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 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-395 last
To: J. Neil Schulman

I guess you don't know the meaning of circumstantial evidence, but most of the rest of us do.

Are you Justin Falconer?


351 posted on 12/01/2004 8:57:02 PM PST by sissyjane (Silk pajamas for dress up, and flannel for everyday-perfect Freeper wardrobe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

There are no medical examiners in Contra Costa county, only Coroners.

How do I know?
I live in Contra Costa County.

He listed it as a homocide, which is the crime that Scott Peterson has been convicted of.
Get over it.


352 posted on 12/01/2004 9:08:54 PM PST by sissyjane (Silk pajamas for dress up, and flannel for everyday-perfect Freeper wardrobe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Luminol works when there is blood present, brightstar,but if one were strangled or smothered there would be no blood.


353 posted on 12/01/2004 9:14:24 PM PST by sissyjane (Silk pajamas for dress up, and flannel for everyday-perfect Freeper wardrobe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Howlin
That's my summation and I'm out of here again. I get it, you're really Scotts sister-in-law, Janey!!!
354 posted on 12/02/2004 1:07:16 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
My point I guess is there are thousands of murders in this country...that get hardly any pub. Why in the world did the MSM focus on this one....I'll never really know.

My theory as to why this one got so much attention, is Scotts own behavior after Laci went missing! His actions were not that of a husband & father to be. The way he acted brought more attention to the case than if he had just gone on TV like most family members do & plead for the return of his wife.

I hear a lot of TH's saying that it is because of Laci being so pretty & it being Christmas Eve, but I think that was only a small part of it, the intrigue started when Scotts own actions were so bizarre & then the annoucement by Amber (the other woman)!

355 posted on 12/02/2004 1:11:08 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: EllaMinnow

OMG, the WOLFMAN???


356 posted on 12/02/2004 1:13:00 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

Yeah, I think he should get off so he and O.J. can search for the real murderers.


357 posted on 12/02/2004 1:49:35 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

I, too, live in CoCo County. Mr. Shulman seems to think that a finding of homicide by a coroner is merely pro forma, and can't be relied upon. How interesting. If that were the case, we wouldn't have been able to convict murdered in this county. He doesn't seem to know or understand that coroners have the legal authority to make findings regarding the manner of deatah - findings that are legally defensible.

If there were no finding of homicide, then why didn't the judge just throw the case out of court, scold the prosecutors about wasting his time, apologize to Scott and then set him free?


358 posted on 12/02/2004 6:55:09 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

We'll never know, because Shulman has stopped answering questions. Maybe he's working on his Charles Manson was framed by "the man" book.


359 posted on 12/02/2004 7:23:53 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

Mr. Shulman is trying to sell his book, which is based on his theory, not on fact. I wonder what Jim Robinson would think of his self-serving advertisements?


360 posted on 12/02/2004 7:37:05 AM PST by sissyjane (Silk pajamas for dress up, and flannel for everyday-perfect Freeper wardrobe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Yes, I saw his "bye bye" post. That's why I didn't ping him. Anyway, his "answers" weren't any more enlightening or accurate than his article.


361 posted on 12/02/2004 7:50:06 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

I would think JR would frown on it. I checked his "in forum" comments. Seems that his posting history pretty much consists of posting his fascinating articles. Which he's doing for free, by the way!


362 posted on 12/02/2004 7:51:18 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Yeah, I think he should get off so he and O.J. can search for the real murderers.

On golf courses.

363 posted on 12/02/2004 7:59:47 AM PST by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
They dont even know how Laci died, for crying out loud.

Many have been justly convicted without a body being recovered. (I've seen many of those trials.)

364 posted on 12/02/2004 8:08:07 AM PST by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
.... who have taken away Scott Peterson’s life – ,,,,

Good grief. If Peterson gets the death sentence it won't be carried out next week. It will probably take about 20 years, if at all, during which time Laci and baby Conner will still be very dead. Plenty of time to find the "real" killer.

365 posted on 12/02/2004 8:09:51 AM PST by barker (I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, Zell Miller on GWBush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
What evidence was there that she was murdered?

She's dead.

You think she walked the dog out to the bay (90 miles from home), drowned herself & the dog made his way back home, dragging his leash?

