Darthbane53 wrote:Shes not doing any more time even...4 years down to nada, there giving her credit for her 3ish years served...and shes being let go a week from today..next sunday. Compleate Bull.
Seriously? I didn't know that. So she's not even getting time for those 4 counts of lying to the authorities? Wow. What did she serve 3 years for before?
Echo24 wrote:Also, I think that people haven't addressed your questions about the trial because we're not lawyers or involved with the case, none of us are qualified to do so or should.
Touché.
Quote:It's always bothered me when people watch coverage of a trial and then try to act like they know as much or more than the people actually involved.
I'm not trying to, I just feel like the questions weren't every completely answered, and I, along with everyone else I'm sure, would like to have these answers.
Darth_Jim wrote:I'd still rather have the loophole here than on the other side, where innocent people paid for crimes they didn't commit with their lives.
What's the "other side?" I do have to agree with you here. This wouldn't be
as big of an issue if there was no death penalty, something I'm not too supportive of in general, but that's a different argument.
The thing I hate now is that, because of the double-jeopardy clause, she could basically come out and say that she did in fact kill her daughter and the most she could be charged with would be something like lying under oath and lying to the authorities (again). Am I right? If not, someone please correct me. I understand the double-jeopardy clause was put in place to protect people, but it's terrible when new evidence might be found after the trial that could have changed the court's decision, but it wouldn't matter because the person has already been tried. I'm not saying this happens often, if at all, but it is a possibility and there have to have been at least a few cases that somebody remembers where this was an issue.