its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
edited July 2011
When I read the evidence, the FBI's conclusion was that it was decomposition material of a dead child that was either caylee or someone very similar to her. Like they hadnt conclusively proved it was her verses some other 2 year old little blonde girl. But considering no other children were missing in that area from that time.... pretty damn obvious it was caylee dead corpse in her trunk.
but if you can't 100% prove it was caylees it would be ripped apart in court
think about that for a second. It was 100% proved to be a 2 year old child that was dead in her trunk. If NOT caylee then what non-existant baby. Like Satan said... stop getting so hung up on DNA. Nothing about the evidence points to anyone else.
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
no what i said was all their other evidence was junk and without haveing DNA there was just no way to convict. you can forgo DNA if all your other evidence is solid, this was not the case here
maybe it doesn't....but its just as credible as the prosecutions theory of her killing her because she wanted more free time....thats just retarded...and that was there first misstep in there case against her
I doubt that is what they said... and if they did, that is dumb. I don't believe she purposely killed caylee. I believe she wanted to go out partying, she chloroformed her child so she wouldnt wake up, and since she isnt a chemist the process accidentally killed her. And she probably didnt know until the next morning... maybe that night. I'll bet she was sick to her stomach and wanted to die. I'll bet the last thing she wanted was her little girl to die at her hands. But since she was dead, she covered it up.
that was one of the prosecutions theroys...that she killed her because she wanted more free time
Just think the amount of money that every talk show is gonna pay to have this woman on their show to give her case. Welcome to America. This bitch just murdered a baby and is gonna make profit off of it and live a nice life.
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
no what i said was all their other evidence was junk and without haveing DNA there was just no way to convict. you can forgo DNA if all your other evidence is solid, this was not the case here
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
no what i said was all their other evidence was junk and without haveing DNA there was just no way to convict. you can forgo DNA if all your other evidence is solid, this was not the case here
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
no what i said was all their other evidence was junk and without haveing DNA there was just no way to convict. you can forgo DNA if all your other evidence is solid, this was not the case here
i'm curious what other evidence you needed?
something that's not circumstantial maybe? i mean the death penalty was on the table here, you need some sort of indisputable proof.
When I read the evidence, the FBI's conclusion was that it was decomposition material of a dead child that was either caylee or someone very similar to her. Like they hadnt conclusively proved it was her verses some other 2 year old little blonde girl. But considering no other children were missing in that area from that time.... pretty damn obvious it was caylee dead corpse in her trunk.
but if you can't 100% prove it was caylees it would be ripped apart in court
think about that for a second. It was 100% proved to be a 2 year old child that was dead in her trunk. If NOT caylee then what non-existant baby. Like Satan said... stop getting so hung up on DNA. Nothing about the evidence points to anyone else.
im not saying i need dna evidence....im saying that if its not caylees then who's is it? how did it get there? how can you prove it was someone who is dead...these are all things the defense could have ran a marathon with...it would have not helped the prosecutions case if you can't prove it was caylees...hell why would the prosecution even want dna evidence if they can't prove who that DNA came from?
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Well, I'm almost sterile so I can't really say I know how you feel but I know what it's like to have a child that I've been there since day 1 for. I woke up with her and did everything while her mother just worked and went out dating. I could probably tell you a lot more about her than her own mother.
I don't know how that is, because I have never been close to kids before.... What I will say is this-
When my wife was pregnant with our first, she would always talk about how much she loved the baby in her stomach. And I felt like this shittist dad in the world because I had no feelings for that child. On her birth, when I saw her face, and I saw features of me in that child, it was literally like someone hit me with a sludge hammer. My whole body went numb, and I was overwhelmed with this immense feeling of love for this baby. I wanted to scream from every roof top and show the world my beautiful baby. I wanted to hold her and protect her and let nothing ever happen to her. This is the sort of love that parents typically have for their babies....
And I can't imagine doing what this bitch did. [-(
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
no what i said was all their other evidence was junk and without haveing DNA there was just no way to convict. you can forgo DNA if all your other evidence is solid, this was not the case here
i'm curious what other evidence you needed?
something that's not circumstantial maybe? i mean the death penalty was on the table here, you need some sort of indisputable proof.
like what?
people testified that she mistreated the kid and showed no remorse after she disappeared. common sense, dude.
Well, I'm almost sterile so I can't really say I know how you feel but I know what it's like to have a child that I've been there since day 1 for. I woke up with her and did everything while her mother just worked and went out dating. I could probably tell you a lot more about her than her own mother.
