Poll of the Day > This 45 y/o Ohio Man Brutally Murdered 3 WOMEN in 3 HORRIFIC Methods!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

45 y/o Whacko Serial Killer, Georgia Brinkman from Ohio brutally murdered a family of 3 as prosecutors recounted how he used different methods of killing 3 women!!

He had cut the throat of 45 y/o Suzanne Taylor, smothered her 21 y/o daughter Taylor Pifer and strangled the youngest, 18 y/o Kylie Pifer with a Phone Cord and then laid their bodies next to each other on a bed!!

They were found lined up side by side lying face down in a bed inside the home when Taylor's boyfriend, Dale Kostar went to check on them the following day..

Their bodies were "cold to touch" and may have been dead for more than 24 hours according to autopsy..

It's been revealed that Suzanne and George were "long-term friends" and graduated high school together and that he was interested in her romantically but wanted more.

He was arrested Tuesday after an 8 hour stand off with police as he sobbed in court after hearing his bond was set at 75 million.

He's also suspected of murdering his former gf's parents, Gene and Bobbi John whom he was house sitting for and shot the couple when they returned home from their vacation. Their son found their bodie after not hearing from them for days..It was revealed he worked for the couple in the past

George is charged with 3 counts of aggravated murder, 3 counts of aggravated kidnapping and one count of tampering with evidence. He also faces 2 separate murder offences for the murders of Gene and Bobbi John.

Suzanne's brother said he had unrequited affection for his sister and he regularly liked her photos and referred to her as a "queen" in one comment.

The girl's devastated father said his daughters were beautiful and intelligent women who were full of life...

Do you think this bald headed killer should get the death penalty?.

George - Murderer

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/17/4172993900000578-4607686-image-a-16_1497543545727.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/17/4172993900000578-4607686-image-a-16_1497543545727.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/18/41617B8B00000578-4607686-image-a-54_1497548752607.jpg

Suzanne, Kylie, Taylor - Deceased

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/16/416385EE00000578-4607686-image-a-26_1497539159651.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/18/415D5C3200000578-4607686-The_sisters_devastated_father_paid_tribute_to_them_as_beautiful_-a-57_1497549101056.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/18/415D4A1400000578-4607686-image-m-61_1497549210721.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/18/415D4A0900000578-4607686-image-a-62_1497549217506.jpg

Bobbie John/Gene - Deceased

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/17/4164954500000578-4607686-Gene_and_Bobbie_John_were_found_dead_in_their_home_50_miles_away-a-19_1497543619443.jpg

Their home -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/16/4166482400000578-4607686-image-a-31_1497539543063.jpg

Dale - Taylors boyfriend

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/16/41724B4900000578-4607686-image-m-38_1497539633478.jpg
---

I'm against the death penalty, as always. Given that he's already 45, he's too old to rehab (since he'll be old enough to retire by the time he gets out...) but he can still be held for 20 or 25 years until he's not much of a threat to anybody. Granted, given his age, I guess you could make a utilitarian argument for the death penalty. At the same time, his crime sounds deranged in general so he could be mentally ill.

mrduckbear posted...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/17/4172993900000578-4607686-image-a-16_1497543545727.jpg

Has a Walter White vibe almost.

mrduckbear posted...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/15/18/41617B8B00000578-4607686-image-a-54_1497548752607.jpg

That he did, that he did...
---

If he's been proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, death sentence. What's the point of law enforcement chasing them down for him to be released later? The family can't get justice, safety or closure for those same reasons. Letting known malicious killers back into society is just as stupid and harmful as letting known sex predators back out. Either keep their asses in prison for the rest of their lives or kill em so no else has to suffer. "Rehabilitating them" is a dangerous and stupid mindset.
---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

If he's been proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, death sentence. What's the point of law enforcement chasing them down for him to be released later? The family can't get justice, safety or closure for those same reasons. Letting known malicious killers back into society is just as stupid and harmful as letting known sex predators back out. Either keep their asses in prison for the rest of their lives or kill em so no else has to suffer. "Rehabilitating them" is a dangerous and stupid mindset.

Life sentence...wouldn't be released. That said, I support the death penalty so if he's guilty, execute him.

