Because they won? Or, because they finally got to take a deep breath and think about the child?

rfenst wrote:

State sponsored execution does nothing but satisfy the blood lust of the masses.It's wrong , sinful and not a deterrent.

wheelrite wrote:

So if you come across a rabid dog you would make friends.

Gene363 wrote:

The problem with this case was:

We don't know how Kaylee died.

We don't know when she died.

We don't know where she died.

We don't know if she was murdered.

We jumped to the conclusion that because the mom didn't report it, and nobody has come forward and admitted to it, the mom must have murdered her.

It just didn't work and now people are outraged.

(We have not tried Nancy Grace for the crime so there is still hope)

HockeyDad wrote:

It's obvious to the world that all the bad Lawyers are in Florida.

Is it because it doesn't pay well ?

wheelrite wrote:

It is a minimum wage job.

HockeyDad wrote:

...but regardless of pay and efficiency in pursuing ambulances, that still doesn't create evidence in a murder case.

HockeyDad wrote:

That's my point...

If it paid better it would attract better people that can prosecute a murder case competently or fix a taffic ticket in a timely fashion...

wheelrite wrote:

You could pay that lawyer a million dollars and it wouldn't change what he had to work with for the case. Don't you watch Law & Order?

HockeyDad wrote:

Not since that hottie Angie Harmon was on there,,,

wheelrite wrote:

I always thought Carey Lowell was hotter.

Ron

Whistlebritches wrote:

Ron,,

You are soooooo wrong,,,

wheelrite wrote:

You could pay that lawyer a million dollars and it wouldn't change what he had to work with for the case. Don't you watch Law & Order?

HockeyDad wrote:

Well at 5'10" I can definately see why you would have a problem with her...........MIDGET

She did disappoint me when she hooked up with Richard Gere.....now that dude is OUT THERE............

Ron

Whistlebritches wrote:

At the risk of fanning the flames here, I am very troubled about the rush for the public to convict her.

Yes, the crime was awful.

AND -

we have no idea what the jury actually heard. we do not know what pieces of evidence in the news were admissible in court or not.

we do not know what evidence was and was not given to the jury

we do not know what the jury was instructed to not consider

we do not know all of the witnesses who testified, what exactly they said, how believable they were, or how vague the details were.

It is easy for the media to paint a picture that the public latches onto as true that fails in the fact arena

It is the job of the prosecution to convince the jury - beyond a reasonable doubt - that she committed the crime. They failed in that task

I was on a jury today (much lesser crime) where all of us thought that it was conceivable that the guy did do what he was accused of doing. A few of us thought he probably did it. And it was nowhere near proven that he did. So we ruled not guilty. In the newspapers this would probably come out as the guy got away with one.

I struggle with media trials. I really do.

richokeeffe wrote: