I feel like I just watched the OJ verdict - Page 3

Trip · 07-05-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

There is actually... well sorta... At least for her, she's got a defamation case pending for some people with the name of the mystery nanny that she said kidnapped the kid. Probably won't fly though...

They can only stop that part of the story.

OneSickPsycho · 07-05-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip

They can only stop that part of the story.

Not even stop it... they could potentially sue her for ANY money she makes off of it...

ontwo · 07-05-2011, 03:53 PM

They did go for lesser charges and they acquitted her on abuse and manslaughter.

I can imagine the deliberations. You know there were at least a few in that room saying, "I know she did it, but can I convict her by the letter of the law?" Which brings us back to the defense planted the right seeds of doubt.

tommymac · 07-05-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontwo

They did go for lesser charges and they acquitted her on abuse and manslaughter.

I can imagine the deliberations. You know there were at least a few in that room saying, "I know she did it, but can I convict her by the letter of the law?" Which brings us back to the defense planted the right seeds of doubt.

That prety much summs it up, if the defense can cause the slightest element of doubt then you prety much have to let them go.

OneSickPsycho · 07-05-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontwo

They did go for lesser charges and they acquitted her on abuse and manslaughter.

I can imagine the deliberations. You know there were at least a few in that room saying, "I know she did it, but can I convict her by the letter of the law?" Which brings us back to the defense planted the right seeds of doubt.

The abuse and manslaughter charges were 'aggravated' charges... In other words, she had to have KNOWINGLY put her child in harm and or allowed her to be murdered... Everything that came from her mouth before the trial and the defense's contention (and testimony) that the girl drowned in the pool effectively cancelled out any sort of 'aggravated' charges.

pauldun170 · 07-05-2011, 04:23 PM

It is what it is.
The whole concept is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
They did not prove her to be guilty.
I have nothing that could prove her to be guilty.

So be it

Particle Man · 07-05-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommymac

That prety much summs it up, if the defense can cause the slightest element of doubt then you prety much have to let them go.

A lot of folks don't understand the concept of "reasonable doubt."

We're too used to making emotional and/or "popular" decisions these days.

101lifts2 · 07-05-2011, 04:27 PM

If they couldn't figure out how the kid died then they shouldn't have went to court.

101lifts2 · 07-05-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldun170

It is what it is.
The whole concept is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
They did not prove her to be guilty.
I have nothing that could prove her to be guilty.

So be it

Agreed.

Particle Man · 07-05-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

If they couldn't figure out how the kid died then they shouldn't have went to court.

Yep. They blew their wad too early.

07-05-2011, 03:53 PM	#23
ontwo Designated Drinker Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: shitville Moto: 2009 ZX6R Posts: 1,661	They did go for lesser charges and they acquitted her on abuse and manslaughter. I can imagine the deliberations. You know there were at least a few in that room saying, "I know she did it, but can I convict her by the letter of the law?" Which brings us back to the defense planted the right seeds of doubt. __________________

07-05-2011, 04:27 PM	#28
101lifts2 WSB Champion Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Anaheim, CA Moto: 2009 Kawi ZX6R Posts: 5,570	If they couldn't figure out how the kid died then they shouldn't have went to court. __________________ Train Hard Ron Paul - 2012 Mark of Excellence GM