like i said I didn’t know all the specifics I was being opinionated just to be so. I didn’t know she was being charged with first degree murder just thought she was being charged with murder… Although, gunnar, what yer talking about sounds like premeditated murder. is there a difference between premeditated and 1st degree?
from what I heard (second hand albeit or I guess third hand since it was from my buddy and not so much a news source) was that the prosecutions case was solid.
Here’s a transcript of my texts between my buddy and myself after this. like I said he was all over it this case. but as far as average people and the mentality I think pretty much is the average opinion.
ME:"You see that chick got off for murdering her daughter?
BUDDY:“Unbelievable only in america”
ME: “But they found her guilty of lying to the cops. WTF?! how do you lie to cops about murdering yer daughter but not actually be found guilty of murdering yer daughter? one would suggest the other.”
BUDDY: “This is truly stunning not even 2nd degree or even manslaughter”
ME:" No shit, So some other random person killed that poor little girl and then stuffed her in the trunk of her mommies car… the jury bought that??? Maybe the school system does suck now look at the jury pools!"
BUDDY: " Fuck the letter of the law! Whatever happened to common fucking sense? The jury has no idea what they have just done"
ME: “I think yer right they have no idea … ALTHOUGH, we weren’t in that courtroom she may have had some sweet ass alibi that the news didn’t report to us.”
BUDDY:" I agree, but from what I saw you would have to be a retard not to convict on some type of murder charge."
ME : “You would think… So she gets 4 years for lying to the cops. makes me think the prosecuting attorney had to be a complete retard cause I think even the best defense attorney would have NO shot at winning this case.”
BUDDY: “I think it was simply and ignorant jury. Most experts thought the prosecution did an excellent job”
ME: “I didn’t follow the case like you did so if that’s what they say then they’re probably right. right now she’s probably riding the high of beating this case, but this will catch up to her hopefully sooner than later and the reality of what she’s done will haunt her forever.”
BUDDY: “You would think but she has no remorse. she is a sick individual.”
The precedent that it set is this . . . . “Dear District Attorney: Please make sure that the detectives have their crap in order and that evidence collected gets collected correctly. Follow protocol so that collected evidence that can help your case can be used in the case. Make sure that the charges you are trying to convict the defendant of can actually be proven in court. Don’t throw together some ramshackle bunch of hearsay and circumstantial evidence and expect the jury to convict on it, because they have specific instructions that they are expected to follow in the name of justice.”
problem with that is that most evidence is gone or tampered with considering the length of time she spent waiting to call her daughter in missing. the fact that her daughters corpse was in her trunk with out her knowing? Please!!!
Sure, the majority of peoples’ opinions here is that “this bitch got away with murder”. But as for PRECEDENT . . . would any of you be concerned with the PRECEDENT set if she’d been convicted if the evidence and case presented truly was lacking? I sure would!
well, no doubt, but from the evidence that was presented to us by news outlets I think most are startled what details did the jury hear that we didn’t? this seems like a Tom Robinson case in reverse (To Kill a Mocking Bird reference)
A lot of people are up in arms screaming about how our judicial system failed. Screw that! The prosecution failed to effectively demonstrate their case. End of story.
How so? just based on the verdict alone?
Our system is intentionally designed to be difficult to convict someone of murder or other high crimes. Why?
difficult? yes. impossible? No.
Why? Because we don’t want to live in a country where cops can just pick you off the street, trump up some bullcrap, and put your ass in jail forever . . . or fry you in the electric chair.
Don’t be so naive, they can do that now anyway.
I’m really surprised to see Grumpy’s position on this matter. Really? Wanting a judge to overrule a case that has already gone through the proper channels and has been properly decided?
Just from the little bit of details I’ve gotten it doesn’t seem proper at all. Normally I’d be all for someone beating the system but a little kid suffered for it and that is not cool
GRANTED, I’LL BE THE FIRST TO SAY I DON’T KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS (EVEN THOSE IN THE PRESS)AND IF IT IS REVEALED THAT THERE IS SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT SHE IS INNOCENT THEN I’LL COMPLETELY TAKE BACK MY STANCE, BUT RIGHT NOW I DON’T SEE IT.
(I guess i know what it’s like to be a republican/conservative/tea partier now!!!standing firm for opinions with which i don’t have all the facts on!!- ok, davely maybe I bait a little bit. [:)])
I’d hate to think that, should I have the misfortune to be on trial, that, following a full proceeding and trial where my innocence was “proven” and decided by a jury, some Judge with a hair up his ass decides that I’m guilty anyway.
I wouldn’t call it a hair up his ass I would call it a judge stepping in to see that justice is served when the jury was so very clearly asleep.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m more concerned over widening the opportunities for cops and government to have carte blanche on such matters than I am scared of missing a few convictions.
they can do that shit anyway.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
perhaps this time.
Only thing solid that the prosecutors were able to pin down was that she was a terrible mother that liked to party.
that and she waited a month report her child missing. I think that goes beyond “terrible mother”
They lacked hard proof, and that’s why she got off.
you would think that based on the nature of the crime their circumstantial evidence would be enough.
“She killed her because…uh…she was two and beginning to…uh…talk, yeah! Yeah, that makes total sense. Killed her to be quiet. Prosecution rests! Yeah!”.
how about, “She was cramping my lifestyle.”?
What the prosecution should’ve done was go for negligent homicide, because they probably would’ve got her on that, maybe, if anything.
i agree, but can’t the jury impose that or do they have to go strictly on 1st degree?
But instead you have rabid k-9s like Nancy Grace spewing out nonsense, filling people’s egos, and playing on people’s emotions rather than their logic, so they went for a death penalty…
DOn’t know anything about nancy grace other than she had to eat a fat lot of crow after she called the rugby team guilty and then it came out that that escort lied about being raped.
Late,
grmpysmrf
