Search results

It seems a rather subjective conclusion to me as to whether there was irrefutable evidence. Much of it was refutable in my opinion. Many people who agree with the verdict, and who have posted on this thread, have looked at the evidence and were not convinced by it. I believe that many of...

Obviously, I disagree with your post entirely. No one here has argued "just because."

Yeah, I saw all the cows. I still want some sort of logical explanation for that person's opinion as I am interested in understanding where the heck they came to such a conclusion. Intuition? Not that reliable. I read people pretty well but over my many years of living on this earth I've learned...

It didn't come across as an opinion. Sounded like a fact was being stated. Just looking for clarification.

Really? How is that? Please do explain. I am all ears.

Um, she couldn't drive while she is in jail, so what does that have to do with anything? Stress can cause seizures, so I expect it will be a wait and see on that one. For those who are interested this is a pretty interesting article. Not sure if it has been posted since I haven't come...

Indeed there was.

How do you know this? How do you know this?

Obviously your opinion. I still see no proof or verification that JB hated Dr. Vass.

I'm sorry, my question is how do you know this? Did JB tell you this? Was he quoted somewhere as saying this?

I think you've made a very important point. All juries have a bias -- but, typically, a death-qualified jury has a bias towards favouring the prosecution and in convicting. I think this jury was an anomaly on that front, for sure, and hence, I believe this is one of the reasons for the uproar...

And you know JB hates this man? How?

With all due respect, given the names and insults that get hurled at the DT and the jurors then I don't suppose it is that difficult to see how that question would be taken as an insult. Cheers.

Really, because the Darlie Routier jury only deliberated for 7 hours. Is that length okay because it was a guilty verdict?

So what? Surely to god we are allowed to share the same opinion and express those same opinions just as vocally or repeatedly as those of you who think the jury was wrong, lazy, stupid, etc.? Or no? We must get behind the majority and if we don't that means we are DT or jurors? Come on, I don't...

Which, of course, the 84 times proved to be wrong. It was only once.

I know what post you were responding to. I made my point. I am not going to argue back and forth aboutit. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28705055/detail.html

The problem is that the use of chloroform to kill Caylee was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so how could the jury use it to give a guilty verdict to the charge?