Whisperer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2008
- Messages
- 17,542
- Reaction score
- 65
But don't you feel, in some way, that it is wrong to accuse someone of something they didn't do? I KNOW, this is not a court of law, innocence until proven guilty does not apply.
But, what IF, hypothetically, the people on this forum who feel that DB did this WERE a jury? And the case was presented to you as it stands today? Physical evidence: one cadaver dog hit that as far as we know was not even verified. And whatever else, to you, is evidence. Hinkyness, feelings, inconsistencies, etc.
You would really, honestly, be comfortable with rendering a guilty verdict? And then, as you say, what if down the road Lisa is found and the family had nothing to do with it? So someone served however much time in prison, vilified, their life ruined, because you thought they were guilty with the paucity of evidence this
case presents. Would you then say "Ooops, sorry, I was wrong. My apologies." The thought of it makes me very, um, uncomfortable.
From what I observed in this country, the benefit of the doubt appears to always be in effect when it comes to babies and such. Many mothers and some fathers get away with murdering their young. I don't know why but sentences appear to be lighter, if at all, when it comes to newborns. Maybe the jail time increases as the age increases.
We are far too lenient and not able to interrogate the parent/s to get to the truth. We are getting more and more liberal with the perps, as many more are getting rid of children. The defense attorneys jump in immediately to shut the questioning down. Where is the justice for these babies? I'd say there ought to be a law but we have too many d#$n laws and that's the problem.