Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "^^^ YES! That "Tot Mom" title is getting on my last nerve." Amen to that! I find it hard to believe she was ever a lawyer. She seems very quick to jump to conclusions and refuses to ever accept OR EVEN LISTEN TO any other opinion except her own.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've been thinking more about this "reasonable doubt" standard and I think I'm shifting my opinion on it. I think you can be at the verge of reasonable doubt yet still find her guilty. Yes, the defense threw out some curveballs in hopes of taking the juror's eyes off the truth...but one can reasonably pressume that she did it, and therefore find her guilty.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I'm no opponent of the death penalty, but I think having it on the table increased the burden of proof needed in the jurors' minds. I think the evidence might have been enough to convict if they thought she was facing 25 to life instead.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 they had a manslaughter charge which carried much less of a sentence- they blew past all of that.. they bought the dog and pony show of the defense.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The jurors confirmed what many of us lawyer types thought, that you can't convict her of a capital crime unless you can tell her how she did it. All they knew was that the child was dead, and that wasn't enough. No convincing evidence was presented on when she died, where she died or how she died. There's a concept in tort law called Res Ipsa Loquitur, which basically says "well, this thing A happened, so it stands to reason that event B must have caused it." The thing speaks for itself. Res Ipsa is not a standard by which to send someone to their death.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///The sad thing is, she could admit it tomorrow and never be convicted./// Well technically 'no'..... ((Say some overzealous US attorney, acting with 'passion and prejudice', decided to apply some nebulous but tested federal statute to prosecute Anthony. If the United States can prove that a telephone call and/or mail was intrumental in the murder, then Ms. Anthony could be subject to a US indictment. Oh and for those who cry foul citing 5th Amendment abuse, well, sorry but dual sovereignty applies.)) .....but practically 'yes'.
Originally Posted By barboy2 Hey Counselor, I'm starting to agree with Tokyo X about your 'qualifications' and/or 'talents' as a jurist. You chose wisely when you positioned yourself in the public sector.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder barboy, a while back I wrote off your ramblings here as those of a wasted stiff.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Newworldseeker >>All I know is that she'll be judged by a Higher Power someday soon.. < You can say God, It's ok you can say it
Originally Posted By mele Ugh, did you see that mask that someone made? Creepy...but not as creepy as the creep buying it for a million bucks (if they actually pay for it).
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Why won't this just go away?<< Patience. It will. Just like the Chilean coal miners.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
