Peterson Judge Dismisses Another Juror
- Thread starter Danzig
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
What makes you think he's guilty? I've yet to hear any credible evidence.
That is what the jury will decide. I have not seen all the evidence. Have you? I understand that much of it was circumstantial but a preponderance of circumstantial evidence can cause a conviction. I don't really know if he is guilty or not, but my gut says he is. Glad I am not on the jury because "gut" is not a reason for guilt.Bruzilla said:
Wrong, the preponderance standard works for a civil conviction but for a criminal conviction the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. A significant difference, that is why OJ was acquitted in the criminal case and found at fault in the civil case.2ndAmendment said:
Duh. I would think you know me well enough to understand that I understand the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt", but it is often a "preponderance of the evidence" that sways a jury to the point of "beyond reasonable doubt".Ken King said:
Just commenting based on what you posted and I know the jury won't receive an instruction stating that if there is a preponderance of evidence they can return with the verdict of guilty.2ndAmendment said:
It should be a decision based on the totality of the evidence that leads to the verdict, one small tidbit can be enough to generate reasonable doubt.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You know...
That amazes me.
Here's a fact: If there was a video camera on scene we would see Scott Peterson murder her wife and dump her in the water. He planned it. He executed it.
If a tree fell in the woods and no one heard it, it still damn well fell.
OJ was not guilty. He butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole. That is fact.
Peterson murdered his wife; fact. Peterson will walk; just about fact.
That amazes me.
Here's a fact: If there was a video camera on scene we would see Scott Peterson murder her wife and dump her in the water. He planned it. He executed it.
If a tree fell in the woods and no one heard it, it still damn well fell.
OJ was not guilty. He butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole. That is fact.
Peterson murdered his wife; fact. Peterson will walk; just about fact.
Sorry - I vote guilty. He looks guilty. Guilty as sin.
When someone is innocent, they don't have 6 million pieces of circumstantial evidence against them. They don't call their honey from their dead wife's candlelight vigil and pretend they're in France.
When the cops arrested him, he had dyed his hair and had a fake ID and over $10,000 in cash on him.
His wife goes missing and a month later, he sells her car and lists his house with a realtor.
Laci Peterson goes out to walk her dog in 40 degree weather and leaves her coat at home?
He goes fishing an hour and a half away from their home - and his wife's body turns up a mile away from where he was fishing?
Guilty guilty guilty.
When someone is innocent, they don't have 6 million pieces of circumstantial evidence against them. They don't call their honey from their dead wife's candlelight vigil and pretend they're in France.
When the cops arrested him, he had dyed his hair and had a fake ID and over $10,000 in cash on him.
His wife goes missing and a month later, he sells her car and lists his house with a realtor.
Laci Peterson goes out to walk her dog in 40 degree weather and leaves her coat at home?
He goes fishing an hour and a half away from their home - and his wife's body turns up a mile away from where he was fishing?
Guilty guilty guilty.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What???
White Bronco? Al Cowling???
He's INNOCENT!!!!
White Bronco? Al Cowling???
He's INNOCENT!!!!
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
One small problem here: There was no video camera on the scene, and nobody saw him do it either.Larry Gude said:
Don't get me wrong, my gut tells me he's probably the culprit, but there's still a small doubt in my mind that he did it.
One other thing, let's say hypothetically, a crime was commited in your family, and family members were investigated.
Care to guess how many innocent things you've done in the last few months or so, that could be construed as dubious, making you look guilty without having perpetrated any sort of wrongdoing at all?
Hypothetically speaking, of course!
Like, oh, let's say, calling my boyfriend from my husband's funeral? Oh! I know! How about buying a boat and not telling anyone about it? Or maybe sitting in a mall parking lot instead of putting up fliers for my missing husband, like I told everyone I was doing? Or stealing my sister's ID card and altering my appearance?Penn said:
You mean stuff like that?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Penn...
...EVERY time something like this happens we play the 'what if?' game.
The fishing story, the money, his behavior, there are times in life when you just KNOW.
The tree fell in the woods.
...EVERY time something like this happens we play the 'what if?' game.
The fishing story, the money, his behavior, there are times in life when you just KNOW.
The tree fell in the woods.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Like I said, I'm fairly sure he is the culprit; but to both you and vrai:Larry Gude said:
The tree may well have fallen in the woods - but nobody was there to see or hear it happen.
If I could offer even one discrepancy: the prosecutor tried to prove that Scott Peterson used cement weights he had casted using plastic bottles found on his boat, or in their house, to sink his wife to the bottom of the lake, I believe.
Just one more minor problem: the defense showed in court that the bottles the prosecution introduced as evidence as the casts for the weights did not match up!
