Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
The Hollywood Investigator ^ | 11/30/2004 | J. Neil Schulman

Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman

 
 
 
 
 

CONVICTED BY SUSPICION -- WHY SCOTT PETERSON MAY BE INNOCENT

by J. Neil Schulman, guest contributor. 

[November 30, 2004]
 

[HollywoodInvestigator.com]  Scott Peterson may or may not have murdered his wife, Laci, and their unborn child.  But the Redwood City, California trial that has just convicted Peterson of murdering Laci with premeditation was a kangaroo court in which none of the elements necessary to achieve a murder conviction were offered, much less proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The first element that needs to be proved in any murder trial is that a murder has occurred.  There was never a determination by any California medical examiner that the cause of Laci Peterson’s death was homicide.  No medical examiner was able to determine the cause of Laci Peterson's death, nor even prove to a medical certainty in what week beyond her disappearance on Christmas Eve that she died.

    A thorough examination of the residence where Scott and Laci Peterson lived together, by teams of detectives and forensic experts, uncovered no evidence whatsoever that a crime had occurred there. 

    No crime scene was ever found.

    No forensic evidence was found in the Petersons’ motor vehicles lending any foundation to the suspicion that she had ever been transported in one of them -- alive or dead -- to the place where, months later, her body was found. 

    No weapon was ever produced with any evidence that it had been used to cause Laci Peterson’s death.

    No witness was produced who had seen or heard Scott Peterson argue with Laci near the time of her disappearance, much less any witness who had seen Scott Peterson fight with his wife or kill her.

    The only forensic evidence produced in court that even presumptively linked Scott Peterson with the death of his wife was a strand of hair that DNA analysis showed to be Laci's, in a pliers found in Scott Peterson’s fishing boat.  A police detective interviewed a witness who had seen Laci in the boat warehouse where Scott stored that boat.  Even in the absence of this witness statement to a police detective, the rules of forensic transference indicate that transference of trace evidence between a husband and wife who lived together is common, and not indicative of foul play. 

    No witness ever saw Laci in that fishing boat, nor did any witness ever testify to seeing Scott Peterson bringing a corpse-sized parcel onto his fishing boat.  Thus, the fishing boat never should have been allowed into evidence, nor should prosecution speculation into his dumping her body using that boat have been permitted.

    Nor was any evidence offered in court showing that Scott Peterson had engaged in any overt activities in planning of a murder.  He was not observed buying, or even shopping for, weapons or poison.  Police detectives found no records in his computer logs that he was spending time researching methods of murder.  No evidence was offered that he ever considered hiring someone to kill her.

    No evidence was offered in court indicating that Scott Peterson had any reasonable motive for murdering his wife, such as monetary gain, or to protect great marital assets that he’d lose as an adulterer in a divorce in California, a no-fault community-property state, or because Scott had some basis to believe he had been cuckolded.

    So in a case without an ME’s finding of homicide or a known time of death; 

    without a single witness to a crime having occurred; 

    without a crime scene;

    without a murder weapon;

    without any indisputable forensic evidence linking the defendant husband to his wife’s death; 

    without an obvious motive;

    without the prosecution presenting conclusive direct or circumstantial evidence overcoming every single exculpatory scenario by which Laci Peterson might have otherwise come to her death; 

    in summation, without the prosecution demonstrating that Scott Peterson and only Scott Peterson had the means and opportunity to murder his wife and transport her alive or dead to the San Francisco Bay in which her body was found ... how is it possible that Scott Peterson has just been convicted of a premeditated murder with special circumstances warranting the death penalty?

    It comes down to this: Scott Peterson was having an adulterous affair at the time of his wife’s disappearance, and Scott Peterson is a cad and a bounder.

    Scott Peterson repeatedly lied to everyone around him – including his new mistress – to further the pursuit of this affair.  This pattern of lying was established by audio tapes of his phone conversations with his mistress that were played in court.  But these tapes were played before the jury without any foundation for their playing being offered, since their playing spoke to no element required for conviction in the crime with which he was charged.  And these tapes -- which were more prejudicial than probitive -- destroyed Scott Peterson's credibility to appear as a potential witness in his own defense.  They served only to make the jury hate Scott Peterson.

    Scott Peterson found himself at the center of a media circus, and his attempts to change his appearance and escape being followed can equally be interpreted as either avoidance of the media who were stalking him or avoidance of police who were tracking him.

    The bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child were discovered in close proximity to the location where Scott Peterson said he had been fishing at the time of her disappearance.  But those bodies were found after months of all-media publicity in which Peterson’s alibi was broadcast and published, and if Laci had been murdered by some third party, the murderer would have easily had both means and motive to dump her body at that location to convict Scott and end pursuit of themselves for that murder.

    In any case where more than one explanation of a fact can be offered, the judge’s charge instructs the jury that the explanation suggesting innocence is the one they are legally required to adopt in their deliberations. 

    Scott Peterson was convicted at trial of murder possibly leading to a death sentence in which the trial judge allowed prosecutors to speculate in front of a jury on how Scott Peterson might have murdered his wife.  Anyone who’s watched a single episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order knows the judge is charged with forbidding such speculation unless there is a foundation of facts in evidence.

    No such foundation was presented indicating a method of murder in the murder trial of Scott Peterson.

    In other words, Scott Peterson looked and acted guilty, and in the age of 24-hour -a-day TV news networks that have to fill up those hours with ratings-producing subjects, Scott Peterson’s trial and conviction was the perfect storm of Guilty by Suspicion.

    Scott Peterson may very well have been convicted of a murder that he committed.  If so, he was convicted in a case that under our system of justice – in which the presumption of innocence may only rightfully be overcome by evidence that is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt – never should have been allowed into court, much less handed over to a jury.

    The jury that convicted Scott Peterson was a lynch mob inflamed by prejudicial testimony and their conviction of Scott Peterson qualifies as a hate crime.  The verdict needs to be overturned on appeal.  The judge brought out of retirement to preside over the case needs to be retired again.  The prosecution needs to be brought up on civil rights charges to make sure this behavior is punished.

    May God have mercy on Scott Peterson’s soul if he is, in fact, a psychopath who spent Christmas Eve murdering his pregnant wife so he could avoid the inconvenience of a divorce.

    And may God have equal mercy on the prosecutors, judge, and jurors who have taken away Scott Peterson’s life – whether through a sentence of life imprisonment or death by lethal injection – if they have allowed their disgust for a deeply flawed man to whip them into a passion in which suspicion in the absence of any proof was sufficient to convict him. 

Copyright © 2004 by J. Neil Schulman.  All rights reserved.
 

J. Neil Schulman's book, The Frame of the Century?, presents as strong a case for a suspect other than O.J. Simpson in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson as was presented to convict Scott Peterson in the murder of Laci Peterson.  Our sister publication, the Weekly Universe, has previously reported on Schulman's 'Vulcan Mind Meld with God' and his discovery of an eye drop that cures cataracts.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: evidence; fresnoda; innocentmyass; laci; murder; peterson; scott; trial; trials
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-395 next last
To: .38sw

In the absence of a corpse, how are we to know that a murder has occurred? There could be a witness to a murder and the victim is missing, and a trail of supporting forensic evidence, for example.

But in this case the body gives no evidence that the cause of death was homicide, so we must to go other evidence ... and that evidence is lacking, as I pointed out. No eyewitnesses, no evidence of a murder weapon having existed much less one that links the victim to a suspect, no crime scene, no known time or place of death, no forensic evidence that isn't compatible with common transference.

It's counter-intuitive that Scott Peterson -- who was so clumsy in his lies that even the clueless Amber Frey figured it out -- committed an otherwise perfect crime.

JNS


251 posted on 11/30/2004 8:47:38 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
You are totally self-serving.
IMO, you use FR for self promotion purposes only.


No murder?
A body weighted down?

You deal is simplicities.
Your arguments transcend logic and the law.

I won't wish you luck in your attempt to peddle your "book."
252 posted on 11/30/2004 8:52:44 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Velveeta wrote:

"[Quoting me] 'No ME could possibly conclude the cause of death as homicide because they were unable to determine a cause of death.'

"The cause of death was homicide: by ruling out natural cause, suicide and accident. The ME was not able to determine MANNER of death."

That's playing with words. The medical examiners who performed the autopsies could not offer an opinion to a medical certainty on how or why or what week Laci Peterson and her baby died.

JNS


253 posted on 11/30/2004 8:53:25 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Your entire article is FOS to anyone who has been paying the slightest bit of attention to this trial.

And that would not include you. Because if you had, you'd know that you don't need a body, a cause of death, or a motive to convict.





***CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

CIRCUMSTANCES - The particulars which accompany a fact.

The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us or afar off; they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or complicated; they are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence; where, for example, a woman was found dead in a room with every mark of having met with a violent death, the presence of another person at the scene of action was made manifest by the bloody mark of a left hand visible on her left arm.

These points ought to be carefully examined in order to form a correct opinion. The first question ought to be; is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be credited. If, for example, a man should swear that he saw the deceased shoot himself with his own pistol and upon an examination of the ball which killed him it should be found too large to enter into the pistol, the witness ought not to be credited. Or if one should swear that another had been guilty of an impossible crime.


254 posted on 11/30/2004 8:56:43 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta; Petronski


"If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have the law or the facts, impugn the fairness of the process."



Thanks, JP.


255 posted on 11/30/2004 8:56:54 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

*sigh* If this is an example of your ability to think and reason, then I won't be buying any of your books.


256 posted on 11/30/2004 8:56:58 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: onyx

onyx wrote:
You are totally self-serving. IMO, you use FR for self promotion purposes only. No murder? A body weighted down?
You deal is simplicities. Your arguments transcend logic and the law. I won't wish you luck in your attempt to peddle your "book."

Okay, this is both a personal smear and completely irrelevant to proving your case.

You have all the qualifications to have been on the prosecution team in the trial of Scott Peterson.

JNS


257 posted on 11/30/2004 8:58:15 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I thought I said don't quote me.


;O)


258 posted on 11/30/2004 8:58:26 PM PST by Petronski (One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble, not much between despair and ecstasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
In the absence of a corpse, how are we to know that a murder has occurred?

Just one example, but there are many:

Person X is missing and reported as such by her husband. The husband has replaced carpeting in the bedroom, but the blood stain is still illuminated with luminol. The area of the blood stain to the volume of blood loss can be calculated to determine that anyone losing that volume of blood would be dead.

259 posted on 11/30/2004 8:59:27 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Petronski


Could NOT resist.
I liked it too much.


260 posted on 11/30/2004 8:59:35 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
who was so clumsy in his lies that even the clueless Amber Frey figured it out...

I'm going to Amazon and write a review of ALL your books, cautioning would be buyer's that you have a bad habit of NOT knowing the facts you're writing about.

She did NOT figure it out.

261 posted on 11/30/2004 8:59:41 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I remember quipping in law school "and if you don't have the law or the facts, run like hell."


262 posted on 11/30/2004 9:00:42 PM PST by Petronski (One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble, not much between despair and ecstasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
That's playing with words.

That's laughable coming from you.

263 posted on 11/30/2004 9:00:58 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
That's playing with words.

Yeah, that technical jargon...who needs it? LOL

You did not read the transcripts...did you?

264 posted on 11/30/2004 9:01:37 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

.38sw wrote:

"*sigh* If this is an example of your ability to think and reason, then I won't be buying any of your books."

If your demonstrated skill is writing unsupported personal attacks, you have a future as a Democratic Party operative.

JNS


265 posted on 11/30/2004 9:03:04 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Please continue...

Impugn the fairness of the process and you're a Geragos shill.


266 posted on 11/30/2004 9:03:20 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Okay, this is both a personal smear and completely irrelevant to proving your case.

You have all the qualifications to have been on the prosecution team in the trial of Scott Peterson.







Personal smear? HA! Your writing speaks for itself.

I do not have a case to prove.
Your premise is bogus.
You have not made a legitimate arguement.

Your musings are simplistic.
They fail in the face of the massive circumstancial evidence.

You're trying to peddle your 'book.'




267 posted on 11/30/2004 9:04:09 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Ya know, I supported all of my statements. What I wrote is pretty mild in the real of "personal attacks". If saying that you make no sense and that I question your ability to think and reason because you aren't making any sense, then fine. Attack me by saying I belong in the Democrat party. You may as well report me to the mods while you're at it.


268 posted on 11/30/2004 9:05:15 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

I think this poster wishes he were on SP's team. LOL.
Imagine, Geragos could have used ALL these marvelous arguements.
Silly Geragos, he must need a refresher course from this poster.



269 posted on 11/30/2004 9:06:40 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Petronski


I remember quipping in law school "and if you don't have the law or the facts, run like hell."





Or write a book? LOL.


270 posted on 11/30/2004 9:08:36 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: onyx

onyx wrote:

"You're trying to peddle your 'book.'"

That particular book came out seven years ago. Six more of my books have been published since, and none of them have anything to do with this topic. Neither does my next book.

I've already had one poster to this forum threaten to write bad reviews of all my books on Amazon.com for spite.

Yeah, that must be it. I came here to sell my old book.

JNS


271 posted on 11/30/2004 9:10:17 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Okay, this is both a personal smear

Since when is the truth a personal smear?

Almost without exception, your posts are YOUR articles, with links back to YOUR sleazy web site.

272 posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:20 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman


I checked your forum posts.
All I found were articles penned by you.
THAT is what I call a self promoting use of FR.


273 posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:40 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I think this poster very well could be Mark Geragos.........LOL.


274 posted on 11/30/2004 9:15:55 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: onyx

*FWEET*

Personal attack!! Smear!!

Flag on the field.


275 posted on 11/30/2004 9:16:42 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Howlin


BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA!

Is it the sleaze?


276 posted on 11/30/2004 9:16:54 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: onyx

It's the complete detachment from reality that is the big tipoff.


277 posted on 11/30/2004 9:17:36 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

ROTFLOL!
Too funny.
Thanks, I needed a great laugh.


278 posted on 11/30/2004 9:18:08 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

And the arrogance.
Geeeeeeeeeez.
How I ever managed to not cross paths with
this one, I will NEVER know!

LOL!


279 posted on 11/30/2004 9:20:06 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Velveeta

Velveeta wrote:
"[Quoting me] 'In the absence of a corpse, how are we to know that a murder has occurred?'

"Just one example, but there are many: Person X is missing and reported as such by her husband. The husband has replaced carpeting in the bedroom, but the blood stain is still illuminated with luminol. The area of the blood stain to the volume of blood loss can be calculated to determine that anyone losing that volume of blood would be dead."

Good example!

The trouble in this case is that nothing equally as inculpatory as a positive luminol reading exists.

JNS


280 posted on 11/30/2004 9:23:00 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Howlin wrote:
"Almost without exception, your posts are YOUR articles, with links back to YOUR sleazy web site."

I've made my living as a writer for over three decades. Most writers won't let you read a word they write without getting paid by a publisher.

Now I'm a sleaze because I let people read some of my articles for free.

There's some Biblical advice regarding being careless with pearls, but I just can't remember it right now.

JNS


281 posted on 11/30/2004 9:27:24 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Skip the jury; Would have a trial before the Bench rendered a different verdict?


282 posted on 11/30/2004 9:28:35 PM PST by BIGLOOK (I once opposed keelhauling but have recently come to my senses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
But in this case the body gives no evidence that the cause of death was homicide,

It provides substantial circumstantial evidence to that effect. A dead body would generally float and wash ashore within a fairly short length of time unless something was weighing it down. The state of decomposition when the bodies washed ashore would suggest that either Ms. Peterson entered the water some considerable time after death, or else that when she entered the water her body was weighed down by something substantial. While it would be vaguely conceivable that she might have died of accidental or natural causes and then had somebody decide to dispose of her body at the bottom of the bay, such a notion would stretch credulity to the breaking point.

283 posted on 11/30/2004 9:33:43 PM PST by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
You're letting us read your musings for free?
Why thank you.
No buyers, or just your generosity?
Not that the FREE publicity and FR forum doesn't help you, right?
Free exposure.
Nah. Can't be that.
284 posted on 11/30/2004 9:35:22 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
There's some Biblical advice regarding being careless with pearls, but I just can't remember it right now.

I'm not the least bit surprised you can't remember it, among other things.

Facts and references don't seem to be "your thing."

And nobody has complained one bit about your "letting" anybody read your crap; we're complaining because you're trolling for hits.

Somehow or other, I get the impression you're not Tom Clancy. I've read THIS article and see enough misinformation and out and out distortions to know I don't need to read the rest.

285 posted on 11/30/2004 9:37:38 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
"no evidence of a murder weapon having existed"

Since the body was literally torn limb from limb (no arms, no legs, no head), I think we can safely affirm there was a murder weapon unless Scott used his bare hands. There was evidence of cover up and evidence of blood in the bedroom. Lots of it. So, murder weapon(s)...plenty of evidence. We just don't know what the weapon was.

I've heard a lot about the lack of evidence in the case, but I think that's overblown. Shades of OJ and MSM sensationalism. Makes a better story if it appears the prosecution has made a bad case. The facts are that there was certainly enough evidence for the jury to find unanimously that this man killed his wife and baby. Then made every appearance that he was going to run to boot.

After hearing about the agony of the mother's testimony tonight and feeling her pain as a mother myself, I'm going to write her a letter of sympathy. I've followed the case, and IMHO, I would have convicted, too. I think it's a great victory for right and justice, and it's about time, too. The mom suffered enough, in her own right, that I think he should face the chair just for THAT alone.

286 posted on 11/30/2004 9:40:42 PM PST by Hi Heels (Proud to be a Pajamarazzi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" refers to the requirement for the prosecution to PROVE exactly how, why, and when the alleged crime took place, by the alleged criminal.

TILT>>WRONG!
The state does NOT have to prove exactly where the murder was committed, how the murder was committed or motive.
Reasonable people can listen to the evidence and allow it lead them to a plausible scenario of the when, how and why..however.
287 posted on 12/01/2004 12:05:50 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels

As there was no head and the neck bones were missing..strangulation could not be proved..but as there was no blood, it or suffocation can be implied..You are mistaken about "lots af blood"..that was all media hype.

The body was probably missing limbs and the head because of the weights and ocean movement along the bottom..She broke loose from the silt because of a storm and the baby finally emerged from a hole in the top of the uterus...The uterus was the only almost intact organ left in her body.

There was no disturbance of the house and her expensive jewelry was on her dresser...He left the neighborhood(trace by cell tower) at 10:08..at 10:18 the dog is discovered by a neighbor dragging its leash..Laci was "mopping" in black pants according to Scott when he left..She washed up in tan pants..He lied..and 10 minutes does not give enough time for her to mop, change clothes, put on and tie her shoes;leash the dog and be kidnapped.


288 posted on 12/01/2004 12:22:05 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Dear sir...Check out the Globe as an outlet for your writing..Too many posters here know the case,read the transcripts and know the law.


289 posted on 12/01/2004 12:35:07 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: MEG33


Hi Meg.
Wish you could have been here earlier. :)


290 posted on 12/01/2004 12:40:19 AM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Onyx ..my first post was #8...I have also provided three sources for the definition of reasonable doubt..something some just don't get..

I cannot believe some of these posters lack of knowledge of the facts of the case and the false rules of law they present as fact!!..


291 posted on 12/01/2004 12:51:30 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Howlin; onyx

I have access to excellent writers every day, any hour of the day on the internet and my library enables me read books of fiction for free.


292 posted on 12/01/2004 1:05:42 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: MEG33



Yes FICTION.
You're a smart girl, Meg.


293 posted on 12/01/2004 1:10:42 AM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: onyx

;)


294 posted on 12/01/2004 1:18:32 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Howlin wrote:
"[Quoting me]: 'There's some Biblical advice regarding being careless with pearls, but I just can't remember it right now.'

"I'm not the least bit surprised you can't remember it, among other things.

"Facts and references don't seem to be 'your thing.'"

I was trying to be civil: It's Matthew 7:6.

JNS


295 posted on 12/01/2004 2:50:41 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

MEG33 wrote:

"I have access to excellent writers every day, any hour of the day on the internet and my library enables me read books of fiction for free."

My novels and short-story collection have had reasonably good library sales over the last 25 years. Look me up in yours.

JNS


296 posted on 12/01/2004 2:57:56 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
If you think about it, why would a stranger go to all the trouble to drive 90 miles to hide her body????? A stranger who murders doesn't need to hide the body. Obviously, Scott needed to hide it where he "thought" it would never be found, thought it would wash out to sea!

If someone was trying to frame Scott, who is it? There was never any evidence brought up that he had enemies just waiting to frame him, there was never a ransom note demanding money, so who is this stranger that must have been the guilty one, if Scott didn't do it????

297 posted on 12/01/2004 2:58:15 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

Post #297


298 posted on 12/01/2004 2:59:17 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

post #297


299 posted on 12/01/2004 3:02:42 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

LOL!


300 posted on 12/01/2004 3:10:13 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-395 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson