• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

"Reasonable Doubt" vs "Shadow of a Doubt"- How the jury got it wrong!

I'd would have voted guilty, and hopefully the state would have executed this piece of trash, if for no other reason than she being stupid.
There is a fix for stupid but it's not used very often.

Everybody that is broke is innocent and anybody with a little cash or credit is guilty, that's how the system.
Your attorney will tell you have a really good chance in court, until you tell him that the funds are running low, then it's time to settle out.
If you want to get screwed then go to the court house/if you want justice then go to the whore house.

Viva Revolution
Actually, the taxpayers are paying for the bulk of her defense, except for $200,000 she got from ABC TV and $70,000 donated by one of her defense lawyers that had left the case.
 
again it does not matter........she is dead. ..who says you have to prove all that?.. hello think a little bit..................her mother was with her last...........duh..

So the last person suspected of being with someone before they die is automatically guilty of murder? The only thing they have shown is that she is the last person known to have been with her. By your standard you could find the corpse of some hermit in the mountains and because you can't tell what killed him you convict the hiker that was seen to be with him two years before. I mean, the hiker was the last person seen with him, you don't know what killed him and you don't know how long he's been dead, right? Obviously the hiker is guilty of murder!

BTW, the people that say you have to "prove all that" are those that are interested in a legal system that tries not to through innocent people in jail on a regular basis. I can live with that.
 
Last edited:
Give it up you guys.....if we stop contributing to this thread maybe it will die of natural causes....or maybe vanguard will just keep on going like a broken record even if no-one points out the truth.
 
again it does not matter........she is dead. ..who says you have to prove all that?.. hello think a little bit..................her mother was with her last...........duh..

Even that has not been proven.

DA was pressured into a trial because the public was emotionally involved. They hoped the jury would react with emotions, they did not.
What little I saw of the trial I doubt I would have voted guilty.
I firmly believe she is involved and probably guilty as hell. But I am glad we don't convict on "probably"
 
I wonder whether everybody grandstanding about their enlightened understanding of our legal system would have protested a guilty verdict in this case. I doubt it. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm just sticking with everything I said during the trial leading up to the verdict. Hate that everybody has to act like the opposing view is completely unreasonable now. Didn't hear a lot of that before the verdict.
 
i wonder whether everybody grandstanding about their enlightened understanding of our legal system would have protested a guilty verdict in this case. I doubt it. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm just sticking with everything i said during the trial leading up to the verdict. Hate that everybody has to act like the opposing view is completely unreasonable now. Didn't hear a lot of that before the verdict.

i agree 100% good post
 
To make an informed decision you have to wait until all evidence is presented.
By your statements, you were pre judged and your opinions were not valid in our court system.
 
To make an informed decision you have to wait until all evidence is presented.
By your statements, you were pre judged and your opinions were not valid in our court system.

That is what you say, I watched the WHOLE TRIAL, I started with an open mind and after HEARING EVERYTHING, I knew she was guilty. OK...
 
Back
Top Bottom