Last edited:
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Penn said:One small problem here: There was no video camera on the scene, and nobody saw him do it either.
Don't get me wrong, my gut tells me he's probably the culprit, but there's still a small doubt in my mind that he did it.
One other thing, let's say hypothetically, a crime was commited in your family, and family members were investigated.
Care to guess how many innocent things you've done in the last few months or so, that could be construed as dubious, making you look guilty without having perpetrated any sort of wrongdoing at all?
Hypothetically speaking, of course!
There is doubt because Mark Garagos is good at his job. That is why he gets paid the really big bucks and gets national attention. That is why people like Michael Jackson hire him.
But wait...there's more...vraiblonde said:
Items Found in Scott's Car after his arrest
* Undated bill of sale with an unverified signature of Michael Griffin, the registered owner of the vehicle
* An application for duplicate title for the vehicle also signed by Michael Griffin
* Driver's license for John Edward Peterson, Scott Peterson's brother
* Approximately $15,000 in cash, including $14,000 in $100 bills with paper wrapper bands
* Credit cards:
o Two Visa cards and one MasterCard issued to Scott Peterson
o One MasterCard and one American Express Business card issued to Scott Peterson / TradeCorp
o One Visa card issued to Anne E.
Bird, Scott Peterson's sister
o Chevron card issued to Jacqueline Peterson
* 16 music CDs
* Thomas Guide map book of California
* Thomas Guide map book of Central Valley Cities and surrounding areas
* 24 blister packs of sleeping pills
* 12 tablets of Viagra
* Four cell phones
* Double-edged dagger with a t-handle
* Columbia foul-weather jacket
* A hand shovel
* Backpack containing:
o Water purifier
o Water bottle
o Climbing rope
o Filet knife
o Duct tape
o Cooking grill
o Rain pants
o Ziploc bags
o Socks
o Fire starters
o Camp kit that included cooking utensils and a rope
o Leather gloves
o Two folding knives
o Folding saw
o Scissors
o Two packs of razor blades
o Waterproofing spray
* Camp axe
* Hammock
* Binoculars
* Mask and snorkel
* Fishing rod and reel
* Leatherman tool
* Clothes:
o Lace-up, rubberized boots
o Hiking boots
o Low-top hiking shoes
o Two pairs of brown slip-on casual shoes
o One pair brown lace-up casual shoes
o Flip flops
o Two pairs of black dress shoes
o Sweatshirt
o Four pullover long-sleeved sport shirts
o Two pairs of shorts
o Button-down shirt
o Two pairs of casual pants
o Running pants
o Jersey
o Three tee shirts
o Two long-sleeved casual shirts
o One pair of athletic shorts
o Cowboy hat
o Two pairs of dress socks
o At least 10 pairs of athletic socks
o One pair of Levis
o Two neckties
o A pullover sweater
o A scarf
o Black dress belt
o At least six pairs of underwear briefs
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Penn...
...people saw Marion Barry smoking crack, on video, and dismissed half the charges.
I've heard and read that eyewitnesses are a blessing and a curse to prosecutors.
A defense attorney can have people doubting themselves in fairly short order because just how SURE is anyone of what they saw six minutes ago or six months ago? Was it left or right hand? Was it 4:30 or just some time after lunch? Did he hit him before the other guy struck back or was he blocking a punch or...??? Doubt. Reasonable doubt.
Laci was murdered. Or did she commit suicide? Possible, right? Maybe she was distraught with the thought of how unhappy Scott was with her? Scott had motive and opportunity. Or did he, beyond a reasonable doubt?
We have video and eyewitnesses to the Rodney King charade. The cops were aquited and LA burned to the ground.
In the end, our system was set up so if a community wanted to they could let a guilty man go. The founders wanted we, the people, to be able to have our reasons and have no king or judge hold it over us.
Therefore a trial is not the facts, it is the 'verdict'.
The fact, the actual fact is that Scott killed her. The tree did fall and no witness can change that.
...people saw Marion Barry smoking crack, on video, and dismissed half the charges.
I've heard and read that eyewitnesses are a blessing and a curse to prosecutors.
A defense attorney can have people doubting themselves in fairly short order because just how SURE is anyone of what they saw six minutes ago or six months ago? Was it left or right hand? Was it 4:30 or just some time after lunch? Did he hit him before the other guy struck back or was he blocking a punch or...??? Doubt. Reasonable doubt.
Laci was murdered. Or did she commit suicide? Possible, right? Maybe she was distraught with the thought of how unhappy Scott was with her? Scott had motive and opportunity. Or did he, beyond a reasonable doubt?
We have video and eyewitnesses to the Rodney King charade. The cops were aquited and LA burned to the ground.
In the end, our system was set up so if a community wanted to they could let a guilty man go. The founders wanted we, the people, to be able to have our reasons and have no king or judge hold it over us.
Therefore a trial is not the facts, it is the 'verdict'.
The fact, the actual fact is that Scott killed her. The tree did fall and no witness can change that.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Don't most folks keep other peoples' credit cards, camping gear, wads of cash and their whole wardrobe in their vehicles? :shrug:Sharon said:But wait...there's more...
D
dems4me
Guest
vraiblonde said:
He had everything in there but the kitchen sink
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Here's my thought process...
1. Peterson had no record of violent crime, yet alone one of domestic violence. It is very rare for someone to go from zero history of violent crime to murdering their wife and unborn child. It can happen... but it's definately rare.
2. Motive-there wasn't one. I've heard people say the affair was the motive, but this guy had had multiple affairs. Why commit double murder for this one? Also, how many couples have affairs yet never kill their spouses. People with Peterson's non-violent history leave their spouses, they don't kill them.
3. The bodies - Anyone who has ever dropped something off a fishing boat, that's in water with fast currents, knows they are never going to see it again. It's going to come ashore many miles from where you're at, not within one mile of where it was dropped. And, the bodies of an adult woman and an infant aren't going to travel at the same rates and end up less than a mile from one another. They also aren't going to wash up 15-ft above the high water mark and in a bunch or rocks.
4. Was it Murder 1 or 2? Going back to motive, I've frequently heard that Lacy found out about the affair and in a big fight with Scott he accidentally killed here... a crime of passion. If so, why was there not one lick of evidence? Also, killers in this situation usually have defensive wounds on them, yet Peterson had none. No evidence, no defensive wounds, means no killer most of the time. For Murder 1, the theory is that Peterson carefully laid out the murder and disposal of the body. Let's face it... nothing that Peterson has done since his wife's disappearance smacks of brilliance, so what makes someone think he's capable of planning the perfect crime? Also, going back to the lack of motive, why would he have planned to kill her in the first place? That's a question that the prosecution couldn't answer and that's why the Murder 2 option was given.
5. No Plea. The vast majority of folks who are charged wit two counts of Murder 1 cop a plea. Peterson has never asked for a plea agreement.
As for all the wierd behavior before his arrest, remember that this guy was under 24-hour harrassment from his in-laws, the media, the cops... who can say what we would do in that situation? I know I would likely be headed to Mexico.
Anyway... as listed above, there are just too many instances where one would have to suspend disbelief and forget too many minority cases to find him guilty. I'm sure he could have gone against the odds once or even twice, but going against the odds across the board... and not having a doubt... c'mon.
1. Peterson had no record of violent crime, yet alone one of domestic violence. It is very rare for someone to go from zero history of violent crime to murdering their wife and unborn child. It can happen... but it's definately rare.
2. Motive-there wasn't one. I've heard people say the affair was the motive, but this guy had had multiple affairs. Why commit double murder for this one? Also, how many couples have affairs yet never kill their spouses. People with Peterson's non-violent history leave their spouses, they don't kill them.
3. The bodies - Anyone who has ever dropped something off a fishing boat, that's in water with fast currents, knows they are never going to see it again. It's going to come ashore many miles from where you're at, not within one mile of where it was dropped. And, the bodies of an adult woman and an infant aren't going to travel at the same rates and end up less than a mile from one another. They also aren't going to wash up 15-ft above the high water mark and in a bunch or rocks.
4. Was it Murder 1 or 2? Going back to motive, I've frequently heard that Lacy found out about the affair and in a big fight with Scott he accidentally killed here... a crime of passion. If so, why was there not one lick of evidence? Also, killers in this situation usually have defensive wounds on them, yet Peterson had none. No evidence, no defensive wounds, means no killer most of the time. For Murder 1, the theory is that Peterson carefully laid out the murder and disposal of the body. Let's face it... nothing that Peterson has done since his wife's disappearance smacks of brilliance, so what makes someone think he's capable of planning the perfect crime? Also, going back to the lack of motive, why would he have planned to kill her in the first place? That's a question that the prosecution couldn't answer and that's why the Murder 2 option was given.
5. No Plea. The vast majority of folks who are charged wit two counts of Murder 1 cop a plea. Peterson has never asked for a plea agreement.
As for all the wierd behavior before his arrest, remember that this guy was under 24-hour harrassment from his in-laws, the media, the cops... who can say what we would do in that situation? I know I would likely be headed to Mexico.
Anyway... as listed above, there are just too many instances where one would have to suspend disbelief and forget too many minority cases to find him guilty. I'm sure he could have gone against the odds once or even twice, but going against the odds across the board... and not having a doubt... c'mon.