Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
That is extremely close minded and prejudicial of you. It may be proof of littering; of abuse of a corpse; an environmental pollution crime; or even of an attempt to defraud, by a mortuary illegally disposing of a body after taking fees for burial; but, is hardly rises to the level of proof the person was murdered.
Just the mention of "cement anchors" is inflammatory, as it brings to mind the alledged use of "cement overshoes" by supposed "gangsters" to allegedly dispose of bodies.
It may also have been the result of a bizarre suicide with the intent of framing someone for murder.
Why, it could even have been an attempt gone awry of a deranged person attempting to prove their faith via the miracle of walking on water, while wearing cement overshoes.
We must keep an open mind to the point all reason falls out, according to Mr. Schulman
That he is not required to testify is correct and the jury is not to judge the fact he did not in their deliberations.
"Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas"
Prosecutors are human?!? What kind of gratuitous remark is that? Of course they are. Who in their sane, right mind would want to execute an innocent man? I happen to believe their whole professional and personal lives depend on 'DOING THE RIGHT THING'
As citizens, what purpose would it serve to deliberately prosecute an individual if there was substantial evidence of his/her innocence and the murderer was left to roam &kill again in their neighborhood?
The jury looked at all the exibits, listened to all the evidence presented, heard from all those who testified and saw them face to face, judged it all as a whole and found Scott guilty..
I only read the transcripts and listened to the tapes, viewed his interviews..I agree with the jury.GUILTY
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.
"Maybe if Richardson..."
This is what gets to me about people who support knee-jerk, situational ethics when applied to people you "feel" are guilty or even not guilty, for that matter.
You can't get past your emotions long enough to even get the guy's name straight but you think you know enough to send the guy to the death chamber.
And the poor bastard was tried by twelve people just like you.
Gratuitous? I don't think so. It's a simple fact that too often, folks ignore. Just like you apparently do.
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
You went berserk over one misspoken name...that's mature.
You also are guilty of inaccurately describing Scott Peterson as a poor bastard.
As I remember it - his parents are legally married and could be described financially as middle class. ($10k in cash ain't broke).
I don't see what the freshwater/saltwater tackle thing proves at all since the guy was an admitted first-time fisherman who bought his gear in Modesto - where most shops would have no use for saltwater gear.
Besides, I use hand-grenades for fishing and they work great in any water!
The type of gear he used is utterly meaningless since the guy was not experienced. Frankly, an experienced guy would not have taken a 14ft boat out on the Bay in December.
You might recall the police initially called him a liar about being on the Bay that day because it would have been dangerous for him to be on the Bay in that boat in the weather conditions that day. Now they contend he was not only in the Bay with that boat but that he did so and dumped a body over the side in treacherous conditions without getting swamped.
Show me an EXPERIENCED guy who can do this in the same conditions and I'd be damnably impressed.
"You went berserk over one misspoken name...that's mature."
My mistake. I guess I didn't hear him.
You made a sweeping generality about a group: "PROSECUTORS" and assigned to them a very low level of integrity.
In your rebuttal to me you proceeded to dispense with a jury and its deliberation...followed by a derogatory comment about my ability to reason.
Please review your first and follow-up comments. You are quite deranged you know. That is not a generality or a stereotype. I am referring only to you DK Zimmerman.
Yup - I thought I had you figured out - I was right - I win.
Total agreement. Good for you!
A grand jury I was on had the facts of a case presented where someone was out joy riding with an overcrowded pick up (something like 5 folks in the front seat and another 5 or so in the bed). The driver reportedly said something like "watch this" before crossing the dividing line in front of a little old lady, only to veer back into his own lane.
Unfortunately, said little old lady had gone into his lane to avoid him, only to "meet" him. Prosecutor wanted murder as I recall. I inquired as to the elements of the crime. Pointed out that his desire was problematic on two points: a) he was in his own lane when accident occurred (right of way, etc - HE had it) and b) veering back suggested he had no intent.
Rest of grand jury ignored my points, gave the prosecutor what I felt was way too high a charge. Only afterwards did one of my "fellows" come up and mention she was at the scene and police had made those exact points.
"Jury of peers" is supposed to represent a reasoning, reasonably intelligent group of folks that understand their responsibilities AND are willing to work to meet them. Unfortunately, that is too often not the case.
"Quite deranged?" I dispensed with a jury? I fear only your responses call your ability to reason or not into question. Not I. Never did.
Must be difficult to live with - that no-one agreed with you.
Tough
The jury looked at all the exibits, listened to all the evidence presented, heard from all those who testified and saw them face to face, judged it all as a whole and found Scott guilty..
I only read the transcripts and listened to the tapes, viewed his interviews..I agree with the jury.GUILTY
So she stayed under water for weeks how exactly?
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.
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.