Treehouse Murder Suspect Wears ‘Not Guilty’ Shirt, Talks Representing Himself in Trial – Everything Law and Order Blog

Treehouse murder suspect Franklin Tucker spoke with Law&Crime’s Angenette Levy about why he chose to represent himself in his murder trial. Tucker is on trial for his alleged role in a deadly stabbing where Treehouse owner Matthew Bonnett was killed and a woman was injured in November 2017. “They don’t know the case better than me,” Tucker said.

#FranklinTucker #MurderTrial #LawAndCrime

STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime’s Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2Iqo

For Advertising Inquiries, Please Contact: sales@lawandcrime.com
For Licensing Inquiries, Please Contact: licensing@lawandcrime.com

LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetwork
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrime
Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrime

LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: https://lawandcrime.com/podcasts/

SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK YOUTUBE CHANNELS:
Main Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz8K1occVvDTYDfFo7N5EZw
Law&Crime Shorts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVXOqoOCYbi-iXChKAl6DTQ
Channel B: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXCLaaClAWQiTkl3pw9ZdLw
Channel C: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMV3pzWIhJGLYzoHyxBjjNw

source

By elboriyorker

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO elboriyorkeratgmailcom (www.phillyfinest369.com)

23 thoughts on “Treehouse Murder Suspect Wears ‘Not Guilty’ Shirt, Talks Representing Himself in Trial”
  1. I think they should be able to tell the jury a plea deal was offered and what it was b/c in his it speaks VOLUMES! They do NOT offer what he was unless they know they are wrong or will NOT get a conviction when obviously if you are a DA & things begin to look in the different option (not guilty) dismissing it w/o prejudice would be the right thing to do. I think a big issue is DA's are elected in most places & they want to get as many convictions as possible for re•election causing them to want to convict A PERSON for the crime rather than THE o PERSON!

  2. Correction; This is definitely NOT, the 1st time he's spoken publicly since the gag order was lifted. He recently did an interview on my buddy's YouTube channel (VellyRay) up here in Portland.
    I've never met the man personally and it's clear he's no angel, but I do believe that he's innocent of this particular crime! 🤷‍♀️ What say you?

  3. It's pretty sad that everyone thinks taking a deal is something you should do if your innocent or is it just the presumption of guilt that makes people say that… because taking a deal means you committed the crime. BTW I've never said I lived at the treehouse and as you heard me testify have been there 3 times in my life. The story of the shirt goes back to the "gag order" and I bought it for the 1st interview I did after the order when I was no longer allowed to say I'm innocent… check the NY POST if you'd like to see the article but hopefully I continue to be able to speak and thank you for allowing me too.

  4. Attorney perspective- what he said about why he opted to represent himself is very telling. Attorneys have an ethical obligation not to allow false testimony on the stand when they know it is false. I’m guessing his lawyers told him they couldn’t let him lie in testimony on the stand about things they knew for a fact were lies and he opted to represent himself for that reason. He could still theoretically get charged with perjury for lying about things but that’s a separate crime that would have to be proven to a standard of a beyond a reasonable doubt.

Leave a Reply