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

Skip to comments.

Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
The Hollywood Investigator ^ | 11/30/2004 | J. Neil Schulman

Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-395 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: DK Zimmerman

I agree that law is supposed to be non-emotional.

But you have to accept that behavior can be evidence in itself. Sometimes you have to take three steps back and look at the forest. All evidence, events and behaviors added together are enough for me to believe he is guilty. His emotions (or lack thereof) are just a frame for the canvas.

Otherwise, Scott will have created the template for the perfect murder.


102 posted on 11/30/2004 11:31:07 AM PST by najida (Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter

"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?"

He needed one to prove he had made the anchors. The whole reason he tried to use the fishing excuse was because it was a built in alibi. He never imagined the bodies would turn up WHERE HE SAID HE WAS WHEN SHE DISAPPEARED.

Like most murderers, Scott out smarted himself. One thing would have gotten him off scot free. If he had kept his mouth shut to the police. Thie is what provides the most breaks in criminal cases. Suspects lying to the cops. You can't change your story later without providing fodder that can be used to shred your ass in court. He probably broke another cardinal rule, though we will never know for sure. He probably lied to his lawyer. That is another quick way to find yourself led to the gallows.


103 posted on 11/30/2004 11:34:51 AM PST by speed_addiction (Ninja's last words, "Hey guys. Watch me just flip out on that big dude over there!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
I was referring to Chandra Levy.
104 posted on 11/30/2004 11:35:30 AM PST by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | 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: iconoclast

Oh, sorry.


106 posted on 11/30/2004 11:37:50 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: .38sw
It's pretty good evidence of an unnatural cause of death when you turn up 90 miles away from your home and wash up on shore several months later,

Look, I believe he is guilty, and you believe he is guilty. But the state didn't, in my opinion, prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think he committed a nearly perfect murder. But I do have a reasonable doubt (as the jurors did, IMHO).

107 posted on 11/30/2004 11:38:24 AM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | 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: PeterFinn
Total & absolute agreement. Peterson was NOT convicted of killing his wife since there was no evidence to that effect

Actually, there is lots of evidence that he did it. Like his motive, her body turning up right where he said he went fishing, the concrete anchor, his having the wrong fishing gear, his initial lying about his whereabouts on the day after her disappearence, his talking about his wife in the past tense before her body turned up. etc.

111 posted on 11/30/2004 11:40:34 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

We may be related. ; )


112 posted on 11/30/2004 11:41:17 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Well, therein lies how two reasonable people can disagree.

I wholly concur there is evidence strongly suggesting he did it. But I even more emphatically charge that everything necessary was NOT proven, (which your response effectively confirms) especially not beyond a reasonable doubt. Coincidence is supposed to be insufficient.

I mean come on. Freshwater tackle? As opposed to saltwater? Damned good thing they don't check me out. I never use anything but drop lines. I grew up around small streams. If caught in the vicinity of a large river with my gear, does that make me subject to charges of genocide?

I understand the jury sat through a lot of details. But their job is to make the prosecutor prove his case. I do not believe he did and they didn't spank him for it. I've seen it on a grand jury I was on. I would ask for the elements of the crime, the prosecutor would dance around the subject and everyone wanted to know why I bothered asking.

Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas. Juries are supposed to have the intelligence to catch them at it and stop them. This one failed to do its job, IMO.

113 posted on 11/30/2004 11:41:19 AM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

"Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.
Me too."

I agree. Except that no such anchors were found weighing down the bodies and what anchors were presented as "evidence" did not match the anchors that were made with the mold Scott used to make anchors. There is no evidence the bodies were weighed down at all. Being dumped in December they would not have needed any weight as decomposition gases would not have bloated the bodies in 40 degree water.


114 posted on 11/30/2004 11:44:03 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman
Coincidence is supposed to be insufficient.

Not sure if that's the case. There are plenty of people who have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I mean come on. Freshwater tackle? As opposed to saltwater? Meaningless by itself, but together with the other info suggests that he was lying about fishing that day.

I've seen it on a grand jury I was on. I would ask for the elements of the crime, the prosecutor would dance around the subject and everyone wanted to know why I bothered asking.

Same thing happened to me.

Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas. Juries are supposed to have the intelligence to catch them at it and stop them. This one failed to do its job, IMO.

What can I say.. If I was on the jury I would have convicted.

115 posted on 11/30/2004 11:44:48 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
I agree. Except that no such anchors were found weighing down the bodies and what anchors were presented as "evidence" did not match the anchors that were made with the mold Scott used to make anchors. There is no evidence the bodies were weighed down at all. Being dumped in December they would not have needed any weight as decomposition gases would not have bloated the bodies in 40 degree water.

I beleieve that they were able to demonstrate the she was under water for weeks... proving that she was weighed down.

116 posted on 11/30/2004 11:45:54 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

Sorry. I misunderstood your question as well.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/news/2002/0528/levy_ap.html


117 posted on 11/30/2004 11:46:17 AM PST by BenLurkin (Big government is still a big problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: najida

"Why didn't he testify on his own behalf?"

Because it is his right to not have to prove himself innocent. The accused has the right to be silent in this country and not contribute to his own prosecution.


118 posted on 11/30/2004 11:47:08 AM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

PIFFLE


119 posted on 11/30/2004 11:47:27 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | 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: speed_addiction
Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.

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

121 posted on 11/30/2004 11:50:04 AM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

That he is not required to testify is correct and the jury is not to judge the fact he did not in their deliberations.


122 posted on 11/30/2004 11:50:44 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

"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?


123 posted on 11/30/2004 11:52:51 AM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

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


124 posted on 11/30/2004 12:02:48 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | 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: Gorzaloon

"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.


126 posted on 11/30/2004 12:09:23 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
Well, then, by all means, let's just convict everyone a prosecutor deems guilty. No need for a jury at all. No need to hold a jury to "beyond reasonable doubt."

Gratuitous? I don't think so. It's a simple fact that too often, folks ignore. Just like you apparently do.

127 posted on 11/30/2004 12:10:23 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | 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: PeterFinn

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).


129 posted on 11/30/2004 12:15:39 PM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; DK Zimmerman

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.


130 posted on 11/30/2004 12:18:38 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

"You went berserk over one misspoken name...that's mature."

My mistake. I guess I didn't hear him.


131 posted on 11/30/2004 12:20:02 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

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.


132 posted on 11/30/2004 12:20:51 PM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn

Yup - I thought I had you figured out - I was right - I win.


133 posted on 11/30/2004 12:21:55 PM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Total agreement. Good for you!


134 posted on 11/30/2004 12:22:07 PM PST by PeterFinn ("Tolerance" means WE have to tolerate THEM, they can hate us all they want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
To provide a real life examPle.

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.

135 posted on 11/30/2004 12:22:57 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

"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.


136 posted on 11/30/2004 12:26:51 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

Must be difficult to live with - that no-one agreed with you.

Tough


137 posted on 11/30/2004 12:27:43 PM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

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



138 posted on 11/30/2004 12:28:43 PM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
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.

So she stayed under water for weeks how exactly?

139 posted on 11/30/2004 12:28:48 PM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | 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: sodpoodle
Not tough at all. Only providing a keener awareness that the checks and balances are only as good as the people (all humans) participating, and their ability to do so intelligently and objectively.

Too many are not: some at all, others in the "wrong" situation. I don't presume this prosecutor set out to screw up or provide a poor case, but at the end of the day, I believe he did.

141 posted on 11/30/2004 12:33:49 PM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: DK Zimmerman

I have learned from your experience.

Thank you


142 posted on 11/30/2004 12:37:22 PM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

I get the feeling that you are not taking the author very series.


143 posted on 11/30/2004 12:39:55 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 121 | View Replies]

To: Laura Earl

I loved how Scott told his mistress he was a widower - weeks before Lacy was missing. He must have been psychic!


144 posted on 11/30/2004 12:39:55 PM PST by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Thank you President Bush, and thank you America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

>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.

>So she stayed under water for weeks how exactly?

That's precisely the point.

The prosecution speculates that Laci's body was dumped in the bay on Christmas Eve when Scott Peterson claims he was fishing. The prosecution then, to support its unproved assumption, further speculates that her body must have been weighted down.

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation in the absence of any anchors being recovered: that her body was dumped at a later date -- and the ME's autopsy does not tell us how long her body was in the bay, thus never eliminating this as being the simplest explanation.

Since Scott Peterson at such a later date was already being tailed by police, Occam's Razor is exculpatory.

JNS


145 posted on 11/30/2004 12:43:10 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro

>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 think the big statement here is IN YOUR OPINION. 12 people (who matter) obviously disagree with you.


146 posted on 11/30/2004 12:43:58 PM PST by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA

I used to know a guy who was fond of telling the ladies that he and his wife were separated. He would act all sad about it..the truth was they were separated because she was at home in Atlanta with their kids, and he was on a business trip here in Birmingham. Scum!


148 posted on 11/30/2004 12:46:13 PM PST by Laura Earl (1/2way290)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | 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: F.J. Mitchell

I KNEW I shouldn't have added that last line.

Like some of Scott's initial stories that he later changed, it inadvertently gave me away.

DARN, shucks, and golly!


150 posted on 11/30/2004 12:48:41 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-395 next last

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.

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