Ping..........
I remember hearing about this.
It may spell doom for her ability to cash in.
wonder what her boyfriend is thinking...
sarc/
Of course a mother is going to be upset when they tell her that her child’s body has been found. I don’t see what the issue is here.
I think Casey Anthony did in fact kill her daughter, but I’m curious as to why the fact she doubled over and hyperventilated over the notification would be “inflammatory.” I guess I’ll just have to see the video as to why.
Maybe she didn’t think they’d find the body. She got all emotional thinking that with modern science they’d pin the murder on her. If they never found the body then they couldn’t come after her.
Two teen aged girls who were in a street fight with another girl.
The two teens were charged, and so was the mother of the 2. Mom was charged for instigating and encouraging the girls to fight.
During the course of the trial, we, the jury, were removed from the courtroom while the judge and lawyers talked.
To make a long story short, we eventually found the mother guilty of two of the three charges against her, finding her “not guilty” of the one felony charge.
Some time after to trial, I found out that when we were out of the courtroom, the judge and lawyer were debating whether or not to allow evidence that incriminated the mom.
These girls and their mom had regularly posted videos on YouTube, and they were all of street fights that mom and her girls had instigated and participated in.
Of course the defense attorney got the evidence silenced. The judge ruled it had no bearing on the trial at hand.
I will always remember this. It will affect any future juries I sit on in the future.
So protecting the guilty from a conviction has become the definition of “fair trial”?
Will this fuel the fire of vigilante justice for some borderline kook? Please note, I said borderline.
Videos can be interpreted many ways and the judge’s job is to make sure the jury is presented with a fair presentation of evidence. Judge is probably right on this one.
Let me see if I get this judges reasoning straight. There is evidence, in the form of this video, that might help establish her guilt, so the judge won’t allow it. Why allow any evidence for the prosecution then? Why not ban all “inflammatory” evidence that points to her guilt and stands in the way of a fair trial. Evidently this judge thinks a fair trial is one in which the defendant has no evidence against them at all.
Jurisprudence is a tricky thing and so is child-rearing.