More female privilege

[Derec]

Hires a hitman to murder her husband, but despite video and audio evidence that has her dead to rights, she avoids conviction again.

The Latest: Retrial planned after murder-for-hire mistrial
Does anybody really think if it was a man hiring a hitman to murder his wife that 3 jurors would refuse to convict? Or that the appellate judge would overturn the original conviction?

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hires a hitman to murder her husband, but despite video and audio evidence that has her dead to rights, she avoids conviction again.

The Latest: Retrial planned after murder-for-hire mistrial
Does anybody really think if it was a man hiring a hitman to murder his wife that 3 jurors would refuse to convict? Or that the appellate judge would overturn the original conviction?

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

I'm sure that works out best for everyone concerned.

Is it possible that the people who are actually there, listening to the testimony and looking at the evidence, might have a better grasp on the situation than you? Why would half the people on a jury remain unconvinced of her guilt? Maybe they are evil too.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

Like you have a choice in the matter.

 

[Derec]

I'm sure that works out best for everyone concerned.

At least better for me.

Is it possible that the people who are actually there, listening to the testimony and looking at the evidence, might have a better grasp on the situation than you? Why would half the people on a jury remain unconvinced of her guilt? Maybe they are evil too.

Did you miss the part where she has been recorded hiring the fake hit man? That's incontrovertible evidence. Obviously the 3 jurors refused to convict because of female privilege. Ignore the evidence and assume the female is innocent even if she is guilty as sin beyond all conceivable doubt, much less reasonable one.

- - - Updated - - -

Like you have a choice in the matter.

That may be so, but I am still glad I am not dating/married to a woman like this. There is also a good chance she gets off scot-free, because of female privilege. That means that she will be free to date and victimize another man.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

More female privilege: Hires a hitman to murder her husband.

Wow! All women can hire hit men? Call Alex Jones. We need to get this our to the MRAs!

 

[TSwizzle]

Like you have a choice in the matter.

That may be so, but I am still glad I am not dating/married to a woman like this.

Would explain why she was let off if it were so.

 

[Derec]

More female privilege: Hires a hitman to murder her husband.

Wow! All women can hire hit men? Call Alex Jones. We need to get this our to the MRAs!

The female privilege part comes in her avoiding conviction even though she has been recorded hiring the hit man.

 

[RVonse]

Hires a hitman to murder her husband, but despite video and audio evidence that has her dead to rights, she avoids conviction again.

The Latest: Retrial planned after murder-for-hire mistrial
Does anybody really think if it was a man hiring a hitman to murder his wife that 3 jurors would refuse to convict? Or that the appellate judge would overturn the original conviction?

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

I'm sure that works out best for everyone concerned.

Is it possible that the people who are actually there, listening to the testimony and looking at the evidence, might have a better grasp on the situation than you? Why would half the people on a jury remain unconvinced of her guilt? Maybe they are evil too.

Or maybe most of them were and are women.

A trial by jury is supposed to be by your peers. Which in this case the victim is male and the accused is female so to me it would make sense to require half the jury male and half female. But that would be asking for our justice system to be fair which it never is anyway.

 

[Deepak]

From what I've read in other threads, this indicates she was 'overcharged'

 

[LordKiran]

More female privilege: Hires a hitman to murder her husband.

Wow! All women can hire hit men? Call Alex Jones. We need to get this our to the MRAs!

The female privilege part comes in her avoiding conviction even though she has been recorded hiring the hit man.

So when a woman gets off for a crime she obviously committed it's female privilege. When a cop gets off for murdering someone on camera, oh its just how the justice system works and the jury has the right to nullify the law if they so choose.

Feck awf.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

From what I've read in other threads, this indicates she was 'overcharged'

That and the case introduces a lot of reasonable doubt:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/...lito-just-playing-a-role-for-cops-ride-along/

 

[KeepTalking]

Did you miss the part where she has been recorded hiring the fake hit man? That's incontrovertible evidence.

That would depend on the quality of the recording, and/or the conversation that was recorded. Since no video, audio, or transcript of the recording is included with the article you linked, it would be difficult for us to determine, based on this article alone, if said recording constitutes incontrovertible evidence.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

Like you have a choice in the matter.