Would that be your theory perhaps?

366 posted on 12/02/2004 8:12:49 AM PST by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: blondee123
You're quoting logic. And I'm not saying I disagree with you. But you do agree, that the case is a little short on facts. And you do agree that there is at least one juror who thought Scott didn't do it who has been removed from the jury.

This was not our court system at it's finest. This was a lynching. Maybe deserved so, but maybe not.

367 posted on 12/02/2004 8:18:45 AM PST by kjam22 (What you win them by, is what you win them to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
This was a lynching.

Really? Scott's been lynched? hmmmm. News to me.

368 posted on 12/02/2004 8:21:35 AM PST by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay

a metaphorical lynching..... I'm sorry you didn't understand that.


369 posted on 12/02/2004 8:23:33 AM PST by kjam22 (What you win them by, is what you win them to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: barker
If Peterson gets the death sentence it won't be carried out next week.

He will outlive his entire family. And die of old age, unless killed by another inmate.

370 posted on 12/02/2004 8:57:57 AM PST by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
Here's a tip for the future.

View the replies to a post BEFORE you reply yourself.

371 posted on 12/02/2004 9:33:36 AM PST by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Laci's body was not found bound with duct tape. Considering that when her body was recovered it lacked head, arms, or lower legs, there was little that could have been restrained with duct tape.

I didn't think it was possible for you to look more foolish.

Do the research, Bud, READ the transcripts. Until then, it's clear you're spewing your own fictional version of this case.

Poopoo!

372 posted on 12/02/2004 10:27:43 AM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter

This is the only loose end I see in this case---a cement anchor........

I don't think Peterson is the sharpest knife in the drawer. What expectant father would leave his very pregnant wife to go fishing on Christmas Eve. I'm a dedicated hunter and fisherman, but there are limits.


373 posted on 12/02/2004 11:54:39 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Jury of his "pears"?


374 posted on 12/02/2004 12:00:18 PM PST by spiralsue (I will never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: spiralsue

*grins*
You caught that?

I do so love ragging on Johnny Cochrane.


375 posted on 12/02/2004 12:01:35 PM PST by Darksheare (I have friends, and I have co-conspirators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

The jury convicted him because they hated him, not because they didn't have a reasonable doubt.

This is nearly, literally, a high tech lynching.

I hope you never have to sit in front of a jury that hates you


I hate all murderers. And I would think that the average law-abiding citizen feels the same. Do you think OJ was innocent?


376 posted on 12/02/2004 12:08:17 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

To properly rag on Johnny C
You got to rhyme, you see
Because Peterson was framed
And some jurors were shamed
The body was in pieces
So the prosecution ceases
His lies were legit
So the jury must acquit

Or something...


377 posted on 12/02/2004 12:12:35 PM PST by spiralsue (I will never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: spiralsue

I know.
I just can't rhyme to save my life!


378 posted on 12/02/2004 12:13:38 PM PST by Darksheare (I have friends, and I have co-conspirators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Me neither... I had to force it and it shows. Not very creative.

This thread is so hilarious! That people would actually defend this guy....

One thing I know... Criminals are stupid. That's why they get caught and even a couple million dollar attorneys can't convince 12 people he didn't do it. He *could* have gotten away with it had he been more careful. But I don't want the kids out there to get the idea that someone could ever get away with murder, except OJ, of course.

And those who twist logic by saying "killing Peterson will not bring Laci back" just don't get it and never will. It's a liberal thing.

I have a suspicion that even if the a**hole gets "life without parole," some reliable criminal may exercise the death penalty on his a** anyway. Remember Dahmer.
~S~


379 posted on 12/02/2004 12:27:36 PM PST by spiralsue (I will never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

you make absolutely no sense.

The jury has been sequestered - I have not heard any report that "they hated Scott Peterson" We can only presume they might.
The jury found Scott Peterson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as it was required to do.
It must be either "nearly" or "literally" a lynching, it cannot be both.
I hope you are right about having to sit before a jury that "hates" - the voire dire is designed to eliminate that possibility.
So you hate all murderers - that is useful to know.
I don't pretend to know what the average law abiding citizen hates.
The jury found that O.J. was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I believe O.J. was guilty as the civil case demonstrated.


