Comments on: Did Memphis teen stab mother to death?
Add a Comment
- Crazy that this girl is in prison. When a man killed his wife and buried her in a garbage bag, they could link him to the crime by determining the lot of bags, where they had been sold, and when he had bought those bags. Yet, in this case, they didn't even test all the DNA evidence? Was Noura a bad girl, and maybe her and her mother had arguments? I'm sure of that. But, to convict her of this crime is crazy. Now the real murderer is walking the streets and a young girl is in jail. SAD!
- Reply to this comment
- If I ever happened to stumble upon a recently murdered human being, I might not even phone it in to police now. It seems that being the first person to respond to the scene is now evidence enough for a guilty homicide verdict.
- Reply to this comment
- I totally blame people in the media like Nancy Grace for this. They've duped most of the American public into looking at the court system like it's a circus show and you can decide whether or not someone is guilty from your living room couch. Now, all these jurors think they can just decide in their own minds, free from whatever evidence gets presented, whether or not they presume a defendant is guilty. "Beyond reasonable doubt" no longer exists.
- Reply to this comment
- I think Noura did it, but this is a serious miscarriage of justice. There was no evidence at all that she did it. Myself, as a thinking human being, believe the daughter did it. But, had I been a juror in this case, I never would have been able to agree with a guilty verdict. You need more than circumstansial evidence. You should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and from the details of this story, it really seems like they did not.
Is it a coincidence that all these southern states keep turning up these sketchy guilty verdicts? I just read a story last week about a basketball player from Oklahoma who got sentenced on 2 counts of rape based on no evidence at all (DNA, witness, or otherwise) except for the victims' stories, which did not even coincide very well. I think these court systems need to be looked at, or jurors need to be more thoroughly vetted. - Reply to this comment
- http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-736024 This is a case also where there was NO EVIDENCE....supposedly the jury convicted this man on a 42 second google search....which was NOT EVEN PROVED IN COURT THAT HE DID IT....what is wrong with our Judicial Systems in this country??? This man was convicted on FIRST DEGREE MURDER and sentenced to life in prison without parole.....
- Reply to this comment
- I hate to bring up another case but re-read the quotes below from Page 4, middle ...
"It doesn't appear that she [Jennifer Jackson] was in hand-to-hand combat."
"If this was such a violent struggle, wouldn't you have expected Noura to have more wounds on her?" Schlesinger asked Helldorfer.
"No, because Noura had the weapon and she was the offender," he replied. "Jennifer was totally defensive, trying to block. She wasn't trying to attack."
Now re-read these same words and replace the name as such...
"No, because George Zimmerman had the weapon and he was the offender." The person with the weapon who is the aggressor has less reason to use their fist or punch. In Zimmerman's case, the 9mm was all the help he was ever going to need; which I do believe he was calling for help on that 9-11 tape.
Sorry but I couldn't resist the comparison. - Reply to this comment
- "Police were so confident in their case they didn't do any further tests on the hair, which Corder argued, could very well be the killer's. "We do not know whose hair it was," she said."
"But, gee whiz - it was in her hand," Schlesinger pointed out. "Like he said, hindsight's 20/20," Miller replied."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! This is unbelievable! The police are so busy just trying to find someone (ANYONE) to put the blame on that they've forgotten that they're supposed to find the person/people who actually did it.
They didn't test the hair? "Hindsight's 20/20"? Who are these idiots? You say "Hindsight's 20/20" when you forgot to check if your car was equipped with a jack for a long trip, or if you forgot to ask "that customer rep" for their name, NOT when you deliberately did NOT follow standard procedure in an investigation (especially when someone is being considered for murder). These dimwits need to lose their jobs--if not be charged with a crime themselves. They have absolutely NO place "defending" the public. - Reply to this comment
- The prosecutor just killed me when she screeched, " Just tell us where you were..Noouurrra!" No ma'am...the burden of proof IS ON YOU..Period..they had no physical evidence..Noura's blood and DNA were not at the crime scene..They didn't analyze the hair in Jennifer's hand?! They had no physical evidence, no eyewitness, no murder weapon...Nothing but circumstantial evidence. Nothing but a cut on her hand which doesn't mean anything..
- Reply to this comment
- How could any jury find a person guilty without actual evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence? They had neither in this case. I'd like to say to all members of this jury, "I hope you can live with yourself after convicting a person to prison without evidence."
- Reply to this comment
- This has to be in among the top miscarriage of justice ! The police decided it was her, without any evidence, and saved money by not investigating the crime scene!
They did not bother to test the hair the mother took in both hands, which was probably the only dna she could get on her attacker. Did NOT EVEN BOTHER! Let a cat run through the crime scene. Did not test for anything, but want to send a teen female to jail based on nothing.
This is truly outrageous , and reeks of anti female scapegoating, and saving funds, instead of justice.
I hope they pursue this to the end, and find out what really happened. - Reply to this comment
