Posted on 07/06/2011 1:58:31 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
An alternate juror in the Casey Anthony trials has said that he believes that Anthony was a good mother and that two-year-old Caylee’s death was just a horrific accident.
The sensational acquittal of Casey Anthony sparked outrage across the U.S. as angry spectators compared the trial’s outcome to the infamous verdict in the OJ Simpson case.
But Russell Huekler, one of five alternate jurors who were present for all the testimony and were sequestered with the 12 other jurors, said he would have given the same verdict and is stunned by the public anger.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Actually, I can think of no good reason to sequester a jury, or have a judge to tell them what to consider or disregard in the way of testimony. If a trial is all about finding the truth, the more information the better.
If you chloroform someone, they would be “out” and easily manipulated and duct taped without the “mess of a struggle”. Both could logically be used, with chloroform first, then lack of O2 as cause of death.
Anyone presented all of the following evidence whose reasonable conclusion is that she was a good loving mother is incompetent to be a juror for anything at all:
- The defense showed a few smiling pictures of Casey & Caylee and looking happy.
- The defense stated during argument and several witnesses confirmed that they had no evidence that the mother physically abused or neglected the child prior to the child’s death.
- Casey claims that she knew her 2-year old baby died in some accident, but she has never once explained the details of the accident or how she was or was not involved;
- Immediately after her child’s death, she went on a 31-day booze-boys-and-hot-body-contests party;
- She was so un-shaken by her baby’s death that her roommates & party friends did not notice that anything at all exceptional was happening in her life until they saw news reports about the missing child;
- She got a “beautiful life” tattoo and had plans to get a second with a friend;
- She never reported anything about the baby to the police. Casey didn’t report the missing child report, the grandmother reported it in two 911 calls where the grandmother sounded frantic and where Casey was non-chalant & not volunteering information;
- When questioned by the police, she invented fantastic lies about what had happened, and appeared , and has still to this day refused to provide an explanation or alibi as to what she was doing when her baby dies (which again, she claims she knows exactly when & where & how it happened).
- During the first several days she interacted with police, every officer she came in contact with noted that “at no time during any of the above interviews did Casey show any abvious emotion as to the loss of her child. She did not cry or give any indication that she was legitimately worried about her child.”
- On her phone call home after being arrested for suspicion of having killed her own child, she got noticably angry when asked by 3 different people to explain what had happened to her child, and was only interested in getting her boyfriend’s phone number, who she admitted would have no information to offer to her or the police about Caley.
“Convictions are made on circumstantial evidence all the time”
Hannity today made one of the dumbest comments he’s said in a while (and he’s said some stupid ones). He said that the case was based only only on circumstantial evidence, and it lacked any DNA evidence, fingerprints, a smoking gun, etc.
Uhm, DNA evidence IS circumstantial evidence.
Fingerprints ARE cincumstantial evidence.
A “smoking gun” IS circumstantial evidence - “I didn’t see him shoot her, but when I arrived at the scene he was holding a smoking gun.”
Cases that relied solely on circumstantial evidence:
- Scott Peterson for 1st degree murder of Laci Peterson - only forensic evidence was 1 strand of Laci’s hair in Scott’s boat.
- OJ Simpson’s original double-murder case.
- Tim McVeigh.
- Bobby Frank Cherry, for killing 4 girls when bombing Birminghams’ 16th Street Baptist Church, convicted decades after the crime was committed.
The grandfather, Casey’s father, said in those first few days after he last saw Caylee alive, that he was “looking for a tire tool” on June 24 and looked in the trunk of Casey’s car for this while her car was parked at his house. And he found 2 cans of gas that he had just reported “stolen” to the police. Reporting them “stolen” to the police puts that into the record. Later that day he “finds” them in her trunk. No on else was there to corroborate his story. He could have been framing her, setting up the trunk. He is an ex-cop. If any DNA from him is later found in the trunk, he has an explanation of why it is there: it got deposited when he found those “stolen cans of gas”. George could have planted evidence framing Casey at this time.
Casey haplessly allegedly goes to the beach, her car gets towed, winds up back at her parents house and on July 16 her mother, Cindy, makes the call to 911 and says “it smells like there’s been a dead body” in the car.
