today is one year for cam

[KY GIRL]

leannegumbledunaway wrote:

<quoted text>No you are wrong.....she felt her life was in danger or her kids was. That is a threat.

No.. to claim self defense,her life must have been in imminent danger at the moment, not a day or three weeks later. He was sleeping, self defense was not needed. The "felt" like she was in danger is not good enough. She had to be IN DANGER AT THE MOMENT.

[Not hard to understand]

leannegumbledunaway wrote:

<quoted text>No you are wrong.....she felt her life was in danger or her kids was. That is a threat.

You said the threat doesn't have to be at that moment and you are wrong. For Cheryl to claim self defense, the threat has to be imminent. In case you don't know, "imminent" means about to occur. Since Bob was sleeping (per the newspaper reports), he could not have been an imminent threat; thus, it was not self defense. She could have just as easily taken the kids out of the house while he slept and went to the police station if she thought there was a danger.

She may have 1 good attorney, but there are 2 great prosecutors on this case. My money is on the jury siding with the prosecutors and Cheryl serving 20 years down state somewhere.

[KY GIRL]

Not hard to understand wrote:

<quoted text>
You said the threat doesn't have to be at that moment and you are wrong. For Cheryl to claim self defense, the threat has to be imminent. In case you don't know, "imminent" means about to occur. Since Bob was sleeping (per the newspaper reports), he could not have been an imminent threat; thus, it was not self defense. She could have just as easily taken the kids out of the house while he slept and went to the police station if she thought there was a danger.
She may have 1 good attorney, but there are 2 great prosecutors on this case. My money is on the jury siding with the prosecutors and Cheryl serving 20 years down state somewhere.

You think she will get 20 years? I say 25 years to life.

[bubba]

KY GIRL wrote:

<quoted text>
Regarding your comment "whoever is paying for her attorney", SHE IS!!! For goodness sakes the woman isn't poor, she was entitled to half of whatever they had together. The attorney fees, and the civil suit will probably break her eventually. But, do not count her as indigent yet, she hasn't been convicted, just charged. Assets may be frozen, but eventually the estate will have to be settled. I am sure a trust has been setup for the children.

We don't know what property they had together and how it was titled, so who knows what assets she has is entitled to put liens on for attorney fees, etc. Certainly, if convicted she'd get nothing from her husband's estate. I am sure Deanna Dennison is taking care of all that because lord knows she wouldn't kill a fly for a client without being paid.

[mamaberl in fort thomas]

Just because you "feel" your life is in danger doesn't mean you have the right to kill. She should have taken herself and the children to a woman's shelter where she would have been safe. No one would have been able to get to them there and Cheryl would have had the time then to do the right thing by divorcing Bob. "Thou shall NOT kill"!

[KY GIRL]

bubba wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't know what property they had together and how it was titled, so who knows what assets she has is entitled to put liens on for attorney fees, etc. Certainly, if convicted she'd get nothing from her husband's estate. I am sure Deanna Dennison is taking care of all that because lord knows she wouldn't kill a fly for a client without being paid.

Deanna represented the Funk appeal PRO BONO...So, quit with the fly thing, I think YOU may be gaging on one now!

[leannegumbleduna way]

For the kids wrote:

My guess is that the sister is suing on behalf of the estate. Since Cheryl killed Bob, she does not get anything out of the estate, it all passes to the kids (or whoever else was in the will). Perhaps the sister is suing to make sure the kids get money and that Cheryl doesn't spend it all on attorney's fees if she somehow wins the criminal case.

Cheryl is not spending the kids money!

[Jury of Peers]

Filing a civil suit was absolutely necessary. As someone pointed out earlier, Cheryl could be acquitted of the crime. If that happens, justice could still be sought through the civil legal system.

Also, whomever suggested that the civil verdict did not affect OJ Simpson is wrong. Items (such as jewelry) were confiscated from OJ in his recent legal problems in Las Vegas. Because of the civil suit, those valuables were turned over to the Goldmans. Additionally, because of the suit, OJ realizes he has nothing to benefit from exploiting his crime. He was going to publish a book called something like, "How I did it, If I did." He wound up not doing it because all of the money was going to go to the Goldmans anyway.

By having this civil suit, it would also prevent Cheryl from benefiting from a book or movie deal she might try to arrange one day.

[Semantics]

Jury of Peers wrote:

Filing a civil suit was absolutely necessary. As someone pointed out earlier, Cheryl could be acquitted of the crime. If that happens, justice could still be sought through the civil legal system.
Also, whomever suggested that the civil verdict did not affect OJ Simpson is wrong. Items (such as jewelry) were confiscated from OJ in his recent legal problems in Las Vegas. Because of the civil suit, those valuables were turned over to the Goldmans. Additionally, because of the suit, OJ realizes he has nothing to benefit from exploiting his crime. He was going to publish a book called something like, "How I did it, If I did." He wound up not doing it because all of the money was going to go to the Goldmans anyway.
By having this civil suit, it would also prevent Cheryl from benefiting from a book or movie deal she might try to arrange one day.

If memory serves, the publisher pulled the book, not OJ.

[Jury of Peers]

Semantics wrote:

<quoted text>
If memory serves, the publisher pulled the book, not OJ.

Actually, I believe the book was published, eventually. The Goldman's were awarded the rights to the book, and they changed the title to, "Confessions of a Killer." It might not have gotten published. But that isn't the point. The point is that the civil suit guarenteed that OJ wasn't going to profit from his crime.

[not staying]

Jury of Peers wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I believe the book was published, eventually. The Goldman's were awarded the rights to the book, and they changed the title to, "Confessions of a Killer." It might not have gotten published. But that isn't the point. The point is that the civil suit guarenteed that OJ wasn't going to profit from his crime.

This is off the subject a bit but O.J.'s friend did put out a book called. How I Helped OJ Get Away With Murder. Now I think that is worse than a family member filing a civil suit... Also the other book did get published.

[KY GIRL]

not staying wrote:

<quoted text>
This is off the subject a bit but O.J.'s friend did put out a book called. How I Helped OJ Get Away With Murder. Now I think that is worse than a family member filing a civil suit... Also the other book did get published.

No, it's not worse, actually it's an equal, I love to see both, the civil is filed, now bring on a book, just as long as Cheryl and the kids do not profit. Mccafferty Family only, the ones who deserve to profit. And maybe Patrick.

[leannegumbleduna way]

KY GIRL wrote:

<quoted text>
No.. to claim self defense,her life must have been in imminent danger at the moment, not a day or three weeks later. He was sleeping, self defense was not needed. The "felt" like she was in danger is not good enough. She had to be IN DANGER AT THE MOMENT.

And NO ONE know's....not even you KY......if she felt it at the very moment. I tend to believe she did....duh!

[KY GIRL]

leannegumbledunaway wrote:

<quoted text>
And NO ONE know's....not even you KY......if she felt it at the very moment. I tend to believe she did....duh!

We know he was sleeping, so the self defense claim is not going to fly. I think she will claim mental abuse, because she has no proof of physical abuse.

[Rationable]

leannegumbledunaway wrote:

<quoted text>
And NO ONE know's....not even you KY......if she felt it at the very moment. I tend to believe she did....duh!

I don't know if this is true, but I sure hope you cant' just say you "felt threatened" and use that as an excuse to kill someone. If so, the next time I honk my horn at a guy stopped at a green light, if he feels threatened "at the very moment," he might shoot me.

I think it isn't enough to feel threatened. I think you have to be in ACTUAL danger. At least, I sure hope so.

[Jury of Peers]

Rationable wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if this is true, but I sure hope you cant' just say you "felt threatened" and use that as an excuse to kill someone. If so, the next time I honk my horn at a guy stopped at a green light, if he feels threatened "at the very moment," he might shoot me.
I think it isn't enough to feel threatened. I think you have to be in ACTUAL danger. At least, I sure hope so.

Rationable,

I've never been to a murder trial, so I can't say what kind of instructions the judge gives the jury, regarding the defendants state of mind. I tend to thing that their state of mind makes a big difference. I know that an "intent" to commit a crime is usually necessary for a conviction, but not always. For example, vehicular homicide is often an accident. A person just needs to become impaired, get behind a wheel, and have an accident where someone gets killed.

I will agree with you that a person needs to have a reason to believe they are in danger. Paranoia, I hope, is not a get out of jail free card for killing someone. On the other hand, it can probably really lessen the charge. If Cheryl can articulate that she believed she and the kids were in some kind of "on-going" danger, from Bob, even if it wasn't true, I'd think there is a good chance of her getting a lesser charge than 1rst degree murder. And that should give her a little bit of leverage if a plea negotiation should take place.

I guess we'll all find out sometime soon.

[mamaberl in fort thomas]

Yea maybe we will find out soon but not before Cheryl's request for moving her trial some where else, lol. Why do you think she's doing this? Hmmmmmm