-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Verdict is in...
- Thread starter CCW
- Start date
I'm sorry Vanguard....I lost respect for you when you started talking about planting evidence on someone or somewhere to prove that they are guilty. I thought the verdict was crap and think she did it...but you have crossed the line....just sick...plain and simple.
Remember who you are dealing with here. It should ease your mind.
I had no respect for the old codger for a while. The planting evidence is just icing on the cake. But I guess someone that was able to sit at home and watch the whole trial was able to see just what the media wanted him to see. I'm sorry but none of us were sitting in that jury box seeing every bit of this trial. But alas he has shown his a$$. There are certain people out there that no matter what they have I will never deal with, vanguard is now on that list although I don't want his Saturday night special even if it has the wood grips.
Okay, I'll chime in. I actually expected that verdict from the jury. I believe several things were against the prosecutions attempt to convict her of premeditated murder.
1. The could not prove a motive for murder. Their theory which was only laid out in summation was that she did it because the child was getting old enough to start communicating about what was going on.
2. The prosecution was caught presenting bad evidence.
3. The jurors were expecting stronger/relevant scientific evidence of proof. You can blame this on watching to many TV shows.
4. The trial lasted way too long. It should have been a 2 week trial. After 6 weeks of sitting and not being shown overwhelming evidence they were siding with the defendant.
5. Prosecution should have went for Manslaughter, and posited the theory that she accidentally killed her and then started an elaborate string of lies to cover it up including hiding the body. I have no doubt the jury would have convicted her on this.
She walked free because the prosecution went for a murder conviction, not manslaughter.
1. The could not prove a motive for murder. Their theory which was only laid out in summation was that she did it because the child was getting old enough to start communicating about what was going on.
2. The prosecution was caught presenting bad evidence.
3. The jurors were expecting stronger/relevant scientific evidence of proof. You can blame this on watching to many TV shows.
4. The trial lasted way too long. It should have been a 2 week trial. After 6 weeks of sitting and not being shown overwhelming evidence they were siding with the defendant.
5. Prosecution should have went for Manslaughter, and posited the theory that she accidentally killed her and then started an elaborate string of lies to cover it up including hiding the body. I have no doubt the jury would have convicted her on this.
She walked free because the prosecution went for a murder conviction, not manslaughter.
So you would rather a child killer get off scott free, what I was saying is I would do whatever it took to make sure a killer did not get a way with it, instead of letting the so called LAW let them walk, I have had it happen in my family and I am SICK OF THE LAWS WAY. it is WRONG . if you cannot see it you are no better than them.
Oh and like I would ever deal with you...............don,t flatter yourself.
