Runboard.com
You're welcome.





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

Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1555
Karma: 10 (+14/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


I don't see how the cases are alike at all.

Milke case, a cop saying she confessed to the killing of
her four year old son for insurance policy she had on his life.


Jody never confessed, she denied being there until they
found the camera she threw in the washing machine, that incriminated her being at the crime scene in the shower, with a knife.


Jody's case, a district attorney had an affair with a blogger.
10/25/2019, 3:04 am Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


The Milke case is not similar to the Arias case except in the way that prosecutors and juries demonstrated prejudice against the female defendants. The Milke case all by itself shows how prejudiced jurors tend to be toward women.

Twelve people saw fit to find a woman guilty of capital murder and even sentenced her to death row based on the flimsiest of evidence. Either they were so stupid that they didn't believe a cop anxious to solve a case and garner brownie points couldn't lie, highly doubtful, or they didn't care and really wanted to find Milke guilty of murder enough to simply assume she was guilty. Either way they were obviously incompetent and far too dumb to be on a jury.

In the case of Jody Arias, do you believe that she would have tossed a camera with incriminating pictures on it into a washing machine if she had carefully premeditated the murder of her victim? Where they found that camera strongly suggests it was second degree murder, not carefully planned at all but more of a spur of the moment crime.

Regardless, it's not significantly different from other murders in Arizona that did not result in life sentences with no parole. Of course those cases involved men murdering girlfriends.
10/26/2019, 11:15 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1555
Karma: 10 (+14/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


 Jody Arias said she put the camera in the washer and turned it on because she believed that the digital camera images would be ruined.

she was wrong, it was premeditated murder because she drove
from California to Arizona with her license plate on backward in hopes that nobody would be able to write her license plate down, she also had gas tanks, so she wouldn't have to stop and fuel up while in Arizona. She was pulled over and cited by the police for putting her license plate on backward.

regarding, the other case. why are you blaming the juror's ? they didn't know the character of the police officer.

the judge had to allow the policeman's testimony. Her attorney could of objected. It sounds more like she had ineffective counsel.


Last edited by snowpixie, 10/27/2019, 5:20 pm
10/27/2019, 5:18 pm Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


Think about it, pixie. Even if she had ineffective counsel all it took was one cop claiming that a woman confessed to him. There was no other evidence! No video of the confession, no audio and no written confession. Don't you think her defense counsel might have mentioned those rather relevant facts?

Now compare that to the O. J. Simpson case where not only did cops find a ton of blood and other evidence against Simpson but there were a plethora of cops presenting evidence against him, not only just one. What did the jury supposedly believe? That because one cop had used the N word that whole group of cops plotted against Simpson and planted evidence to convict him of murder. Utterly ridiculous.

Those two cases are great examples of jury stupidity in the extreme. In the case of Milke extreme prejudice and jury bias favoring Simpson in his case. Neither verdict made any sense at all.

Women should be very concerned. All that may be required to send them to prison is just the word of one cop that they did something against the law and confessed it to him. In Milke's case that was her allegedly committing murder.

Last edited by Philer, 10/27/2019, 6:45 pm
10/27/2019, 6:43 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 6301
Karma: 31 (+46/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


Lets compare, there are more women than men in this country, yet men make up 92.9% of those in prison and women 7.1. Take African Americans, 13% of the population, yet the incarcerated is 34%, five times more than whites. African American women, twice as many as white women. If there was equal justice for any minority( and women being the majority) there would be a decline in the prison population of 40%. The OJ case was won for several reason the biggie, the DNA which was quite new in crime cases was contaminated and that is a fact and ton of blood, I don't think so, they couldn't even find the vials of blood they drew and sent to the lab and there was Furhman, there were so many screw ups, I wasn't surprised by the jury. I thought he was guilty but you have to have more than "I think."
10/29/2019, 7:03 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


quote:

Lets compare, there are more women than men in this country, yet men make up 92.9% of those in prison and women 7.1.-katie



Yes, because men commit many more crimes than women do.

quote:

Take African Americans, 13% of the population, yet the incarcerated is 34%, five times more than whites. African American women, twice as many as white women.