But if you recall, Cindy held out hope that Caylee was alive for months after that with the circus of searching that was going on through the fall. What happened to the “dead body smell” in the car in Cindy’s mind ?
Why would George Anthony break down in trial, if Casey was guilty of the murder and he and his wife had so many problems with Casey and were tired of all her lying, and this is over 2 years after the body was found ? What’s the big bachagaloop crying about ?
He was taken to a hospital after he sent suicidal messages on January 23, 2009, a few weeks after the body was found in December of 2008. Why would finding the body make him that upset if Casey was the murderer, since Casey had been indicted for the murder on Oct 14 2008, about 3 months prior ? The finding of the body was applying pressure to him, not the accusation of Casey and any heartbreak over that. The Florida State Attorney’s Office had released 311 pages of new documents the day before the suicidal behavior, January 22, 2009.
He’s acting all upset sometimes, but for Casey ? For Caylee ? For himself ? Other times he seems like Mr. Cool.
IMHO...
George stinks worse than that trunk did. Methinks Casey did not commit a murder. George has sort of an odd past and may have enemies. The child may have been murdered by someone else or may have accidentally died. Casey was seen by George as someone that could be framed to make it look like she did a poor coverup job of a murder. If she did have to stand trial, she would look very guilty and thereby entice the DA to overcharge with the death penalty, but with such scant evidence would be hard to actually convict. She’d have a scare put into her and perhaps straighten her life out. And once that happens, she can’t be tried again, and with the little evidence there is, the State is hardly interested in starting up a whole new case against another suspect - that would generate enormous criticism of the DA. Everyone thinks Casey did it.
The problem with your theory is that not even the defense challenged WHO was the child in the custody of when the ‘missing’ took place.
Casey told investigators she last saw the child after she took her to ‘Zanny’ the ‘Nanny’. George may be a lot of things but there was NOT one shred of reasonable evidence that he had one thing to do with the death or dumping of that child.
After almost 40 years working as a court reporter/stenographer in the military justice system, I have always felt that the instruction given to panel members on reasonable doubt was excellent. When my mother was picked for jury duty, before she actually served in a trial, she called me and asked me what I thought "reasonable doubt" meant. I read the "reasonable doubt" instruction from the Military Judges' Benchbook verbatim ...
"By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. it is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offenses, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution, which does not amount to an element, need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if, on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty."
I have also always felt that the circumstantial evidence instruction was very illuminating and read that to her as well ...
"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence which tends directly to prove or disprove a fact in issue. If a fact in issue was whether it rained during the evening, testimony by a witness that he or she saw it rain would be direct evidence that it rained. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove some other fact from which, either alone or together with some other facts or circumstances, you may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue. If there was evidence that the street was wet in the morning, that would be circumstantial evidence from which might reasonably infer that it rained during the night in the absence of any intervening circumstance or fact. There is no general rule for determining or comparing the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. You should give all the evidence the weight and value you believe it deserves."
I understsand you anger. But the fact is, the prosecutor failed to prove Mrs. Anthony murdered her child. All the prosecutor proved was that she was a pathological liar. He focused on that argument to the exclusion of the points of law he needed to prove a murder case. All of the things you mention may have occured or been alluded to, but if they do not tie in somehow to the murder points of proof the case is not proved.
It sounds like this is your theory below. I’m sorry, we can agree to disagree, but that’s looks more like a flight of fancy than reasonable doubt, and with those standards I don’t see anybody ever being convicted of murder ever again:
- George, the person who perjured himself trying to cover up 1 affair he had at the most emotionally vulnerable period of his life, could reasonable be considered guilty because his story could be interpreted as a conspiracy to kill his granddaughter and frame it on his daughter, because he got emotional when being publically accused of that, and because he tried a halfhearted suicide attempt when his granddaughter’s corpse was found.
- The grandmother, the one who made repeated frantic & emotional 911 calls to report the child missing, had to drag Casey to get on the phone to give an unemotional response to the dispatcher, has been openly showing a wide range of emotions for the past 3 years, and obviously perjured herself with the obvious intent of sparing her daughter’s life - she’s complicit in the infantile & the framing of same daughter.
- It is reasonable to assume that Casey is not responsible for her daughter’s death & its coverup, even when by the defense team’s own admission: For several years she lied about having a job and about taking her daughter to a non-existent nanny on an almost daily days, but has never accounted for what really was happening with her child for those hundreds of days over several years; She claims that she knew her 2-year old baby died in some accident, but she has never once explained the details of the accident or how she was or was not involved; Immediately after her child’s death, she went on a 31-day booze-boys-and-hot-body-contests party; She was so un-shaken by her baby’s death that her roommates & party friends did not notice that anything at all exceptional was happening in her life until they saw news reports about the missing child; She got a “beautiful life” tattoo and had plans to get a second with a friend; She never reported anything about the baby to the police. Casey didn’t report the missing child report, the grandmother reported it in two 911 calls where the grandmother sounded frantic and where Casey was non-chalant & not volunteering information; When questioned by the police, she invented fantastic lies about what had happened, and appeared , and has still to this day refused to provide an explanation or alibi as to what she was doing when her baby dies (which again, she claims she knows exactly when & where & how it happened); During the first several days she interacted with police, every officer she came in contact with noted that “at no time during any of the above interviews did Casey show any abvious emotion as to the loss of her child. She did not cry or give any indication that she was legitimately worried about her child.” On her phone call home after being arrested for suspicion of having killed her own child, she got noticably angry when asked by 3 different people to explain what had happened to her child, and was only interested in getting her boyfriend’s phone number, who she admitted would have no information to offer to her or the police about Caley; She never provided an alibi for where she was when the baby died or her level of involvement or non-involvement.
Really? Wow.
It’s not even “direct” vs “circumstantial” evidence. The talking heads at least were complaining that there was no mechanism of death from the coroner, no DNA, no fingerprints. But none of those are direct evidence either, they are all cicumstantial - they show a circumstance that may corroborate some other evidence. I honestly don’t understand what kind of evidence shy of confession, of a videotape of the murder itself that would be considered beyond reasonable doubt in this case.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Good points and all good examples.
Timothy McVeigh came to mind for me too, and there was even less circumstantial evidence in that case.
IMHO...
Remember, the defense (which someday may be you or I) are definitely permitted flights of fancy in their own defense. It’s a common tactic. Simply raise a possibility that someone else might possibly have been involved.
Regarding Casey not feeling remorse, she would not feel remorse if it was an accident, she would just feel sad and want to find some way to deal with her sadness.
There are so many possibilities that are just as likely as murder.
If Casey was just “hanging out” with her boyfriend listening to music inside and the baby was outide and tripped and fell on something that knocked her out and she slipped into a pool and drowned, Casey would feel like a “bad mother”, feel guilty, but not want to go to jail for that. She would reason that there would be nothing gained for society by her going to jail for an accident. Fear of dealing with the law for negligence relating to a child is very understandable.
The defendant does not have to prove what happened. The defendant was not forced to give an alibi for an exact time of death, because there was none. If there was an hour-by-hour timeline, then Casey would have to come up with an alibi for where she was during the murder, but she does not have to do this if the prosecution does not have a time of death. In fact, it really is to the defense’s advantage to give up as little information as possible; just come up with some crazy story about how your were here or there over those few weeks. You’ll be caught in lies about where you were, but you don’t get caught up in trying to get details correct and then giving information to investigators that they didn’t already have, like perhaps witnesses. If the prosecution has no witnesses or evidence placing you at the scene at the time of the murder, all you need to do is blabber a little nothing and stick to your wacky story.
We have to ask ourselves if someone prosecuted us for a death that occurred sometime last week and the place of death was not specified and the manner of death was not specified and all the prosecution had was a skeleton with tape on the mouth, and we know we the murder was an accident due to our own negligence, would we admit that we contributed to their accidental death and throw ourselves on the mercy of the court ?
I agree there certainly is reasonable suspicion - she may have wanted the child “out of the way”. But there would be many other reasonable suspicions as well and that is why reasonable suspicion is not the standard for conviction.
