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
There have been some murderers convicted WITHOUT a body ever being found.

IMO, he smothered her because there was no blood evidence in the home....or very little and none of it could be tied to her death.

He had motive and he ACTED like a guilty man who was in San Diego on the telephone with his brother having a "light-hearted" conversation the day the two bodies washed ashore instead of on the phone with the Modesto police to see if the bodies were those of his wife and unborn child.

He disguised his appearance and had ample money to cross the border and "get lost".

His parents' louzy defense testimony sealed his fate. Neither was believable.

101 posted on 11/30/2004 11:29:11 AM PST by moondoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Total & absolute agreement. Peterson was NOT convicted of killing his wife since there was no evidence to that effect. He was convicted and will be sentenced to death for being a schmuck.

In the meantime, there may well be a killer out there and the police, right from the get-go, decided to exclude anyone else from their investigation of Laci's disappearance.

This is NOT justice. No way.

It sets a dangerous precedent whereby police and prosecutors can accuse anyone of anything and get a conviction.

By this standard of evidence we can convict and execute *witches*.


105 posted on 11/30/2004 11:36:23 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

That you, greta?


108 posted on 11/30/2004 11:38:50 AM PST by OldFriend (PRAY FOR MAJ. TAMMY DUCKWORTH)
[ 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

And I have even stronger evidence that OJ did it and started exibiting his guilt to others as soon as his plane landed in Chicago. J. Neil Schulman is a crock.

109 posted on 11/30/2004 11:39:26 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I didn't see Jimmy Hoffa disappear either, so I guess he's not missing... (You should put this all in a memo and send it to Dan Rather.)


110 posted on 11/30/2004 11:39:58 AM PST by talleyman (Demorats persecute the Boy Scouts & support NAMBLA - yeah, we got your values.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
I reluctantly agree.

There was not enough evidence to convict, either circumstantial or tangible.

The trial was prosecuted at a emotional level. By that I mean that someone must have done it, and that someone is most likely the liar husband.

Most likely is not grounds to convict or more importantly to execute for a crime supposedly committed.

The trial was a sham. The jury was tainted and manipulated through a series of changes, and the decision should be vacated and a new trial commenced in a different jurisdiction.

I would also suggest a new defense lawyer, as this one has lost what little respect he once had.

Whether or not Peterson is guilty was not ever at issue in this trial. From the beginning, it was a struggle to prove he was innocent, and that is not the way our justice system is supposed to work.

Also,I continue to see errors in the purported evidence like anchors that were never found and never proved to be made in the quantities purported. These are all suppositions and not evidence.

The location of the bodies being the smoking gun can be easily overcome by the fact that the bay was announced as the probable location only days after her disappearance.

If I were going to dispose of a body, that is precisely where I would have placed it it implicate Peterson.

There are far more questions than answers created by this trial. Knowing what I know about it, I could not have arrived at a guilty verdict. I could not have said he was innocent, but that is not the point of a trial where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

120 posted on 11/30/2004 11:49:03 AM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I wasn't at the trial. But I would think that a peson totally innocent would be a bit upset, or shaken if a jury convicted him of murder. Apparently he was cool as a cucumber.


125 posted on 11/30/2004 12:04:20 PM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I only cross-posted my article a few hours ago, so you'll forgive me if I didn't join the discussion instantly.

In general, I cross-post my articles published on the web to Free Republic because I have lots of friends who read here.

Moving to several of the comments in specific:

First, it was Hollywood Investigator who published the link to my book. I simply copied the HTML which included that link.

Second, this is my first article for that publisher. I didn't write the article about n-acetyl-carnosine eyedrops. My mother and I were interviewed in one of their articles, describing my mother's use of them.

Third, there are repeated references in the comments to Laci Peterson having been weighted down by anchors. No anchor attached to her body was ever offered as evidence, nor were any cement anchors recovered from the bay where her body was found ever entered into evidence. Laci Peterson's body having been weighted down by anchors of the type Scott Peterson made was simply more prosecution speculation without any evidentiary foundation whatsoever.

Fourth, while I have more than one residence, the state in which I vote, register my car, own land with a house, have my driver's license, and operate my business isn't California but Nevada.

The point of my article isn't my personal opinion as to whether Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unnborn son. My point is that when inflamed prejudice replaces reason in criminal trials, the system is broken and criminal justice appropriate to a free and civilized society is replaced with the law of talon.

Those of you willing to abandon that for the momentary rush of seeing a nasty man burned at the stake are not celebrating American principles. You're celebrating Soviet, Nazi, and Taliban-style "justice."

JNS


128 posted on 11/30/2004 12:14:04 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

If Scott didn't commit this crime, he sure went out of his way to make himself look guilty.

If he was framed, whoever framed him owes Scott a lot of thanks, for assisting him.

