If you want to get technical a dead body of a child is not a child, It's a body. You could say it was disturbing evidence but not child neglect.
Like I said, no negligence PRIOR to death that could be proven. I'm also not sure that covering up a death is "negligent" as the child is already dead at that point.
death on its own is not negligent enough since nothing can be confirmed prior to that death right? using chloroform is not negligent?not reporting a death as to skew timelines is not negligent? just want to make sure I am following you there cochran. you argument allows me to kill you since right before I killed you I was not being negligent, in fact I talked to you nicely ,and told you I wanted to repay jabba.
There is no proof that chloroform was used on that child. The one "expert" who testified that there were high levels of chloroform in the environment was made to look a fool by 4 other experts who disputed him. He was the only one with a profit motive. The ones who disputed him were FBI. And no, not reporting a death isn't negligent as the child is dead at that point. No. Try to put your thinking cap on for a minute and follow. What I said was they couldn't prove negligence or child abuse prior to the child's death. Therefore, they couldn't convict on a child abuse charge. There was no evidence. Negligence and murder are not the same thing. Your smart ass reply here is no where near as intelligent and witty as you'd like it to be, but it's ok. I forgive you for your ignorance. The lack of negligence prior to death would be irrelevant to a murder charge if they could prove murder. They couldn't prove either.
Well, no, they wouldn't charge you for negligence in that scenario, just like Ted Bundy didn't get charged for negligence either when he was earning pity points from his future victims. They would just charge you for murder.
and I forgive you for being a jerkoff jokeshop. you are arguing semantics on negligence when a death is about as big of a no brainer that I can think of in the negligence dept. In fact Im going to go ahead, and put death as a result of negligence being number 1 on the negligence list. It's okay because I can sleep at night knowing casey was negligent and casey is a murderer. You can jump on a flight to orlando , and help be her agent and the sh** show that is her future life. Sounds like you can argue your way out of anything, and casey is the ultimate lying scum you are perfect for her. Feels nice i'm sure.. You are really are greedo ,and I was just making a goofy joke on a goofy bbs board.. try not to get your panties in a wad there defending murderers.. Why dont you go find the real killers of OJs, or tell me it was goldmans negligence for having a neck. you are funny hardy har har
can't wait to see a book at Border's about "how to kill your daughter without getting sentenced to death" by C Anthony.
And can we find some way to not make it racial about the fact no parades or dancing in the streets today when someone so obvious in guilt gets away with murdering someone? Just sayin'.
Everyone, including the prosecution, defendant, jury, and judge, should use NUMBERS to denote who's saying what and who is guilty and who is not guilty. Defendant ABCD, Judge XYZ, Juror 1230198, 102938109, etc. Only this way will we abstain from saying "Oh, man... just 'cuz she's white!" or "Oh, man... just 'cuz he is black!"
Why does it matter? You said the highest level of education was high school thus statement disproven.
I'm not arguing semantics. They didn't prove murder. They can't prove child abuse or negligence aside from the fact that the child is dead. If you can't prove she killed the child and you can't prove that she was a bad mother prior to the child's death, how you suppose you can prove the child died as a result of her being a bad mother? Someone dying is not in and of itself proof of negligence. I feel like an idiot. If I had known you were this ridiculous I wouldn't have tried having a discussion of any kind with you. I assumed because this thread was in D&D that the people posting in the thread would be capable of more advanced thought than this paragraph I've quoted indicates you are capable of.
I would propose that not reporting your child missing for 31 days would be considered negligent... as in, the very definition of it.
After reading about the case, the lack of direct evidence and absent evidence of the cause of death, I'd have to agree the prosecution couldnt and didnt prove Casey Anthony was guilty of murder. While common sense and the sheer unbelievability of her actions. lies and stories may seem enough to convict her, it fortunately or unfortunately - isnt, in the eyes of the law. What i find confusing is, why didnt the prosecutor also charge her with hiding her daughters dead body or removal or tampering with it? Surely hiding the body or evidence for 6 months is a crime?