For a single mother to live this way is not uncommon. Take this case: a single mother who works from about 4pm to 12am, leaving two children alone at home, say ages 7 and 3, having the older watch the younger. She often will go out after work with her coworkers for a few drinks after work, getting in 2am or later. She tries very hard, but has to “let loose” now and then. She looks for some kind of decent boyfriend, has a few, tries to be careful about them interacting with the children. Lives separately from her troubled family that offers very little help to her. Lives in fear of the government taking her children. Gets no help at all from the government - even for simple babysitting - because she is white and in a suburb. Struggles to make money. The older child grows up resenting the fact that mommy would go out after work instead of coming straight home, feeling that they “raised” their younger sibling. All it would have taken is one simple accident with one of those children - perhaps just wandering away, falling and dying, then not being found for a month - and it could have been a case that would sound very similar to this one and the woman would have been hard pressed to prove her innocence with many people. Fortunately no accident happened.
I support the death penalty in murder cases where evidence is incontrovertible. Lifestyle may be part of a prosecution, does not alone determine guilt. Sometimes the most wonderful examples of good citizens turn out to be murderers and the most vile, repugnant beasts turn out to be vile, but innocent of what they are accused. The prosecution’s case mostly rests on her response to the death: not reporting it, acting in what appears to be a callous way, and the proposal that she made a feeble attempt at a coverup. Not reporting and callousness are not unique to guilt: they could come from fear and lack of guilt, and other people also had opportunity to attempt a coverup and they would have had reason to if they felt negligent or responsible in any way themselves, or if they knew Casey did not do it, or if they knew it was an accident.
In 2007 there were 398 homocides of children ages 1-4 in the U.S. How many of those 398 homocide cases saw perfect justice done ? Why is the news media blaring about ONLY this ONE case ? Because the “search parties” to find the little girl with the partying mom for months became a fantastically heart-wrenching story that garnered ratings, which wound up putting enormous pressure on the prosecuters to bring this charge when the skeleton was found. The moment Casey’s partying hit the news, there was widespread feeling that she was guilty of murder. If this case was like one of the 400 other cases that quickly went in and out of the news cycle without creating much public pressure, a lesser charge would have been much easier to file for the prosecuters.
It’s a shame how the witch-hunt mentality temporarily causes me to forget our ideals about the rule of law - until it’s me that’s at the defense table, wrongfully accused and begging for the protections of the rule of law.
I don’t know if Casey is guilty or not, but I am very interested in preserving the rule of law.
It is a well known fact that a guilty mother's natural instinct is to wrap duct tape around their dead kids mouth in these cases. /sarc
You are a digaceful pathetic idiot.
Actually, Floridians have been doing a pretty good job voting...West, Rubio and Scott are evidence of that. The problem voters are mostly transplanted Northern liberal lobotomy patients...ie all liberals.
Or what? You'll tell me again that you weren't wrong on the facts when you were?
My point was that the jurors did not believe that Casey knew for a fact that Caylee was 'missing'.
Surely you jest. The defense claimed in court that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008. On July 16, 2008 Cindy Anthony reported her missing granddaughter to the police after her daughter Casey admitted she hadn't seen her daughter in weeks.
You sure we're talking about the same case?
You just won't take 'yes' for an answer, will you? I wrote, clearly I thought:
My point was that the jurors did not believe that Casey knew for a fact that Caylee was 'missing'.
Your snarky reply?
Surely you jest. The defense claimed in court that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008. On July 16, 2008 Cindy Anthony reported her missing granddaughter to the police after her daughter Casey admitted she hadn't seen her daughter in weeks.
If you would tamp down your hyper-righteous indignation for a moment you would have grasped the fact that although the evidence said that Casey Anthony knew of her daughters absence, the JURY (wrongly) decided not to believe it - or they would have convicted her. Why can't you understand that?
You sure we're talking about the same case?
I've repeatedly stated that I disagreed with the verdict but you seem hell-bent on having an argument over this case even though all this internet bickering changes nothing. Casey Anthony will walk free within a week.
Your overwrought righteous indignation is turning you into a bore. I'm done with this exchange. Go argue with someone else.
Very funny!
But there is no shame in replying to insanity with snark. And the statement "My point was that the jurors did not believe that Casey knew for a fact that Caylee was 'missing'." qualifies for a bed next to Jack and the Chief.
So there!
