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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-395 next last
To: DK Zimmerman

I never used the first person in my statements, so how could I be accusing him of calling me anything? Your perception may be clouded by your support for the author, but it would seem to have very little to do with the substance of my post.


201 posted on 11/30/2004 2:30:24 PM PST by danno3150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I have some ideas on who actually committed this crime:

CIA guys on the grassy knoll
Sasquatch
Devil worshippers in a bar-b-q sauce drenched van
L*wr*nc* O'D*nn*ll (in a rage about SwiftVets)
The person or persons that OJ has been tracking down these many years (has he found them yet?)


202 posted on 11/30/2004 2:45:53 PM PST by WuzaDem (Wuzzadem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

http://www.are.uscourts.gov/Jury/criminal/3-11.htm
3.11 REASONABLE DOUBT



A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense, and not the mere possibility of innocence. A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.



203 posted on 11/30/2004 2:47:40 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm
REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.


204 posted on 11/30/2004 2:51:13 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/CriminalJury/2-8.html
The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt suggested by counsel which is not warranted by the evidence.2 It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.3 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other persons who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.4 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty. The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in the minds of the jurors, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted.5 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.6




205 posted on 11/30/2004 2:54:12 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: antceecee

Oh, yeah. *Laci* deserved a divorce from this piece of trash.

But it is still wrong to convict anyone of anything on this standard of evidence.

The "overwhelming weight" of circumstantial evidence has been used to wrongly convict innocent men who seem to get out of jail almost every month after serving years and years behind bars. In several recent cases the prosecutors have opposed release of factually innocent men just out of sheer spite.

Not so long ago, Judge Lawrence K. Karlton here in Sacramento threatened contempt of court citations against the State of California for refusing to release an innocent man from Folsom Prison.


206 posted on 11/30/2004 2:54:51 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

See above definitions of reasonable doubt. Don't use this case to fight a different battle.


207 posted on 11/30/2004 2:57:25 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

My point is that innocent men go to jail with alarming regularity due to the prejudices of the media, the police, the public, and the prosecutors.

I think of the poor schmo who was accused of lighting off the bomb at the '96 Olympics and Tom Brokaw and etc. said the guy was clearly guilty of it since he lived with his mom, worked as a security guard, was a failed police dept. applicant, and was white.

The guy was a HERO and if left to the the media, the police, the public, and the prosecutors he'd be in jail now. Fortunately, he had a damn good lawyer who drilled a hole a mile wide in the case against his client and it was only after repeated violations of court orders did the police stop hounding Richard Jewell.

I just do not trust lynch-mob justice and this case reeks of it. I don't care about Laci, the baby, and all the crying women on the street. The fact that this man did not get a fair trial based on solid evidence diminishes MY right and YOUR right to a fair trial based on solid evidence!

This doesn't mean I'm on his "side", I'm just concerned that if he is REALLY guilty then when this mockery gets tossed on appeal he'll NEVER be able to face a court again on these charges.

If it doesn't get tossed on appeal it means that prosecutors can cook up any line of crap as long as it pulls at the heartstrings of emotionally unstable women and they can make a case stick.

Not good.


208 posted on 11/30/2004 3:22:14 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

I read the transcripts, listened to the tapes and interviews..He's GUILTY


209 posted on 11/30/2004 3:28:19 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro; Cold Heart
My understanding is that Scott Peterson did many things that would suggest that even before her body was found he knew she was dead.

Although it is possible to imagine circimstances in some cases where someone might discover his wife's death and not report it immediately (e.g. if he'd received a phone call from the murderer, etc.) I can't imagine any such scenario which is consistent with what I understand of Scott Peterson's actions.

If you think Scott Peterson is innocent, then I must ask:

  1. Do you believe that Scott Peterson didn't know that his wife was dead, but for some reason acted as though she was? Can you explain why he might have done that?
  2. If Scott Peterson did know his wife was dead, how might he come to know that without either having direct involvement in the killing, or without knowingly covering up for the killer?
I don't know exactly what's fact and what's rumor, but if my understanding of Peterson's actions is at all accurate, I can come up with no reasonable explanation for them other than either (1) he killed his wife, or (2) he is covering up for someone who did. And if (2) is the case, it would be Scott Peterson's responsibility to show it.
210 posted on 11/30/2004 3:46:44 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 71 | View Replies]

To: danno3150
I quote, again, "Don't make impassioned statements about 'inflamed prejudice' and then call those that disagree with you Nazis!"

