Quote Originally Posted by loka View Post
Oh and hypothetically speaking, we wouldn't know if she neglected her child in the first place if there was no sufficient evidence. So let's take some law 101. The DA's office did a poor job of trying to prove that the use of chloroform into child abuse. How is it that you can prove chloroform use if swamp water tends to acidify chemical readings? If evidence is not supporting murder or manslaughter, how can personal opinion then say "well she neglected the child based on presumptuous evidence?" That's what gets me about everyone upset about this case. You go strictly on the evidence. The DA's office are morons. My girlfriend tells me things about the case since she watches Nancy Grace so much, and the first thing I said was "how the fuck are they gonna prove anything when the body was basically destroyed by the acidity of swamp water?" Trust me when I say this jury had more time with evidence then the public will ever have. Your comparison of your child drowning in bath tub water is lackluster without a total scenario.
The point of a hypothetical is to give something that is similar, but not an exact match. The only evidence I need is that her fucking defense was, I lost track of her and she drowned in the family pool. That was her defense case, child drowns: family freaks: hide body in swamp. Her defense screams neglect or atleast she should have been made to serve something for her child dieing on her watch. As far as the verdict I totally agree that the jury couldn't convict of murder. The physical evidence wasn't there.