Jury set to deliberate in Lankford case

Lankford said he disposed of Watanabe's body in the ocean off Kualoa.

Sorry, but my common sense just screams at me here saying this is not true. I wish they would push him more about disposing of the body?

I can’t believe he walked the body out into the ocean and set if afloat in shallow water. It’s contrary to human nature, but then again Lankford is not human.

The jury's verdict and the following sentencing hearing will hopefully be decisions that bring some measure of peace to Ms. Watanabe and her family.

I only hope Lankford will one day tell the whole story and either lead detectives to Ms. Watanabe's remains or confirm she was placed in the ocean.

he put her in a trash bag. triple bagged. that tells me he put her in a dumpster. he lied about the ocean. the ocean would have gave her up if she was there in response to all the grief and prayers of her family.

This is a sociopath. Everything he said was selfserving. Carlisle said it correctly, now the jury needs to do its' job and do it quickly. I am sure Lankford will have a hell of a time in prison.

too bad we dont have the death penalty. hang the bastard. lying piece of shit.

They should look into his whereabouts when other northshore women have disappeared without a trace. I'll bet lankford was working the area then, but this time he got caught.

mynah wrote:

he put her in a trash bag. triple bagged. that tells me he put her in a dumpster. he lied about the ocean. the ocean would have gave her up if she was there in response to all the grief and prayers of her family.

Yes Mynah I agree with you.
Also he lied about putting her in the ocean because he was hoping the authorities would not search for the body because in his mind he thought without a body there would be no case.

There were two ladies digging for the body some time ago and then the court brought him back so the ladies had to leave before he saw them. That is the spot in my opinion. Ask the two ladies?

Von in Aiea covers the subject that Carslile did not refute. Walking barefoot suffering no cuts at night without a light over hundreds of yards at high tide against the current pushing a 125 pound bag.

All you fellow torch fisherman out there know how challenging it is to walk on a reef even at low to minus tide wearing tabis with a light source.

Don't understand why the prosecution did not address this?

Based on what information has been available & the jury may have one "lolo", there is a chance he may get off. It has to be 12 to 0, 11 to 1 won't cut it.

That was the most idiotic defense that I have ever heard. I didn't want to lose my job so I got rid of the body. He would of been better off with no defense and simply said that he didn't do it and place the burden of proof on the prosecutor to prove that he did. I would never hire his attorney.

mynah wrote:

he put her in a trash bag. triple bagged. that tells me he put her in a dumpster. he lied about the ocean. the ocean would have gave her up if she was there in response to all the grief and prayers of her family.

I have an inkling you are right. Investigators may need to search the landfills and if they find the sealed trash bag with the body, the prosecution may reopen this case.

You mean jurors should call their bosses and tell them they will be back to work this afternoon after the free lunch. No one would believe Lankford's ridiculous story. Guilty, guilty, guilty and then some.

hardcore wrote:

Jurrors : call the Boss, and tell him/her that you will be back to work on Tuesday, regular time. This won't take long. At least you may get one free lunch out of this dog and pony show. Thank You for doing your civil duty !

You gotta wonder how many jurors laughed or wanted to split a gut when they heard Lankford's story while he was on the stand. I wonder if the judge had to call order--to the jury.

Still can't get over why he would kill Masumi. I guess the pest control chemicals sure got to this half wit.

hardcore wrote:

<quoted text> I thought that it would take them awhile to stop laughing and to take a vote

What do you think the verdict will me? Not what you think the verdict should be but what the jury will decide?

I think it will be murder, by ommission.

CSI wrote:

<quoted text>
I have an inkling you are right. Investigators may need to search the landfills and if they find the sealed trash bag with the body, the prosecution may reopen this case.

Nope, that would be double jeopardy. Prosecution has only once chance to get a conviction, hope they didn't blow it.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I kind of like the guy.

You like someone who admitted to causing the death of the victim, wrapping her body and then throwing it out to sea after a supposed vehicular accident?

You like wannabe serial killers who hide under the guise of being a church goer, husband and would-be father?

Why don't you tell us what you like about Lankford?

May be birds of a feather flock together or your simply a troll.

Amiel wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I kind of like the guy.

Amiel wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I kind of like the guy.

His wife is in the process of divorcing him. He's available.

He got fired soon after he was arrested. He couldn't support his family while behind bars. he could have told his story last April. If it were true, there was time to recover forensic evidence from the death site or even the body from the ocean to back up his story. He choose to sit behind bars for a year, not supporting his family and waiting until now to talk. Doesn't make sense to me, if he says his motive has not to lose his job so he could provide for his family. If this were true, he would have told this same story last April and not wait until now to clear himself.

I personally think Carlise did a poor job in his presentation of his closing arguements.And there's a maybe five percent chance this guy may get off.But the line of the most ridiculous closing arguement statement had to have come from Don Wilkerson,{"Put yourselves in Lankfords shoes"}.He's a dummy, only an evil person would've done what Lankford did.

Carl Weathers wrote:

Actually, the defense did come up with a pretty good story. At least enough to place reasonable doubt in 1 or 2 jurors mind, I think. Plus there's no body. It was a bit of a stretch to even conduct this trial based on the circumstantial evidence. We'll see...

I agree. I am waiting to see the outcome. I am sure that the jury has a better picture than we have and will have a tough time making a decision because of the shadow of a doubt that has been cast.