SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (9494)11/19/1997 3:18:00 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 22053
 
A caller to a talk show I listened to (consider the source ) put a particularlly sinister twist to the story that I have not heard mentioned elsewhere:

He pointed out that the company who matched the girl up with the family paid the defense bills ( this is true ). He claimed that Scheck probably insisted that the jury not consider manslaughter because if the jury aquited, or found her guilty of 1st murder, then the company was off the hook for a civil suit. But if they found her guilty of manslaughter they would surely be hit with a giant civil suit. This guy
( who claimed to be a lawer ) said Scheck was acting in the best interest of his client ( the ou pair company ) and not the girl.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how valid these points are.

that



To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (9494)11/19/1997 3:35:00 PM
From: Scrapps  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22053
 
Are you saying the girl intended to kill the infant...that she set out to do that?



To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (9494)11/20/1997 9:43:00 AM
From: Jeffery E. Forrest  Respond to of 22053
 
I do think she should get manslaughter, BUT she should still do hard time to think about her actions.
Time served is ridiculous.

You'd go to jail longer for writing a bad check!

(That's what the childs mother said when she heard about the judges reversal.)