Skip to comments.Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
click here to read article
"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.
Skip the jury; Would have a trial before the Bench rendered a different verdict?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wish you could have been here earlier. :)
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!!..
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.
You're a smart girl, Meg.
"[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.
"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.
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????
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.