posted on July 6, 2004 11:52:49 AM new
Although the prosecution hasn't presented it's case, I get the feeling Scott Peterson may not get jail time. This all reminds me of the O.J. fiasco as it seems jurors almost need a video tape of the crime to convict these high profile cases. (I wonder if they need the same amount of circumstancial evidence to convict a black man on welfare?) Do you think he'll be convicted?
posted on July 6, 2004 12:04:04 PM new
Krafty - the OJ case was lost by the police. Bill Maher once said it perfectly - "The LAPD is so inept they were unable to frame a guilty man.
There are at least 3 piece of pphysical evidence that unfortuately cast reasonable doubt upon the Simpson case that even having no doubt in my heart that he was involved (probably with his son) in the killings, I would have, by rule of law, had to have had to have voted not guilty if I wa in that Jury as well.
As far as the Peterson case, I am still leaning towards guilty.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 6, 2004 12:04 PM ]
posted on July 6, 2004 03:25:57 PM new
The prosecution has yet to prove its case. It has yet to provide definitive forensic evidence that Scott killed her.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 6, 2004 04:01:19 PM new
Bear - is that now the definition of proof? How much forensic evidence do you expect to find o a body that has been under water for an extended period of time?
Unless he bludgened her to death in the house leaving huge amounts of blood there is not a lot of fornensic evidence that could prove murder. Hair and fiber evidence is useless, you are going to have to have copious amounts of blood or a murder weapon. If he say... uffocated her, then transported her in his truck to his boat where he dumped her off the side, what forensic evidence would be found that would not be explained away by general day to day activites?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 6, 2004 04:20:18 PM new
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Scott didn't do it. Its just the prosecution has yet to prove its case.
The defense team already has the cops admitting they didn't follow all the leads in the case, injecting "reasonable doubt".
The prosecution will have to provide a witness to Scott dumping her body or some other conclusive evidence (I.E. a "smoking gun". Which they haven't done yet.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 6, 2004 04:21:39 PM new
Imo, even if the OJ jury had pictures of him murdering Nicole....they still would have not convicted him. They were star struck and had their own bias about how the police are always the enemy.
It does look to me like Scott may get off too. Unless the prosecution has some miracle up their sleeves....I think he's going to walk.
posted on July 6, 2004 09:44:49 PM new
I don't think there is enough evidence to show that he killed his wife, so he'll probably be acquitted.
Is he a scuz who stepped out on a pregnant wife? Yes, certainly. But the evidence mentioned so far by police & press is that Laci was alive for a month after she disappeared (baby was full term). Peterson was under intense scrutiny during this time. If he had her & then killed her, where the heck did he keep her and how did he care for her (food, water, etc.) without the cops cottoning on to it? And why wait a month to kill her?
I have my doubts that he did kill her. I also wonder about the DNA tests that established the body found as Laci's. Usually it takes weeks for such tests to be resolved. And when this body was found, that's what the cops said, that it would be a couple of weeks to know for sure. Then, hey presto! A couple of days later they were say "yep, DNA shows this is Laci!" And I remember thinking "what the...?"
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 6, 2004 10:27:20 PM new
Darn, I thought this thread would be about whether George W. would be tried for War Crimes. Well, anyhow, I hope he gets a fair trial whether he's guilty or not. As for Bush, I hope Bush and his Admin does get indicted for War Crimes. Thousands of innocent lives were lost because our leadership couldn't do things diplomatically with International support. And Angola and Bali don't count as International support.
posted on July 7, 2004 06:53:54 PM new
Will He Get Off? !!!!!
HA! I thought it was going to be an X-Rated
Post.. and had to have a peek to see who was.. MM
. Which they haven't done yet.
MM