I do so because while you do not use the first person, the (perhaps only in my mind) clear implication is, you didn't agree with him, so he called you a Nazi.

Nope, after re-reading it again. That IS what it says. No, wait, you ARE correct. For me to conclude you claimed he called you a Nazi, I have to assume you and he disagree. So, I am forced to conclude from your last, that I was wrong in my assumption, in fact you completely agree with him. /sarcasm - well, not completely

You never used the 'first person?"

I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone capable of holding up your end of a reasonable adult discussion.

211 posted on 11/30/2004 3:51:28 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Do you believe that Scott Peterson didn't know that his wife was dead

I am not saying that Scott didnt kill her. I am saying it wasent proven. His behavior is pretty much hearsay. How do we know how he acted? Was there a camera on him 24/7?

212 posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:04 PM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
and then call those that disagree with you Nazis

I am a Nazi. There, glad I got that off my chest.

213 posted on 11/30/2004 3:56:15 PM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | 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.

The notion of "reasonable doubt" means that there is no plausible alternative scenario which would explain the facts. For example, suppose that someone were accused of robbing a convenience store and the only reasons the police fingered the suspect are (1) he was found within a few blocks of the store, and (2) he resembled the person on the security video. In such a case, the defendant could suggest to the jury that the store was robbed by someone who looked somewhat like the defendant (but wasn't him), and that the defendant was in the neighborhood for some other reason.

In the Scott Peterson case, there are many aspects of Scott Peterson's behavior for which no plausible explanation comes to mind other than him having either killed his wife or otherwise been involved with her death. Although there might have been some plausible scenarios where Scott Peterson's involvement would not constitute murder, it would have been up to Mr. Peterson and his attorney to suggest one. As far as I know, they have not.

I would add in closing, by the way, that if a person has involvement with another's death that falls short of murder, but works to conceal or destroy evidence showing the specifics of such involvement, it is the fault of that person, rather than the state, if he is convicted of murder.

214 posted on 11/30/2004 4:01:07 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 152 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

Careful, you used "Nazi" AND the first person in the same sentence. Somebody's gonna come after you for that.


215 posted on 11/30/2004 4:05:05 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: supercat
IMO, you are tending too far towards that "backwardness" to which I referred earlier.

It is NOT the defendent's responsibility to dream up and supply an alternative. It is the state's responsibility to prove its case.

You seem willing to execute someone for a murder they didn't commit when all they're guilty of is a simple lapse of judgement (and a potentially FAR less serious crime).

216 posted on 11/30/2004 4:14:11 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

Meg,
There is no confession. He never said he killed his wife to anyone. He is guilty of being a crappy husband and a sad excuse for a man. His conversations with Amber do not, anywhere, prove him guilty of killing his wife.

If so it would've been the 'silver bullet' the prosecution wanted, he'd have plead out in a deal and the trial would never have happened.

On the upside, you can always use your comments here as justification for avoiding jury duty.


217 posted on 11/30/2004 4:33:30 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

Oh, gee... now we need a confession in order to convict..what's next, a video and an eyewitness.?..We are done.


218 posted on 11/30/2004 4:36:03 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
I am not saying that Scott didnt kill her. I am saying it wasent proven. His behavior is pretty much hearsay. How do we know how he acted? Was there a camera on him 24/7?

Some aspects of his behavior are hearsay, but others are pretty concrete. Sales of tangible property, answering machine messages, etc.

To find reasonable doubt of Scott Peterson's guilt, it would seem that one must be able to discern a plausible scenario (consistent with evidence including Mr. Peterson's actions) in which one of the following is true:

  1. That Scott Peterson did not know his wife was dead until her body was found by police, or
  2. That Scott Peterson's acquired knowledge of his wife's death through some means other than having killed her.
Scott Peterson acted, in a number of ways, as though he knew his wife was dead. He did not act as though he had any information about his wife having been killed by someone else.

Reasonable doubt does not require that one show that any particular scenario (in which the defendant is innocent) actually occurred, but it does require that such a scenario exists that is plausible; further, if a scenario might be hard to believe, it is the defense's job to provide evidence to support it, expecially if the scenario is one which--if true--would suggest that the defense would be able to produce such evidence.

I return then to my original question, rephrased: what plausible scenario can you tender, consistent with Mr. Peterson's actions and other evidence, in which he either did not know his wife was dead until her body was found by police, or in which he acquired such knowledge through some means other than killing her?

