Infraction #3: Consumption of Urine

Updated: Feb 19

Infraction 3: The Urine

If you remember correctly, I stated that I was approached by a very close family member who shared horrific descriptions of their personal experiences with my father, one of them being that my father “forced” my 2-year-old sister to drink his urine. The mere thought of such a vulgar & inhumane act led me to abhor my father’s memory for a total of 5 years.

When reading through public records & witness testimonies after his murder, I came across immeasurable evidence & “witness testimonies” that were immensely conflicting, per their avowed testimonies.

It was stated by “one” witness that my father was in the back of the truck at the time of the ostensible act. But, how can this witness claim to see my father forcing my little sister to drink his urine if the witness was in the front seat, driving the 18-wheeler truck at 55mph along the highway? Remember, this is not some large SUV, but rather an enormous Rig pulling an even larger load. There is no clear line of sight from the front of the truck to the back. It would seem highly unlikely and nearly impossible to see what activity was going in the back cabin of the truck from the driver’s seat. I know for the predominant reason- I’ve been on the truck a multitude of times.

There is no evidence to suggest that my father allowed the witness to operate/drive the 18-wheeler. If the witness “was” able to drive the rig, why didn’t the court find a way to promulgate their claim? During his final hours, my father stated that he would never allow someone else to drive his rig, and wasn’t aware how an individual could do so without adequate training, proper licensing, and certifications substantiating the driver’s ability to operate the truck. Maneuvering such a large tractor-trailer involves shifting several gears when hauling heavy loads on different inclines and terrains.

Now, let's play off of point number 1 and assume my father “did not” allow the witness to drive his rig (As he stated to me in his final moments). This would mean that “He” was in fact driving; hence, how could he drive & commit this heinous act simultaneously?

The witness (Now an adult) who “personally” and “repetitively” shared with me that she saw my father commit this act, was only 6 years old at the time of the incident and did not “prove” so in her testimony. In point of fact, her testimony, as well as the testimony of the witness who accompanied her “BOTH” initially stated that my father was not present when the above accusations were made. Therefore, conflicting testimonies without accurate evidence are hearsay at most- and should not have been admissible in court.

Witness Discrepancies:

Witness 1 stated that my father urinated into a plastic jug numerous times in front of my little sisters. However, witness 2 stated she only saw it happen once.

Witness 1 stated that she was in the bathroom at the time of the incident. Witness 2 stated that witness 1 was in the store buying something to drink.

Witness 1 stated that my little sister was forced to initially drink the urine while witness 2 stated it was by accident.

It was stated during testimony by Witness 1 that the jug used was a Hawaiian Punch bottle that contained a green liquid. At trial, a photo was presented showing the jug containing the green liquid. If there was urine inside the jug, how could it still be green?

Now, one has to admit, it does seem strange for a jug of urine to be kept inside of a truck if, in fact, it was urine. But how strange is it really- when you're a truck driver? Would it seem impossible that a person could have a container to relieve themselves when driving long distances and not having a nearby restroom to stop at- especially during night hours? Perhaps unsanitary, but certainly not uncommon. I would also like to add that PER TESTIMONIES, the jug was kept under the seat & not within sight. As disgusting as it sounds & humiliating to admit, I’ve paradoxically had to use an empty bottle once during a crowded Mardi Gras festival. I’m not an unsanitary person. It wasn’t something I enjoyed doing. But if no restrooms are available & the only alternative is to release yourself in a bottle or “on yourself”- which would you choose?

Either way, there was no scientific evidence to prove either side, and it is at best- hearsay. Personally, I do not believe my father committed such a malevolent and disgusting act, but again my opinion is not what matters here. We are in search of the truth and what evidence can prove. There was no evidence from the autopsy to indicate or suggest that urine was ingested, and witness testimonies were inconsistent.

Attached are the snippets of public record testimonies detailing what key witnesses allege to have seen. There are many disparities; howbeit, don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself.

The Official Public Record Documents are available for download:

Prosecution - Witness 1 Testimony
Download PDF • 3.54MB
Prosecution - Witness 2 Testimony
Download PDF • 985KB