MERGED: SCOTT PETERSON THREAD

killed baby in Second degree!

 

the SOB should be found guilty of 1st degree murder

 

1ST DEGREE ON LACI
2ND DEGREE ON CONOR

 

OWNED!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

LOL, good one.

 

hahahah

THE SYSTEM WORKS!

 

Verdict was total crap.

 

huh?

 

Zach,
I am not crazy. Its called having an opinion.


Redhead,

I think there is not enough evidence to convict. But the jury has spoken. Too bad they convicted on emotion and not facts. Stupid dumb ass jury.

 

Never understood the media fascination with this case. There's probably quite a few cases out there with similar circumstances that goes unnoticed.

I hope all the talking heads could just shut up now that it's over.

 

no emotion. if they had done it on emotion, they wouldn't have convicted. He seemed like a good guy, even though an adulterer, seemed like he didn't have murder in him.

on the contrary, i think they did convict on the facts, that his story was just too unbelieveable. period

 

LAfun How do you know what the jury based there decision on?

 

because they are a "stupid dumb ass jury"
duh

 

Emotion wasn't the right word sorry. Just pissed off at the idiots, so my choice of words are poor.

He seemed like a good guy? Did me and you watch the same trial? Uhh....he was despicable to say the least, the way he was portrayed.

Circumstantial evidence was there. But there were no facts that would lead to conviction, imho. Lastly, you can't convict because the "story was unbelievable." That is not how the system is supposed to work.

More proof, the justice system is broken. Jury had a vandetta, and they carried it out. They looked at baby connor and laci's pics, and all they could think was "we have to convict." Utterly ridiculous.

 

what facts would have overturned it ?

 

He got Kerryed.

 

Yes, you can. The prosecution made their case, and, becasue his story was unbelievable, the defense did not establish reasonable doubt.

 

Rich,

The question is not what could have overturned it, but what facts convicted him. If you followed the trial from the beginning, there were not enough facts to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. There were many doubts in this case, and many holes. You are not supposed to convict when you have a reasonable doubt. You are supposed to look at the case from a blank slate perspective, and the jury certainly did not do that.

I guess you lose some you win some. System isn't perfect. I am done.

Ahhok. If I am ever in Scotts position, I will make sure not to have someone like you on the jury. Yikes, you scare me.

 

I have, one of my co-workers was the diver that found the anchor in the bay. He was Almeda county S.O. diver.......
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/12/BA34245.DTL

So, anyways, I respect your thoughts, just don't agree with them.

 

You're absolutely right. It was probably one of her other husbands who was having an affair and fishing near the same area that forced her to swim with the fishes. Was her other husband Jamaican? Did he know OJ's wife? I think you're onto something.

 

It isn't the point if her other husband killed her. Don't be ridiculous. The point is there are reasonable doubt. You need to be fully sure (if you are a jury) in order to convict. You can't just not like the guy, or think he may have done, blah blah. You need to be fully sure. In this country, we are supposed to let 10 guilty men go free, before we convict an innocent one. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and I don't think they have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as OJ, that verdict was correct. There were too many holes in that case as well.

I may think that OJ and Scott were both guilty, but the cases against them needed to be much stronger in order for a conviction.

Unlike some other members, it is always a pleasure to discuss things with you. We can always agree to disagree and still be cordial.

 

Taste Great

Less Filling

 

You think OJ was not guilty!?!
hahaha

Hey, at least you are consistent, man.

 

Reading comprehension was never your strong suit was it?

 

???

bugger off

You said, "As far as OJ, that verdict was correct. There were too many holes in that case as well." The OJ verdict was not-guilty. If you think the verdict was correct, then you therefore think that he should have been found not guilty, which is exactly what I said. Am I missing something?

Edit: looks like you're the one who needs a reading comprehension lesson