[dsfyu404ed]

Every time I hear about a husband -> wife murder case that doesn't involve a prior violent crime history or some large amount of physical and circumstantial evidence the two words that go through my mind are "tunnel vision," Without leads the cops just latch on to the only thing they have which is "well... ugh... divorce law gives him a monetary incentive to bust a cap in her ass now don't it?"

I'd like to hear what the defense has to say. I think it's really fishy for a journalist to write an article that basically parrots the prosecution. Maybe the defense couldn't be reached for comment...well then say that if it's the case.

[parfe]

>Authorities allege about 8:30 p.m. on the day of the killing, a man called police from the actor’s cellphone, saying that he had just shot his wife to death.

>A handgun was later recovered in the home.

[loeg]

If you were going to murder someone's wife, it would be a good misdirection, wouldn't it?

[andylei]

its obviously not definitive proof, but its still pretty reasonable for the police to be investigating the husband, no?

[zimbatm]

Using a phone that the police couldn't unlock but somehow the murderer could ?

[ipsin]

This doesn't seem like a case of tunnel vision. The evidence and circumstances of the theory do seem to point towards the husband. Of course, the trial may reveal Jace's innocence, but there seems to be enough evidence that I don't think "lazy police work" applies in this case.

Also: "Jace's attorney and the prosecutor assigned to his case could not be reached for comment."

[quentusrex]

"the trial may reveal Jace's innocence"

That's unfortunate. The system is suppose to prove his guilt, and assume innocence by default.

[CiPHPerCoder]

> Of course, the trial may reveal Jace's innocence

If it even comes to a trial.

[jvagner]

"Jace's attorney and the prosecutor assigned to his case could not be reached for comment."