I wonder if Linda will give a statement.
I read in one of the interviews from her family that she is not being allowed to speak to the media.
Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk
I wonder if Linda will give a statement.
I have heard a lot of people in the last day say that the defense will hit the media scene. Sorry for my ignorance, I've only followed this during the trial. are you saying Baez and Mason made the media circuit during the trial or before? I never saw them on tv. Guess I never see anything wrong with it since you pick a jury supposedly who hasn't followed the case, right>?
I knew it. I said right after the verdict that I bet JB already has his first interview lined up. I wonder how much more money that will line his pockets with? Here comes the money train, JB.
I also want to predict that KC will have an interview within the month, probably sooner. Strike while the iron, um, iorn is hot so to speak. I am sure that has been planned for years and it will go to the highest bidder, helping make KC rich and maybe independent for the first time in her life. Now that she doesn't need mommy and daddy she can really throw them under the bus. I believe this is the reason she wrote them off early on. She knew they had nothing more to offer her. Either she would spend her life in prison and not need them to support her or she would be acquitted and make enough money and wouldn't need them to support her. They were no longer of any use to her so they were discarded, like poor little Caylee. They are lucky she didn't actually discard them like Caylee. I firmly believe she would of if she could of.
I have heard a lot of people in the last day say that the defense will hit the media scene. Sorry for my ignorance, I've only followed this during the trial. are you saying Baez and Mason made the media circuit during the trial or before? I never saw them on tv. Guess I never see anything wrong with it since you pick a jury supposedly who hasn't followed the case, right>?
We need to take a stand and let the media know right away that we will not be watching/supporting these people that support a baby killer.
I have heard a lot of people in the last day say that the defense will hit the media scene. Sorry for my ignorance, I've only followed this during the trial. are you saying Baez and Mason made the media circuit during the trial or before? I never saw them on tv. Guess I never see anything wrong with it since you pick a jury supposedly who hasn't followed the case, right>?
BBM--
I am in complete understandment of how our justice system works.
I think it boils down to selecting a jury is a complete crap shot, you never know what you're going to get. Scott Peterson's jury convicted him and recommended death with a lot less evidence than was presented in ICA's case. They came out and said that they based their verdict on "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence." They even said that his demeanor after Laci's disappearance was a big factor in their decision. So, the truth is, another jury could have found ICA guilty. Like I said, juries are a complete crap shot.
yes, you are right....it was a question based on opinions of a segment of non-jurors who watched the trial. I heard that it was obvious in the courtroom that the jurors liked Baez - responded warmly to his "good mornings".
If the death penalty had not been pursued, this case would have been over a long time ago, with ICA behind bars where she belongs. Sad, but true, IMO.
Of course, I am not saying I am anti-DP, just think this is the reality in this case.
Yes, but with Scott Peterson it was a bit different, wasn't it? He was found with the following:
Items Found in Scott's Car
Undated bill of sale with an unverified signature of Michael Griffin, the registered owner of the vehicle
An application for duplicate title for the vehicle also signed by Michael Griffin
Driver's license for John Edward Peterson, Scott Peterson's brother
Approximately $15,000 in cash, including $14,000 in $100 bills with paper wrapper bands
Credit cards:
Two Visa cards and one MasterCard issued to Scott Peterson
One MasterCard and one American Express Business card issued to Scott Peterson / TradeCorp
One Visa card issued to Anne E. Bird, Scott Peterson's sister
Chevron card issued to Jacqueline Peterson
16 music CDs
Thomas Guide map book of California
Thomas Guide map book of Central Valley Cities and surrounding areas
24 blister packs of sleeping pills
12 tablets of Viagra
Four cell phones
Double-edged dagger with a t-handle
Columbia foul-weather jacket
A hand shovel
Backpack containing:
Water purifier
Water bottle
Climbing rope
Filet knife
Duct tape
Cooking grill
Rain pants
Ziploc bags
Socks
Fire starters
Camp kit that included cooking utensils and a rope
Leather gloves
Two folding knives
Folding saw
Scissors
Two packs of razor blades
Waterproofing spray
Camp axe
Hammock
Binoculars
Mask and snorkel
Fishing rod and reel
Leatherman tool
Clothes:
Lace-up, rubberized boots
Hiking boots
Low-top hiking shoes
Two pairs of brown slip-on casual shoes
One pair brown lace-up casual shoes
Flip flops
Two pairs of black dress shoes
Sweatshirt
Four pullover long-sleeved sport shirts
Two pairs of shorts
Button-down shirt
Two pairs of casual pants
Running pants
Jersey
Three tee shirts
Two long-sleeved casual shirts
One pair of athletic shorts
Cowboy hat
Two pairs of dress socks
At least 10 pairs of athletic socks
One pair of Levis
Two neckties
A pullover sweater
A scarf
Black dress belt
At least six pairs of underwear briefs
So this is a BIT different ISN'T IT?
I think this thread is getting way too inflammatory and people should really relax, stop judging others and making assumptions, and just discuss the facts of what's been said.
What bothers me about Mr. Hueckler's comments are the inconsistencies in belief: he does not accept the body located in the trunk of Casey's car b/c there there was no evidence that it was there. This belief seems contradictory to the witnesses who directly smelled decomposition: Simon Birch, Yuri Melich, both parents, Arpad Vass, Dr. Furton, ect, contradictory to the two independent hits by cadaver dogs to a spot in the trunk, contradictory to two expert witnesses who detected levels of chloroform in the parts per million range on the trunk liner and in the air, and the presence of a nine inch long human hair which could have only realistically come from Caylee (the death banding seems to bolster that it was left postmortem).
In the same breath, he supports the 'accident theory' and a very bizarre belief that tape from the trash bag fell off and stuck to the skull in a very incriminating position on Caylee's skull. In review of the defense's case, where exactly was the evidence that tape from outside the bag could possibly fall off that quickly and attach itself to the skull? Likewise, where is the evidence that a drowning or accidental death occurred? There was an inference of an accident and a theory tossed out as to the source of the tape (actually multiple theories), but Huekler goes out of his way to express that these were his beliefs as to how the events proceeded.
I can understand a declaration that he had a reasonable doubt, but to go out of his way and express support for a series of evidence without foundation demonstrates that he completely rejected the state's case so ardently that he allowed the defense to convince him of one of their many theories without having to prove any of it. In effect, it was evidence nullification.
The fact this man is a teacher of any kind scares me even though he seems to be a rational person. Where is the critical thinking?
Reasonable doubt does not equal beyond a shadow of a doubt.