Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2068224)

I wonder if she's going to go back to mom and dad's house after she threw them under the bus..well maybe her brother will take her in....oh yeah, she threw him under the bus too.

Originally Posted by dekeguy (Post 2068213)

A couple of comments:
1. Burden of proof rests with the prosecution in almost all instances and certainly in this case. In criminal law it is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. In Civil Law the standard is somewhat less, it is determined on the balance of probabilities.
2. In Scotland there is a third verdict - Not proven. This means that the defendant was probably guilty but there was insufficient proof to overcome the issue of reasonable doubt. It is often described in UK Law Schools as "Not Guilty but don't do it again." We might do well to adopt that option in the US.
3. If someone with 'standing' before the court, like a family member, wants to pursue the issue there is always the civil remedy of Wrongful Death. OJ was hit with such a suit and massive damages were awarded to his late wife's family.
4. Incidentally, I believe the OJ trial was NOT a miscarriage of justice. The evidence chain of custody was hopeless and the investigating detective was shown to be prejudiced and have ample opportunity to mishandle evidence and plant evidence detrimental to OJ. Whether or not he did the crime was not established beyond 'reasonable' doubt. Therefore the verdict was solid.
The wrongful death issue was a means of destroying OJ financially. However, the later arrest and trial which landed him in prison seemed a bit too much of a 'let's get OJ and throw his butt in jail' revenge action. The old chesnut that 'Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done' sticks in my craw in that case. There were so many mitigating and extenuating circumstances involved that I thought the sentence was excessive and sent a very unfortunate message. Please remember as you read this that I am the Conservative Barrister who has often been called a right winger in GC.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.

Originally Posted by AnotherKD (Post 2068229)

Or are you also one of those lawyers that refer to themselves as "Blankety Blank, Esquire"? ;)

Originally Posted by christiangirl (Post 2068238)

I'm not sure why but that cracked me up. :o

Originally Posted by katydidKD (Post 2068258)

Originally Posted by katydidKD (Post 2068258)

Originally Posted by katydidKD (Post 2068258)

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2068290)

I will sign that petition post-haste, and sing its praises from the top of Mount Sarbanes-Oxley!

Originally Posted by AnotherKD (Post 2068229)

Are you from the UK? Or are you also one of those lawyers that refer to themselves as "Blankety Blank, Esquire"? ;)

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2068290)

Sweet! It's like a drug tax stamp law, but for kids dying!

Wait, drug tax stamps are silly, redundant, and awkward to enforce? And they're corner-case laws to attempt to get around existing issues with the legal system? And here, the thing you're getting around almost never happens, and when it does, you're simply adding onto a life sentence?

I will sign that petition post-haste, and sing its praises from the top of Mount Sarbanes-Oxley!

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2068294)

Caylee went missing 3 years ago, and this comes only two days after people heard a "not guilty" verdict and became enraged because of it.

I wonder what would have happened (or not happened) if she was found to be guilty?



You crack me up.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2068297)

I foresee a future movie plot involving parents who don't report their child missing because kidnappers threaten to kill the kid if the cops are involved. The twist...the parents are arrested because they don't notify the police within 24 hours that the child is missing.:eek: Oh the drama that will ensue...

Originally Posted by katydidKD (Post 2068258)

Originally Posted by christiangirl (Post 2068238)

I'm not sure why but that cracked me up. :o

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2068303)

This law can't be used to go after Anthony, so what's the point? Is this a common thing?

Originally Posted by dekeguy (Post 2068306)

If that cracked you up you should see me in a wig and barrister's gown with a hard wing collar and barrister's bands.

Originally Posted by dekeguy (Post 2068306)

If that cracked you up you should see me in a wig and barrister's gown with a hard wing collar and barrister's bands.