Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Women Who Kill - I Think Amanda Lewis is Innocent...

44 replies

MrSnow · 19/05/2016 15:44

Did anyone else see this last night?

I delved a little deeper into the case after watching the programme and I'm in no doubt that Amanda Lewis shouldn't be in jail.

Some of the glaringly obvious points are:

The finger marks on the head couldn't have been made whilst the child was in the pool. There would be no resistance to the head, they could only have been made whilst giving CPR which isn't what was told to the court by the coroner.

How did AJ manage to see the hand covering the child's face, he simply isn't tall enough to see over and down into the pool?

Would be interested to hear other people's opinions. How on earth this woman was given life imprison when the American justice system is based on "beyond reasonable doubt" is a mystery to me..

OP posts:

Original poster

MrSnow · 19/05/2016 21:45

Amanda Lewis was offered a 10 year sentence for a plea bargain of manslaughter, she refused.

OP posts:

Original poster

MrSnow · 19/05/2016 21:47

Would rescutitating have caused that kind of bruising though

How do you bruise someone when they are in the water, floating? She would have had to have had Adrienne on the bottom of the pool to cause the pressure on her forehead. Amanda Lewis isn't 7 foot tall.

OP posts:

NickNacks · 19/05/2016 21:49

It was also alleged that she fell in to the side of the plastic pool, meaning it sank and water poured out. Her legs were probably stuck on the side of the pool hanging out meaning she couldn't stand up.

Original poster

MrSnow · 19/05/2016 21:56

It's weird, to me anyway, that when AJ gave evidence, he wasn't even told his mum would be in the courtroom.

I know he was only 7, but he didn't seem care, at all, that mummy killed Adrienne, surely he would have had some concept of what that meant?

OP posts:

GretchenBeckett · 19/05/2016 22:09

When my dd was 6 she fell down the stairs. I was right behind her and tried to grab her to stop her falling, she thought I'd pushed her! Even now 11 years later she still swears blind I pushed her! My point is that a child can have a very distorted view of things like that. So he's not lying because he really believes that what he saw was his mother drowning his sister. It doesn't mean she did though.

Sidge · 19/05/2016 22:19

I think that's the thing that bothers me, that she was convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To me there is doubt as to what happened, so how can they be so sure?

Of course I haven't seen or heard all the evidence that the jury did, but it seems like her defence team must have been poor to not state that there was even a hint of doubt as to what actually happened that day. Yes she seems to have been a crap mum but did she murder her daughter?

Original poster

MrSnow · 19/05/2016 22:23

That's the thing with US Justice, if you can't afford a decent lawyer, you're halfway to being buggered before you start.

OP posts:

Original poster

MrSnow · 20/05/2016 00:20

If anyone could watch "What AJ Saw" on youtube (A short documentary) can you tell me why this poor woman was convicted?

OP posts:

Original poster

MrSnow · 20/05/2016 00:20

Sorry, "What did AJ See"

OP posts:

iPost · 20/05/2016 00:44

How do you bruise someone when they are in the water, floating

If I put my hand on your face and push you under water there are two ways I can think of off the top of my head, that could leave bruises from my hands on your face.

You put you feet down and push back hard, instinctively seeking to break the surface so you can breath.

If you can't reach the bottom, you grab my arm or the side of the pool to get purchase and push back hard with your head against my hand

BuunyChops · 20/05/2016 11:26

I found it all very odd.

I don't think that poor childs testimony can be taken at face value; it's now accepted that children have to be questioned very very carefully in order not to be 'coached '. They admitted that the person who questioned him wasn't trained.

The whole; well why didn't she stand up; doesn't a lot of child safety around water emphasise that a anyone can drown in bare inches of water. . .The shock of falling in; the shock of the temp of the water: possibly hitting her head and being stunned; feet getting caught.

And the continuing idea that a child drowning will make noise and splash when actually that is wrong; in adults too
(see here: mariovittone.com/2010/05/154/ or www.rd.com/advice/parenting/8-quiet-signs-of-someone-drowning/ or here www.rlss.org.uk/news/silent-drowning-whats/)

Was she a neglectful mother? Maybe; the house was a mess but that that doesn't make her a killer.

I do wonder if this had been a 2 parent family; and tidier house if it would have even gone to court. . .

I won't claim to know that she is or isn't guilty; but if I was asked if I thought she was guilty beyond doubt based on what they showed I couldn't say yes. I could not vote guilty.

BeYourselfUnlessUCanBeAUnicorn · 20/05/2016 11:31

I've just watched this this morning. I don't know if she did it, there are things that make you wonder, but no way should she have been convicted on the testimony of a 7 year old! When they initially asked him if she was in the room, he said no! I'm sure her appearance didn't dramatically change in 6 months. I also thought it was odd that he came out with it immediately after going to his GPs. My initial thought it what have they said to him. Children don't have reliable memories at all. My DCs come out with stuff that isn't quite right, although to them it is. DD once told me I had hit her! I've never hit her in my life! The questions they asked him seemed quite leading too. I'd be interested in what they said to get him to draw that picture.

Original poster

MrSnow · 20/05/2016 15:34

Little AJ was just 6 when he saw whatever he saw.

Again, I'd appreciate it if interested people watch the Youtube vid and let me know your thoughts. His contradictions are stunning.

OP posts:

Doris1970 · 22/05/2016 21:36

A bit late in adding to this discussion, but I wonder what exactly the GP's thought they/he would gain by convincing AJ what he did or did not see. If Amanda is truly innocent of any wrong doing, not only has AJ lost his sister, he also lost his mother and I would suspect most of his extended family too. If he was adopted, would he still keep in contact with grandparents, aunts, uncles etc? I only watched it this afternoon, and it has really effected me. So terribly sad for everyone.

bakeoffcake · 22/05/2016 21:43

I read AJs court testimony. He actually says very little other than "yes" and "no". It's all the lawyer saying "did such and such happen". There were so many leading questions.

Also he states he did not see his sister being killed. I was utterly shocked that his testimony helped to convicted his mother.

bakeoffcake · 22/05/2016 21:44

*convict

thisisnotausername · 22/05/2016 22:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

MrSnow · 23/05/2016 09:43

Thanks for the comments. Not sure how that poor woman is in jail.

OP posts:

Reklaw67 · 06/04/2017 12:37

I know I'm posting very late but I just came across a video on youtube about this case. Wow. The idiocy this jury showed in their decision is just crazy. This case just screams out "reasonable doubt"! That poor boy gave over 13 different accounts to CPS just a short while after being interviewed by a police detective. One of the 13 accounts totally in line with what his mother said happened. And the child was only 6 years old. His mother takes and passes a lie detector test with apparently flying colors.

Any jury that took the time to think through this case could NEVER have convicted this mom. But when you let emotions rule your decisions you come up with quick 2 hour stupid family wrecking decisions that do not pass the smell test to any "reasonable" person who understands what "reasonable doubt" even means.

Sad.

Flip

1 2