Murder Trial of the Week

Day two of the Dana Chandler trial is set for today, with the trial expected to take a month.

It would be a travesty if she is acquitted. Some of the comments following the Topeka Capital-Journal's reports are disturbing to me because they seem to think you have to have fingerprints or even DNA at the murder scene to convict. They watch too much television, and that has little to do with real life. Actually, people have been convicted of murder with far less circumstantial evidence than Dana Chandler's. People have been convicted when a murder weapon hasn't been found or even a body. Chandler has a lawyer but basically no defense. His job is to try and poke holes in the prosecution's case and deflect from his client's obvious guilt. It is laughable to think burglars would have plugged the victims, who were in their bed when they were murdered, eleven or twelve times and risk being overheard, not to mention nothing was taken including a wad of cash the victims won earlier that night in a casino. Plugging that many shots into victims is called "overkill" and is done by somebody who has an intense hatred for the victims. It is laughable to think Chandler placed over 600 phone calls in the six months before the murders merely to "check on the welfare of the children." Why did Chandler place many calls to Harkness then, if she was checking on the kids? Makes no sense.

Chandler has told different stories over the years of where she was and what she was doing at the time of the murders. None of it adds up. The only question in this case is whether the jury is capable of making inferences from the evidence provided.

A perfect mother-daughter relationship: