View Full Version : Scott Peterson verdict
Freemason
12-11-2004, 20:09
Guilty 1st degree
I don't believe it. OJ let us down, the "real killer" struck again!
In a related story, violence has broken out between those that believe Elvis was the wheelman and those that insist Mario of MarioKart fame drove. The police could not be reached. Neighbors said they didn't care.
In a related story, there was a robbery at the local Krispy Kreme store. The SWAT Team was called in as well as every K-9 unit in the tri-state area.
In a related story, Krispy Kreme stock gained 300 points today.
In other news, a dog exploded today. No humans were injured but hundreds of fleas lost their lives. Donations are being taken at the Raid factory.
giantpinkbunnyhead
12-11-2004, 20:16
Ouch! you beat me to it!!
somehow, you must have CHEATED!
Damn you people work fast. I just saw this on the news like 5 seconds ago. 1st degree is eligible for the death penalty right?
He got 1st degree for his wife, and 2nd degree for the baby.
Fox was saying that he gets either life in prison, or the death penalty.
Now I know what to send him for Chistmas.
Score one for pro-lifers.
Nerf-Herder
12-11-2004, 20:34
Buuuuuuuuuurn!!!
Um...who?
Maybe I shoulda watched some news in the last few weeks... :lol:
Booo or yay. I have no idea what this hubbub is about and I don't care. Well, unless this cat stole some diamonds and made a daring escape through the streets of Geneva. That might be kind of neat. Somehow, given the reactions here, I think it's much less interesting than my scenario.
Freemason
12-11-2004, 20:38
somehow, you must have CHEATED!
It's called having the thread already typed and having a live feed via radio to the reading of the verdict. All I had to do was hit Submit Reply and voila! Instant scoop :thumbsup:
giantpinkbunnyhead
12-11-2004, 20:43
So THAT'S the trick eh? Well what would have happened if he was found innocent? Or did you have a thread ready to go for that too? I guess it wouldn't be too hard to change a few words around anyway. Either way... I'm glad this page has turned.
Freemason
12-11-2004, 20:51
So THAT'S the trick eh? Well what would have happened if he was found innocent? Or did you have a thread ready to go for that too? I guess it wouldn't be too hard to change a few words around anyway. Either way... I'm glad this page has turned.
Lucky guess. Had he been innocent I'd have quickly deleted the guilty and typed innocent. I still would have beat you :lol:
AeroJonesy
12-11-2004, 21:23
I thought they'd find him innocent. It seemed to me the state didn't have a very solid case evidence-wise, all they had was "look at him, he tried to run, died his hair grabbed some money, had an affair, and looked really really creepy."
Mark Geragos I guess had something a little more important to do. He wasn't there for the reading.
In 2003, the USA had more than 16,500 homicides reported (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041025/D85UO2UG0.html).
Although, I really didn't follow this case, I was always curious as to why this particular case received such copious amounts of national publicity. Was it the unborn child angle?
GovernerOfCali
12-11-2004, 21:57
Curious if he'll become a religious nut and claim that even though he did terrible things, Jesus loves him and his soul will go to Heaven cause he believes?
zodiac66
12-11-2004, 22:00
In 2003, the USA had more than 16,500 homicides reported (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041025/D85UO2UG0.html).
Although, I really didn't follow this case, I was always curious as to why this particular case received such copious amounts of national publicity. Was it the unborn child angle?
I was wondering the same thing. Upper middle class and adultery make a soap opera.
What happened was tragic, but there have been cases just as tragic such as this one:
Pair plead not guilty in toddler's death
AKRON - A couple accused of killing 13-month-old Jacqueline Cooper earlier this month pleaded not guilty Wednesday in Summit County Common Pleas Court.
The girl's mother, Vanessa L. McGlumphy, 25, and her boyfriend, Daniel S. Duffield, 32, will have to post 10 percent of a $500,000 bond to be released from the Summit County Jail.
A pretrial hearing was set for Tuesday before Judge Judith Hunter.
Duffield was indicted on charges of murder, involuntary manslaughter and endangering children, according to the prosecutor's office. McGlumphy was charged with involuntary manslaughter and endangering children.
The Summit County medical examiner determined that the child died Oct. 6 of a broken neck. She also had a severed liver, old and new fractures in her arms and legs, and had been stuck several times with a needle in her feet and head.
Will that be shown on Court TV?
Technetium
12-11-2004, 22:00
In 2003, the USA had more than 16,500 homicides reported (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041025/D85UO2UG0.html).
Although, I really didn't follow this case, I was always curious as to why this particular case received such copious amounts of national publicity. Was it the unborn child angle?
Yeah, most likely.
I think it is great that they got the guilty guy (assuming the verdict is correct, of course), but I think it is sad that the media spent so much time on this case when there are so many murder victims that we never hear about. I would say that we even heard more about this one (or two) murder than about all the people killed in Sudan combined.
Freemason
12-11-2004, 22:03
Although, I really didn't follow this case, I was always curious as to why this particular case received such copious amounts of national publicity. Was it the unborn child angle?
A good looking rich white woman was murdered. Every sensational murder case has that in common. You never hear of ugly women being killed. You never hear of ugly women being kidnapped.
The best defense a woman has against bein killed, molested or kidnapped is to be ugly. Just ask the media.
MixedVariety
12-11-2004, 22:05
In 2003, the USA had more than 16,500 homicides reported (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041025/D85UO2UG0.html).
Although, I really didn't follow this case, I was always curious as to why this particular case received such copious amounts of national publicity. Was it the unborn child angle?
The unborn child angle, young, perfect, pretty pregnant wife with flashing smile that most men would die for angle, Christmas Eve Of All Times To Murder Your Wife angle, all sorts of stuff rolled together. Once in a while a case like this comes along, nothing really better or worse than a myriad of other cases, and just catches the media's eye, becoming a sensation.
CyberHawk
12-11-2004, 23:05
This just goes to show ya....ya cant get away with **** nowadays.
I really thought he woulda got a lesser jugdement. Esp when one jury member was taken out just last week...hmmm
Hes prob thinking.*damn!, shoulda got Johnny C.*<<sp?
zodiac66
12-11-2004, 23:15
This just goes to show ya....ya cant get away with **** nowadays.
I don't know how to take that response. He did a horrific crime, got caught and was found guilty. I would sure hope you can't get away with **** nowadays. If it were your daughter and grandson who were murdered, I don't think you would have made that remark.
I am going to give my daughter a great big huggy now.
I really am not sure he did it (esp from the justice side of things), they really didnt have anything except circumstancial evidence, which under my understanding of law, is not enough to convict someone of a felony.
CyberHawk
13-11-2004, 00:08
I don't know how to take that response. He did a horrific crime, got caught and was found guilty. I would sure hope you can't get away with **** nowadays. If it were your daughter and grandson who were murdered, I don't think you would have made that remark.
I am going to give my daughter a great big huggy now.
Take it as for example..over 140 something people to say he did it..around 18 so say he didn't do it...and they need a jury to decide. Like I said, with that many against you..and you still have a case.."just shows you cant get away with anything".
Weather or not he did it or not...hes going down for it. So therefore, you aint getting away with "it"..whatever that it might be.
In this case, he supposly murderd his wife and child...I know the story. Kept up with it this past year. My wife sayd HE DID IT!..I say..I dont know.
I just know he came, he saw..and will prob die. Either way, he aint getting away with anything.
In this day and time..your guilty till proven innocent. And with this much build up....your scrwed. Well unless your OJ.
You say he is guilty..I say two people are dead...and now their going to kill whats left of a broken family. Suits him I guess. I dont really care what happens to him. The parents will be the ones that suffer.
zodiac66
13-11-2004, 00:13
Take it as for example..over 140 something people to say he did it..around 18 so say he didn't do it...and they need a jury to decide. Like I said, with that many against you..and you still have a case.."just shows you cant get away with anything".
Weather or not he did it or not...hes going down for it. So therefore, you aint getting away with "it"..whatever that it might be.
In this case, he supposly murderd his wife and child...I know the story. Kept up with it this past year. My wife sayd HE DID IT!..I say..I dont know.
I just know he came, he saw..and will prob die. Either way, he aint getting away with anything.
In this day and time..your guilty till proven innocent. And with this much build up....your scrwed. Well unless your OJ.
You say he is guilty..I say two people are dead...and now their going to kill whats left of a broken family. Suits him I guess. I dont really care what happens to him. The parents will be the ones that suffer.
Actually you said you can't get away with **** now a days. That gives one the impression that you hoped that he killed his wife and unborn son and would get away with it. Maybe you should have phrased it differently.
CyberHawk
13-11-2004, 00:34
Let me try again.
Ok theres 2 guys.
1st guy has 150 people trying to convict him of murder.
2nd guy was convicted with only 2 people trying.
Now noone knows if they did it or not..they are both guilty..hence. You dont get away with it.
I guess putting it even more simple.
If your ever convicted of murder....you get screwed weather you did it or not. Becasue if 100 people come out and say yes you did it...and point to why they think so..case closed.
In this case he said he DID NOT KILL HER...so noone but her killer and the killed know. The rest is all possible facts and clues.
So once again...you aint getting away with anything now-a-days..esp with such great attorneys. Becasue the system says your guilty.
If I were looking from what I read about this case...I dont think I could sentence him to death..becasue one fact telling him hes innocent..could be the right one..the rest might be false. Its a tuff deal. But..thats the way it goes..hes been convicted, and will now face the punishment. I woulda prob said he was guilty too if I were in the jury. I dont like the way his reactions have been to hearing and detailing her death...If I were in love with my wife..I woulda cried everyday till they fried me.
But ya, I'm thinking one thing in my head..and he came out like that. I read it and know why I used those words..I just cant seem to explain it well I guess. :scratch:
Score one for pro-lifers.
My sentiments exactly.
Still, murder isnt a crime that can be convicted on circumstancial evidence alone, and it sounds like that is what they did...
jimmyboy
13-11-2004, 01:01
I'd like to know why the 2 jurors who was against the guilty verdict dismissed at this late state in trial.
I think jurors went 7 days at deadlock. But then the judge replaced 2 jurors, and they reach a verdict in 4 hours. That judge better have one hell of a reason to play with the jury pool this late in the trial.
Steel_Avatar
13-11-2004, 01:17
I seem to recall reading that one of them had lied about doing outside research about the case, on her own.
MixedVariety
13-11-2004, 01:28
I can only say I'm glad I wasn't on that jury.
I was on a jury once for a murder trial, and the evidence was much clearer than it was in this Peterson case. The man was found guilty. The evidence was damning. I voted for guilty, myself. And yet, in some small part of my mind, there is the niggling doubt, the fear that I might possibly have condemned an innocent man to prison and/or death.
There are things I don't know about this case yet, reasons the jury must have felt vindicated in declaring a verdict of guilty.
But my own take on this was that Scott Peterson was doomed from the start. The media put the right spin on it, got the whole country outraged about it, and that was the end of that. My own gut feeling is that he is guilty, and why is that? Because the media says so. Fortunately, I long ago learned to stop listening to my gut and to follow the data, instead.
Steel_Avatar
13-11-2004, 01:38
The problem there is that we usually don't get all the data, just little chunks from the media :(
I wonder, could he possibly have gotten a fair trial, given the media's attention to the case?
I wonder, could he possibly have gotten a fair trial, given the media's attention to the case?
You know the answer to that.
Now I feel uninformed for not knowing what the hell is/was going on. Damn my alternative information services. Thanks a bunch Steel ;)
ChaoticMind
13-11-2004, 01:58
I read an article that discussed the childs exact time of death. Apparently, there was some decent evidence that the kid had died after Scott Peterson was under surveillance.
Fortunately or unfortunately, when the defense expert was cross-examined he came apart, for all intents and purposes destroying that aspect of Peterson's defense.
In 2003, the USA had more than 16,500 homicides reported (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041025/D85UO2UG0.html).
Although, I really didn't follow this case, I was always curious as to why this particular case received such copious amounts of national publicity. Was it the unborn child angle?
Maybe, cus it was near christmas, the cable networks had to get viewings so they took this story and ppl got interested in it, or ppl were interested in it because Scott looks like an ordinary guy and not like a monster like most killers look.
I can only say I'm glad I wasn't on that jury.
I was on a jury once for a murder trial, and the evidence was much clearer than it was in this Peterson case. The man was found guilty. The evidence was damning. I voted for guilty, myself. And yet, in some small part of my mind, there is the niggling doubt, the fear that I might possibly have condemned an innocent man to prison and/or death.
Hey Mixed,
I've only sat on one criminal jury before, a "possession with intent" cocaine case, 2 kilos worth. 3 young dudes, 19-24, open and shut evidence (videotape), prosecutor going for "Federal Mandatory Minimum Guideline" sentencing which meant they would SERVE at least 30 years. That's more time than most murderers serve.
Did I feel bad about sending down 3 kids for a stupid mistake? Oh, yeah, I felt like crap. Did I second guess my decision? Nope, they were all guilty as hell and it wasn't my job to decide their sentence, it was my job to decide if the State had met the burden of proof.
The State had met their burden and I voted guilty, even though I sympathized with the kids.
Those who have never served on a Criminal jury have no idea of the burden that falls upon the juror's shoulders, the weight of "duty". Even though I disagree with drug laws and REALLY disagree with the use of confidential informants I felt the weight of my juror's oath and I just KNEW deep inside that I had to follow the rules....that's the only way the system can work.
My only involvement with a murder trial was about 4 years ago when I was rejected from the jury pool in a murder trial here in Houston because I had been the victim of a violent crime before. The defendant was a 15 year old kid who had shot and killed a woman who was nine months pregnant (due in ten days) in the course of a carjacking, both she and the baby died.
The prosecution was not seeking the death penalty (which was a suprise for Harris County) and the defendant was not charged with the death of the baby. The defendant was sentenced to life without parole....a fifteen year old kid who would be spending the rest of his life behind bars.
Would I have voted guilty? Would I have sent this kid down for the rest of his life?
If the burden of proof was met, I would HAVE to....it's the only way our system works.
Those of you who have never been on a criminal jury just don't understand what it means to sit in judgement. It's a terrible burden, it's not something you take lightly, and until you've done it you shouldn't talk about those who have.
What if we are wrong? What if our system doesnt work and he is found innocent. After he dies. Such a shame we cannot do anything about it huh?
Steel_Avatar
13-11-2004, 03:10
Scanman: I've never liked the argument that says "Well you haven't ever . . . so shut up!". It's like me saying that you can't ever discuss **** on these boards, because you've never ***** someone, or been *****.
What if we are wrong? What if our system doesnt work and he is found innocent. After he dies. Such a shame we cannot do anything about it huh?
They haven't voted for death......yet.
I wouldn't mind seeing the death penalty abolished if we could have a firm "life without parole" option in sentencing. I think that is a worse penatly than execution.
Have you heard about what is happening with Susan Smith (you DO remember Susan Smith, right)?
Apparently the other inmates in her cellblock wait until after lights out, and then they start calling to her in children's voices..."Mommy, don't hurt me!"...."Mommy, I'm scared!"..."Mommy, I can't breathe!"
It seems that Ms. Smith is starting to go clinically insane from the guilt being pumped into her head by the other inmates for the last ten years.
As the father of a two year old son, I have to say that I have NO PROBLEM at all with what is happening to her. Prison is supposed to be a bad place, that's why you try to stay out of it.
Nerf-Herder
13-11-2004, 03:23
What if we are wrong? What if our system doesnt work and he is found innocent. After he dies. Such a shame we cannot do anything about it huh?
this is one issue where i side with republicans -- many liberals would have us believe that all human life has inherent value -- the truth is that some of us are inherently evil, beyond rehabilitation, and need to be removed from society in a manner that does not involve taxpayers providing them with three hots and a cot for fifty years
i know the cap punishmnt system is in desperate need of reform, but the punishment IS needed (IMHO)
-- we need to make sure that lower income defendants have access to attorneys who are not "fresh out of law school public defenders" and we also need to expedite the appeals process -- perhaps even have a special branch of the court system to exclusively handle death penalty cases so we can reduce the margin of error
Scanman: I've never liked the argument that says "Well you haven't ever . . . so shut up!". It's like me saying that you can't ever discuss **** on these boards, because you've never ***** someone, or been *****.
Well, Steel, I try to stay away from arguments involving Quantum Physics because even though I may have an opinion on the subject, I just don't know enough about it to have an INFORMED opinion.
Likewise with Criminal juries....if you haven't been there, if you've never sat in the jury room and deliberated, you just don't understand.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have an opinion about the case...what I'm saying is that not one person on this forum sat through all the testimony in the trial, saw all the evidence presented, and then sat through the deliberations in the jury room.
What I'm saying is that no one here has the right to second guess the jurors. The juror's aren't the ones who have had their opinion of this case shaped by media coverage, they are the ones who know more about this case that anyone else in this world besides Scott and Lacy Peterson.
***** about what you saw on TV, that's OK. Don't ***** about the jury if you've never been there.
Well, Steel, I try to stay away from arguments involving Quantum Physics because even though I may have an opinion on the subject, I just don't know enough about it to have an INFORMED opinion.
Likewise with Criminal juries....if you haven't been there, if you've never sat in the jury room and deliberated, you just don't understand.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have an opinion about the case...what I'm saying is that not one person on this forum sat through all the testimony in the trial, saw all the evidence presented, and then sat through the deliberations in the jury room.
What I'm saying is that no one here has the right to second guess the jurors. The juror's aren't the ones who have had their opinion of this case shaped by media coverage, they are the ones who know more about this case that anyone else in this world besides Scott and Lacy Peterson.
***** about what you saw on TV, that's OK. Don't ***** about the jury if you've never been there.
For a case like this where there was no hardcore evidence agaisnt him, and there was evidence (like the baby was older than it should have been had he killed her when they claimed he did) for his innocence you have to believe that this verdict was reached because of the media. In a case like that is should have been a hung jury, which it was until the judge changed it. Was the judge tampering with the jury, or was that the ONLY person who saw stuff about the case from mass media.
Honestly I dont think he got a fair trial. How could someone be found guilty so quickly when there is nothing except circumstancial evidence!?
For a case like this where there was no hardcore evidence agaisnt him, and there was evidence (like the baby was older than it should have been had he killed her when they claimed he did) for his innocence you have to believe that this verdict was reached because of the media. In a case like that is should have been a hung jury, which it was until the judge changed it. Was the judge tampering with the jury, or was that the ONLY person who saw stuff about the case from mass media.
Honestly I dont think he got a fair trial. How could someone be found guilty so quickly when there is nothing except circumstancial evidence!?
Once again:
...what I'm saying is that not one person on this forum sat through all the testimony in the trial, saw all the evidence presented, and then sat through the deliberations in the jury room.
In other words, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.....
You don't think he got a fair trial? I guess you sat through all six months of the trial. You think the judge screwed with the jury? Take it up with the appeals court.
Circumstansial evidence.....I guess it comes down to the "rope or chain" attitudes about circumstansial evidence.
Is every piece of evidence another thread in the rope, or is the whole case dependent on the "weakest link"?
Once again, you weren't there...you didn't sit for 6 months and see ALL the evidence and hear ALL the deliberations.
You want to speculate about what you THINK is justice? Go right ahead, luckily your opinion affects nothing.
You want to try to influence the process that renderes the verdicts?
The first thing you need to do is register to vote.
The second thing you need to do is exercise that right.
Be a citizen....be a "big dog" citizen.
as they said in "Private Ryan".....
Earn This.
Chop-SticK
13-11-2004, 04:49
GG his life...
Steel_Avatar
13-11-2004, 04:49
Don't you think you're lording your single instance of jury duty over people a bit much?
...what I'm saying is that not one person on this forum sat through all the testimony in the trial, saw all the evidence presented, and then sat through the deliberations in the jury room.
Kudos on rational thought and the rule of law, ScanMan. It helps from time to time.
Ah, the OTF, where we decide sensationalized trials based on opinion not fact. I say the following because I really like my country: I hope that most of you are not U.S. citizens (note that this sentence can be applied to any country where people have certain freedoms; feel free to cut and paste).
If I'm ever on trial, the first question to the jurors will be, "How many hours of televsion do you watch per day?"
Blow up your televison.
Does CA even have death sentence?
Once again:
...what I'm saying is that not one person on this forum sat through all the testimony in the trial, saw all the evidence presented, and then sat through the deliberations in the jury room.
In other words, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.....
You don't think he got a fair trial? I guess you sat through all six months of the trial. You think the judge screwed with the jury? Take it up with the appeals court.
Circumstansial evidence.....I guess it comes down to the "rope or chain" attitudes about circumstansial evidence.
Is every piece of evidence another thread in the rope, or is the whole case dependent on the "weakest link"?
Once again, you weren't there...you didn't sit for 6 months and see ALL the evidence and hear ALL the deliberations.
You want to speculate about what you THINK is justice? Go right ahead, luckily your opinion affects nothing.
You want to try to influence the process that renderes the verdicts?
The first thing you need to do is register to vote.
The second thing you need to do is exercise that right.
Be a citizen....be a "big dog" citizen.
as they said in "Private Ryan".....
Earn This.
Okay, I will follow you to every thread you make where you are not "all knowing" about everything in it. Guess what, jury duty doesnt make you more informed. I havent been called, that doesnt make me less informed than you. There has been no evidence such as witnesses or direct links released about his connection to the murder. If they had a witness, or her DNA on his knife, they ALWAYS release that.
You act like you know what happened in there. You dont either. So why do you think there was a fair trial? You have no reason to believe it was, because you were not there. If we are playing the you werent there game, then the chances that it wasnt fair is as high as it was fair.
Technically speaking, the law prevents people being convicted on circumstancial evidence alone. That is why Gary Ridgeway (green river killer) was able to get off with what he did. They knew that the chances of actually convicting him were low for all the murders needed to get the death penalty, so they had him admit it and gave him his life instead of trying to get a conviction with only circumstancial and 1 piece of evidence that was questionably taken.
"You want to speculate about what you THINK is justice? Go right ahead, luckily your opinion affects nothing."
Anytime you speculate again on this forum I think that you might wanna look in the mirror.
Your a hypocrite, and your too blind to see it. Your speculating in every post in this thread, yet you think you have the right to keep us from speculating?
"
You want to try to influence the process that renderes the verdicts?
The first thing you need to do is register to vote.
The second thing you need to do is exercise that right."
Citizens have no power over the higher end judicial branch in voting, so your theory here is off too.
So the first thing you need to do is take a class in civics.
The second thing you need to do is stop being a hypocrite.
DurfBarian
13-11-2004, 08:15
Why this case isn't the pro-lifers' wedge to overturn Roe v Wade anytime soon:
Cal Pen Code § 187 (2004)
§ 187. Murder defined
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law
That said, damn I'm glad once again to be living in a strange country where the airwaves are filled with seminaked comedians instead of endless "news" programs on crap like this.
AeroJonesy
13-11-2004, 13:24
I don't think any of us are fit to judge if he got a fair trial or not. We only heard what the media could tell us, we have no clue what actually went on in that court room.
Yeah, Durf, the statute change came after an earlier California case where a man beat his wife upon discovering she was pregnant. She lived, but the baby died. They wanted to charge him for murder, but the statute wouldn't support such a charging, so they changed the homicide statutes to include murder. However, while they have done this, it is ONLY further evidence that even the state recognizes that the fetus requires more protection than just a bundle of cells. If however they had put the feticide under aggravated assault against the mother, with nothing to do with rights of the fetus, and increased the penalty if the fetus is damaged upon this aggravated assault, the punishment would be there without the lessening of the ideal of those pro-choicers out there.
Statutes like this one ARE a point in the pro-lifers column, and I guarantee, it is ammunition like this that the new Supreme Court (if it comes about) will need to get rid of the strong Stare Decisis declaration of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
felstorm
13-11-2004, 18:45
Now I know what to send him for Chistmas.
Soap on a rope?
:)
thejdawg2
13-11-2004, 22:59
2 counts of murder based entirely on circumstance.
No appeal can help him, just as no jury trial could have helped him.
The jury pool was tainted since the name Laci Peterson hit the airwaves.
I guess if you think he's guilty, the system works. If however, you feel the need to have guilt proven to you, it's not such a good day.
I think the guy PROBABLY is (in my humble and somewhat uninformed opinion) guilty. I also think that it is pretty absurd he got convicted to life in prison OR death with such inconclusive evidence. So yeah, I think they got it right, but its not really proven enough to justify the verdict, if that makes any sense.
-Matt
Citizens have no power over the higher end judicial branch in voting, so your theory here is off too.
How do they select judges where you live?
I like how you ignore everything in the post-
...........
The top judges in the country are appointed, thats NATION wide. Dunno where your from...
I like how you ignore everything in the post-
...........
The top judges in the country are appointed, thats NATION wide. Dunno where your from...
Who appoints and approves those judges?
You act like you know what happened in there. You dont either. So why do you think there was a fair trial? You have no reason to believe it was, because you were not there. If we are playing the you werent there game, then the chances that it wasnt fair is as high as it was fair.
I went back and re-read my posts in this thread.
I don't think that I've expressed an opinion about Peterson's guilt or innocence, or about the fairness or unfairness of the trial.
What I've said is you shouldn't try to second-guess the jurors because you weren't there, and you don't know what they know.
Who appoints and approves those judges?
Okay, I will vote for my president and congressmen on the chance they will appoint a judge....
Reality: We have little to no choice on who is appointed as a judge.
Once again:
...what I'm saying is that not one person on this forum sat through all the testimony in the trial, saw all the evidence presented, and then sat through the deliberations in the jury room.
In other words, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.....
You don't think he got a fair trial? I guess you sat through all six months of the trial. You think the judge screwed with the jury? Take it up with the appeals court.
Circumstansial evidence.....I guess it comes down to the "rope or chain" attitudes about circumstansial evidence.
Is every piece of evidence another thread in the rope, or is the whole case dependent on the "weakest link"?
Once again, you weren't there...you didn't sit for 6 months and see ALL the evidence and hear ALL the deliberations.
You want to speculate about what you THINK is justice? Go right ahead, luckily your opinion affects nothing.
You want to try to influence the process that renderes the verdicts?
The first thing you need to do is register to vote.
The second thing you need to do is exercise that right.
Be a citizen....be a "big dog" citizen.
as they said in "Private Ryan".....
Earn This.
Your disagreeing with my opinion that the trial wasnt fair. You dont have any reason to believe it was fair, so you are taking a stance on something you have no idea about.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.