a decision. his claim is trying to manufacture something about the case. there s been no evidence of any specific other individual. there has to be evidence to consider. not just mere allegations that have no basis and any sort of evidence. whoever did this thought about it for a really long time. i think if you think about the defendant s statements and some of the things he says, a lot of times he says things in one context but means them in another.
we talked about the family legacy. you heard how important that was to him, and how important that was to this family and how it was in danger because of the boat case. criminal charges as well as the civil charges. that legacy was in danger, and it was threatening also to expose him for who he really was, which would totally destroy his part of that legacy. lose his career, lose his bar license, face consequences like he s never seen. how is he doing with establishing a motive here? he s doing fine with establishing a motive. he s doing extremely poorly with establishing a believable, credible, good motive that s going to be persuasive to a jury. chris, when you are trying a case, you are presenting two different narratives. the prosecution is presenting one narrative, which wants to paint the defendant in a light
that case as well as the civil charges related to that case. in the aftermath of the boat case, things changed. the pace of his stealing increased. in fact, that s when he stole the money from tony satterfield that you heard from. ultimately stole about $4.5 million, between them and others. unlike other cases, tony, who was the son of his longtime housekeeper, he took all of the money. took every bit of it. that was coming to a head as we move into the spring of 2021. there had been some publicity. you heard from tony that he was the defendant reached out in the spring of 2021 because there had been publicity and saying, i m still work on the case. everything is fine. i m working on the case. it s good. the reality is, the defendant didn t have that money to pay it back. he had one saving grace.
things, the community has changed like you would expect. people are concerned, they re scared, they re worried, and everything s changed. the backlash from the boat case has gone away, and all of that has changed, and that s why mark tinsley thought his case was over. who would understand that better than him? this is exactly the kind of work he did. his skills as a lawyer were understanding the emotional value of a case. understanding the sympathies of a case. if you have a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant, that is in the civil world, that s a big case. but if those get reversed, if those change, if all of a sudden your defendant is more sympathetic, it changes it. it changes the entirety of what mark tinsley s position on this case was for the beach family, that alex was going to have to pay money, and that s what he told you from the stand.
gene. alex wards off a conversation. he is working on the boat case. then the tragedy happens. and it worked. it s not the only reason but it s part of the reason. the pressures on this man were unbearable, and they were all reaching a crescendo the day his wife and son were murdered by him. all on that day. and in the wake of this, everything changes. people stop asking about these