Do you believe in the devil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 14bevo
  • Start date Start date
Maybe there is an attorney (I am not one) who can explain circumstantial evidence as it relates to a murder trial.

It seems to me that an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence was presented that should have convicted her. However, the jury was requiring 100% physical evidence in order to remove reasonable doubt.

Am I wrong?
 
There were no goalposts moved, Johnny. Once again, I NEVER SAID THAT DUCT TAPE "PROVED" ANYTHING. Never.

Here's a brief summary of what I did say, and why I said it. It was in response to this:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I think that when you sit in a jury for over a month the emotional gut reaction might just be to get the hell out of there as quickly as you can, and that seems to be a contributor to this sad outcome.
 
You could call it blindly guessing. I'd call it projecting my utter contempt for lawyers.
 
I sat on a jury once and I've watched numerous trials as a newspaper reporter. Maybe I was in great communities, but the juries and juorors I worked with and observed for the most part did their jobs with intelligence and rigor. Defendants in a trial, once you get to know them, are human beings. Sometimes they are monsters, but mostly they are people who love and are loved. Based on what I know I don't have sympathy for the defendant. But I'm willing to stipulate that the jury members know a whole lot more than I.
 
That seems like a complete gut reaction, Oilfield. If I were on the jury and had been there a month, I think my emotional gut reactions would be muted and maybe I would try and get it right. They were united in not-guilty after 11 hours of deliberation (and that was multiple charges). It seems to me that if there were any questions, it would have gone longer and the jury might have ended up hung. The evidence just wasn't there to convict someone of first degree murder. The prosecutors overreached.
 
Its hard argue that but I think the evidence was ample enough for felony murder.
 
The not guilty verdict occurred for a number of reasons:

1. a very poorly executed prosecution. They went for murder 1 without any evidence. They would have been better off trying to prove manslaughter or abuse/neglect.

2. Cougar town. it's orlando for goodness sake and florida. everyone is strange in fl and i heard the avg education on that jury was below high school. this is the same state and couldnt figure out a voter registration card.

3. all the evidence against her was circumstantial.

4. jury went for not guilty to profit. their decision gives them a better chance to profit off of it.
 
Don't over-complicate things , she did it , we all know she did it ! They probably should go after her dad too , he's creepy.
 
When a two year old has been missing for a month and the mother does not report it to anyone, I think you have clear neglect at a minimum which in the case of a parent, is child abuse. Then when the baby is found it is close to the Mother's home, with its head wrapped in duct tape.

Yeah, no murder there. Must have been some kind of accident.
rolleyes.gif
 
i do think the kids death was an accident. either she drowned in the pool or the mom accidentally killed her by using chloroform to knock her out while she went out to party. i do not hink she was intentionally killed. the proisecution should have focused on manslaughter/abuse or neglect. regardless, she did end up rotting in a plastic bag and she was put there by either her mom or grand poppy. how she died is a mystery. if the mom plays this out well, she should be able to make enough to live comfortably.
 
Other than lacking eyewitnesses, I really don't see how the evidence could be more obvious. she killed her kid and then partied when she was done. Her trail is pretty well documented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top