Dangerous Precedent: Peterson Trial...

[insein]

I beleive Scott Peterson was a bad person. He cheated on his wife who was bearing his son and that to me is beyond all reproach. However, he was convicted of murdering her, without a body, without a murder weapon, without a time of death, without a place of death. He was basically convicted of killing his wife for being a scumbag and cheating on her. All circumstancial evidence was used to convict him. Nothing solid.

With that said, whose to say that ANYONE can be convicted of anything without any solid evidence as long as the media hypes the fact that in their minds, your guilty. The media cast their judgement over this trial way before the first hearing was ever made. Theyve been beating into the minds of viewers that he was a scumbag and he killed his wife from day one.

This in my mind is a completely dangerous precedent to set.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Bullshit. Why did he have $15,000 on him, someone else's ID, dyed hair, and he was headed to Mexico? Why did he just so happen to be fishing in that spot on that day? Why did he sound the way he did on the phone when he was talking to his mistress? I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that an innocent person would do all this.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Bullshit. Why did he have $15,000 on him, someone else's ID, dyed hair, and he was headed to Mexico? Why did he just so happen to be fishing in that spot on that day? Why did he sound the way he did on the phone when he was talking to his mistress? I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that an innocent person would do all this.

While I tend to agree with your sentiments, not being on the jury listening to the actual evidence, it's hard to judge for certain. I think OJ was guilty too, yet he got off for killing two people in cold blood.

Unless you are in the shoes of the jury, listening to and seeing everything that is presented, you don't have the objectivity to judge acccurately.


Regards,


Andy

 

[WeAreLegion]

.

 

[Gem]

insein,

I have to disagree with you on this one. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt...that does not mean "is it at all possible in any way, shape, or form, that any other possible person(s) could have possibly killed Laci Peterson instead of Scott Peterson" it means "is it reasonable to believe that there is another possiblity? if so, then he can not be found guilty."

The jury looked at all of the evidence...and Peterson had the benefit of a tremendous defense lawyer...and the defense team could not come up with one possibility that was reasonable to believe over the explanation that Scott killed his wife...I agree with CivilLiberty...we weren't there we didn't hear everything...so we do not know the entirety of the case.

What we, the public, were allowed to hear was that Scott Peterson was a shit...and he was most certainly (in my opinion) judged in the court of common opinion by these things:

1) He was cheating on his cute, happy, pregnant wife (If Laci Peterson had been a fat, ugly woman...we would have never heard about this case)

2) He showed up mere miles from the Mexican bored with his hair dyed, large amounts of cash, a rented car, etc...while the police were looking to question him.


Now, while the majority of people in the US found him guilty because of some combonation of these two reasons...the jury had a lot more to go on...even so...it was a tough case, and the jury was almost hung...but they came back with a guilty verdict, insein....I don't think it symbolizes the end of judicial objectivity...so relax.

 

[007]

He sat there as they read the verdict, guilty, and never blinked an eye. He showed absolutely no reaction whatsoever. That to me say's "yeah I killed her, I knew they'd convict me".

I have to agree with Duncan on this one. He was guilty as sin.

 

[GWBfan]

I beleive Scott Peterson was a bad person. He cheated on his wife who was bearing his son and that to me is beyond all reproach. However, he was convicted of murdering her, without a body, without a murder weapon, without a time of death, without a place of death. He was basically convicted of killing his wife for being a scumbag and cheating on her. All circumstancial evidence was used to convict him. Nothing solid.

With that said, whose to say that ANYONE can be convicted of anything without any solid evidence as long as the media hypes the fact that in their minds, your guilty. The media cast their judgement over this trial way before the first hearing was ever made. Theyve been beating into the minds of viewers that he was a scumbag and he killed his wife from day one.

This in my mind is a completely dangerous precedent to set.

Although it does appear that there was a lack of solid evidence, I have to say that the most damning event in this case was the fact that he "went fishing" at almost the exact same spot where the bodies washed up.
Now, with that spot being some 90 miles from his home....That poses a HUGE question as to why does he go all the way out there when there are plenty of closer places to fish...And why does he go on Christmas eve, all the while supposedly leaving his pregnant wife at home?
The fact that he was caught trying to leave the country doesn't automatically point towards guilt. Even an innocent person could perceivably do the same, knowing that jail time was inevitable during what would surely be a lengthy trial. Let's face it, the guy was all about instant gratification..
Bottom line is, the jury heard and saw many things that we didn't. Hopefully we've come a long way since the O.J. trial..

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Bottom line is, the jury heard and saw many things that we didn't.

That says it all right there. It's hard for me to say that the case was flimsy because I don't know what all the evidence was.

in my opinion walked because a pretty lame job by investigators and an absolutely horrendous job by the prosecution team!

Not to mention the horrible Judge Ito.

 

[007]

O.J. in my opinion walked because a pretty lame job by investigators and an absolutely horrendous job by the prosecution team!

All though I agree with that completely, I'm going to play the race card. I think o.j. walked because he was black, and he had a black jury that wasn't going to convict him no matter what. They viewed the whole trial as a lynching.

 

[NATO AIR]

without a body, without a murder weapon, without a time of death, without a place of death, convicted of killing for being a scumbag All circumstancial evidence was used to convict . Nothing solid.

With that said, whose to say that ANYONE can be convicted of anything without any solid evidence as long as the media hypes the fact that in their minds, your guilty.

This in my mind is a completely dangerous precedent to set.

i took your words and removed most references to the bastard Peterson. The sad part here is this dangerous precedent has been going on for decades, and little has been done to stop it. That is why it is nearly guaranteed we have executed innocent people on death row and we have many folks in prison who are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.

That is why DNA testing is so important. It is not the cure-all, but it is a heck of a start.