thanks interwebz police. :MARIS61: i'm just finding it amusing for all the nerds following this shit being outraged for shit they know nothing about.
seriously though, most of the shit is people making their minds without looking at the evidence presented. face it, people don't know shit about it...they see these chickens with their heads cut off on CNN or whatever blab and blab about how she is guilty without proving a case. its all emotional. people made up their minds based on the reporting of Nancy Grace.
Not in this case though. Almost every piece of evidence they found was directed towards the defendant. But I agree with you about people making up their minds based on strictly what other people say
It was all circumstantial. internet search for chloroform? seriously? thats enough to send someone to death? what else was there. I hear bits and pieces in the news. duct tape. there was supposedly the air particles from a rotting corpse in her car? I'm just not a firm believer in circumstantial evidence.
i never saw a single show about it, just reading some of the facts paints a pretty dark picture though. her defense was that the kid drowned, and that she threw her in the woods? umm ok. then she waits a month to report her missing? umm ok. and then lies to the cops and makes up a story about a kidnapping? umm ok. and she had been out at clubs drinking and partying the whole time? hmmm. the DA clearly should have gotten a better case together but... even if that is all true, she needs to be locked up anyways.
again, no evidence to prove otherwise. there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not "hmmmm....this could have happened".
agreed, its crazy that the DA thought they could win with nothing havent heard about any of this duct tape, air particulate stuff though
for the record, i don't really trust jury trials. i think its a stupid system, especially since by aquitting her, the juror's book deals and appearance fees are going to be worth 4x as much now.
Had the DA not sought murder 1 then it might have had a better chance. That being said, I felt the evidence was overwhelming against her
hmm that is kinda fucked up, but do you think they openly talked about that? all it takes is 1 person to disagree with the other 11
perhaps. It had to cross in most of their minds. think about it....if she's guilty...no focus on the jurors. they maybe get 10k to appear on 20/20. Now they get book deals, interview circuits, 50-100k an appearance, etc. there was some jury going around with a PR agent already cold calling for apperances @ 50k a pop.