Same reason.

quote:

The OJ case was won for several reason the biggie, the DNA which was quite new in crime cases was contaminated and that is a fact and ton of blood, I don't think so, they couldn't even find the vials of blood they drew and sent to the lab and there was Furhman, there were so many screw ups, I wasn't surprised by the jury. I thought he was guilty but you have to have more than "I think."



They had a lot more than "I think." They had lots of blood evidence which wasn't all contaminated, assuming any of it was, they had a guy who got into a Ford Bronco and went on a scenic tour of LA while trying to decide whether or not to flee the country after figuring his goose was cooked due to all the evidence against him(He didn't need to worry about that too much in goofy La La Land as well as when one considers our jury system's track record).

Then of course you have the little factor of his deeply cut finger about which he at first claimed ignorance. Of course he later changed that to it was cut by a cell phone or some such nonsense. Do you believe the police cut his finger? Not even the defense made that claim.

The guy was obviously guilty of two counts of murder but all it took for him to avoid punishment for those vicious murders was picking one of the dumbest and most biased juries in the history of California and that's saying something.
10/30/2019, 9:19 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 6301
Karma: 31 (+46/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


DNA was new to criminality and yes they ruined the DNA by contamination, all of it was trampled on, touched, moved. What they found was not "lots" of blood but plenty enough for DNA, if not contaminated and they did, once again fact. The first DNA used was in 1987 in the UK for conviction, the US had I think around 1989 using it in a handful of cases, which no one cared about. With OJ people cared. If they did it right, just a few short years later and the right way, OJ would be serving a life sentence. The Ford Bronco chase, that is not an admittance of guilt but I do think Al Cowlings helped him murder his ex and Goldman. OJ couldn't have taken both down like that on his own. Goldman may have been smaller but he was skilled in martial arts and I don't think OJ could have taken them both down in the manner he did without aid. Also OJ was 47, Goldman 26, my dad told me once for some weird reason, 40 against a 20 something, one good punch in 5 min. I win, after that, I'm toast.
10/31/2019, 1:12 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


With that same incompetent jury Simpson would not have been found guilty of murder no matter how good the DNA evidence was. They would simply have continued to claim the police planted the evidence, a ludicrous idea. Only people extremely biased in favor of Simpson and extremely indifferent to the victims would ever have believed that.

Simpson left so much evidence all over the place that if anything the police were careless and overconfident. Also, there was so much of it that they may have mishandled some of it just due to the quantity and needing to keep track of it all. They certainly didn't need to do anything to try to frame him. Nor would any of them have done that jeopardizing their careers and pensions. They could have gone to prison.

That case is a great illustration of just how ridiculous our jury system is. It was totally absurd and morally wrong to let a vicious murderer off the hook just because one cop had used the N word.
10/31/2019, 5:40 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 6301
Karma: 31 (+46/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


I think you are missing what actually happened and you have made such statements in the police were "careless and over confident, well ya and that the DNA they trampled all valid blood evidence. I was not extremely biased for Simpson, like most thought he is and was guilty. It was a mess long before the jury. Try that case now instead of 25 yrs. ago, that DNA would have been clean and he'd still be in prison.
11/4/2019, 2:10 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 4467
Karma: 26 (+29/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: What a guy!


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I think you are missing what actually happened and you have made such statements in the police were "careless and over confident, well ya and that the DNA they trampled all valid blood evidence. I was not extremely biased for Simpson, like most thought he is and was guilty. It was a mess long before the jury. Try that case now instead of 25 yrs. ago, that DNA would have been clean and he'd still be in prison.



I would highly recommend that you read Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Outrage" if you want to know the full story of what happened, including the truth about alleged contamination of evidence. It covers the case in detail. Even if the jury believed the blood evidence had been contaminated what about all the blood that was found in Simpson's car? How many people drive around with a car containing blood drops? Even without the blood evidence there was still plenty of evidence including Simpson's inconsistent accounts of how he received cuts on his hand. Usually when you cut your hand you do something to stop blood from dripping all over the place. Why didn't Simpson do that?

There was plenty of evidence indicating Simpson was guilty of murder including that slow car chase on the highway. Why would an innocent man have pulled a ridiculous stunt like that? The problem was a biased and very stupid jury which hated the prosecutor Marcia Clark. They weren't going to convict him regardless of the evidence.
11/5/2019, 11:59 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 





You are not logged in (login)