Oh, I'm not dissing small boobs, I'm just saying that one of the biggest benefits of small tits is that they don't sag as much as early, but those are already full on granny titties and she's only 25 and those are probably A's.
Let's back up. Chick has a questionable (read: likely prostitution) past. She has a kid. [Child dies under mysterious circumstances.] Her mother, who is living with her, does not ask about the missing baby for two weeks. No one reports the baby missing for a month. It comes to light that she drove around for days with the dead body of her infant daughter in the trunk of her car bound in duct tape. Body is examined. She claims molestation, kidnapping by a nanny, then drowning in the pool by accident. And the part of the story that you don't understand is that she lied to the police about her employment background? This chick, at best, has some sort of mental problem. She's dissociated or crazy or just a plain cold blooded killer. She's also not very smart. If she couldn't think of a better lie than three different stories, it's no wonder she couldn't come up with reasonable work history. Jesus.
Aside from the reading of the verdict, I haven't paid two ball hairs worth of attention to this trial. Can someone tell me who paid for her defense?
I think that we can all at least agree that she's dumb. Hee-haw dumb. If she did it or however she was involved (I think that she was at least involved somehow) she had bought herself a lot of time to come up with an alibi and she still couldn't think of one so she threw some hail marys and sure enough, it distracted everyone. The outcome of this trial is basically a perfect storm of fuck-ups, and that sort of shit happens all the time. This one just happened to get the media's attention. I personally think that Double Jeopardy is a silly law, but that's just me. I hate it even more for spawning a truly stultifying Ashley Judd vehicle that for some reason was a box office smash. Gee, do you think they'll still put forth more great effort to find the real killer now, since they nearly convicted an innocent woman? If you need me, I'll be on the corner selling doubt on that one.
"Double Jeopardy" is a bedrock right that every free citizen has and should have. The idea that the state can simply keep coming after you until they finally find 12 people to agree with them is utter bullshit.
To be fair nipple placement could save them from complete disaster. If they are centralized well they could still come off as passable. If they point toward the ground? Game over man. Game over. Honestly this is one of those topics where I truly do feel bad for girls who nature didn't deal a perfect hand and feel truly shitty that I can't stop myself from being disappointed when a girl turns out to have not nice boobs after the previously mentioned "boob reveal."
Valid point. It's just one of those things that will never be backed by everyone, depending on the circumstance.
If you have more than two brain cells it should be. It's a central principle of every fair judicial system on Earth. Also, it's not just a law; it's the 5th Amendment.
It's unfortunate when the prosecution of a guilty party gets bungled, but the protections it affords so vastly outweigh the negatives that it's a thoroughly indisputable cornerstone of the legal system.
According to Wikipedia Great Briton has reversed it's stance on this and has convicted a couple of people after new evidence arose and after confessions. I understand the principle behind behind it, putting someone on trial over and over which risk their freedom or in her case possibly death is a terrifying ordeal. I went through a DUI trial and that had me fucking near the breaking point. On the other hand in cases of heinous crimes rape/murder/child molestation if irrefutable proof came to light I could see where exceptions could be made (obviously there would have to be a much larger burden of proof for the state, I think Britain has an extra set of judging panels to decide if new cases should go forward or not).
I see huge problems with this. Who's going to decide when we can use double jeopardy and when we can't? It sounds great when the criminal is obviously bad - rapists, child molesters, etc, but if you use it on them, you'll end up using it on everyone else too. The reason why we let murderers go thanks to technicalities (illegal search, for example) is so that the police can't bust in first and justify it later. Our justice system is based on that old cliche saying - "It's better to let ten guilty men walk free than to have one innocent man convicted." If that means we end up letting some criminals off, then that's the way it goes.
Sorry to derail the double jeopardy talk, but like I said earlier, I'm late to the party on this. One more question: How the hell is this even remotely related to the OJ trial? Aside from someone not getting convicted on charges that seemingly everyone assumes they should have, what is the correlation?
Racism! DUUUURRRRRR. Anyway, I guess they only allow it for a few of the most heinous crimes by law. Im 100 percent behind why it is in our Constitution and keeping it in there. There is just a part of my head that keeps thinking, well yeah as horrible as convicting someone who is innocent is, it is just as bad if a murder walks and fucking kills more innocent people again.
If Nancy Grace and the rest of the halfwits keep yelling about this, then the Feds can step in and prosecute her for some vague Civil Rights violation. State governments and the Federal government are different "sovereigns" and the Feds can step in and prosecute the same crime using the same evidence and not run afoul of Double Jeopardy. Don't believe me? Ask the morons who beat the crap out of Rodney King.
The first time I saw Nancy Grace on TV, she was interviewing a man who had been wrongly imprisoned and on death row for 20 years. His conviction was overturned with DNA evidence. She spent the whole interview implying and even stating outright that he was guilty and should burn in hell, DNA evidence be damned, with his tearful wife sitting right there. What a bitch.
http://www.wdbo.com/news/news/local/juror-talking-casey-a-porn-star/nC4TJ/?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss One of the jurors is already trying to sell his story. My first thought was that he's an arrogant douche trying to score a buck, but honestly, if I had to take off work to listen to the prosecution and defense throw a bunch of circumstantial bullshit and weak defenses around for [/b]three fucking years[/b], I'd probably want some extra cash too.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/</a>
I think the jury got this one right. I think she did it, but I don't think the prosecution put her in the room with the dead kid, which is a huge blunder. I certainly don't like this 'lying to investigators' charges. So let me get this straight, the police are under no compulsion to tell the truth in the interrogation room, but I am? Fuck you. Terrible fucking charge.
I don't care what any of you say, I'd hit it. I'd hit it because if the bitch missed a period, I'd accuse her of lying. If she said I was the daddy, I'd say she was lying. The baby goes missing for a month? Bitch taking care of bid'ness. I likes me a woman that is self sufficient...