What are you Jose Baez? That's a really shetty defense.
It was a good enough defense for the jurors
The right decision was made.What are you Jose Baez? That's a really shetty defense.
The right decision was made.There have been plenty of convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone. Jurors should have to publicly state their reasoning.
I mean - trying to use a Google search for chloroform as evidence? LOL. I have Google searches for that, how to make bombs, how to make napalm, and about a million other things, it means nothing.
All that can be proven is that the mom really didn't give much of a fuck. There's nothing even close to evidence that she killed the gig, regardless of what anyone believes.
next step: quit prescription drugs. you're maturing day by day Pitssey.
I definitely need to stop googling prostitutes.But you're not being tried for terrorism, if you suddenly were tried for blowing up planes, what you searched in Google would be used against you, this happened to a couple of people in High Wycombe a few years ago. Google store everything we have ever searched in our lives and it has been used in cases before with success.
Though I agree there is a lack of physical evidence, her behaviour during those 31 days are more than suspicious, the fact her car smelt of a dead body with traces of chloroform is definitely more than a coincidence, she may not have killed the kid deliberatively but the 'cover up' had more holes in it than a golf course . As I said before I wish the Scots Law was able to be put in place for certain crimes like this one.