Scott Peterson Case

K

karizma

Junior Member
Scott Peterson Case

I can't believe that they found Peterson guilty. Now he might truly have killed his wife and son, but they didn't have one shred of evidence to support their claims. It is shocking that they convicted him on not the facts, but their feelings. Yes he was a crappy husband but they just didn't have a case.

Karizma
 
Scott Peterson Case

To save me Googling this one Flower, can you give me a link to peruse. Maybe if I knew who he was, I could enter into the spirit of this post. :D
 

Scott Peterson Case

Not a problem Grayson......Today his story is listed on the following sites:

www.cnn.com
www.abcnews.com
www.msnbc.com

I don't know how unbiased they are going to be today since the case has been dragging on since December 2002, but those sites should give you some good info.

Karizma
 

Scott Peterson Case

I have just read through the CNN stuff, I do remember this case from when it was first broadcast in the UK.

I can only agree with you here, the Prosecution appears to have gone on gut instinct and convinced the jury to do so as well. Seems that the evidence is circumstantial at best, though PJL may have some nugget of wisdom to offer regarding this.

Disgraceful on the face of it.
 
Scott Peterson Case

It is a shame that our legal system let OJ Simpson's trial go on FOREVER and the evidence supposedly could not 100% incriminate him, and this case is in actual trial for 23 weeks and the prosecution tells the jury that this is a "common-sense case in which a man killed his wife and that Peterson was the only one who could have killed Laci".

Never mind the whole evidence thing....just go with your gut. Does this sound just plain wrong to anyone else?

Karizma
 
Scott Peterson Case

Never mind the whole evidence thing....just go with your gut. Does this sound just plain wrong to anyone else?
Click to expand...

Probably will to an appelate court too. Its disgusting how in a few generations we have gone from a hard thought based socioty to a mushy easially manipulated feelings based one.
 
Scott Peterson Case

My point exactly Darkwolf...the next thing you know we will just present a jury with a defendant and say, "What do you think? He looks guilty to me. Should we bother with a case?"

Look out anyone that does not appear "normal".....

Karizma
 
Scott Peterson Case

If scott was smart, he might have waived his trial by jury in this case. Anyway, I don't think that conviction will make it through an appeal.
 
Scott Peterson Case

Hold there a min. Karizma. There is alot more to this case then meets the publics eye. Ask yourself this;

If you were innocent, would you die your hair from brown to red, grow a beard and go next to the Mexican Border with some $15,000 in your pocket? What better place to hide from the authorities that are looking for you to cross a border than at a Golf Course? There are many very nice golf courses in our area, why go all the way down there to golf?

As many times as he flipped his stories, there is a very good reason his lawyer would not let him take the stand beside the fact that he didnt have to, the prosecution would have cut him to shreds. Hell, he couldn't even lie to his mistress effectively and keep his story straight. Imagine what a lawyer would have done to him without having been bought dinner,wine and flowers.

He was tried by his peers, he was fairly represented in court, all the evidence ALLOWED, was heard and deliberated by a jury.

Did you think that he did not do it? Did you think he was set up?
The only person that stood to get anything out of his wife being gone was scott himself. I would not waste taxpayers money to give him 3 hots and a cot for the rest of his life.. Just one single bullet to the temple.

I do have a question for Paul though, WHO pays the bills for the appeals process, is it ALL on scott's side or does the state keep having to waste money?
 
Scott Peterson Case

Originally posted by StarLord@Nov 12 2004, 11:13 PM
Hold there a min. Karizma. There is alot more to this case then meets the publics eye. Ask yourself this;

If you were innocent, would you die your hair from brown to red, grow a beard and go next to the Mexican Border with some $15,000 in your pocket? What better place to hide from the authorities that are looking for you to cross a border than at a Golf Course? There are many very nice golf courses in our area, why go all the way down there to golf?

As many times as he flipped his stories, there is a very good reason his lawyer would not let him take the stand beside the fact that he didnt have to, the prosecution would have cut him to shreds. Hell, he couldn't even lie to his mistress effectively and keep his story straight. Imagine what a lawyer would have done to him without having been bought dinner,wine and flowers.

He was tried by his peers, he was fairly represented in court, all the evidence ALLOWED, was heard and deliberated by a jury.

Did you think that he did not do it? Did you think he was set up?
The only person that stood to get anything out of his wife being gone was scott himself. I would not waste taxpayers money to give him 3 hots and a cot for the rest of his life.. Just one single bullet to the temple.

I do have a question for Paul though, WHO pays the bills for the appeals process, is it ALL on scott's side or does the state keep having to waste money?
​
Click to expand...

I just thank my lucky stars it wasn't me in his shoes. I can't remember all of the times I've gone out fishing for sturgeon midmorning in the rain in San Francisco Bay, without bait, with a two-day old fishing license and brandnew boat, on Christmas while my pregnant wife is home walking the dog! Whew-- I dodged a bullet on that one, I tell you.

Peterson's folks apparently paid the enormous legal bills-- probably half a million before trial even started. There will be a public cost that continues with the appeal, which could take more than a decade if he gets the death penalty. It has already cost the taxpayers a couple of million.

The case was almost totally "circumstantial," which, under California law, means that the jury must find the defendant not guilty if there is an alternative, reasonable explanation of the evidence that exonerates him. So the jury apparently decided that the innocent interpretation was either unreasonable or didn't adequately explain everything.

He may not have been guilty in some other terms, but he was at least a moron willing to sacrifice the love of a beautiful woman.
 

Top