We're the Lose-Lose People

World Net Daily ^ | 15 Dec 2004 | Ann Coulter

[Forgiven_Sinner]

A "no skin off my nose" ping for Ann. And a pic:

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Please add [Ann Coulter] to the title so we don't get duplicate posts.

Thanks.

[Miss Marple]

HA! She manages to skewer both Shrum AND Geragos (with a little needle to Mickey Sherman, too)!

[alloysteel]

Ann Coulter has expressed a certain degree of distain for both Mark Geragos and Bob Shrum, to the degree she suggests a new verb, "to shrum". Apparently this means that using the services of certain individuals guarantees a publicly known and overwhelming humiliation in the endeavor that has been undertaken.

[The Lumster]

"Physical evidence can be circumstantial. Ann notes this, referencing DNA and fingerprints as examples of such cases."


That is my point - much of the evidence against O.J., while circumstantial was physical evidence.

None of the circumstantial evidence against Peterson was physical - not one piece of physical evidence ties him to her death.

[radicalamericannationalist]

How about the hair in the pliers? Or the tools he used to make the anchors? Or the bodies used to establish time (in a generalized sense, not the TV fantasy of a to the minute pronouncement) of death?

[The Lumster]

Hair in pliers? - First of all they could not establish by DNA that it was her hair but even if it was, so what - She knew about the boat - She had been in the boat. A strand of her hair found in their boat was not evidence of a crime.

Anchors? - What anchors? The prosecution claimed he made anchors out of concrete to weigh down the body. This was pure speculation based on the fact that he had concrete in his garage and some concrete dust in the boat. But again they never produced any thing remotely resembling an anchor that they could tie to her death. I have some concrete in my garage - maybe I did it.

Again - I'm not saying he is innocent - he probably did it but I'd have like to have seen some physical evidence - an actual crime scene - some blood from the crime scene - a cause of death - something.

Ann was right about one thing - Geragos is a moron. There were enough holes in the prosecution's case that any half assed lawyer should have been able to raise some serious doubt.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Hey, I noticed you ignored the bodies. There was physical evidence. Quit watching CSI and thinking everything can be put in a nice little package at the end of the hour.

[Petronski]

Here's a previous discussion

[Mr. Lucky]

There was a boat load, so to speak of physical evidence.

The bodies were physical evidence. The bag of cement was physical evidence. The boat was physical evidence. The mistress was physical evidence. The hair dye was physical evidence. The glove compartment full of cash was physical evidence. Ad infinitum.

[The Lumster]

I didn't ignore the bodies - I said there wasn't even a cause of death.

A dead body in and of itself is not evidence of a crime - particularly when the coronor could not even provide a cause of death! She could have walked into the bay on her own for all we know.

I'm not saying it's likely just that without a cause of death how can you convict this guy of murder?

Yes - he acted guilty - but that is not physical evidence.

BTW - I've never seen CSI

[The Lumster]

OK - this is my last response to all this.

A dead body is not evidence of a crime without a specified cause of death. - She could have drowned herself for all we know.

Bag of cement - I have a bag of cement in my garage - does that make me a suspect?

A boat - lot's of people have boats - a boat is not evidence of a crime.

The Mistress - Is evidence of adultery - not evidence of murder

Hair dye & cash - Is evidence of intent to flee I'll grant that but a good lawyer could have raised plenty of doubts on this point.

Again - I agree with Ann that all this means Geragos is a moron. We should assign him to be Sadam's defense counsel. That should get Sadam convicted and executed within a few weeks

[radicalamericannationalist]

The dead bodies are physical evidence that she is dead, so there can be no "Elvis is alive"-style claim that she just ran away. The bodies also showed a time of death, negating the claim that she was kidnapped and held hostage. The fact that those bodies wash up where his own words place him, well, that's just pretty damning.

The fact that the coroner could not determine cause of death does not mean that the bodies were not physical evidence.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"The Mistress - Is evidence of adultery - not evidence of murder"

It's called motive.

"Hair dye & cash - Is evidence of intent to flee I'll grant that but a good lawyer could have raised plenty of doubts on this point."

An attempt to flee show "consciousness of guilt." Acts showing such consciousness are permitted as evidence that the defendant committed the crime.

[JFK_Lib]

The dead bodies are evidence that someone died, but not evidence of murder. In fact a murder was never proven to have occured in court because there was never a cause of death proven. As the earlier poster stated, she could have drowned, commited suicide, etc as far as any actually evidence or proff is concerned - the bodies do not prove murder.

The affair is hardly a motive as the scumbag had had many prior to the last one. When one is a serial philanderer any criminal event related to the wife is purely coincidental and hardly evidence of a motive.

And the scumbags hair dye, etc is no more evidence of intent to flee than of attempt to avoid paparazi and the cash was evidence of the cops timing more than of the scumbags decision to flee. And SP's parents lived near the Mexican border, which is why he was there, having been tossed out of his home by the Modesto PD.

And Ann is being disengenuous about what 'circumstantial evidence' means in narrow legal definition as compared to what it means in the vernacular, the latter of which is what most of us converse in.

