Murderer Pastor's Wife Regains Custody of Children

[Rico]

CC1, this wasn't some sort of plea bargain, Brother. The jury heard all the evidence and made its decision to convict her of a lesser crime. There had to be some reason why they went that route.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by CC1

Exactly. She shot him in the back and when the shot knocked him off the bed and he saw his why had shot him his dying words to her were "WHY?".

Not only had she lost their money in that Nigerian scam to cover it up she had opened a second bank account in another town and was kiting checks between the two accounts.

It was all about to come out that day (the bank had called her) and she knew her husband was going to find out and naturally be angry.

There is zero evidence he ever layed a hand on her physically or mentally in an abusive way. The children, close friends, and relatives all never saw anything like that.

At her trial her "smoking gun" was that she said he asked her to dress up in high heels and something sexy sometimes at night in their bedroom.

Sounds like a reason to shoot your husband in the back to me.

The signal it sends to first let her get off with almost no punishment and now to regain custody of her children is pretty scary.

Ask yourself if you would have only convicted of manslaughter had you been on the jury and the story was just as you told it. Is your jury pool in TN really that dumb?

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It was a jury trial. It's not as if it was some judge with an agenda, the jury found her testimony credible. Most of us have made up our minds not after hearing all the evidence but after reading a 4 paragraph news story.

Baron, read the initial things she was saying to the police...before a lawyer told her what made sense to say if trying to build a defense. She did not lawyer up immediately and did give many statements that would have gotten any man crucified for sure. This jury was one of the worst since the one that let Mel Ignatow get away with murder because they didn't like the length of the main witness' skirt. The facts of this case make 9 months a travesty.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ask yourself if you would have only convicted of manslaughter had you been on the jury and the story was just as you told it. Is your jury pool in TN really that dumb?

Sadly apparently so. Remember though that this is a state that when I moved here 9 years ago had not executed anybody for a few decades and had a bazillion hissy fits getting up the nerve to do it again.

They finally figured out it is not that hard to do. I kept thinking they needed to hire my former state of residence, Texas, as a consultant.

I kept thinking perhaps something explosive would come out in the trial to at least semi justify cold blooded murder but nope, not a thing.

The DA that prosecuted must be the most incompetent prosecuter in history.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Ask yourself if you would have only convicted of manslaughter had you been on the jury and the story was just as you told it. Is your jury pool in TN really that dumb?

Sometimes juries are just that stupid. Sometimes they are swayed by how someone looks or by an attorney's ability to play with their emotions. I almost guarantee a judge would have given her substantially more time.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by tstew

Baron, read the initial things she was saying to the police...before a lawyer told her what made sense to say if trying to build a defense. She did not lawyer up immediately and did give many statements that would have gotten any man crucified for sure. This jury was one of the worst since the one that let Mel Ignatow get away with murder because they didn't like the length of the main witness' skirt. The facts of this case make 9 months a travesty.

You don't think the jury heard those statements. And ethically an attorney cannot tell you how to testify. The jury had doubts about her guilt of anything less than manslaughter.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

You don't think the jury heard those statements. And ethically an attorney cannot tell you how to testify. The jury had doubts about her guilt of anything less than manslaughter.

Baron, I don't just do the soundbites. I followed that thing on Court TV, that jury was nuts and they just looked at her and could not convict her. I know that you know as well as anyone, that as good as our system is, there have been some loony juries.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

You don't think the jury heard those statements. And ethically an attorney cannot tell you how to testify. The jury had doubts about her guilt of anything less than manslaughter.

Baron Von Frankenstein,

I was the jury foreman on a murder trail in Texas where it was absolutely clear that the woman had killed the man and yet when we went to deliberate and I suggested we first have a secret poll as to our positions there were 10 guilty votes and two not guilty.

I had allowed three choices. Guilty of murder, Guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.

Jury's can be unpredictable.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by tstew

Baron, I don't just do the soundbites. I followed that thing on Court TV, that jury was nuts and they just looked at her and could not convict her. I know that you know as well as anyone, that as good as our system is, there have been some loony juries.

Think about getting 12 people totally fooled at the same time. It might happen but it would be rare. I remember one jury that I watched all the way through in a case the ACLJ was trying against a Planned Parenthood security gaurd. There was one woman who was more concerned with what us interns were doing than with the trial her I.Q. probably wasn't high enough for her to be executed, no way she had any idea what was going on. but she was one out of eight or nine whatever it was not the whole jury.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by CC1

Baron Von Frankenstein,

I was the jury foreman on a murder trail in Texas where it was absolutely clear that the woman had killed the man and yet when we went to deliberate and I suggested we first have a secret poll as to our positions there were 10 guilty votes and two not guilty.

I had allowed three choices. Guilty of murder, Guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.

Jury's can be unpredictable.

Sure they can. There is this thing called resonable doubt, that just grabs ahold of them sometimes.