I should note, btw, that the burden on Mr. Peterson is higher than it would be in many cases because much of the evidence surrounds his own actions. In many cases based upon forensic evidence, an innocent defendant would not be expected to know e.g. how a glass bearing his fingerprints made it to the crime scene; he might be able to tender some hypotheses (e.g. if the glass matched those at a bar the defendant frequents, he might suggest that someone might have stolen it from there). Because the defense would--if innocent--be expected to be guessing at such things, the fact that a particular hypothesis doesn't pan out should not be overly damning.

In Scott Peterson's case, however, things are different. Scott Peterson should know why he did things; he shouldn't have to "guess". If he offers up a hypothesis which is later shown to be false, that suggests that Scott was hoping for an explanation that would stick, rather than offering up the truth.

Guilty knowledge, though it may be considered "circumstantial evidence", often provides stronger proof of guilt than a lot of forensic evidence. It certainly seems applicable here.

219 posted on 11/30/2004 4:40:43 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 212 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
It is NOT the defendent's responsibility to dream up and supply an alternative. It is the state's responsibility to prove its case.

The notion of "reasonable doubt" means that there must be some plausible theory, other than the defendant's guilt, which fits the evidence. In some cases, the existence of such theories will be obvious to the jury even without the defense's help. In most cases, though, the defense will help the jury to come up with some.

It should be noted that a key aspect of plausibility has to do with the defense's conduct in a courtroom. Suppose someone was observed committing a crime in front of many eyewitnesses, and was also clearly photographed in the act. If such a person were to hypothesize in court that the actions were in fact performed by his twin brother, but failed to provide any evidence of the existence of such a twin, would you accept such explanation? Suppose instead, however, that the person presented in court birth records that showed that a twin existed, and further subpoenaed and presented in court further evidence showing that the twin existed and very strongly resembled then defendant. What would you think then?

In a case such as that, I would expect a reasonable jury member to suspect that if a person had a twin brother the person would be able to produce evidence to that effect. A failure to introduce any such evidence would suggest that the theory, which might be plausible (given the right evidence), was likely a fantasy.

You seem willing to execute someone for a murder they didn't commit when all they're guilty of is a simple lapse of judgement (and a potentially FAR less serious crime).

To believe that there is any plausible likelihood that Scott Peterson is innocent, you must believe either:

  1. That he might plausibly have had some reasons for acting the way he did even not know his wife was dead, and might plausibly had some reason for not being able to articulate them, or
  2. That there would be some plausible way he could have discovered his wife's death other than by having killed her, and also some plausible reason for his not being able to say how he did so.
Can you satisfy #1 or #2 above?
220 posted on 11/30/2004 4:56:31 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 216 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

The Coroner's office -- which is a political office -- listed the cause of death as "homicide." No ME could possibly conclude the cause of death as homicide because they were unable to determine a cause of death.

And if you want to go by the Coroner's official report, Scott Peterson is off the hook, because the official date and time of Laci's death is the day her body washed up on shore, April 14th -- not the previous Christmas Eve when Scott was supposed to be fishing.

JNS


221 posted on 11/30/2004 4:58:17 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: supercat
First you turn things around on him and now me?

I don't have to believe anything, if the state's case does not convince me. It does not.

I believe he probably did it. I do not believe the state met its burden. For him to be convicted despite that diminishes everyone's rights to a fair trial.

222 posted on 11/30/2004 5:20:20 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
I believe he probably did it. I do not believe the state met its burden. For him to be convicted despite that diminishes everyone's rights to a fair trial.

What would constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt in your eyes? In any murder case?

223 posted on 11/30/2004 5:22:32 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 222 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Anything more than supposition and coincidence would be a good start.


224 posted on 11/30/2004 5:32:42 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
because the official date and time of Laci's death is the day her body washed up on shore, April 14th --

???? Even though it was apparent by the state of decomposition that she'd been dead for quite some time? Puhleeeze. So by your reasoning, Peterson couldn't possibly have done it because, officially, she died on April 14. Well, then there are probably a lot of people in prison who shouldn't be because the victims weren't found until quite some time later than when they might actually have been murdered. Makes perfect sense, eh?

225 posted on 11/30/2004 5:50:27 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
Anything more than supposition and coincidence would be a good start.

