ping
a couple of years ago she might have got a not guilty verdict. But time has not been kind to her, so I say guilty.
More evidence that Duke can burn to the ground and take “Coach K” with it. I really wouldn’t care.
Might be a good strategic tactic for the prosecution, depending on the mood in the community.
Remember that Mr. Nifong opened that whole Duke Lacrosse can of worms because he thought it would help him in the election to get votes and he was right on that.
Bringing up the Duke Lacrosse case again might awaken the sympathy of the people on the jury.
I am not sure that they have much of a case against her, if the story is correct and she set her boyfriends clothing on fire in a bathtub. I would say:
1. Arson is probably going to be hard to prove as a bathtub is a pretty safe place to burn something.
2. Contributing to the delinquency of her three children is hard for me to see too. Child endangerment or neglect would make more sense, but even that might be a reach with the cops in the house and the likely failure of the arson charge.
3. They probably have her on distruction of property.
4. Hard to know about resisting arrest since the article does not address that.
Again if the paper described what she did accurately, I could see her walking on the entire deal if the jury is willing to ignore the destruction of property charge.
I am not sure that they have much of a case against her, if the story is correct and she set her boyfriends clothing on fire in a bathtub. I would say:
1. Arson is probably going to be hard to prove as a bathtub is a pretty safe place to burn something.
2. Contributing to the delinquency of her three children is hard for me to see too. Child endangerment or neglect would make more sense, but even that might be a reach with the cops in the house and the likely failure of the arson charge.
3. They probably have her on distruction of property.
4. Hard to know about resisting arrest since the article does not address that.
Again if the paper described what she did accurately, I could see her walking on the entire deal if the jury is willing to ignore the destruction of property charge.
WTF is wrong with the prosecutors down there? Perjury is admissible on cross as a prior bad act showing lack of truthfulness 99.9% of the time.
Even in New York, it came in. The only reason not to use it would be if the prosecutor WANTED her on the stand to cross. But he’d have to be sure of the conviction if she didn’t. I would just as soon keep her off.
More special rights for criminals.
Was recently watching a show on the History Channel... something to do with Rome, and there was Mary T. Boatwright pontificating on the subject. You’d think that the History Channel could find a less offensive person.