Well she is a call girl...

 

[laughing dog]

Hires a hitman to murder her husband, but despite video and audio evidence that has her dead to rights, she avoids conviction again.

The Latest: Retrial planned after murder-for-hire mistrial
Does anybody really think if it was a man hiring a hitman to murder his wife that 3 jurors would refuse to convict? Or that the appellate judge would overturn the original conviction?

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

This argument is simply a variation of the absence of evidence means it must be _______.

We have the following data:
1) convicted in 2011,
2) conviction overturned,
3) a deadlocked jury (4 women, 2 men) deadlocked 3-3.

Now, this may be due to "female privilege" (whatever the fuck that means) or it may be due to some other factors including the actual possibility that she is not guilty.

 

[Angry Floof]

More female privilege

Get used to it, sweetcheeks.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Did you miss the part where she has been recorded hiring the fake hit man? That's incontrovertible evidence.

That would depend on the quality of the recording, and/or the conversation that was recorded. Since no video, audio, or transcript of the recording is included with the article you linked, it would be difficult for us to determine, based on this article alone, if said recording constitutes incontrovertible evidence.

She (her lawyer?) claims they made it all up for reality TV. The police were so pumped to make the arrest on Cops they rushed the investigation. This is where the lawyers can introduce reasonable doubt.

And hey if a scrawny black teen can become a sidewalk-wielding human tornado in Florida, then people can trick cops into making a false arrest for reality tv.

 

[Derec]

From what I've read in other threads, this indicates she was 'overcharged'

That and the case introduces a lot of reasonable doubt:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/...lito-just-playing-a-role-for-cops-ride-along/

I see no reasonable doubt. Just a feeble "I did not mean it seriously" defense that would have been laughed out of court if a man had attempted it. Again - female privilege.

- - - Updated - - -

She (her lawyer?) claims they made it all up for reality TV.

Hardly a believable story, especially since it wasn't until the trial she and her lawyers came up with it. It's a blatant lie and people who believe it are idiots.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, this may be due to "female privilege" (whatever the fuck that means) or it may be due to some other factors including the actual possibility that she is not guilty.

She has been recorded hiring the hit man. The three jurors are either blathering idiots or else voted to acquit knowing she was guilty. Either way, they would not be voting to acquit if the genders were reversed.

 

[Trausti]

That and the case introduces a lot of reasonable doubt:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/...lito-just-playing-a-role-for-cops-ride-along/

I see no reasonable doubt. Just a feeble "I did not mean it seriously" defense that would have been laughed out of court if a man had attempted it. Again - female privilege.

- - - Updated - - -

She (her lawyer?) claims they made it all up for reality TV.

Hardly a believable story, especially since it wasn't until the trial she and her lawyers came up with it. It's a blatant lie and people who believe it are idiots.

Maybe it's that it looks like the police tried to entrap her so they'd have a good episode on "Cops." It's pretty screwy.

 

[Derec]

Maybe it's that it looks like the police tried to entrap her so they'd have a good episode on "Cops." It's pretty screwy.

They did not try to entrap her. Entrapment requires that the target does not intent to do X before being approached by police to do X. This woman, however, first approached her ex boyfriend with her desire to have her husband murdered, and he is the one who went to the police.

 

[Bronzeage]

At least better for me.

Is it possible that the people who are actually there, listening to the testimony and looking at the evidence, might have a better grasp on the situation than you? Why would half the people on a jury remain unconvinced of her guilt? Maybe they are evil too.

Did you miss the part where she has been recorded hiring the fake hit man? That's incontrovertible evidence. Obviously the 3 jurors refused to convict because of female privilege. Ignore the evidence and assume the female is innocent even if she is guilty as sin beyond all conceivable doubt, much less reasonable one.

I'm not here to make you a better man. However you choose to justify your particular prejudices is your business.

If you are ever on trial for a charge in which the testimony of a policeman whose professional performance will be rated as to whether he convinced you he was willing to commit a crime on your behalf, let's hope you find a sympathetic jury.