Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
OMG...the Kenneth Hinson trial
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DDD" data-source="post: 38333" data-attributes="member: 35"><p>I haven't followed that case but once again I was shocked on Court TV when the Nurse was found guilty of murdering her husband</p><p>drugging him and cutting his body in three parts before tossing</p><p>the three suitcases in the Bay. They had no witnesses. They</p><p>had no DNA. The nurse was maybe 5'4" and 100 lbs soaking wet.</p><p>The circumstantial case seemed to be limited to the fact that</p><p>she had a boyfriend of three years, that the suitcases belonged</p><p>to her family and that nobody else seemed to have a motive. The</p><p>defense proved he was a compulsive gambler and suggested that</p><p>the murder seemed more like a mob retaliation.</p><p></p><p>A couple of months ago a woman in her 30's was also found guilty</p><p>based on similarly weak evidence. The prosecution provided an expert that said her husband had arsenic in his system. The</p><p>defense provided an expert that said it was a trace, ie normal,</p><p>amount only. The whole circumstantial case appeared to be that</p><p>after her husband was dead she had multiple sex partners and had</p><p>a boob job. Evidence was provided that she and her husband were</p><p>into "swinging" as a couple and there was proof he was in favor</p><p>or the boob job when they had the money.</p><p></p><p>I've served on juries and I know it is hard. on the other hand I just don't</p><p>get how people are convicted to life sentences because they</p><p>could have done something and the man you all are talking about</p><p>get off because not every aspect can be proven. Weird! DDD</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DDD, post: 38333, member: 35"] I haven't followed that case but once again I was shocked on Court TV when the Nurse was found guilty of murdering her husband drugging him and cutting his body in three parts before tossing the three suitcases in the Bay. They had no witnesses. They had no DNA. The nurse was maybe 5'4" and 100 lbs soaking wet. The circumstantial case seemed to be limited to the fact that she had a boyfriend of three years, that the suitcases belonged to her family and that nobody else seemed to have a motive. The defense proved he was a compulsive gambler and suggested that the murder seemed more like a mob retaliation. A couple of months ago a woman in her 30's was also found guilty based on similarly weak evidence. The prosecution provided an expert that said her husband had arsenic in his system. The defense provided an expert that said it was a trace, ie normal, amount only. The whole circumstantial case appeared to be that after her husband was dead she had multiple sex partners and had a boob job. Evidence was provided that she and her husband were into "swinging" as a couple and there was proof he was in favor or the boob job when they had the money. I've served on juries and I know it is hard. on the other hand I just don't get how people are convicted to life sentences because they could have done something and the man you all are talking about get off because not every aspect can be proven. Weird! DDD [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
OMG...the Kenneth Hinson trial
Top