trekie said:

I'd still hit it hey at least you know if she pins you with child support you wont have to pay to long 

---

5-HT2A said:

I haven't read any of the responses but this thread is 9 pages long as of now and I am just wondering what happened to the revolutions in the middle east.

Syria's still living out George Orwell's vision at the moment, no? Sure helps me put one dead white kid in perspective.

---

AntiEverything said:

all theoretical im not a conspiracy theorist im just playing with ideas

---

Prisoner#1 said:

WakeboardrB said:

X can do Y all night long as far as I care.

---

you dont have to click this thread, n fact you can even hide it as opposed to
continuing to post in it talking about how little you care... it shows you do
care... or you're hoping someone will post pics of the bitch's boobs

---

Come on, just breaking your balls.

I still value your knowledge and debating skills. I was just in a funky mood last night. Don't take it personally you old bastard.

withoutawire said:

I am finishing my degree for law at my college and we have talked about this case A LOT.

With the evidence provided there is enough to prove her guilty. Infact, there are many many cases where people get convicted on a lot less and rightfully (we find more evidence years later). I was not totally sure if she was guilty, but after writing our bi-weekly paper on it which was only 15 pages then I think she is guilty. After three-five hours of reading the facts of the case/evidence provided then I think it's pretty obvious what's what.

BUT, the defense raised many questions that the prosecution could not answer or did not attempt to answer. This case failing can be blamed on shitty prosecution. This is text book bullshit. They think that just because you hear the evidence from THEIR side that the jury will surely find defendant guilty. This was my mistake as well, because I just read one side. When you are prevented with both sides of the story then there are many questions that need to be addressed otherwise a jury is going to conclude their is reasonable doubt on the sole face that "they are many questions unanswered".

Who cares if the circumstantial evidence to prosecute her guilty three times over. The cheesy ass defense lawyer lived to his sterotype and prevented a bunch of questions (some excellent and some that even had us law students laughing at him in class). It's quite ridiculous, but that's the way complicated cases like this work, especially high profile. The prosecution really should have known better and prepared themselves for the thousands of situational and evidential cases like this since newspapers and media was invented. This is not "fair", or what "feels right", but the fact is the prosecutions job to do all of this is in place for all the right reasons. I don't agree with final verdict, but I 100% agree and congratulate with this system being in place. It keeps law fair and balanced. It keeps the defendants rights and ability to fight a case safe. I

f this type of reasonable doubt was not in place then we would not be living in innocent until proven guilty. reasonable doubt being one of TWO very different things- actual reasonable doubt created or shown by evidence argued or presented, or unanswered questions that are not addressed about leave resonable doubt as possible question.

---