Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, my new plan...to reduce the deficit, and court problems...and complicated trials with complicated evidence with all these conflicting "experts"...all trials have an 8 hour limit...3 hours for each, prosecution, and defense...with time for summations after the presentations...
Annerk, You have some great posts on this thread and others. But, I notice, that you seem to have a issue [ you take posts too personal] with a few recent posters. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Why start a war about it an feel you have to, have the last word and always have to prove you are right and the other posters are wrong?
Let it go an enjoy this place instead of taking each post so personal . Ps stop with the semantics.
Annerk, You have some great posts on this thread and others. But, I notice, that you seem to have a issue [ you take posts too personal] with a few recent posters. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Why start a war about it an feel you have to, have the last word and always have to prove you are right and the other posters are wrong?
Let it go an enjoy this place instead of taking each post so personal . Ps stop with the semantics.
Only an issue with one poster who made some really ugly, disgusting remarks that all women should take personally.
I'm not trying to start a war at all, just pointing out the obvious.
"The CSI effect" - it's been discussed in the main sticky topic.
I never watched CSI.. But I do watch the real cases on cable. The programs take old cases and are brought back in detail to show the evidence and the motives .
I like the factual cases and there are many of these programs on cable that have cold cases, solved cases and cases that were revisited by new dna and other forensic technology.
No, because they could not "prove" that she is the one who placed the child in the garbage bag...
I wonder, in these days of video and tv, that people need things spoon fed to them, like they need to see a video of it to realize it happened. Back in the old days, a person was tried by a jury of their peers, and there was some sense to it...the law has not become more complicated, nor are people less educated...perhaps all the new evidence with being able to test air, and maggots..and all that stuff clouds the real picture...a child was thrown away in a trash bag. And maybe people just can't fathom how to sort through all the "evidence"...maybe the presentation has become more complicated, not the law.
I see what your saying and agree. To me it in simplest terms it was a classic case of 'trying to hard'. There was to much focus on the partying afterward IMO. I also question the effectiveness of state's witnesses that make it a point to turn their heads and directly speak to the jury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
