Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 20:55:12 GMT -6
I appreciate she buried the child the way she did, but the person(s)she bragged to about having murdered somebody, - were these waht could be considered reliable witnesses? And what was her response if that was out to her, did she deny having bragged, or admit it and provide some explanation? I am not saying she is innocent or guilty, I am just querying comments of the ilk like Jumbo makes, when he states that the fact she fled is conclusive evidence of guilt. That alone sure is not, but maybe taken with a collection ofm other things if they are proved to be true, could tip the scales of likelyhood. wrong. the fact that she did not attempt to get help for the baby, that she buried him in the woods, AND that she left the state is CONCLUSIVE proof of her guilt. flight IS evidence of guilt, in and of itself, in every state in the union I agree with you that it is evidence of guilt, but it isn't conclusive proof. That is you can't convict her of murder on those facts alone.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 28, 2013 3:57:24 GMT -6
wrong. the fact that she did not attempt to get help for the baby, that she buried him in the woods, AND that she left the state is CONCLUSIVE proof of her guilt. flight IS evidence of guilt, in and of itself, in every state in the union I agree with you that it is evidence of guilt, but it isn't conclusive proof. That is you can't convict her of murder on those facts alone. that's true. however, especially in this case, the totality of the evidence, completely disregarding either of the doctors assessments, conclusively proves her guilty
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 23, 2013 11:23:06 GMT -6
I'll just say this: burying the body, bragging to a friend that you killed a man, and fleeing to Missouri is not helping her case. At all.
It says something that Texas Monthly (who had good articles on Michael Morton and Anthony Graves, IMO) hasn't written anything on this case (because then they'd have to explain her actions after the death of the baby and her history, especially if the claims of her being a con artist and child abuser to her kids are true).
Still, if the science was bad, she should get a new trial, IMO, but probably would be sentenced to life in prison if convicted again.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 24, 2013 6:29:37 GMT -6
...and she dodges the DP why? Not enough evidence, squeamish jury, Just wondering what your thoughts here are.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 24, 2013 14:27:03 GMT -6
There no such thing as "conclusive" proof of guilt in any crime, especially murder. Even DNA is only circumstantial and provides a link between victim and suspect, but does not prove that the suspect was the killer. The majority of murder cases are based on circumstantial evidence from which the jury draws inferences of guilt.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 24, 2013 14:30:41 GMT -6
Based on all the evidence (her actions during and after the death; her prior history, which would be admissable in a penalty hearing), she should be sentenced to death (and likely killed the baby), but she might get life without parole because of the science convicting her being flawed (according to the original medical examiner (who also was a factor in the Michael Morton case, oddly enough)) and the jury deciding to play it safe, IMO. Especially given the coverage of other wrongful convictions (Michael Morton especially; that was horrible, IMO).
Just as long as she never gets out.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 24, 2013 14:33:35 GMT -6
DNA isn't conclusive. How did you arrive at that conclusion? The only reason evidence may not seem rock solid is the attorney defending the case or an inept prosecutor. Granted there is some very thin circumstantial evidence, but the whole DNA is not conclusive baffles me slightly.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 25, 2013 10:53:43 GMT -6
DNA isn't conclusive proof that a person committed a murder. It can be conclusive proof of contact between a victim and suspect that leads to an inference that the suspect murdered the victim.
For example, a husband and wife have sex one night and then the wife is killed by an intruder who does not sexually assault her after the husband leaves for work the following morning. The only DNA present would be that of the husband.
kma367
|
|
gillypod
Old Hand
PRO-DP Scot. PTO hates me - I am blessed
Posts: 596
|
Post by gillypod on Apr 1, 2013 7:33:10 GMT -6
From all I have read on the Henderson case, and not just the 'Save Her' site, she deserves the death penalty.
Sinister Prejean is in her corner now. Our beloved Helen has persuaded the original ME to testify that he may have made a mistake. The ME is not in good health and we all know Prejean can be persuasive.
When this comes back to trial I really hope that she gets the DP again. There is evidence that she is an aggresive evil woman who abused her own children to the point where one of them is SCARED if Cathy gets released. Remember, this is 18 years on and her own child is still scared of her.
Due to the fact that there is going to be a retrial, the Baugh family are not commenting just now and I don't blame them. They want to see justice for Brandon and have waited a long, long time for it. They have been harassed by antis, condescended to by Sinister Prejean and have had to deal with people who believe that Cathy is a saint. They will be determined that nothing they say or do in the next few months will affect the outcome of the trial.
Sinister has a lot to answer for. I do not care that she believes the death penalty should be stopped - that is her opinion and she has every right to hold that. However, if she continually tries to overturn the sentences of people who are obviously guilty she is not helping her argument. Even antis are starting to see the light in regard to her continual lecture tours and book deals and the money they must generate. If she believes that every person on death row is innocent then why did she not support Troy Davies or even Hank Skinner and his 'colour blind when drunk' excuses. Why is she not in Darlie's corner, or any of the other women on DR in Texas.
If Henderson ends up back on DR then the Baugh's will have to wait another 20 years on justice. That will be almost 40 years that could have brought them a loving son, a college graduate, a father and a friend.
God Bless Brandon and I hope that one day his family get the justice they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Apr 1, 2013 8:16:36 GMT -6
Preheat hasn't been true to her vows for sometime. An excerpt.. 16 Land, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Hard to argue with facts AND the word.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 5, 2013 5:38:52 GMT -6
There no such thing as "conclusive" proof of guilt in any crime, especially murder. Even DNA is only circumstantial and provides a link between victim and suspect, but does not prove that the suspect was the killer. The majority of murder cases are based on circumstantial evidence from which the jury draws inferences of guilt. kma367 wrong. there was MORE than conclusive evidence that oj simpson murdered his wife and her boyfriend, for example
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Apr 5, 2013 12:38:36 GMT -6
Jumbo, if there had been "conclusive" proof, then Simpson wouldn't have been acquitted. DNA is strong circumstantial evidence proving contact between a victim and a suspect. It is not in and of itself conclusive proof of murder because it only proves the victim and suspect had contact at some time. It does not prove that the suspect killed the victim.
For example, had Simpson said he stopped by Nicole's condo that night, found the bodies in the front and ran because he was scared, that would've explained the blood in his home and vehicle. If he claimed to have cut himself on the gate on his hurry to get back to his vehicle, that would've explained his blood at the crime scene. If there is an explanation for the presence of DNA, even if it's only marginally reasonable, then the strength of the DNA is weakened as evidence of the suspect's guilt.
kma367
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Apr 18, 2013 1:52:14 GMT -6
My thoughts are with the Baugh family. What Cathy did was a terrible thing and she does deserve to meet her end.
|
|
gillypod
Old Hand
PRO-DP Scot. PTO hates me - I am blessed
Posts: 596
|
Post by gillypod on Apr 18, 2013 6:43:01 GMT -6
My thoughts are with the Baugh family. What Cathy did was a terrible thing and she does deserve to meet her end. The Baugh family are devastated Pixie. They are staying quiet about the case as they want nothing to go wrong. I will pass on your support to them, I'm sure they will appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 14, 2013 2:51:44 GMT -6
Jumbo, if there had been "conclusive" proof, then Simpson wouldn't have been acquitted. DNA is strong circumstantial evidence proving contact between a victim and a suspect. It is not in and of itself conclusive proof of murder because it only proves the victim and suspect had contact at some time. It does not prove that the suspect killed the victim. For example, had Simpson said he stopped by Nicole's condo that night, found the bodies in the front and ran because he was scared, that would've explained the blood in his home and vehicle. If he claimed to have cut himself on the gate on his hurry to get back to his vehicle, that would've explained his blood at the crime scene. If there is an explanation for the presence of DNA, even if it's only marginally reasonable, then the strength of the DNA is weakened as evidence of the suspect's guilt. kma367 wrong. evidence had absolutely NOTHING to do with simpson's acquittal. the majority of the jurors had closed their minds to any and all evidence the day that furman testified. they were racists who wanted to "send a message" about "racism" in the lapd, and that is the ONLY reason that they acquitted simpson
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on May 14, 2013 10:31:15 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 20:00:53 GMT -6
I have a question. Is it possible for someone to be convicted of murder if they fail to seek medical assistance for the person. I know where I live the definition of murder includes acting in a manner that shows reckless disregard for human life.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on May 15, 2013 13:50:11 GMT -6
That would depend on whether the person inflicted the injury that led to the person's death. If the injury was deliberately inflicted, then the person could likely be convicted of 1st Degree Murder if the failure to seek medical treatment is argued to be due to the fact that the person intended the death to occur. If the injury was accidental and the person failed to seek medical treatment for the victim, then it could likely result in a 2nd Degree Murder conviction. If the person didn't inflict the injury, but failed to seek treatment, it could be argued to be manslaughter (either voluntary, or involuntary, depending on state law).
kma367
|
|