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


1 posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:52 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: J. Neil Schulman
Well it wouldn't be the first time that someone was rigthly convicted for the wrong reasons. Regardless, he was still convicted. The outcome was right, even if the path to it was wrong.

With OJ it was the wrong verdict for the wrong reasons. Mark Furmen, not OJ, was the defendant for the majority of that trial. And Cochrane and Scheck were accomplices to the crime of the century in my opinion.
25 posted on 11/30/2004 10:41:25 AM PST by SSG USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

This is just a blatant advertisement, moron. Go peddle your crap somewhere else.


26 posted on 11/30/2004 10:41:34 AM PST by elbucko (Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Yikes! It does make one think, doesn't it?

I didn't follow the trial, except to constantly tune-out that Chubby Fox News Babe, who prattled on endlessly about it, so I don't know all the nuances and fine points of the unfolding circumstantial evidence.

Part of me still believes that he didn't do it, but he's never protested his innocence or defended himself, that I'm aware.


28 posted on 11/30/2004 10:42:15 AM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Admin Moderator

Isn't against policy to advertise on FR?


32 posted on 11/30/2004 10:44:55 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Of course Laci killed herself and dumped her own body in the bay with concrete anchors attached. Just goes to show as we know that ignorance is Blix.


33 posted on 11/30/2004 10:45:22 AM PST by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Good post. I am not familiar with your stance on OJ, nor do I care. If you ask me if Scott is the likely killer, the answer is yes. If you ask is it beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer is no. Even in conjunction, all of the circumstancial evidence is far from 'beyond a reasonable doubt'

I thought your point about Scott's fishing alibi being public for a long time before the body showed up puts a big ding in the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' of the biggest piece of evidence.

I know most murder cases are not cut and dried and rely on circumstancial evidence to a significant degree....but this is far too circumstancial for my taste. I think he was convicted of murder on proof he was a jerk.


36 posted on 11/30/2004 10:47:20 AM PST by blanknoone (The two big battles left in the War on Terror are against our State dept and our media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

OJ did it...


38 posted on 11/30/2004 10:48:33 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

So, you're just going to post your article, and not defend it? If so, you're trolling.


40 posted on 11/30/2004 10:50:42 AM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
If he is innocent---
Why didn't he testify on his own behalf?
Why didn't he go to pieces when the bodies of Laci and Conner were found?
Why did he sit in that courtroom day after day looking like he didn't give a horses A@@ about his dead wife and child?
Why didn't he demand, demand and DEMAND his chance to get on the stand and cry his heart out at his terrible loss?

The argument of his innocence is saying is that if you kill right and dispose of the body correctly, then all the other evidence doesn't count. Even if every frigging' arrow in the universe is pointing at you. It just says "Hey guys, do it right and you too can kill!"

We got that from OJ, I resent like hell it being OK'd again.
41 posted on 11/30/2004 10:51:55 AM PST by najida (Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
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

Your credibility = zero.

44 posted on 11/30/2004 10:53:19 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
without an obvious motive

What more obvious motive do you need? He was broke, he wanted to sell Laci's stuff, and he wanted to shack up with another woman.

45 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:15 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
It doesn't matter whether he did it or not. He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore he is not guilty and a great injustice has been done, regardless of what actually happened.

I swear some people on Free Republic are bloodthirsty. From members condoning prison rape to unjustly throwing people into jail for the rest of their life.
47 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:22 AM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Conspiracy Guy

What a steamin' pile o' poo!!


48 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST by Laura Earl (1/2way290)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Sir, with all due respect:

This article proves you are neither lawyer or logistician. Most of us don't get our legal advice from watching old "Perry Mason" shows.

Your article on "Miracle Eye Drops that Cure Cataracts" demonstrates that you are neither physician nor practical. (Just a hint: Phacoemulsification and aspiration, the surgical procedure to emulsify then remove cataracts does not involve the retina nor its blood supply.)

I'm just wondering, as I wait with baited breath to read your "article" on Vulcan Mind Melds," will you soon be selling such Mind Melds on late night TV?

PS, Karl Hess was not the originator of Senator Goldwater's "Extremism...." line.

So far, you're 0 for 3.
53 posted on 11/30/2004 10:57:46 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Well, it's a sad commentary on human nature, but I once sat on a jury where the accused, a street punk, thought it was a good strategy to give the jury "Attitude" looks. After an hour, the jury lost patience, and began giving the looks back.

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.

55 posted on 11/30/2004 10:59:28 AM PST by Gorzaloon (This tagline intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

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!


58 posted on 11/30/2004 11:02:24 AM PST by sonserae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

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?


61 posted on 11/30/2004 11:03:49 AM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Here's my critique of your work: Weak, at best.

May I suggest that you learn the difference between reasonable and outlandish before submitting your next work for our review.

64 posted on 11/30/2004 11:07:40 AM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Is there a "comedy" section of FR? That's where this should be posted.


79 posted on 11/30/2004 11:17:28 AM PST by Still German Shepherd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

'...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?

I suppose.

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.


93 posted on 11/30/2004 11:23:30 AM PST by auntdot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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