From a technical stand point, true. True, Only in America. There has been worse that has occured in this country in the past and there will be more in the future. ....beyond a reasonable doubt? I think I would have had a hard time with that one. I would probably be disqualified as a juror. What does your gut feeling say about OJ? About Scott? I know what mine says................without a doubt.
Gut feeling that both did it. The idea of Jamaican drug dealers killing Nicole and Ron is remote, and other people abducting Laci is close to impossible. With gut feelings, both guilty, and should get the chair. However the US justice system isn't about gut feelings, though I feel that is what they (the jury) excersiced in Petersen case. Completely agree with this:
I agree again but in a purely "non-itellectual" point of view I just can't help feeling they made the right decision. A frailty of being human. I hope I don't have to sit on a jury for a case like this but then again the seriousness of the position may easily outweigh the emotional reactions enough to maintain a modicum of objectivity.
Peterson is a piece of **** and the only good thing to come of this is assuming no death penalty the other inmates will take care of him. They don't dig baby killers. O.J. was worse for trying to get off at any cost, and for causing more racial hatred than we have had since the late 50's. Wounds that run deep and people won't speak about honestly. Sorry for sugar coating my thoughts
Ryan is right about the verdict in the Peterson case, all of the evidence presented could not directly tie Peterson to the murder. What the prosecution did prove is that Scott is a jerk who cheated on his wife, that's it. I wonder a little if the crime was so horrific that the jury felt they had to convict somebody. He was the only one offered by the prosecution, and he was an ******. All of the evidence to me was presented as a version of the following: "Assuming the defendant did this crime, all of his behavior matches that of a killer. Look at all of the bad stuff he said." They never presented evidence to say she was killed in a specific way with any evidence at all to support it. No evidence in the house, none in the boat, none in the car. All of it was based on he being a jerk and dislikable first, not evidence. Refrerring to your wife as dead to your girlfriend does not mean he killed her. Your very pregnant wife is missing for weeks, you know her and know she wouldn't do this, what are you supposed to think? Returning to the bay where you fished does not mean you killed her. How can we put ourselves in his state of mind, and say for sure how we would behave (assuming innocence)? An elderly lady in his neighborhood was going to testify she saw a lady walking a dog matching Laci's description the morning she disappeared. Unfortunately for Scott she died this spring, taking with her testimony which should have raised considerable doubt to the prosecution. The boat is extremely small (actually made in the town where I live), there is some debate about whether 150 pounds of dead weight could even be heaved overboard without capsizing it. The jury asked to jump around on the boat while it was on a trailer, and based their belief in the stability of the boat on that "experiment". The test on the boat for tipping was unscientific to say the least. As far as Bailey is concerned, I doubt he would have taken the case. Isn't his claim to fame that he never lost a case? He would have to be choosy for the cases he picks to keep a perfect record. This case will be appealed, and I would not be surprised to see him walk. With that said, I still think he did it. The prosecution did not prove the case. He covered parts of his tracks very well, but trying to keep his girlfriend is what sunk him. It would be very interesting to hear from the dismissed foreman (a doctor and lawyer, BTW), and his feelings on the case. OJ: I disagree with Ryan on OJ, however. The evidence presented in the case was overwhelming. A history of spousal abuse. His blood at the crime scene. A bloody XL glove (very rare brand, he had an XL pair though that disappeared) covered with both his, Nicole, and Ron's blood in his backyard. Her blood splattered on his socks in his bedroom. A huge cut on his finger that magically appeared at the same time. Some jurors later thought they believed he had done it, but it was not proven. I honestly think that given his celebrity status there would have been jurors which would not have convicted him if it had been videotaped and had him smile into the camera. Things like a shrunken, dried glove not fitting over rubber gloves gave them a convenient excuse. There were pictures of OJ doing commentary for the NFL holding a microphone wearing his pair of Bruno gloves, the bottom of his palm was clearly visible, they were made to fit that way.