His murders don't seem especially "brutal" to me compared to other murders, though. Suffocation, strangling, throat slit...
Is that really any more "brutal" than being stabbed, shot, bludgeoned in the head so much it's fatal, or other common forms of violent murder?
It's not like he tied them up and set them on fire or whatever. I feel like it's only considered "brutal" because the victims include young white women.

streamofthesky posted...

Lil_Bit83 posted...

If he's been proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, death sentence. What's the point of law enforcement chasing them down for him to be released later? The family can't get justice, safety or closure for those same reasons. Letting known malicious killers back into society is just as stupid and harmful as letting known sex predators back out. Either keep their asses in prison for the rest of their lives or kill em so no else has to suffer. "Rehabilitating them" is a dangerous and stupid mindset.

Life sentence...wouldn't be released. That said, I support the death penalty so if he's guilty, execute him.

His murders don't seem especially "brutal" to me compared to other murders, though. Suffocation, strangling, throat slit...
Is that really any more "brutal" than being stabbed, shot, bludgeoned in the head so much it's fatal, or other common forms of violent murder?
It's not like he tied them up and set them on fire or whatever. I feel like it's only considered "brutal" because the victims include young white women.

He didn't have to murder them either. And life sentences do not always mean for life. Why should the life of a malicious murderer be more valued then their victims?
---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

If he's been proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, death sentence. What's the point of law enforcement chasing them down for him to be released later? The family can't get justice, safety or closure for those same reasons. Letting known malicious killers back into society is just as stupid and harmful as letting known sex predators back out. Either keep their asses in prison for the rest of their lives or kill em so no else has to suffer. "Rehabilitating them" is a dangerous and stupid mindset.

The recidivism rate is lowest on murder, highest on rape. A lot of murderers can be rehabbed. The only issue is that he's a little too old.
---

But this sounds like an unusual case, a premeditated triple murder. I'd imagine he'll spend the rest of his days rotting, I certainly wouldn't trust him loose unless they've very good reason to believe him rehabbed.
---

torture him
---

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.
---

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

streamofthesky posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

Because apparently you believe that the accused shouldn't have rights? >_> We live in a nation which, because of the faults of other systems, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt so the biggest considerations aren't necessarily the scope of the crime but is he a flight risk, etc. The fact that somebody is accused of murder or plotted a mass murder doesn't necessarily matter with occasional exceptions.
---

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

Because apparently you believe that the accused shouldn't have rights? >_> We live in a nation which, because of the faults of other systems, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt so the biggest considerations aren't necessarily the scope of the crime but is he a flight risk, etc. The fact that somebody is accused of murder or plotted a mass murder doesn't necessarily matter with occasional exceptions.

He admitted he was planning to, AND they found the materials in his living quarters.
He still gets his trial, but it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious he's a serious danger to society and should be held until his trial.

But why am I arguing w/ you, you talk out of both sides of your ass? If some "liberal judge" gave bail to a suspected mass murderer w/ far less evidence against him than the above guy and he went on to kill people, you'd excoriate the "bleeding heart activist judge."

Damn why you gotta mention he bald tho
---

streamofthesky posted...

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

Because apparently you believe that the accused shouldn't have rights? >_> We live in a nation which, because of the faults of other systems, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt so the biggest considerations aren't necessarily the scope of the crime but is he a flight risk, etc. The fact that somebody is accused of murder or plotted a mass murder doesn't necessarily matter with occasional exceptions.

He admitted he was planning to, AND they found the materials in his living quarters.
He still gets his trial, but it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious he's a serious danger to society and should be held until his trial.

But why am I arguing w/ you, you talk out of both sides of your ass? If some "liberal judge" gave bail to a suspected mass murderer w/ far less evidence against him than the above guy and he went on to kill people, you'd excoriate the "bleeding heart activist judge."

Except I'd say exactly the same thing, which is literally what I've said every single time it's come up. We live in a system of laws. Laws are meaningless if you ignore them whenever you fucking well feel like it.
---

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

Because apparently you believe that the accused shouldn't have rights? >_> We live in a nation which, because of the faults of other systems, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt so the biggest considerations aren't necessarily the scope of the crime but is he a flight risk, etc. The fact that somebody is accused of murder or plotted a mass murder doesn't necessarily matter with occasional exceptions.

