Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.Woodsey said:OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
Just as well she wasn't on the jury then.HumpinHop said:Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.Woodsey said:OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
Based on what I've read, it appears that the searches were attributed to her mother. Though why her mother would be looking up chloroform confuses me.rhizhim said:links about how to use chloroform and several 'child missing' pages were found on her pc.
Because evidently you know far more about the case than the jury who had to sit through 33 days of testimony.Cormitt said:Once more the US jury gets it wrong. No justice for the little girl. Oh well, leave it with the prosecutors for screwing up what would otherwise be a slam dunk.
Chloroform is not exactly that much of an exotic thing if I compare it to my list of Google searches in the last few daysJoel Dawson said:Based on what I've read, it appears that the searches were attributed to her mother. Though why her mother would be looking up chloroform confuses me.rhizhim said:links about how to use chloroform and several 'child missing' pages were found on her pc.
Pretty sure it says the in the news report that the cause of death couldn't be determined,so how you know it was a snapped neck I don't know, but maybe you should bring that evidence to light.HumpinHop said:Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.Woodsey said:OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
I believe neck breaking was one of the Google searches, from what I can recall of the jury coverage. I didn't mean to imply that she did break her childs neck, but that my mother perceived her to based on the evidence.razer17 said:Pretty sure it says the in the news report that the cause of death couldn't be determined,so how you know it was a snapped neck I don't know, but maybe you should bring that evidence to light.HumpinHop said:Key word being 'mother'. She has two boys, so the idea of someone breaking the neck of their two year old daughter and getting away with it might be a bit hard on her. It seems the majority of the people pulling for the guilty verdict were mothers who were committed to her being guilty from the start.Woodsey said:OK, so she's not guilty then. I don't see why your mother cried over it.
OT: Everyone here is going off on one about how this is a miscarriage of justice and crying out about the state of the legal system. Thing is: No one here know the true facts, no one here was in that courtroom, no one here saw the evidence.
A jury said she wasn't guilty, and that's it. They must have had good reasons to declare her not guilty. Now, I'm not saying that she definitely didn't do it, but I am saying that she was found innocent, so stop treating her as if she is definitely guilty. Plus it's better to let someone guilty off than to lock someone innocent up.
So does mine, but because I accidently left chicken in my car on a hot summer afternoon.cyrogeist said:my reaction: utter bullshit
her mother said her car smelled like dead people...
It's a court of law, not a public stoning. She's had her day in court and found to be not guilty so people should now just shut the hell up and accept it. I know that's hard for mothers with high maternal instincts but too bad, they're just going to have to suck it up, and it's not like the private affairs of other people are really any of their business anyway. It's between her, the people who it directly affects and the courts, and nobody else - despite how the media may make it seem. People who believe in the idea of vigilante justice should move to some dodgy country where they can stone people to death on suspicion alone. In the meantime civilised people in proper countries will use the court system and accept both the process and the results that it produces, even if they don't happen to always like it.HumpinHop said:How is everyone reacting to the verdict, yay or nay?
Think about it in the context of the trial, it makes 100% complete and perfect sense.The Lesbian Flower said:She had absolutely no reaction when the defense was telling how gruesome her child's death was and describing it in great detail but was in tears during her verdict. That doesn't seem right.
She done killed her 2 year old!aba1 said:what exactly did she do whats going on?
This was a death penalty case. They shouldn't be executing people in the first case, but if the government is going to do it, they'd better be damned sure that the person is actually guilty. There was too much reason to doubt that she committed murder.Owyn_Merrilin said:I'd say justice was served. There was no evidence that she was guilty of anything aside from lying to police officers, and there was reason to believe she did that because she wasn't entirely right in the head. Despite what the media's coverage of cases like this lead people to believe, people are innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution had no proof.