Be more specific. Be mindful that objects with fingerprints can be moved from place to place, and that fingerprints can be scanned and duplicated. Video and phototographs can be manipulated to no end, of course. And eyewitnesses can easily be mistaken about many things. I find it hard to imagine a case where one couldn't formulate a scenario consistent with an accused killer's innocence. But the issue of plausibility rears its ugly head.

Scott Peterson is alleged to have done many things that would suggest he knew his wife was dead before her body was discovered. Collectively, they constitute pretty strong evidence that he knew his wife was dead. That Scott Peterson had such knowledge is not mere supposition; it is a theory which the prosecution has supported with considerable evidence.

You might argue that even proving that Scott Peterson knew of his wife's death would not prove his participation in her murder. That would be correct. On the other hand, possession of guilty knowledge does create a strong presumption of guilty involvement, just as possession of stolen property creates a strong presumption of involvement in theft. If the police find in a person's garage a large amount of merchandise that has been stolen from the area, that would generally be adequate to prosecute the person for theft even if nobody actually saw the person steal any of it. It may be in some cases that a person might have a reasonable explanation for possessing the merchandise; if, for example, he could produce a receipt that showed he paid a reasonable amount of money for it at what he reasonably believed to be an estate lot sale, that could be grounds for acquittal. It is not, however, the job of the jury to speculate that he might have acquired the property by what he thought were legitimate means. If the defense wishes to claim that he did so, the defense must claim that.

So again, I ask you to please break down for me: do you believe that the state failed to provide adequate evidence to show that Scott Peterson knew of his wife's death, or do you believe that such knowledge does not constitute evidence of his involvement in her murder?

226 posted on 11/30/2004 5:53:19 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 224 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Coroners have the authority to inquire into and determine in all cases the circumstances, manner, and cause of death. The difference is that a coroner is an elected official, while a ME is usually appointmend by some government body. Yes, it is a political office, but if a coroner is a physician, he can perform autopsies. He still has the authority to make the determination as to manner and cause of death, and whether or not that death was a homicide. So, according to you, because a coroner (oh, the horro) made the determination, it's not valid? And Scott's off the hook because the body wasn't found until April 14th? That's quite a stretch.


227 posted on 11/30/2004 6:01:16 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
I swear some people on Free Republic are bloodthirsty.

Indeed. They seem determined to prove that Lefist caricatures of conservatives as "mouth-foaming sadists" are true.

Sadly, these "FR caricature conservatives" reflect poorly on the more rational conservatives among us. It's one of the reasons I've come to call myself a libertarian -- they're more cool and rational.

228 posted on 11/30/2004 6:03:56 PM PST by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Indeed. They seem determined to prove that Lefist caricatures of conservatives as "mouth-foaming sadists" are true.

Thank You

229 posted on 11/30/2004 6:21:56 PM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: supercat
You ask, do I "believe that such knowledge does not constitute evidence of his involvement in her murder?" This requires the assumption that he had such knowledge and anything constructed upon it is a house of cards. I don't believe that I or anyone else that is rational can believe we know with certainty why someone else does some things.

I could counter with, if he was smart enough to commit the crime and hide the evidence so completely, the last thing he would do is a whole string of things that would end up convicting him. That is just as strong "evidence" that he didn't do it as you suggest you have he did. I won't bite.

230 posted on 11/30/2004 6:27:37 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
You ask, do I "believe that such knowledge does not constitute evidence of his involvement in her murder?" This requires the assumption that he had such knowledge and anything constructed upon it is a house of cards. I don't believe that I or anyone else that is rational can believe we know with certainty why someone else does some things.

But one would generally expect that if someone had an innocent reason for doing them, they would likely be able to articulate what it was.

I could counter with, if he was smart enough to commit the crime and hide the evidence so completely, the last thing he would do is a whole string of things that would end up convicting him. That is just as strong "evidence" that he didn't do it as you suggest you have he did. I won't bite.

Many psychopaths are extremely arrogant. They have a certain level of intelligence, but their arrogance drives them to do really dumb things. I had a college roommate who boasted openly about his exploits stealing radar detectors, and showed off his switch blade knife and car-opening tools. He'd tell all sorts of stories about how he was so smart and the police were so stupid. Not sure exactly what happened to him after he got caught with stolen college computer equipment (after I'd moved out the room) and various other contraband.

Scott Peterson might well have gotten away with his crime if he weren't so arrogant. But the very notion that arrogant stupidity disproves psychopathy is absurd.

231 posted on 11/30/2004 6:48:38 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 230 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
He never said he killed his wife to anyone.

