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
UPDATED:::CATA Group- New thread!
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="Malika" data-source="post: 443731" data-attributes="member: 11227"><p>I watched the interview with juror no. 3 (weaning myself off the addiction slowly <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />). I respect her and the other jurors' integrity in not wanting to sentence someone to death if there was insufficient incontrevertible evidence to do so. I do acknowledge the whole dilemma of how one could convict Casey when one did not actually know the crime that she had committed: what was she to be convicted of precisely and based on what evidence? I do understand how the jury felt bound to come to the verdict they did. At the same time, something does not add up. And I think it's that they did not find her guilty of child abuse. This is strange and inexplicable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Malika, post: 443731, member: 11227"] I watched the interview with juror no. 3 (weaning myself off the addiction slowly :)). I respect her and the other jurors' integrity in not wanting to sentence someone to death if there was insufficient incontrevertible evidence to do so. I do acknowledge the whole dilemma of how one could convict Casey when one did not actually know the crime that she had committed: what was she to be convicted of precisely and based on what evidence? I do understand how the jury felt bound to come to the verdict they did. At the same time, something does not add up. And I think it's that they did not find her guilty of child abuse. This is strange and inexplicable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
UPDATED:::CATA Group- New thread!
Top