|
Andrea Yates
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I was wondering "how in the hell did L&O become admissible evidence? Will we now see cites to "L&O, Season 5, Ep. 15" along with "286 F.2d. 115"?" and "why is a shrink testifying about L&O? Is he a TV shrink? Is he a L&O expert? A TV addict in his spare time? What?"
But in context it made more sense.
Did no one on the defense side think to fact check this at the time? Then again, I think everything's been done on L&O at some time, so presuming "psycho mom drowns kids" had been done, too, isn't that far a stretch. Still, the DA almost always wins on that show, so you'd think they would check it out to confirm the claimed "NGBRO Insanity" verdict.
|
Assuming that public entities are responsible for Yates' defense, which may be wrong, isn't it fucked up that the resources are there to check the Law & Order show after she's sentenced to death, but not before? Wouldn't we all be better off if a little more money was spent on public defenders?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
Threaded Mode