Peterson said he knew who did it. That utterance is on tape.

232 posted on 11/30/2004 6:55:24 PM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
The first element that needs to be proved in any murder trial is that a murder has occurred.

No, you don't.

Which, of course, makes your entire article bogus.

233 posted on 11/30/2004 7:52:38 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
Was there a camera on him 24/7?

Pretty much.

234 posted on 11/30/2004 7:56:52 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | 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.

Absolutely untrue.

You don't even need a body, FGS.

235 posted on 11/30/2004 7:58:05 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman


Before you waste bandwidth here,
you ought to READ the law regarding
what constitutes a murder.

Your entire rant is based on a false premise.


236 posted on 11/30/2004 7:58:11 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
It is NOT the defendent's responsibility to dream up and supply an alternative.

It's the defendant's responsibility to DEFEND himself, which he did NOT do. Because he can't.

His OWN attorney said he was guilty as hell.

237 posted on 11/30/2004 8:00:45 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
he'd have plead out in a deal and the trial would never have happened.

You haven't been watching this trial, have you?

This guy will NEVER deal; not even know, when his own life is in danger.

There is absolutely no explanation for why he told somebody that his wife was dead two weeks before she disappeared, other than the fact that he was planning to kill her.

There is absolutely no explanation for why their bodies washed up where he TOLD the police he'd been "fishing" other than the fact that he dumped them there.

238 posted on 11/30/2004 8:03:21 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

You're exactly right; the date of death is the day Conner died, which was the 23rd or 24th. Conner died because SHE died.


239 posted on 11/30/2004 8:05:29 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
The first element that needs to be proved in any murder trial is that a murder has occurred.

Right from the start, your argument is inconsistent with reality. Plenty of murderers have been convicted though their victims' bodies had never been found.

240 posted on 11/30/2004 8:06:42 PM PST by Veto! (Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

LOL.
NOW I see you're already here.
I just pinged you, Jackie and Runningbear on the other thread.


241 posted on 11/30/2004 8:07:25 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: MEG33; RGSpincich; The Other Harry; Quilla; runningbear; oceanperch; spectre; PennsylvaniaMom; ...

Want a big laugh? Read this tripe!


242 posted on 11/30/2004 8:10:21 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin


This reads like a self-serving twit,
trying to use FR to peddle his "book"
in the loosest term of the word "book."


243 posted on 11/30/2004 8:12:14 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Exactly.


244 posted on 11/30/2004 8:14:20 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Howlin


Just checked out his forum.
He uses FR to post NOTHING but his own stuff (crap, IMO).


245 posted on 11/30/2004 8:17:16 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

How would this Asshole like to bury his daughter without arms to hold her murdered baby???
This enrages me to the point that I don't care if I offend and get banned.


246 posted on 11/30/2004 8:21:38 PM PST by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

.38sw wrote:
"because the official date and time of Laci's death is the day her body washed up on shore, April 14th -- ???? Even though it was apparent by the state of decomposition that she'd been dead for quite some time? Puhleeeze."

The point is, if the date of Laci's death in the Coroner's report is pro forma, then why should I take the Coroner's classification of Laci's death as homicide as anything but equally pro forma, when the medical examiners who autopsied Laci could not assign any cause of death?

The Coroner's classification of Laci's death as homicide was not based on medical evidence.

JNS


247 posted on 11/30/2004 8:29:22 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Pro forma? You make absolutely no sense. No sense at all. Are you saying that a coroner has no authority to determine the manner of death? There have been murder cases brought to trial with convictions with no cause of death proven, but with a determination that the manner of death was homicide. If a corpse is too decomposed to determine whether or not death was caused by strangulation, poison, or suffocation, an ME or a coroner can still determine that a homicide occurred.

From Contra Costa County's coroner's website:

"The Coroner’s primary duty is to determine the cause, manner and mode of death as a result of homicide, suicide, accidental or unexplained deaths. The determination of death is reached through examination of evidence, scene investigation, review of medical records, witness and doctor interviews as well as autopsies and/or Coroner Inquests."

A coroner makes determinations that are legally defensible, and are used in court. But it seems that that doesn't matter to you.


248 posted on 11/30/2004 8:34:07 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

Did you read the transcripts?


249 posted on 11/30/2004 8:38:27 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
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 the ME was not able to determine MANNER of death.

250 posted on 11/30/2004 8:44:07 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-395 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