Physical evidence can be considered direct evidence as it is something the jury can 'witness' for themselves when it is brought in and presented in court.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"The dead bodies are evidence that someone died, but not evidence of murder. In fact a murder was never proven to have occured in court because there was never a cause of death proven. As the earlier poster stated, she could have drowned, commited suicide, etc as far as any actually evidence or proff is concerned - the bodies do not prove murder."

Proving someone is dead is the first step to proving a murder. without the bodies, Garagos could have argued that Lacy had simply run away, had amnesia, or whatever. By proving her death, that avenue of argument is gone.

Further, the location of the bodies ties them to Scott as his own words placed him at the location

Finally, the rate of decomposition allowed them to determine time of death, thereby allowing them to charge him in Connor's death. It also showed when the death occurred (i.e. at the time of her disappearance rather than after weeks of captivity).

"The affair is hardly a motive as the scumbag had had many prior to the last one. When one is a serial philanderer any criminal event related to the wife is purely coincidental and hardly evidence of a motive. "

That's your opinion. Evidently the jury formed another, equally plausible opinion. After all, with the potential of having to pay alimony and child support in the event of divorce, Peterson had motive to kill rather than simply leave his wife and child.

"And the scumbags hair dye, etc is no more evidence of intent to flee than of attempt to avoid paparazi and the cash was evidence of the cops timing more than of the scumbags decision to flee. And SP's parents lived near the Mexican border, which is why he was there, having been tossed out of his home by the Modesto PD."

Yes, many people change their appearance, carry false ID and carry large amounts of cash around with them near the Mexican border. I live in San Diego and was just remarking to my brother-in-law about how I'd like to borrow his ID so that I could wander around with ten grand in my pocket.

Come on. Let's use common sense here.

"And Ann is being disengenuous about what 'circumstantial evidence' means in narrow legal definition as compared to what it means in the vernacular, the latter of which is what most of us converse in."

That the vernacular has been corrupted by half educated writers for Law and Order does not make that definition have any special significance. Words have meaning. Learn them.

[JFK_Lib]

1) You have not shown that the bodies show evidence of murder rather than, say, accidental death or suicide. Murder was never proven to have happened and that is a simple fact.

2) Many, many thousands of men commit adultery each day and yet only a very small fragmentary percentage kill their spouses. The statistics would suggest that it is more *unlikely* that a man committing adultery would kill his wife, not more so.

3) Yes, lets use common sense. A person is constantly hounded by paperazi and sells his membership in a country club, so has some cash on him, in addition to what his mother returned to him, so that he could buy a car. He has cash because he cant sell his wifes car, despite it being community property, and the cops still had his.

So, yes, common sense can allow for his having changed his appearance, being near the Mexican border with cash for which he planned to buy the car. It is only the presumption of guilt that colors this scenario as being implicative of guilt.

Either way, even if you can prove beyond doubt that SP was planning to flee, that does not prove he murdered his wife, it only means he had no faith in the justice system near Modesto and I cant blame him from this point in time.

4) Yes, words do have meaning, a meaning that exists in the vernacular long before the legal or other technical writers take those words and phrases and give them narrowed meanings within their proffession. You think you know what a 'key' is? It has entirely different meanings within different proffessions.

For Ann to use the narrow legal definition of 'circumstantial evidence' here as though it negates what people mean when speaking of it in the vernacular is merely a dodge. The specific fact is that there is NO DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that ties SP to his wifes death. There is no such evidence to prove a crime was necesarily committed in the first place as no murder was ever proven. Whether this would fall into some legal category of circumstantial evidence proves nothing more than the opacity of legal jargon.

While I think I would have to bet that SP did kill his wife if compelled to do so, his guilt was nowhere near being proved, and the jury convicted him from the hysteria remaining from seeing the autopsy photos and the fact that the MSM had already decided on SPs guilt from the start and tainted beforehand any possible jury.

This really undermines my support for the death penalty and if evidence comes to light that proves SP innocent, it will be a disaster for continuation of the death penalty in the mind of the public.

The media has proven repeatedly that it can focus on a crime and totally distort it to sell advertising while some innocent man (isnt it nearly always a man?) rots and maybe dies in jail like Richard Ricci did.

But somehow Ricci is not a victim and is forgetable, but everyone *knows* without a shred of physical evidence that SP is guilty? It is simply mind-boggling how degenerate our justice system has become.

Some wag once said we have a due process system, not a justice system.

Well now we dont even have due process as the SP case has demonstrated that a person can be railroaded on emotional shock and media hype to the point of a death sentence, the whole nation can watch and everyone still left thinking that somehow justice has been served.

If one is born a male in the US today, one is born with the presumption of guilt regarding any gender related crime - THAT is the only thing that has been proven in the Scott Peterson case.

[Lazamataz]

I wasn't too hot on Ann's beauty.

Then I saw that pic.

Now she must marry me.

[uglybiker]

Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[JFK_Lib]

Have you seen the case where the woman killed a pregnant woman simply to take the child?

http://cnn.org/2004/LAW/12/19/missouri.fetus/index.html

If that could have happened once, it could have happened in the SP case. Nothing was ever presented in court that tied SP to a *speculated* murder of his wife and it could have been a third party as far as the evidence goes who then dumped the corpse int he bay where SP tried to establish his alibi. That is more reasonable to me than to suppose someone would try to alibi themselves where they dumped the bodies.