USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Nice Planet 2011
- Thread starter Old Pio
- Start date
- Status
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Casey Anthony innocent? I guess there technically wasn't a murder weapon to be found, but still...
Casey Anthony innocent? I guess there technically wasn't a murder weapon to be found, but still...
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: Nice Planet 2011
There's still a special place in Hell waiting for her.
There's still a special place in Hell waiting for her.
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Apparantly those dolts on that jury weren't paying attention: In his opening statement Baez referred to sexual abuse as the reason for the b*tch's inability to tell the truth about anything. It wasn't mentioned again because the judge wouldn't permit it. Nothing a lawyer says is evidence. Is it possible those idiots factored "sexual abuse" into their verdict? Considered that fairy tale as "reasonable doubt?"
Apparantly those dolts on that jury weren't paying attention: In his opening statement Baez referred to sexual abuse as the reason for the b*tch's inability to tell the truth about anything. It wasn't mentioned again because the judge wouldn't permit it. Nothing a lawyer says is evidence. Is it possible those idiots factored "sexual abuse" into their verdict? Considered that fairy tale as "reasonable doubt?"
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Nice Planet 2011
I'm tired of people blaming the jury. Blame the prosecution for failure to 100% prove Murder 1 - they're the ones who botched the case.
I'm tired of people blaming the jury. Blame the prosecution for failure to 100% prove Murder 1 - they're the ones who botched the case.
Re: Nice Planet 2011
You could be right. Either way, it's a horrible miscarriage of justice. And the fact remains, with clever lawyering, you can manufacture "reasonable doubt" in the minds of credulous people.
You could be right. Either way, it's a horrible miscarriage of justice. And the fact remains, with clever lawyering, you can manufacture "reasonable doubt" in the minds of credulous people.
Re: Nice Planet 2011
And I have to imagine, even with these high-profile cases, we'll never know the true details of what was said, allowed, etc in the court. The media will show highlights, list certain key points, and general arguments, but that never will tell the whole story. And also, the jury can't hear "media experts on cases like this" like we can.
And I have to imagine, even with these high-profile cases, we'll never know the true details of what was said, allowed, etc in the court. The media will show highlights, list certain key points, and general arguments, but that never will tell the whole story. And also, the jury can't hear "media experts on cases like this" like we can.
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Absolutely. The great trial lawyer Louis Nizer wrote the definitive book about the Rosenbergs, called "Implosion Conspiracy," and he pointed out it's nearly impossible to tell how a trial is going by media accounts (in those days, no live TV of court proceedings, of course). But his point was you just can't judge the impact of testimony or evidence on a jury. It could be the young lady is actually not guilty. But in my mind, the only thing that would account for her blizzard of lies is the knowledge that the little girl was dead the entire time. The prosecution couldn't establish the time or method of death and that's a tough hurdle to clear if you're going to send a young person to the death chamber. Even so, I'd bet a month's pay she did it.
Absolutely. The great trial lawyer Louis Nizer wrote the definitive book about the Rosenbergs, called "Implosion Conspiracy," and he pointed out it's nearly impossible to tell how a trial is going by media accounts (in those days, no live TV of court proceedings, of course). But his point was you just can't judge the impact of testimony or evidence on a jury. It could be the young lady is actually not guilty. But in my mind, the only thing that would account for her blizzard of lies is the knowledge that the little girl was dead the entire time. The prosecution couldn't establish the time or method of death and that's a tough hurdle to clear if you're going to send a young person to the death chamber. Even so, I'd bet a month's pay she did it.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Nice Planet 2011
I tend to put the blame on the prosecution. It seemed like they just couldn't prove that she did it, and that was their job. The burden of proof and all.
I tend to put the blame on the prosecution. It seemed like they just couldn't prove that she did it, and that was their job. The burden of proof and all.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Nice Planet 2011
The definition of first-degree murder is pretty strict. If she were on trial for manslaughter, I think they might've convicted her.
The definition of first-degree murder is pretty strict. If she were on trial for manslaughter, I think they might've convicted her.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Or even 2nd degree murder might have worked. And even looking at it now, even if she did kill her daughter, I'm not sure if I'd classify it as 1st degree. How did they try to prove that it was pre-meditated? (I didn't follow the trial)
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Nice Planet 2011
The prosecution's story was that she deliberately knocked her daughter out with chloroform, then duct-taped her mouth so that she suffocated to death, however I don't believe that suffocation was ever proven as the COD.
The prosecution's story was that she deliberately knocked her daughter out with chloroform, then duct-taped her mouth so that she suffocated to death, however I don't believe that suffocation was ever proven as the COD.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Ok, that would be 1st degree, as buying chloroform would indicate pre-meditation, but to go with that story without a COD or other supporting evidence that can't be torn apart by the defense was just asinine.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Bah. Manufacture? Really? The prosecution over charged and got caught. The evidene in the case was not only circumstancial but sparse.
Bah. Manufacture? Really? The prosecution over charged and got caught. The evidene in the case was not only circumstancial but sparse.
Re: Nice Planet 2011
You and Zanny and those twelve dumbells on the jury evidently agree.
You and Zanny and those twelve dumbells on the jury evidently agree.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Nice Planet 2011
Incompetant prosecution shooting to get a home run for the loss.
Shhh, burden of proof isn't required when it's so obvious.
Incompetant prosecution shooting to get a home run for the loss.
state of hockey
He fixes the cable?
Re: Nice Planet 2011
I agree that the prosecution screwed the pooch here. I also believe that there is a big difference between "not guilty" and "innocent", even though our justice system does not.
I agree that the prosecution screwed the pooch here. I also believe that there is a big difference between "not guilty" and "innocent", even though our justice system does not.
Re: Nice Planet 2011
So you're a prosecutor, too? All of you "experts" yammering about how that psychopathic little b*tch was "over charged" are ignoring that one of the lesser included charges was manslaughter. Right? Typical, reflexive anti -authoritarianism.
So you're a prosecutor, too? All of you "experts" yammering about how that psychopathic little b*tch was "over charged" are ignoring that one of the lesser included charges was manslaughter. Right? Typical, reflexive anti -authoritarianism.
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
Re: Nice Planet 2011
You're not supposed to laugh. You're supposed to reorder your pathetic priorities.
You're not supposed to laugh. You're supposed to reorder your pathetic priorities.
- Status