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
Speed, I beg to differ. What we are being asked to believe is that
1) Laci and Scott had an argument (about Amber)-
2) Scott left and went fishing by himself.
3) McKenzie the dog left and went for a walk by himself.
4) Laci (8 mos.pregnant) waited a few minutes and then walked 90 miles to the Bay, tied weights/anchors to her wrists and ankles and threw herself in the water.
Don't hold back! ; )
I guess you didn't hear the verdict.
And so terrifying were the looks of the average citizens, homemakers, grandmothers, Joe Sixpacks, that the Accused panicked and plead "Guilty".
Little Blue-Haired old ladies wanted to take him out and string him up from the nearest lampost.
Maybe if Richardson had adopted a more humble or contrite attitude, things would have gone differently. Nobody wins anything by having the knack of making people hate them, and a trial is a particularly wrong place to do that.
This man proves the truth of Califormia Drug Rule #1: "Never Buy Drugs by Price Alone. Cheap Is Not Always Good!"
Huh? Not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? What does that mean? Apparently the jury believed that there wasn't any reasonable doubt.
It's such a coincidence that Scott visited the crime scene 5 times in the 2 weeks she went missing even though it was a 2 hour drive away. It's coincidence that when he was arrested he had his brother's passport, $10,000 in cash and died his hair blonde. It's coincidence that he tried to sell his wife's car just one week after she went missing...and tried to sell their home just weeks after she went missing. Give me a break!
I love a good "gang up on the lunatic" thread.
If O.J. is innocent of murdering his wife and that other fellow, given that he abused his wife on a regular basis, then how can Peterson be convicted based on circumstantial evidence? The issue of race is good for one case and not the other?
Absolutely, and no one has posted the "Time to get back on the Thorazine" line yet!
How did we know this gent was from California just by reading his first few words??????????
May I suggest that you learn the difference between reasonable and outlandish before submitting your next work for our review.
Consequently, I am not fully up to speed on the details. What little I have heard, despite my best attempts, however, supports this author's take on things. Your response completely misses the point. While he may not have cried and did not take the stand to wail and moan, there is no requirement for him to do either. It is the state's requirement to prove their case. Try countering the author's charge that almost every element of the crime was simply absent, unproven, or unprovable. Then, maybe you have a point.
Of course you're free to have an opinion without being held to "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the jury is not and based on this piece, they may have failed in their responsibility. It definitely wouldn't be the first time and inevitably won't be the last, but we should abhor it, instead of embracing it. Otherwise, any one of us may be the next to suffer for it.
Pimping a crappy book.
SCOTT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
After they removed the ones who thought he was not guilty....
What evidence was there that she was murdered?
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 agree. I don't know if he did it or not. It seems likely that he did. But this was a lynching.
Could it have been natural causes..Could she have hitched a ride to bay and committed suicide?/..Tune in!
How do you know that? Were you on the jury? How do you know that there was reasonable doubt? Were you in the courtroom every day?
Each piece of evidence may, by itself, not prove the murder. The thing is, the jury doesn't view each piece of evidence by itself. It views the totality of the evidence. So, the jury viewed that the woman washed up on shore with cinder block weights. The jury saw the same kind of cement in the boat. The jury saw that the dog was left outside. The jury saw that Scott had lots of motice (financial, romantic). The jury saw that Scott lied about his whereabout the next day. The jury saw that Scott did not remember what he had gone fishing for. The jury saw that he had freswater tackle on his fishing gear. The jury saw that he returned to the scene of the crime five times after her disappearence despite it being two hours away. The jury also saw that Scott talked about his wife in the past tense before her body was found.
Each piece of evidence, by itself, did not prove murder. Viewed in its totality, the evidence clearly proves murder.
They dont even know how Laci died, for crying out loud.
Washing up on shore after having been weighted down by concrete is usually a pretty good sign.
Is there a "comedy" section of FR? That's where this should be posted.
No, no, no! She was kidnapped and killed by some homeless people hanging out by the river (or maybe it was the satanists hanging out by the river). They kept her until they found out where Scott had been on the day they snatched Laci, then took her to the bay and dumped her. I guess the homeless people used a shopping cart and kept to the backroads to transport her body to the Berkeley marina. I think that the satanists had a tan van they could use.
Scott had a perfectly understandable motive for killing Laci rather than divorcing her--if he got a divorce he would still have to pay child support for their son for 18 years. His best legal strategy might have been a 14th-amendment defense (equal protection of the laws): he as the expectant father was not given the same rights to dispose of an inconvenient baby than any expectant mother would have.
Now that you put it that way - I'm sold.
So? Her body was totally decomposed. Are you suggesting that every murderer should cremate his victim and thereby get a free pass?
PS to post #79 -- NOT that the Lacy & baby tragedy is funny, but this person's theories sure are. Scott Peterson is guilty and everyone knows it. Time to move on.
Murderers are convicted without the how of death proven..or the where and the why proven...
YOu do agree that there were a couple of people on the jury that seemed to not think he did it..... before they were dismissed from the jury? Don't you?
Sounds like CBS's excuse for RatherGate, i.e., The accusation is correct even if the evidence was forged.
I am sick I had not mentioned that one...
Yes, that does trouble me. I would not seem so strident in my defense of the system if this author was not so ridiculous as to suggest that there was no motive.
You state that the jury convicted him because they hated him - and not because of the evidence...
Being that there is still a gag order...
How do you know what the jury actually believed?
'...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;'
If our justice system were held to that criterion, there would be no guilty verdicts, ever.
Every clever defense council can come up with a circumstance that the prosecution cannot refute.
Could Laci have been abducted by unseen thugs who, for no good reason, abducted and killed her and then tossed her in the bay where Scott was fishing with the wrong gear?
But some explanations just don't make a whole lot of sense.
And that is why we have juries to weight the evidence as best they can.
Hey, don't be sick about it. We can't all think of everything, right? Just glad I could help with alternative scenarios.
This is close to to being a classic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1290541/posts
This is the only loose end I see in this case---a cement anchor. If Peterson did the killing, why on earth would he keep one cement anchor? Why not dump them all while he's at it?
elbucko is not State Department material. What's worse, he doesn't care.
People in the midst of a murder/cover up don't always act completely rationally.
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.