Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Maybe the parrot did it


Although I doubt that it could handle a gun.

I definitely think the prosecutor should have allowed the parrot to testify in court. It wouldn't have made the prosecutor or the jury look any more stupid than they did.

quote:

Mr Duram's ex-wife Christina Keller, who now owns Bud, earlier said she believed the parrot was repeating a conversation from the night of the murder, which she said ended with the phrase "don't shoot!", with an expletive added.

Mr Duram's parents agreed it was possible that the foul-mouthed bird had overheard the couple arguing and was repeating their final words.

"I personally think he was there, and he remembers it and he was saying it", Mr Duram's father told local media at the time.

His mother, Lillian Duram, added: "That bird picks up everything and anything, and it's got the filthiest mouth around."

A prosecutor in Michigan initially considered using the parrot's squawkings as evidence in the murder trial, but this was later dismissed. The prosecutor added that it was unlikely that the bird would be called to the stand to testify as a witness during the trial.



Why not? The jury would have believed what the parrot had to say as long as they thought it implicated the woman.

And exactly why was this woman convicted of first degree murder? I thought murders that didn't involve premeditation are not supposed to fall into that category. Where was the premeditation in this case?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40665520
7/14/2019, 1:38 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


Some things not mentioned in the article. The woman was found in the same room with her husband but the gun was found in another room. The jury needed to figure out how the woman could shoot her husband, shoot herself in the head and then carry the gun or toss the gun into the other room.

They also needed to figure out why she would go to that trouble if she was trying to kill herself even if she somehow managed to stay conscious after shooting herself in the head. They had no way of knowing that she even managed to stay conscious if she did shoot herself. And if she wasn't conscious she wasn't the one who moved the gun away from where she was found unconscious.

Apparently the jury had no problem at all with those apparent inconsistencies while finding the woman guilty of murder. Their giant brains enabled them to figure it all out with no reasonable doubt creeping in to cause them any trouble.



7/15/2019, 2:35 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


If it was me, the parrot did it...........
7/16/2019, 1:41 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

If it was me, the parrot did it...........



Another interesting fact is that there was money missing from the home which relatives didn't initially tell the police about. Someone took money out of the house that belonged to the two victims.

It's a very interesting case that shows to what lengths a jury can be willing to go to convict a woman of murder. No reasonable doubt in this case? What the heck would the jury have needed to see or hear about to have reasonable doubt?
7/16/2019, 4:04 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


I have no clue, it as far as a being in any kind of detail, was absent.
7/18/2019, 6:42 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I have no clue, it as far as a being in any kind of detail, was absent.



What detail do you need? A woman was found with her husband's body. He was shot. She had also been shot in the head at least once and was almost killed. The gun was not in the same room with them but was in another room partially under a chair. Money had been taken from the house that initially went unreported by relatives. What they did report after looking through envelopes in the house was some written notes that seemed to suggest that the woman might have committed the crime, something akin to suicide notes. But those notes had not been left out by the woman.

What I want to know is how a woman could shoot herself in the head once or twice after shooting her husband, remove the gun from the room and place it under a chair, walk back into the room with her dead husband and forget to leave out those notes that suggested why she had done what she did. If she wanted to explain her actions wouldn't she have left those notes out or at least one of them? Or written another one? Why did the family have to get them out of envelopes hidden away some place where the police didn't find them? The same family who apparently "confiscated" the money that the couple had in the house.

I suspect I would have had a little reasonable doubt about exactly what happened if I had been on the jury. Wouldn't you?
7/18/2019, 9:08 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


"What detail do I need," are you kidding me, more than a couple paragraphs on the net. If you don't, wow and I don't want you on my jury! You are to predisposed to making up your mind by a couple short paragraphs and that won't do me!
7/18/2019, 9:45 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

"What detail do I need," are you kidding me, more than a couple paragraphs on the net. If you don't, wow and I don't want you on my jury! You are to predisposed to making up your mind by a couple short paragraphs and that won't do me!



You might have a point if I was talking about finding someone guilty of murder but all I'm talking about is having some reasonable doubt, enough not to convict someone of murder. Reasonable doubt can be generated by very little evidence.

In this case the mere fact that a woman who supposedly shot herself one or two times in the head somehow managed to move the gun to another room after she shot herself. That woman spent a month in the hospital in a coma. How often do people shot in the head walk around and move stuff?

The jury really wanted to find her guilty and I'm not sure any amount of contradictory evidence would have kept them from doing so.
7/20/2019, 10:44 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


Reasonable doubt should take as long as finding someone guilty. My sister is into those true crime shows on tv, I am not but I have watched them a few times over the years and I was never a big believer in serendipity but when I have watched some, I start out the person is guilty as guilty could be and sometimes nothing you could guess happen, happens and the person is innocent. Myself, I'm glad I never had to make a serious decision on someone else's life!
7/21/2019, 2:39 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Maybe the parrot did it


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

Reasonable doubt should take as long as finding someone guilty. My sister is into those true crime shows on tv, I am not but I have watched them a few times over the years and I was never a big believer in serendipity but when I have watched some, I start out the person is guilty as guilty could be and sometimes nothing you could guess happen, happens and the person is innocent. Myself, I'm glad I never had to make a serious decision on someone else's life!



It can be much easier to have reasonable doubt if something is highly questionable about the prosecution's case. And at least if a mistake is made no innocent person goes to prison or to death row.

A lot of times when juries have acquitted people there wasn't any reasonable doubt about their guilt. The jurors just wanted to acquit them. That's a bigger problem than people having some basis for reasonable doubt, as in this case, and acquitting the defendant.

I would have had no major problem with the jury acquitting the woman because the gun was found in another room from where she was found unconscious with her slain husband. That alone is some basis for reasonable doubt.
7/22/2019, 4:55 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)