380 posted on 12/02/2004 1:18:08 PM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: spiralsue

Yeah.
I still like those who defend the guy, forgetting that innocent people don't dye their hair, sell the 'missing' person's things and split.
*snort*


381 posted on 12/02/2004 1:23:11 PM PST by Darksheare (I have friends, and I have co-conspirators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Do you think OJ was innocent?

They found the blood of his wife and the other guy he killed in the drain of OJ's shower. So, yes I think he was guilty.

382 posted on 12/02/2004 1:43:03 PM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

First three lines were posted by Fox Pro. Last line my response.


383 posted on 12/02/2004 3:23:51 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay; Howlin; runningbear; MEG33; Canadian Outrage; blondee123; All

Let's go get 'em!!

I'm so tired of these loud mouths !!!


384 posted on 12/02/2004 9:02:03 PM PST by sissyjane (Silk pajamas for dress up, and flannel for everyday-perfect Freeper wardrobe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
You're quoting logic. And I'm not saying I disagree with you. But you do agree, that the case is a little short on facts. And you do agree that there is at least one juror who thought Scott didn't do it who has been removed from the jury.

Please do NOT tell me what I "agree" with! I have made my statements & that is what I "agree" with!

385 posted on 12/02/2004 9:43:18 PM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
The jury convicted him because they hated him, not because they didn't have a reasonable doubt.

The jury may have hated him, but I think his own words & lies on tape convinced them he was guilty. His own words & actions caused the hate!

386 posted on 12/02/2004 9:45:02 PM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: blondee123

"The jury convicted him because they hated him, not because they didn't have a reasonable doubt"



That was the line I was responding to. If you'll check the post the first 3 lines were Fox Pro. My response was the bottom line. Sorry for the confusion, but I'm not too good at this computer stuff.


387 posted on 12/03/2004 12:09:55 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

OOps, sorry, I guess I didn't look at it that good!


388 posted on 12/03/2004 12:52:54 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: blondee123

No problem. I'm working at improving my skills, but this computer stuff isn't easy for a technological illiterate. Because of my location I'm self taught and it appears I have an incompetent teacher.


389 posted on 12/03/2004 1:24:29 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

I apologize - Upon unraveling all the threads, indeed the last line made sense.

This would have been a private reply, but you deserved a public mea culpa.

:)


390 posted on 12/03/2004 5:29:30 AM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

sj - I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. I just clicked on the last 50 posts and that's enough reading for me. What trash!!


391 posted on 12/03/2004 1:04:35 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South - we'd make good Americans!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
I just reread parts of the article, because I just can't believe that nonsense about no murder having occurred. And the crap about having watched Perry Mason and Law and Order (both fictional programs) just boggles the mind. I guess circumstantial evidence doesn't count for anything in some people's minds. The article is fiction.
392 posted on 12/03/2004 7:12:35 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

You nailed that right!!


393 posted on 12/03/2004 7:27:58 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South - we'd make good Americans!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

Even though i was always on the fence about this case, Scott has to be guilty for these following reasons:

1- an innocent man gladly accepts to take a lie detector test...he flat out refused
2- an innocent man can look at his mother in law in the eyes, which he didnt do the day laci vanished
3- an innocent man would have crumbled in tears and terror when he heard the guilty verdict
4- an innocent man would have defended himself alot more than he ever did.

Scott's reaction to the guilty verdict says it all. He was stone faced...why? Because his plan didn't work. They didn't buy his lies. I believe that Scott almost committed the perfect crime. He researched the currents in the bay because he wanted to find where he could dump the bodies for them to wash into the sea. Some people say, why would he be so stupid as to place himself where the bodies were found? Scott didnt expect the bodies to ever be found! he wanted them to wash into the sea and forever be gone. Somehow, miraculously perhaps, the bodies came back and that is what caused his arrest and conviction.


394 posted on 12/12/2004 3:25:38 PM PST by htarw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: htarw

100% circumstantial evidence, h.

I want a murderer, too, to be convicted, sentenced and executed. But it's not a slam-dunk deal.


395 posted on 12/12/2004 3:51:21 PM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]


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