On 7/6/11 1:54 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 06/07/2011 6:43 AM, iBoat alot wrote:
In articled0c9368a-9ba7-4cde-9b94-919045167f75
@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...
On Jul 5, 9:38 pm, wrote:
So in Florida, kid makes too much noise just throw them to the gators.
If someone comes asking, just lie.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...y-verdict.html
Does not mater you never reported your two year old missing. Does not
mater that there is no sane use for chloroform in the home or you leave
some behind. No explanations required....
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.
------
In Debt We Trust!
-- Obama and the democrats, world record in debt incursion.
Are you surprised??
You just have to look at some of the Floridians we suffer in here on a
daily basis to understand what passes for 'normal' down there.
You stupid ****! There are specific, VERY specific guidelines set for a
conviction of first degree murder. Those weren't met. Period. It's a
shame the prosecution didn't do a good enough job, for sure, but again,
those specific guidelines weren't met. You need to go back to Harry's
group and do some self education.
Then they could have gone for second degree or manslaughter. They were
not stuck with the chair or nothing else. In fact, while I believe her
guilty as it gets, I admit I would have been reluctant to do the death
penalty with what I know of this case. But I wouldn't have let her skip
off to do it again....20-25 is appropriate. She can always talk, take a
polygraph and appeal.
As a parent, if my kid was missing for 31 minutes I would be frantically
looking for her non-stop until I found her. Fact is, she didn't give a
flying dead rats ass about Caylee, parental negligence and abuse could
have easily stuck.
Fact is, unreasonable jury just wanted out. Victim gets no justice or
representation.
1. The prosecution could have sought different, lesser, charges. No
dispute there. If it had, it might have gotten a conviction.
2. There was no evidence offered of negligence or abuse, so we have no
idea of what might have "stuck."
3. You have no way of knowing what happened in the jury room, other than
the jury was not convinced by the prosecution. My theory is that the
prosecutors, figuring they were facing an accused without financial
means, threw the book at the defendant and figured it would stick. They
prosecuted beyond what their evidence could prove, and instead of a
cheesy public defender, they faced a law firm with some resources. The
victim got representation. Justice? We don't know.
There is no shortage of impoverished defendants in this country who are
railroaded into prison for long terms because they cannot afford good
counsel.
--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing