Posted on 12/07/2004 6:15:31 AM PST by crushelits
Good luck in law school.
You'll need it just to survive
the infestation of democrats.
I agree with that. True, most cases do have alot of circumstantial evidence but they also have a motive and a weapon. Neither in the Peterson Case.
I hate people who don't have the facts but act like they do.
Im NOT still a student, it isnt like I have been in school since I graduated High School. I decided when I was 29 to go back and make something of myself. Better late than never huh?
Actually I dont want to be a Lawyer. Im not that good of a liar to be either a defense attorney or a Prosecutor.
I will settle for lying to the American People as a State Senator or whatever I chose to make a run at.
You need a refresher course.
You don't need motive.
Or a weapon (see Michael Peterson)
Or a cause of death.
Or a body.
Thanks for the Good Luck, I already need it. The classes are riddled with Liberal Professors and Liberal Students. Maybe you all can see some liberalism rubbed off on me by being hardheaded about this case...Oh Lord dont let me become one of them...
correct. You dont always need motive. But when there is motive and there is a weapon, the chances are even slimmer for an appeal.
Well, you need to deal in what we have in THIS case.
We all have a "wish list" of what we'd love to see or know about this case, but it's not happening.
But that doesn't make this evidence any less valuable than any other:
The law is clear in California and in every other jurisdiction: “Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof,” according to the standards California lays out for instructions to juries. “Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”
The easiest way to define “circumstantial evidence” is by what it is not — it is not evidence that comes directly from an eyewitness or a participant. With direct evidence, jurors don’t have to draw any “if-then” inferences. Everything else is circumstantial evidence, which is simply anything that allows a jury to reach a conclusion by reasoning, as long as it is relevant.
Dismissive judgments of evidence as “simply circumstantial” reflect a “lack of true consideration of what’s involved,” Garland, who has been both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, said in an interview. Not only can circumstantial evidence be extraordinarily persuasive, but it can often be stronger than direct evidence — stronger than eyewitness testimony or even, sometimes, a confession.
Yes, law schools are bastions of liberalism
wherein the "government" is the enemy, except
when it can be used to redistribute wealth or
stomp on the rights of conservatives and Christians.
Keep your political beliefs and at least
you will have plenty of opportunities to hone
your debating skills. You're sure to be
out numbered 10 - 1, or thereabout.
We agree here too, but imagine if there had been a motive or weapon in the Peterson case, I dont think we would be up at 3am debating this. Atleast I wouldnt be. Thank God I have no class or work tomorrow! I get to rest for a whole day.
My debating skills are what scares me the most! I still dread getting in front of a classroom of 30 or so people! Thanks for your kind words onyx!
You all have a great night. Time for me to hit the sack...
If you're gonna use that in the defense of Peterson then go ahead...we can use a good laugh
Also the logical argument here about where the bodies were found is precisely that there was NO coincidence.
Scott drove the the bay where her body was found BEFORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they began searching the bay. Again, you FAIL at defending Scott.
Hypothetically, it you were the murderer (not Scott Peterson) and you watched tv and saw inumerable videos of authorities searching that bay, wouldn't that be exactly where you would dispose of the body?
???? You telling me that the killer saw the cops at the bay and then dug up her remains (SHE WAS ALREADY IN A BODY OF WATER BECAUSE OF THE DETORATION OF HER BODY!) and then pulled her from one watery grave and then dumped her in the bay??? WTF????
This case is full of holes.
Dont quit your day job cause you aint no Perry Mason
There is no solid direct - or even indirect - physical evidence. Only a great amount of circumstantial evidence. It sure looks like he did it. But in other cases it has looked that way also and the state turned out to be wrong.
Not looking at this specific case, but on the principal that civil liberties must be protected above other desires and considerations - in this case, wanting to put Peterson to death for the horrible crime most people think he committed.
LOL. I had to leave the thread late yesterday but I see you're still fighting the good fight...:-)
I know ficticious and false statements should be contested (and you do this well), 'lest someone who isn't informed take them for fact. But I think you are dealing with an energy vampire here.
Darlin',
Let me warn you,
Insulting Howlin' round here will just get you in a world a'hurt.
Just good manners ya know, don't insult the lady of the house when yer a newby.
Thank you.
My speculations seem to set you folks off the deep end.
If you weren't such a "Perry Mason" and could read you would know that I am not defending Peterson but attacking the prosecution's case.
According to news reports, Laci's body was so damaged and decomposed that the coroner could not determine either a cause or a time of death...do you know to the contrary?
I have no intention of quiting my "day job"...but thanks for the original and clever advice.
hahahhaaa.... You guys are STILL here??? Hope you got some sleep for today's battles.
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.