Randell Vidrine

Randell Vidrine has a storied history. Not only was he born with a reputation for homicide, but he also avoided the limelight after delivering his baby, avoiding media attention and media exposure. It is not even clear where Randell Vidrine lives, as his house is hidden from view. When the crime occurred, he was working as an understudy at Tulane University, and this is why he is not in the public eye.

Ken Gutzeit was a competitor of Hubert Vidrine

Hubert Vidrine was a famous boxer in New Orleans who once killed one of his rivals, Ken Gutzeit. Vidrine killed Gutzeit after he was outside a fraternity house at 918 Broadway. He stabbed him in the neck, and witnesses noticed the blood dripping from his neck.

The murder occurred on January 29, 1976, at a fraternity house. Ken had been having a fight with Vidrine for quite some time, and after Vidrine returned home with a jackknife, he attacked Ken and cut his throat. Vidrine was arrested and charged with murder, but a grand jury did not indict him.

Ken Gutzeit was a college student when Vidrine approached him. After Ken got within striking distance of Vidrine, he lunged at the former boxer and struck him in the neck. The blood gushed out of Ken’s neck and carotid artery.

Hubert Vidrine and Ken Gutzeit were both members of Sigma Chi fraternity. They were both at Tulane University that day. On his way to the Sigma Chi house, Vidrine had to cross Broadway. He could have taken Berthe Street instead, which was much shorter and more direct.

The murder of Ken Gutzeit was a shocking incident that shocked the community. It was the result of a minor dispute and an intense rivalry. Both men had a history of drinking. While Randell Vidrine walked free, Ken Gutzeit died from his injuries. This is an unfortunate incident, and his death is tragic.

Apparently, a rivalry turned deadly. Ken Gutzeit was a member of Sigma Chi fraternity and a popular student on campus. He played football and was a member of the school’s football team. When he was killed, the news of his death spread. His murderer, Randell Vidrine, was a fellow student at Tulane University.

The case has raised many questions about the conduct of the trial. First-hand witnesses were not called to testify, and the prosecution asked very few relevant questions. The trial also revealed a lack of evidence. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office, which prosecuted Vidrine, has a long history of misconduct.

Mike Franklin was a broker in the oil industry

Mike Franklin was a broker in the oil business when Hubert Vidrine died. At the time of Vidrine’s death, Franklin had been working for the Products Trading Corporation, a brokerage that brokered hydrocarbons. He had visited Vidrine at his office, and asked to use his telephone. Franklin remained in the office across from Vidrine, so he could hear what Vidrine were saying.

According to the indictment, Franklin had obtained samples from Trinity’s tank 402 a month before Vidrine’s death. He claimed that he knew that the samples contained over 1,000 parts per million. However, he never provided a lab report to back up his claim. This led to questions of his honesty. While his testimony was questioned by the prosecutor, he was unable to produce any evidence to support his statements.

Franklin’s testimony was uncorroborated and the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt. Nonetheless, the jury found that Franklin was a broker in the oil industry at the time of Vidrine’s death. Franklin also failed to prove that he was negligent in his conduct. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove that the used oil at Trinity Marine was contaminated with chlorinated solvents. However, he did show that Trinity’s housekeeping was inadequate.

Franklin’s testimony was critical in the case. In addition, the jury discovered that the EPA had warned him about the presence of hazardous waste in the petroleum distillate. Vidrine, meanwhile, knowingly stored the toxic waste in his own refinery without a permit.

The government argued that Vidrine changed his story several times during the interview. But Franklin’s own agent testified about his actions and statements during the interview. She didn’t believe the evidence was strong enough to prosecute him. Moreover, Franklin failed to provide any corroboration for his statements.

The government put forth prejudicial evidence during the Vidrine trial. The government used this evidence to claim that the oil company transported the hazardous waste to the Canal without a permit. The evidence was also based on false information. Agent Phillips, who testified for the prosecution, admitted this fact during his testimony.

Agent Phillips also claimed that Franklin received special treatment from the FBI and that he was the lynchpin in Hubert Vidrine’s death. However, the prosecution presented no direct evidence that Franklin had a special relationship with the FBI.

The EPA asked for prosecutorial assistance in the case. Agent Vikin was assigned to the case for almost two years. During that time, he primarily focused on the AFI investigation and tended to follow the “AFI thread” rather than Hubert Vidrine or Trinity Marine. The facts of the AFI investigation were the basis for the search warrant.

Hubert Vidrine’s business strategy involved buying cheap feedstock and selling high

The government’s case against Hubert Vidrine centered on two issues: whether Vidrine’s actions were characterized as hazardous waste and whether there was probable cause to believe Vidrine intentionally stored hazardous waste. Hubert Vidrine has denied knowingly storing hazardous waste.

Hubert Vidrine’s business strategy involved purchasing feedstock at a low price and selling it for a high price. It was this strategy that made him rich. However, his business model was flawed. He lacked proper documentation to support his claims. For instance, he did not provide any notes he took during his conversation with Hubert Vidrine.

Agent Vikin handled the investigation for nearly two years, and his focus was on AFI. He referred to this as his “AFI thread,” rather than Hubert Vidrine or Trinity Marine. Agent Vikin’s search warrant was based on facts about AFI.

Despite the evidence, the government failed to indict Hubert Vidrine for the conduct at issue. The prosecution did not charge Vidrine directly for buying feedstock from Tiger Shipyard. It believes Vidrine obtained Tiger’s products through a third-party broker.

Plaintiffs argue that the government has not proven its case by way of probable cause. They say that Vidrine was only receiving used oil to refine it, never disposing of it or abandoning it. Thus, the government cannot prove that the defendant acted with criminal intent.

In fact, the presence of chlorinated solvents in used oil at Trinity’s refinery is not illegal in and of itself. The company didn’t have a test that proved it contained the solvents, so the court dismissed the case.

The company had been engaged in the business of re-fining used oil into diesel fuel for more than a decade. However, he later revised his statement, stating that he consistently let truck contents unload into Tank #402 before analyzing them. He further stated that some samples from different suppliers were composited.