He admitted he was planning to, AND they found the materials in his living quarters.
He still gets his trial, but it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious he's a serious danger to society and should be held until his trial.

But why am I arguing w/ you, you talk out of both sides of your ass? If some "liberal judge" gave bail to a suspected mass murderer w/ far less evidence against him than the above guy and he went on to kill people, you'd excoriate the "bleeding heart activist judge."

Except I'd say exactly the same thing, which is literally what I've said every single time it's come up. We live in a system of laws. Laws are meaningless if you ignore them whenever you fucking well feel like it.

There is no law guaranteeing that anyone being held for a trial is entitled to bail. There is a law to limit excessive bail amounts, but there is no such law saying every suspect MUST be given a bail option.

Judges deny bail for serious threats all the time. I think they know the law better than you do.

streamofthesky posted...

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

Because apparently you believe that the accused shouldn't have rights? >_> We live in a nation which, because of the faults of other systems, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt so the biggest considerations aren't necessarily the scope of the crime but is he a flight risk, etc. The fact that somebody is accused of murder or plotted a mass murder doesn't necessarily matter with occasional exceptions.

He admitted he was planning to, AND they found the materials in his living quarters.
He still gets his trial, but it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious he's a serious danger to society and should be held until his trial.

But why am I arguing w/ you, you talk out of both sides of your ass? If some "liberal judge" gave bail to a suspected mass murderer w/ far less evidence against him than the above guy and he went on to kill people, you'd excoriate the "bleeding heart activist judge."

Except I'd say exactly the same thing, which is literally what I've said every single time it's come up. We live in a system of laws. Laws are meaningless if you ignore them whenever you fucking well feel like it.

There is no law guaranteeing that anyone being held for a trial is entitled to bail. There is a law to limit excessive bail amounts, but there is no such law saying every suspect MUST be given a bail option.

Judges deny bail for serious threats all the time. I think they know the law better than you do.

And, by your own logic, the fact that he wasn't denied bail means he wasn't a serious threat. After all, that judge knows the law better than you, right?
---

I often find a Death Penalty to be the 'easy way out' for these type of people. I'd much rather see them live out the rest of their life being tortured. I suppose that's the way my sadistic mind works.
---

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Aaantlion posted...

streamofthesky posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Why would they have bail for someone like this wth.

There's a guy who was caught w/ bomb-making materials after his roomate told the police about him and he admitted that he intended to plant bombs synagogues (cause he's a neo-nazi) and nuclear power plants (because if you're going to be a terrorist, I guess go big).
The judge is actually considering setting a bail amount for that lunatic.

Shit makes no sense, I bet there are drug dealers arrested peacefully that have had bail denied, but intended/successful mass murderers gotta get their bail option.

Because apparently you believe that the accused shouldn't have rights? >_> We live in a nation which, because of the faults of other systems, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt so the biggest considerations aren't necessarily the scope of the crime but is he a flight risk, etc. The fact that somebody is accused of murder or plotted a mass murder doesn't necessarily matter with occasional exceptions.

He admitted he was planning to, AND they found the materials in his living quarters.
He still gets his trial, but it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious he's a serious danger to society and should be held until his trial.

But why am I arguing w/ you, you talk out of both sides of your ass? If some "liberal judge" gave bail to a suspected mass murderer w/ far less evidence against him than the above guy and he went on to kill people, you'd excoriate the "bleeding heart activist judge."

Except I'd say exactly the same thing, which is literally what I've said every single time it's come up. We live in a system of laws. Laws are meaningless if you ignore them whenever you fucking well feel like it.

There is no law guaranteeing that anyone being held for a trial is entitled to bail. There is a law to limit excessive bail amounts, but there is no such law saying every suspect MUST be given a bail option.

Judges deny bail for serious threats all the time. I think they know the law better than you do.

And, by your own logic, the fact that he wasn't denied bail means he wasn't a serious threat. After all, that judge knows the law better than you, right?

Well, the guy I'm referring to, the judge hasn't decided yet if there should be a bail set. The fact he isn't sure is pretty disheartening, though.

He should suffer a cruel, agonizing death.
---