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 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-395 last
To: spiralsue

Yeah.
I still like those who defend the guy, forgetting that innocent people don't dye their hair, sell the 'missing' person's things and split.
*snort*


381 posted on 12/02/2004 1:23:11 PM PST by Darksheare (I have friends, and I have co-conspirators.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Do you think OJ was innocent?

They found the blood of his wife and the other guy he killed in the drain of OJ's shower. So, yes I think he was guilty.

382 posted on 12/02/2004 1:43:03 PM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

First three lines were posted by Fox Pro. Last line my response.


383 posted on 12/02/2004 3:23:51 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay; Howlin; runningbear; MEG33; Canadian Outrage; blondee123; All

Let's go get 'em!!

I'm so tired of these loud mouths !!!


384 posted on 12/02/2004 9:02:03 PM PST by sissyjane (Silk pajamas for dress up, and flannel for everyday-perfect Freeper wardrobe!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
You're quoting logic. And I'm not saying I disagree with you. But you do agree, that the case is a little short on facts. And you do agree that there is at least one juror who thought Scott didn't do it who has been removed from the jury.

Please do NOT tell me what I "agree" with! I have made my statements & that is what I "agree" with!

385 posted on 12/02/2004 9:43:18 PM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
The jury convicted him because they hated him, not because they didn't have a reasonable doubt.

The jury may have hated him, but I think his own words & lies on tape convinced them he was guilty. His own words & actions caused the hate!

386 posted on 12/02/2004 9:45:02 PM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: blondee123

"The jury convicted him because they hated him, not because they didn't have a reasonable doubt"



That was the line I was responding to. If you'll check the post the first 3 lines were Fox Pro. My response was the bottom line. Sorry for the confusion, but I'm not too good at this computer stuff.


387 posted on 12/03/2004 12:09:55 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

OOps, sorry, I guess I didn't look at it that good!


388 posted on 12/03/2004 12:52:54 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: blondee123

No problem. I'm working at improving my skills, but this computer stuff isn't easy for a technological illiterate. Because of my location I'm self taught and it appears I have an incompetent teacher.


389 posted on 12/03/2004 1:24:29 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Trained by English Setters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

I apologize - Upon unraveling all the threads, indeed the last line made sense.

This would have been a private reply, but you deserved a public mea culpa.

:)


390 posted on 12/03/2004 5:29:30 AM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

sj - I wouldn't waste my time on this thread. I just clicked on the last 50 posts and that's enough reading for me. What trash!!


391 posted on 12/03/2004 1:04:35 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South - we'd make good Americans!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
I just reread parts of the article, because I just can't believe that nonsense about no murder having occurred. And the crap about having watched Perry Mason and Law and Order (both fictional programs) just boggles the mind. I guess circumstantial evidence doesn't count for anything in some people's minds. The article is fiction.
392 posted on 12/03/2004 7:12:35 PM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: .38sw

You nailed that right!!


393 posted on 12/03/2004 7:27:58 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South - we'd make good Americans!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

Even though i was always on the fence about this case, Scott has to be guilty for these following reasons:

1- an innocent man gladly accepts to take a lie detector test...he flat out refused
2- an innocent man can look at his mother in law in the eyes, which he didnt do the day laci vanished
3- an innocent man would have crumbled in tears and terror when he heard the guilty verdict
4- an innocent man would have defended himself alot more than he ever did.

Scott's reaction to the guilty verdict says it all. He was stone faced...why? Because his plan didn't work. They didn't buy his lies. I believe that Scott almost committed the perfect crime. He researched the currents in the bay because he wanted to find where he could dump the bodies for them to wash into the sea. Some people say, why would he be so stupid as to place himself where the bodies were found? Scott didnt expect the bodies to ever be found! he wanted them to wash into the sea and forever be gone. Somehow, miraculously perhaps, the bodies came back and that is what caused his arrest and conviction.


394 posted on 12/12/2004 3:25:38 PM PST by htarw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: htarw

100% circumstantial evidence, h.

I want a murderer, too, to be convicted, sentenced and executed. But it's not a slam-dunk deal.


395 posted on 12/12/2004 3:51:21 PM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-395 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