Then you don't read well. Also, your spelling and grammar are for shit.
Please put me on ignore, as I will now do with you.
OT: Former NJ woman Michelle Lodzinsky found guilty of killing her son
- Thread starter brodo
- Start date
Then you don't read well. Also, your spelling and grammar are for shit.
Please put me on ignore, as I will now do with you.
If you ever write that book I'll be one of the first to buy it. I, too, am originally from Sayreville but I never had any connection with the principles. I always thought that she had something to do with it and I could never understand why she wasn't brought to trial then. It's funny that I happened to think about the case a few months ago and actually went online to see if there was a book on it or anything new about her since I'm out of the local news loop after moving to Scranton about 10 years ago.
I remember a few things that really caused me to point my finger at her. If I remember correctly she was on a "Find Timmy" (or something like named) fund raising committee and money went missing. I don't remember if she was found to have taken it or just suspected of it but she was kicked out of the organization. Then she was charged with some cop with trying to look up vehicle tag numbers. She was also fired from her job at a business in Perth Amboy after stealing money from them. Didn't she fail a few lie detector tests, too? Anyway, so get working on that book because I'm sure I'm only remembering a tiny portion of the facts and the ones I do remember are probably all mixed up.
She's always been a sketchy character, this much is true. The failed lie detector tests were more or less a foregone conclusion, given that she had told varying stories to investigators.
Blankets and sneakers aside, her brother Michael, among others, really captured the essence of the suspicion surrounding Michelle Lodzinsky in noting that she never really "pursued justice" for Timmy. Most parents of missing & murdered children devote the rest of their lives to the cause. She simply moved on with her life, staying out of the public eye as much as possible and going to every extent to avoid contact with anyone associated with the investigation, either officially or otherwise.
The babysitter originally claimed not to recognize the blanket
25 years later as an admitted drug addict who admitted to being mad at Lodzinski because she had left her own children in Lodxinski's care and Lodzinski gave the children to her (the baby sitters) mother in law
I think Lodzinski did something and it might even have been murder but I do not think the met the standad required based on the evidence
25 years later as an admitted drug addict who admitted to being mad at Lodzinski because she had left her own children in Lodxinski's care and Lodzinski gave the children to her (the baby sitters) mother in law
I think Lodzinski did something and it might even have been murder but I do not think the met the standad required based on the evidence
If she did It Good Riddance. If she didn't then the system has holes In it. Either way a young man who would have been in his 20's now never got a chance to taste a steak or a woman or a victory for his favorite team. And that is it for me.
Ru4Real ,
If I understand correctly you think lodzinski had something to do with the murder , but not enough evidence to convict ?
If I understand correctly you think lodzinski had something to do with the murder , but not enough evidence to convict ?
Me too. I also cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that he was murdered. He might have died because she did something stupid (not murder) and she panicked and made up the entire scheme.
I would think that at a minimum for someone to be convicted of murder you would have to prove the actual cause of death was actually murder.
I would think that at a minimum for someone to be convicted of murder you would have to prove the actual cause of death was actually murder.
That's the biggest risk going to trial after all this time: you're picking jurors who have already formed strong opinions of the case. The court of public opinion had already deliberated and come up with their verdict decades ago.
Her brother acknowledged as much in his letter.
Her brother acknowledged as much in his letter.
I agree. In those situations if I was a defendant I would never want a jury trial. I would want the case determined by a judge if I was able.
Not sure if NJ has separate rules, but technically the judge could still have overruled the jury decision and wiped out the conviction if he thought there was not enough evidence presented to allow them to rule the way they did.
Reading about this case for many years, I always got the sense from the investigators' comments that they were incredibly frustrated. They knew she knew something but just couldn't get that one crucial piece of evidence to link her to a crime. I'm still surprised by the conviction. In the end, they have a blanket at the center of their case. Is it that blanket? It seems so from the testimony, but who really knows for sure.
