StarTunnel
Does not compute.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,774
I for one do know how the legal system works in this case, but I'm not sure if anyone else besides you does too. To tell you the truth, many cases are circumstantial, you cant find HARD evidence in every case, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you found a body, with (sorry to be graphic), a knife plunged into it's back, and saw a man run away from the scene, but the knife didn't have his DNA on it, is it circumstantial that he just happened to be running away at that exact moment? Also, you have to prove it beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not ALL doubt. Saying she didn't kill her child beyond a reasonable doubt is just well, I really can't see who else could have killed her if even the parents say she never drowned. The jury also focused their attention on the opening statements. I think they actually believed the opening statement was considered evidence. I don't think anyone explained this to them. I feel the state should have taken a different approach, perhaps manslaughter? Aggravated manslaughter? And on your point of cruel and unusual punishment, if she was cruel like that to the child, how is doing it to her considered cruel and unusual punishment? I've always wondered that, but I'm sure people take many different stances on this.