Oh, defense is absolutely permitted flights of fancy, and that’s a good thing. That’s the entire reason there is a jury of peers, to distinguish if the prosecutor’s case is sound and if the defense’s flight of fancy is reasonable. And defense does not have to give any testimony or alibi (also a good thing), but giving a series of obviously false statements/alibis that are documented & admissible and then not ever officially correcting them with a more reasonable alibi is certainly something a jury can and should consider as relevant evidence - which is why lawyers tell their clients to say nothing from the first second, not to say bunch of stuff first but then shut up afterwards. In my opinion, the case against her (at least on the facts, though apparently not the presentation) was 100% solid for manslaughter - but not even close to premeditation - purely based on Casey’s behavior, and the defenses many flights of fancy seemed laughably unreasonable and like desparate hail-mary’s.
I’m just surprised that what to me (still) seems so obvious does not seem obvious to folks with your opinion (including my wife!) and how your opinion seems so unimaginably unconvincing to me. So I’ll respectfully continue hpefully not too much longer...
“If Casey was just “hanging out” with her boyfriend listening to music inside and the baby was outide and tripped and fell on something that knocked her out and she slipped into a pool and drowned, Casey would feel like a “bad mother”, feel guilty, but not want to go to jail for that. She would reason that there would be nothing gained for society by her going to jail for an accident. Fear of dealing with the law for negligence relating to a child is very understandable.”
I don’t see reasonable evidence for this scenario, based on her behavior. It seems like an unreasonable strecth. She would have had to wrap up the body & unceremoniously dump it herself, and then immediately go on a 1-month party spree while not inadvertently giving away any hint to her acquaintances that something unusual has happened, and not having created a halfway believable cover or alibi in that month, and then not have shown any emotion at all when the frantic 911 calls happened on 7/15 or on the days when she was questioned by the police. then for over 3 years she was repeatedly - dozens of documented times - asked by family, by her father & mother, by friends, by police, and by investigators if it was really an accident she was trying to hide, and she denied the truth. Even when police - again documented perhaps a dozen times - told her “we don’t believe your story, we believe it you murdered her, are you sure you don’t want to change your story to something more believable. Then only on the 1st day of the trial had her lawyer claim it was an accident that was someone else’s fault, that someone else forced the cover up, and that she went aong with because she was the manipulated psychological victim (when Casey herself is the one exhibiting the behavior of a manipulative, narcisistic sociopath). Extrememly reasonable to conclude this is all just another self-serving lie, that in light of all other evidence she is directly reponsible for the non-accidental death of Caylee (that is, guilty of manslaughter), not enough to convince me of premeditation, but not even close to threshhold of reasonable doubt.
RE the gas cans from your previous post - I don’t know if he testified during the trial, and if so if anything new came up, but a friend of Casey’s reported to police that in June 17th (I believe, but definitely before the 20th) Casey called him that her car had run out of gas, that he picked her up, took her to her parent’s home where nobody was home, where Casey broke a lock on a shed and took the gas cans (I believe I recall that he also said this was when she borrowed a shovel from a neighbor, to break the lock on the shed to get to the gas cans - but I’m not 100% sure on that), and then he drove away leaving Casey alone with the car & gas cans. Unless that original statement to police has since been impeached or unused, I think there is a very good reason to believe George did not put the gas cans in the car, and I think there is a good reason for why he woud report them stolen - because he came home & found his shed lock broken & things missing. I read a lot of original materials but did not see that much of the trial, so if what I recall about this guys original statement is accurate (particularly the part about the shovel), and if this guy did not testify or ir he testified something different, or if the prosecution seemed to indicate that the gas cans & shovel meant anything different than her-car-was-out-of-gas-in-a-specific-place and nothing-strange-at-all-happened-except-that-she-didn’t-let-me-help-pour-gas, I can be convinced of at least prosecutorial stretch. But not reasonable doubt.
Your hard-working-single-mom analogy is a good study, and I will comment, not because I want anyone to dislike Casey, but because I believe her pattern of behavior is strong evidence of how she felt about her child - that she could not be bothered to do the basic things a parent would do for her child:
- The hard-working-out-of-luck-single-mom scenario “could have been a case that would sound very similar to this one” - I don’t think it does, because the single mom in your scenario is behaved before, during and after the death like a responsible parent who cares for her children. The way Casey behaved before June 2008, during the period of June-July 2008, and for the past 3 years is how I would expect a textbook psychopathic/socioapathic killer to behave (with the stereotypical behavior of parasitic + narcisistic lifestyle, pathological lying, criminal behavior, irresponsibility towards family or school or employment, lack of emotional attachment & lack of empathy).