I don't know how that is, because I have never been close to kids before.... What I will say is this-
When my wife was pregnant with our first, she would always talk about how much she loved the baby in her stomach. And I felt like this shittist dad in the world because I had no feelings for that child. On her birth, when I saw her face, and I saw features of me in that child, it was literally like someone hit me with a sludge hammer. My whole body went numb, and I was overwhelmed with this immense feeling of love for this baby. I wanted to scream from every roof top and show the world my beautiful baby. I wanted to hold her and protect her and let nothing ever happen to her. This is the sort of love that parents typically have for their babies....
And I can't imagine doing what this bitch did. [-(
see thats where your problem in your judgement comes...you compare this to your kids and make it personal....when judging somone on a murder trail that could send them to there death you need to take all personal feelings out of it...IMO
its clear in the thread who does and does not understand the judicial system
no. i work in law. i think too many people watch law & order and just assume that there's gonna be gobs of dna evidence to support every claim...which is ridiculous.
i've never watched that junk regardless the prosecution was sloppy all the way and without DNA that was just the nail in the coffin to their accusations
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
no what i said was all their other evidence was junk and without haveing DNA there was just no way to convict. you can forgo DNA if all your other evidence is solid, this was not the case here
i'm curious what other evidence you needed?
something that's not circumstantial maybe? i mean the death penalty was on the table here, you need some sort of indisputable proof.
like what?
people testified that she mistreated the kid and showed no remorse after she disappeared. common sense, dude.
ok so she was a bad mom, how does that prove murder beyond any reasonable doubt?
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
but if you can't 100% prove it was caylees it would be ripped apart in court
think about that for a second. It was 100% proved to be a 2 year old child that was dead in her trunk. If NOT caylee then what non-existant baby. Like Satan said... stop getting so hung up on DNA. Nothing about the evidence points to anyone else.
im not saying i need dna evidence....im saying that if its not caylees then who's is it? how did it get there? how can you prove it was someone who is dead...these are all things the defense could have ran a marathon with...it would have not helped the prosecutions case if you can't prove it was caylees...hell why would the prosecution even want dna evidence if they can't prove who that DNA came from?
Right. If its not cayless then who is it? Are there any other dead or missing 2-3 year olds with blonde hair in the area? NOPE. it's caylee's.
Talk to the FBI how they proved it was decomposition material from a 2-3 year old blonde hair girl. I am not in that science, I only read their report that 100% put a dead 2-3 year old blonde child in her trunk.
Well, I'm almost sterile so I can't really say I know how you feel but I know what it's like to have a child that I've been there since day 1 for. I woke up with her and did everything while her mother just worked and went out dating. I could probably tell you a lot more about her than her own mother.
I don't know how that is, because I have never been close to kids before.... What I will say is this-
When my wife was pregnant with our first, she would always talk about how much she loved the baby in her stomach. And I felt like this shittist dad in the world because I had no feelings for that child. On her birth, when I saw her face, and I saw features of me in that child, it was literally like someone hit me with a sludge hammer. My whole body went numb, and I was overwhelmed with this immense feeling of love for this baby. I wanted to scream from every roof top and show the world my beautiful baby. I wanted to hold her and protect her and let nothing ever happen to her. This is the sort of love that parents typically have for their babies....
And I can't imagine doing what this bitch did. [-(
see thats where your problem in your judgement comes...you compare this to your kids and make it personal....when judging somone on a murder trail that could send them to there death you need to take all personal feelings out of it...IMO
theres a reason Jurors for death penalty cases need to be certified
Comments
so, in your estimation, EVERY SINGLE CASE needs dna evidence in order to convict???
that's ridiculous
im not saying i need dna evidence....im saying that if its not caylees then who's is it? how did it get there? how can you prove it was someone who is dead...these are all things the defense could have ran a marathon with...it would have not helped the prosecutions case if you can't prove it was caylees...hell why would the prosecution even want dna evidence if they can't prove who that DNA came from?
When my wife was pregnant with our first, she would always talk about how much she loved the baby in her stomach. And I felt like this shittist dad in the world because I had no feelings for that child. On her birth, when I saw her face, and I saw features of me in that child, it was literally like someone hit me with a sludge hammer. My whole body went numb, and I was overwhelmed with this immense feeling of love for this baby. I wanted to scream from every roof top and show the world my beautiful baby. I wanted to hold her and protect her and let nothing ever happen to her. This is the sort of love that parents typically have for their babies....
And I can't imagine doing what this bitch did. [-(
people testified that she mistreated the kid and showed no remorse after she disappeared. common sense, dude.
Talk to the FBI how they proved it was decomposition material from a 2-3 year old blonde hair girl. I am not in that science, I only read their report that 100% put a dead 2-3 year old blonde child in her trunk.