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 MEs 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 wifes 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.
posted on 11/30/2004 1:10:37 PM PST
(I will never forget 9/11)
They believe Laci was smothered or strangled.There was her hair in the pliers but none of her blood was found.
posted on 11/30/2004 1:17:25 PM PST
( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
Great analysis in a nano second. You must be a prosecutor - or a really good parent;)
posted on 11/30/2004 1:20:17 PM PST
(sparrows are underrated)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson