I've got to say that I'm rather disheartened by the level of inhumanity expressed towards another human being by people hiding behind fake names and computer screens.
Sure, she may have done it, but there's not evidence to prove it. Does this mean that she ought to be subject to torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Of course not, yet that's what several people here have suggested.
If you actually believe these things to be true, I sincerely hope that you wouldn't say them out loud to another person. They provide such a poor representation of the UP as it is. Saying them to another person would be a representation of everything that's wrong with the UP.
They should do a mandatory hysterectomy on her because she will have more children. She should not be allowed to be a mother for the rest of her life. She is a disgrace to the word mother.
I knew a not guilty verdict would result, due mostly to some of the reasons stated here - HOWEVER after reading more and more on this jury and THEIR reasons? I'm dumbfounded. They were really a true panel of morons who accidentally came to the right conclusion.
There was no evidence. Just junk science. Could not determine cause of death. But, that said, you can bet that at least once during this process the defense offered to plea to manslaughter. And the arrogant *** of a prosecutor turned it down.
Verdicts are determined by the law. Since the law does not define not calling 911 when your child is missing as abuse, the jury cannot convict her of it. It doesn't matter what your emotional response to the situation is, the jury came to the only verdict that they could. The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. That's the bottom line.
She may have gotten away with murder in this lifetime but remember who she has to answer to on judgement day! The Lord will be the only one who can judge her now!
Blame the Prosecutor on this one. He had very little physical evidence to go on and to seek a death penalty on such flimsy evidence was not a bright decision. Had he lowered his aim a little, he would have gotten convictions.
Obviously she was guilty, but i do believe the Media was at least partly responsible for the Verdict. Oh how i loved watching their righteous indignation at both the verdict, and their being called out on their over the top coverage of this case, since ther very beginning.
No, I don't agree. My question is there was true evidence of child neglect, but did that go under felony murder or was that a separate count. If it was a separate count, then surely the jury should have ruled on that.
Hey Derkie51, I really doubt that. She has proven she has no conscience. Do you think she actually card about that child? I don't... Her actions speak for themselves.
And to yooper602: I have seen people convicted on less.
The key issue at play here is the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Prosecuters are required to prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury to return a guilty verdict. They failed to meet that very high standard. The verdict doesn't mean that she was found innocent, it merely means that she is "not guilty" based on the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement.
BryanJSebeck
I've got to say that I'm rather disheartened by the level of inhumanity expressed towards another human being by people hiding behind fake names and computer screens.
Sure, she may have done it, but there's not evidence to prove it. Does this mean that she ought to be subject to torture and cruel and unusual punishment? Of course not, yet that's what several people here have suggested.
If you actually believe these things to be true, I sincerely hope that you wouldn't say them out loud to another person. They provide such a poor representation of the UP as it is. Saying them to another person would be a representation of everything that's wrong with the UP.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
HonoraryYooper61
They should do a mandatory hysterectomy on her because she will have more children. She should not be allowed to be a mother for the rest of her life. She is a disgrace to the word mother.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Mander
I knew a not guilty verdict would result, due mostly to some of the reasons stated here - HOWEVER after reading more and more on this jury and THEIR reasons? I'm dumbfounded. They were really a true panel of morons who accidentally came to the right conclusion.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
MikeDavis
There was no evidence. Just junk science. Could not determine cause of death. But, that said, you can bet that at least once during this process the defense offered to plea to manslaughter. And the arrogant *** of a prosecutor turned it down.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BryanJSebeck
dannydods, I think you're missing the point here.
Verdicts are determined by the law. Since the law does not define not calling 911 when your child is missing as abuse, the jury cannot convict her of it. It doesn't matter what your emotional response to the situation is, the jury came to the only verdict that they could. The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. That's the bottom line.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
flipdscript
Did anyone see the Hangover 2?
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Tigress
She may have gotten away with murder in this lifetime but remember who she has to answer to on judgement day! The Lord will be the only one who can judge her now!
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Retiredandhappy
Blame the Prosecutor on this one. He had very little physical evidence to go on and to seek a death penalty on such flimsy evidence was not a bright decision. Had he lowered his aim a little, he would have gotten convictions.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
skibum66
Obviously she was guilty, but i do believe the Media was at least partly responsible for the Verdict. Oh how i loved watching their righteous indignation at both the verdict, and their being called out on their over the top coverage of this case, since ther very beginning.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
YooperLife
wrong or not i would have voted guilty if i was on that jury.. everyone knows she did it, theres just not enough proof...
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
jswan65
No, I don't agree. My question is there was true evidence of child neglect, but did that go under felony murder or was that a separate count. If it was a separate count, then surely the jury should have ruled on that.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Snowbird
Hey Derkie51, I really doubt that. She has proven she has no conscience. Do you think she actually card about that child? I don't... Her actions speak for themselves.
And to yooper602: I have seen people convicted on less.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Derkie51
I would watch my back if I were her. The fact is she has to live with what she did and that will do her in.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
yooper602
can't convict on 1 hair and a can of air. the rest was all her lies they never proved she did it . i think she did it but also they got it right.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Snowbird
Were those jurors at the same trial as I was??? Obviously KNOT.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BryanJSebeck
The key issue at play here is the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Prosecuters are required to prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury to return a guilty verdict. They failed to meet that very high standard. The verdict doesn't mean that she was found innocent, it merely means that she is "not guilty" based on the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »