Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
They believe Laci was smothered or strangled.There was her hair in the pliers but none of her blood was found.
Look, it's really quite simple. I would posit that I probably might find all the evidence presented sufficient to agree she had been murdered. I do not believe, however, that the case presented proved he did it. Without both, I could not convict. You on the other hand, appear open to the possibility.
BRAVO!
Bravissimo!!
Great analysis in a nano second. You must be a prosecutor - or a really good parent;)
Thanks
Laci's dead body being found in the bay is evidence that either she died there or her body was dumped there.
In the absence of an ME's determination telling us the cause of death, we have to eliminate natural causes, accidental death, and suicide before we can conclude her death was a homicide.
An eight-month-pregnant woman suspecting her lying husband was meeting his mistress, and tailing him to the bay, could account for any of the three non-homicide explanations.
Heck, for all we know she went fishing with him, fell overboard, and Scott -- a pathological liar -- locked himself into a stupid lie that got him convicted.
The point is: what happened was never proved in court by substantial and irrefutable evidence, and the defendant being emotionally distant, a pathological liar, and a serial adulterer isn't a case for murder.
JNS
No, I do not have it backward. Your terminology is incorrect. The key word is REASONABLE. Not just doubt. The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecutor must "prove to the exclusion of reasonable doubt" that the accused did the crime. They do not have to prove how, when and why. Under your standard, we could all go out and kill with impunity. You would reward a criminal who has the ability to cover up a crime. The jury who are given detailed instructions stating that they can only find REASONABLE doubt if they can explain the evidence within the REASONABLE scenario that is giving them doubt. Otherwise, according to your standard, someone could say, "well, it must have been those little green creatures I see at night. They took her." Some juror may have a doubt but if it is not REASONABLE considering the evidence presented, they must convict. Why do you assume I'm not a lawyer??
No, the point I was trying to make was the guy was tried by people just like EVERYONE-All kinds of people, sex, race, economic strata.
What was this guy's lawyer doing (In the case I described)...Didn't he tell the guy not to antagonize the jury? Didn't anyone know better? The jury is made up of ordinary people, not trained in Law. As such they are going to act like ordinary people. Most of them do not even want to be there. Why would a defendent go out of his way to get these people down on him? It made no sense.
He didn't label you as any of those things. He suggested that settling for less than true justice suggested a willingness to settle for those types of justice. His hyperbole might have been too much, but hey, an objective read should bear me out.
Why, thank you. I'm so sick of hearing about how maybe there was some doubt about this guy. When you put all the pieces together as in a jigsaw puzzle (text book circumstantial case), what is the total picture? In this baby-and-wife killer's picture, there is only one REASONABLE conclusion...
Do I need to say it?
LOL
Yeah, that's right. Scumbag Peterson was proven to be a meticulous housekeeper, wasn't he? He was mopping up when they came to arrest him, wasn't he? He is such a clean freak.
How many people died while the guy was driving in his proper lane with the right of way?
So, she let her dog out of the house, and then took a cab to tail Scott to the bay... but Scott wasn't there with Amber, so she got out and weighted herself down with something and jumped into the bay? Yeah, that's reasonable.
Wrong-oh, JNS. The suspicion priority is first a homicide, second an accident, third a suicide, last natural causes. Some death certificates actually say "undetermined" as a cause. Does that mean they are not really dead?
Dun, dun, dun....
As to backwards, I was referring to the fact that the state must prove their case, the burden is upon them to do so. You, I believe, placed undue emphasis on the jury's ability to think of alternatives, distorting things to the point that the jury is required to accept the state's version of what happened if they can't figure out an alternative explantion. This would seem to beg prosecutors to seek only unimaginative jurors, which I believe they do, but for other reasons.
As to specific wording, I believe it actually varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But hey, I'm no lawyer. I just read a lot.
YUP... media lynching.
Sure sounds like you accusing him of calling you one, but maybe that's just my perception.
Suspicion is irrelevant.
The ME's office must determine that a homicide has occurred before a prosecutor is supposed to charge someone with unlawful homicide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.