The parents of that baby who was left in the car to die

These parents would not want me on their jury. I'd go all General Antony on their ass and shoot the fuckers in open court. Idk. Shit like this is hard to stomach to people that are actually decent parents.

Zitar_sl said:

The life insurance stuff doesn't make sense. I would assume there is no chance an insurance company would pay out in this circumstance.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but again many signs point to really fucking dumbass people here. I read somewhere they had two policies on him.

So far everything is pointing to intent. Dude was in the car texting while the car smelled like death . Dude puts on a crying act but when the cops show has no emotion. Dude even got an email from the daycare during the day and yet that still didn't get him to wonder where his kid was .

Flipmode_sl said:

These parents would not want me on their jury. I'd go all General Antony on their ass and shoot the fuckers in open court. Idk. Shit like this is hard to stomach to people that are actually decent parents.

Click to expand...

The evidence against him is so over the top it's hard not to prejudge this. I'm fairly staunchly anti death penalty, but man I'm with you here. The two words that come to mind when I think of this guy are 'General Population'.

One of his searches was how to survive in prison. Unfortunately, there's a big difference between surviving in prison and surviving in prison as a child murderer. Perhaps he should have googled more specifically

Szlia_sl said:

Good luck proving intent unless he told someone or wrote something about it.

They can make 20 theories as to why he should have noticed his son in the car, that will not change the fact that the very definition of being distracted is 'not noticing things that you should notice'.

They can make 20 theories about the way he reacted to the death, that will not change the fact people react to traumatic event in totally different ways (even him trying to muster up fake tears at the police station can be brushed away as him seeing he is in trouble and trying to behave in the way he is expected to behave).

They can find 20 reasons as to why he was not a good husband, that will not change the fact that it is irrelevant for the case at hand.

I mean, even if he spent his days saying to whoever wanted to listen: 'I would be happier if my son was dead', they still would not be able to prove intent. I don't think I would want a justice system where a Freudian slip constitutes intent.

Click to expand...

All that is true. It would matter a lot more if cases were decided by the trio of lawyer, lawyer, judge. And a lot of times they are decided exactly that way -- I would think this is a case the defense would be desperate to keep in the back room. Juries can and sometimes do convict on what is largely circumstantial evidence.

Either way that goes, back room or front, he'll be spending some time in prison. Probably not as much as if he'd violently murdered an adult but more than involuntary manslaughter or negligence would get him.

15 years from now he might even win an appeal.

Peterson is exactly what I was thinking of.

You're like a mind reader.

Iannis_sl said:

All that is true. It would matter a lot more if cases were decided by the trio of lawyer, lawyer, judge. And a lot of times they are decided exactly that way -- I would think this is a case the defense would be desperate to keep in the back room. Juries can and sometimes do convict on what is largely circumstantial evidence.

Either way that goes, back room or front, he'll be spending some time in prison. Probably not as much as if he'd violently murdered an adult but more than involuntary manslaughter or negligence would get him.

15 years from now he might even win an appeal.

Click to expand...

Actually, very little of what he said is true. He has very little understanding of the legal system or reality in general

I think alot will depend on if they can get the parents to turn on each other, if it was conspiracy to commit murder then they were both in on it and as it gets towards trial pressure will mount that if it goes to trial they would be better taking a plea deal and selling out the other one. Seems fairly likely thats how it will end since the relationship doesnt seem exactly good, I could see the wife selling out hubby for a conspiracy charge + parole and he gets murder 1 and a needle.

Can't flimflam the zimzam.

All Szila is talking about, really, is reasonable doubt. That a thing could happen one way is no solid proof that a thing did happen one way. And then you move up the rungs to probable, and past that into "incontravertable -- there's no need for the jury to reTIRE."

You don't always -get- a smoking gun. Which I think is what juries are for. "It looks a whole hell of a lot like he did it. What say you?" Honestly you could just automate everything otherwise. I mean you really could, it's not even sci-fi anymore. They're trying to do that with traffic tickets. And I've gotten one for a car that wasn't even mine... a plate that wasn't even mine... and I called the place and they wanted 50 bucks before they'd even listen to it.

Had no trouble telling that man to go right ahead and fuck himself. And I'll notice that, years later, I still don't have any points on my license or an outstanding fine.

Fucking banditry. We do need the juries second guessing the lawyers.

Szila is saying if there's any chance this could have possibly been an accident, no matter how remote, he shouldn't be convicted. That's not what reasonable doubt means.

He then declares himself better than everyone because we want to live in a world where people who do terrible things are punished

The internet search shit is flimsy. If that was the only evidence they had then id vote not guilty as a juror. Mix that in with leaving the kid in the car all day checking on the car and not seeing him, the life insurance policies on the kid and if the death penalty was on the table i would vote guilty and recommend death by sticking him in a hot car until dead.

lanx_sl said:

You're allowed to put life insurance on a kid? I didnt know this spouse i understand, u depend on one another, but life insurance on a kid is a totalone way relationship

Click to expand...

Sure you can. I have it on mine. It's generally not a huge amount - usually enough to pay for funeral expenses, etc.

lanx_sl said:

You're allowed to put life insurance on a kid? I didnt know this spouse i understand, u depend on one another, but life insurance on a kid is a totalone way relationship

Click to expand...

No matter how well you try, can't always protect your kid against some asshole drunk driver or whatever. It barely cost me anything to add mine to my current insurance.

Cad_sl said:

Take the case of Scott Peterson for example. There is absolutely no physical proof he killed his wife. The boat contained no trace of her DNA (aside from a pair of pliers that had one of her hairs stuck to it, but go figure the pliers lived in their house) and the cadaver dog did not find any trace of dead-body scent on the boat, in his warehouse, car, etc. No physical evidence links him to a crime whatsoever. He basically got convicted because he had a mistress on his pregnant wife, he went fishing in the general area the bodies washed up (and nobody knew where he went fishing, he volunteered this information), and he acted sketchy as hell after the disappearance. Jury found him guilty and everyone thought it was an open and shut case.

DEFINITELY do not have to have some concrete proof of intent. Juries infer it from circumstance all the time. Now if you're asking "should they be inferring it?" Different question, different answer.

Click to expand...

Is there anything the prosecution or defense can do about a jury decision on appeal in a criminal case? Either extreme I guess, from jury nullification to convicting with zero evidence?