Maybe Scott should have been found innocent and released, so that he can join forces with O.J. Simpson as he scours the golf courses of America, searching for the real killer. As a twosome they would have two heads and four eyes, the better to search the rough, the sand traps and ninteenth holes, in pursuit of the "real" killers.


140 posted on 11/30/2004 12:32:25 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (If you were still in the womb, would you trust your life to Specter?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Duoy! The term used in law is REASONABLE doubt, not insano unrealistic crazy a** tiny itty bitty shadow of a doubt. For a jury to find REASONABLE doubt, they MUST be able to concoct a REASONABLE alternative explanation of how the crime COULD have happened under a scenario other than the accused having done it. To say a satanic cult kidnapped her or whatever is NOT REASONABLE. Anyone can tell that Ben-Affleck-look-alike is guilty. He acts guilty, which is evidence. It is called "consciousness of guilt." How would YOU act if your 8-months pregnant wife disappeared? Would you testify in your own behalf? Would you beg, plead, cry for justice? Or would you just sit with a stone face acting as if the proceedings do not affect you. He's guilty and should get the death penalty. What a waste of time this is. You pulled me in with the idiocy of it all. Dummy me.
147 posted on 11/30/2004 12:44:48 PM PST by spiralsue (I will never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
I made a tongue in cheek response earlier, not realizing that you are in fact the author of this book and one on the OJ case.

Having read one side of the OJ case (Bugliosi's) I would be curious about something regarding OJ and would wonder how you would respond to it. Specifically: During OJ's initial interview with the police at Parker Center, after his attorney left, Bugliosi stated that OJ said the blood on the Bronco was his ( 'I bleed a lot, cut easily and such' or similar words). Bugliosi stated he could have convicted OJ on that basis alone.

Given the above, how would you content that OJ would be innocent?

149 posted on 11/30/2004 12:48:21 PM PST by Michael.SF. (Well, Kerry did win the exit polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
I can't stop myself. I regret even reading this crapola. But I have to respond...

"So in a case without an ME’s finding of homicide or a known time of death;"

IMMATERIAL -- time of death is helpful but not necessary for a murder conviction.

"without a single witness to a crime having occurred;"

Eye witnesses are extremely unreliable. Circumstantial evidence gets a bad rap but is actually much more convincing than an eye witness.

"without a crime scene;"

IMMATERIAL. There is nothing in the law that says you must have a "crime scene" before prosecuting a murderer. Some murderers are sitting in jail and there was no dead body. That argument is just silly.

"without a murder weapon;"

IMMATERIAL. She is dead. The manner of death cannot be determined after someone is in the ocean for a few months. Does that mean if no one sees me push someone overboard and they don't find the body that no crime occurred? Who says you even need a weapon. A pillow can be a weapon. A string. Again, this is just silly.

"without any indisputable forensic evidence linking the defendant husband to his wife’s death;"

No forensic evidence? Were you on the jury? Did you see and hear all the evidence? There was blood and hair found. Even I know that is forensic evidence. There were also carpet fibers from his boat or truck. The cement anchors... oh, yeah, that was Scum's hobby. It is just a wild coincidence. Sheesh.


"without an obvious motive;"

So now the motive has to be "obvious"? Insurance money is a motive; fooling around on her is a motive; his "obvious" lack of concern for his unborn child and his wife is not a consideration? Besides, prosecutors have no obligation to prove motive.

"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"

Oh, yeah, the satanic cults. Or maybe it was aliens from Mars. Yeah, or maybe she offed herself and framed him from the grave. Wait she didn't have a grave. Her death and the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding it are conclusive direct evidence that does overcome any exculpatory scenario because none of them are REASONABLE. Given all the evidence, which no one heard unless they were on the jury, the conclusion of a prudent and REASONABLE person would be that Scum Peterson murdered his wife. Give me one reasonable scenario that would fit all the evidence. Just one...

The witnesses in this crime are Laci and Connor. They have both clearly pointed their fingers straight at Scumbag Peterson as their killer.

Are you working on pulling off the perfect crime or do you really believe the junk you wrote?

Now that you've cleared up the Peterson case, why don't you defend that Vang guy who massacred six hunters? I'm sure there's some exculpatory scenario a creative mind like yours can come up with.
160 posted on 11/30/2004 1:10:37 PM PST by spiralsue (I will never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Oh BS!


184 posted on 11/30/2004 1:51:35 PM PST by ladyinred (Congratulations President Bush! Four more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: J. Neil Schulman
A rational person can connect the dots. Irrational people can not. Fry em asap!
194 posted on 11/30/2004 2:07:48 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: J. Neil Schulman
I am very sorry to hear about anyone being murdered...

But to be perfectly honest...I could not hardly care less...about the trial. Although I certainly wonder about the preoccupation with this particular crime.

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.

336 posted on 12/01/2004 12:05:34 PM PST by Osage Orange (Hillary's heart is as black as the devil's riding boots.................)
[ 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