To: djf
I did not follow this trial. Does anyone know if the evidence was compelling?
15 posted on
12/04/2009 3:19:41 PM PST by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: BunnySlippers
No,the evidance is shady and circumstantial at best. I’ve been paying attn. To this and I don’t think she did it.
34 posted on
12/04/2009 3:28:00 PM PST by
Halls
(Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
To: BunnySlippers
36 posted on
12/04/2009 3:29:19 PM PST by
BunnySlippers
(I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
To: BunnySlippers
According to an article I read yesterday, no.
37 posted on
12/04/2009 3:30:07 PM PST by
CaptRon
To: BunnySlippers
I halfheartedly followed it. Unless there was some evidence that didn’t get to the US press I’m not in the beyond reasonable doubt camp. I wasn’t on the jury though nor in the courtroom. From what I’ve seen everything was pretty circumstantial.
40 posted on
12/04/2009 3:31:22 PM PST by
Domandred
(Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system. I am Jim Thompson.)
To: BunnySlippers
One piece of the evidence says that the ONLY fingerprints in the murder site were of the male in the mix...the prosecution claims that she managed to erase ONLY her fingerprints from the scene, since they couldn’t find any of hers in the room. The prosecution had been charged with committing crimes during the trial but it was allowed ti continue. No Justice here obviously.
80 posted on
12/04/2009 4:06:40 PM PST by
junkman_106
(USN, Ret.and Mad as Hell. I've got the skills, come get my weapons!)
To: BunnySlippers
There were fingerprints in the room of the murder of everyone but Amanda's, including a mysterious third person not caught. The prosecution claimed she wiped her fingerprints away.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson