Jury finds Yates not guilty in drownings

[Berzerker]

why is that getting away with murder?

[Donegeal]

The only possible good about all this is that at least she took herself out of the gene pool.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
hey slowwy get him a pair of the **** roach killers worn by john travolta in urban cowboy

I have some damn fine stitched, and tough, bull hide boots from Tony Lama. Thnking he'd like a pair like them.

[DinoDoc]

Hey Donegeal, you're a cop right? Care to speculate on why the hubby might not have been charged with anything?

[Donegeal]

I really don't know the details of the situation. From what I gather in this thread, there are alot of people upset that they went and had another kid (I admit to not reading the entire thread). That one I think is obvious. We don't regulate who can have kids (although this would be a prime example of why we should).

Some might also blame him because he should have been responsable for her because of her known mental state. However, she was a legal adult, no matter her mental state and is therefore responsable for herself (and the children when he was not there). The fact that she killed them when he was gone isn't his fault (It's not like he's the one who plugged the bathtub.). And now that she has gotten off as insane, to me makes it feel like they changed the rules of her responsabilty after the fact. Whatever the case, I just hope they lock her away for good (funny farm or prison, whatever. Just keep her out of society).

[SlowwHand]

Her defense was "mother's remorse". That let's him out of it, too.

[Donegeal]

His defense for what? What are people accusing him of?

[SlowwHand]

Put your glasses on. HER defense.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher
Depends if you're talking about a legal definition...

In my opinion any time you kill another person it's murder. Whether it's "justified" or not is another matter...

It has nothing to do about what the "legal definition" of murder is as it pertains to specific charges brought against someone responsible for the death of another person.

I think you need to go buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word "murder".

Murder - 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Self-defense is not murder. Any time one person kills another person, it is not necessarily murder. It's only murder if there was malicious intent and/or no legal justification.

So if you want to hold the opinion that any time one person kills another it's murder, feel free. You can choose to be wrong.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Put your glasses on. HER defense.

Check your typing (I have "better than 20/20" vision).

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Her defense was "mother's remorse". That let's him out of it, too.

[SlowwHand]

Right. If her defense is mother's remorse, how would that include him?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

do you guys even know why the appelete court granted this woman a new trial? If you dont it was because the prosecution aquired an idiot professional witness. Apparently this fool works as an advisor for Law and order, the tv show, and mentioned she got the ideas to kill her kids from an episode that doesnt exist. Wam bam thank you maam the jury is now polluted, and she gets a new trial

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava

So if you want to hold the opinion that any time one person kills another it's murder, feel free. You can choose to be wrong.

He usually does.......

ACK!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Tuberski


He usually does.......

QFT

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
do you guys even know why the appelete court granted this woman a new trial? If you dont it was because the prosecution aquired an idiot professional witness. Apparently this fool works as an advisor for Law and order, the tv show, and mentioned she got the ideas to kill her kids from an episode that doesnt exist. Wam bam thank you maam the jury is now polluted, and she gets a new trial

It was an idiot prosecutor. You don't ask expert witnesses questions if you don't know what the expert will answer, and you fact check and verify the level of controversy associated with any answers.

The "expert" testimony went further, though - to suggesting that she also copycatted the non-existent insanity defense in the non-existent episode. That sure as hell is reversible error. There's no way to guess what the original jury would have found if that bogus testimony had never been given.

I'm as "hang 'em high" as most Texans, especially when it comes to crimes involving kids, but 12 Texans sat down and heard all the testimony and arguments from both sides, and unanimously returned a verdict. I think they might actually know a bit more about the case.