Yeah, but again many signs point to really fucking dumbass people here. I read somewhere they had two policies on him.The life insurance stuff doesn't make sense. I would assume there is no chance an insurance company would pay out in this circumstance.
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'.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Actually, very little of what he said is true. He has very little understanding of the legal system or reality in generalAll 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.
Sure you can. I have it on mine. It's generally not a huge amount - usually enough to pay for funeral expenses, etc.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
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.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
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?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.