- “a single mother who works from about 4pm to 12am” - Casey spent her entire motherhood deliberately not working and living on the graces of her parents and petty crime.
- “leaving two children alone at home” - Casey had 2 parents who vountarily cared for Caylee at any time it was needed. Casey deliberately took Caylee out of that house & to nobody-knows-where-because-Casey-won’t-tell, hundreds of times over 3 years, because she was not willing to make the sacrifice of being employed to provide for her daughter.
- “She tries very hard, but has to “let loose” now and then” - Casey did not try at all, did not even try to get a job, and stole from her family to support her daily party habit.
- “Gets no help at all from the government” - mom & dad provide all, any other help can easily be gotten by getting a job & then not getting fired from it becasue of not showing up.
- “Lives separately from her troubled family that offers very little help to her” - the family (and some perrty crime on Casey’s part) was the sole source of money, food, clothing, shelter for Caylee. And there is no credible evidence either way to suggest if it was the family that was troubled to start with, or if the family was troubled becaused they lived for 22 years with a parasitic, narcisistic, sociopathic, pathologically lying family member.
Which is all why my conclusion has been:
- Absolutely without any shadow of a doubt at all she is a clinical psychopath & what is sometimes called , capable of infanticide. Fantastically unreasonable to conclude anything else (although that doesn’t prove murder yet).
- Circumstances, behavior over 3+ years, and lack of
plausible & reasonably believable exculpatory evidence show beyond reasonable doubt that she caused the death of the child & led the world on a wild goose chase for years to avoid punishment. Maybe I put more weight on a person’s behavior and “profile” than others, but I find it unreasonable to think anyone else on the planet caused Caylee’s death.
- Premeditation not even close to proven.
“Why is the news media blaring about ONLY this ONE case ?”
Agree with your sentiment here 100%. This is on TV because TV & viewers view it as just another type of reality show at everyone else’s expense. Which makes our entire society a bit sociopathic too.
Great post, IMHO, great reasonable debate, I am very grateful to you.
Ok, just a couple of quick points for you and your wife to speculate on:
Casey “hanging out” IS a stretch, but not completely impossible. And my mind being a cautious person when it comes to personal safety, wonders was it accidental crush by a sleeping boyfriend, playing around spinning and a drop, falls on her own and its her head just right but breaks no soft bones (softer bones in kids), and the list goes on in my mind - wait, I’m really concerned now before I condemn for death - was this a murder ? Even a murder could have been by anyone - we are closed out of good testimony from Casey about where she was and who she was with - she’s just babbling nonsense.
She had no record of child abuse or neglect PRIOR to the the incident. Up until that point, she appeared happy going about her fun, free life.
Finally, the classic: court room law versus textbook law (i.e., the gloves come off). Think about it - her lawyer knew the penalties for lying - and the prosecution was foolish enough to include them as charges. She’s going to be held in jail for a year or two waiting for trial. Ergo, she will serve the time required for punishment for lying no matter what, but let’s just say it’s explained this way. Casey - if you had gone to Applebees with your friend on June 16, and you give you friend’s name so they can verify where you were and when - and you testify to that or provide that in a deposition, then your friend will be called to testify. Trouble is with that, you’ve now got another mouth yapping on the witness stand who has a relationship with you and knows more days and times and places of where you were and what you were doing when. If you continue on and parade in a bunch of witnesses who help corroborate your stories, they can be analyzed by the prosectution. It would not be wise to volunteer anything that might make you have to work harder at making a complex set of stories all mesh together to support your innocence. You do not have to say anything that would incriminate yourself. If your story does not mesh with the witnesses, you and they will be in a case of he-said she-said, and you will be probably found guilty of lying. And as far as a solid alibi for where you where during the murder - which took place sometime during that week, somewhere, but the charges against you don’t say specifically - you won’t have one. And you can’t lie - or you’ll spend about 3 years in jail, starting from when you where first arrested. Now, tell me again, where were you on June 16, what did you say - was it at a playground or the beach or the movies or something ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.