Peterson Judge Dismisses Another Juror

[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.

Guys, I can't deny all the reasons, all the circumstantial evidence, for example that Sharon provided, or again all the posits that both vrai and Larry have brought to the fore, they're all highly incriminating in their own right

But can you blame me for wanting to see something conclusive, something that we all can point to and say "dayum, that's it, let's fry his azz!"

That's the only part that's bugging me.

 

[dems4me]

Guys, I can't deny all the reasons, all the circumstantial evidence, for example that Sharon provided, or again all the posits that both vrai and Larry have brought to the fore, they're all highly incriminating in their own right

But can you blame me for wanting to see something conclusive, something that we all can point to and say "dayum, that's it, let's fry his azz!"

That's the only part that's bugging me.

Some people just don't want to see him guilty... I don't know why... it's like if they were to see him make a confession, they'd swear out he was coerced or drugged or it was out of context to another question. I think he's guilty, the proof is overwhelming. Just wondering did you think OJ was guilty :shrug:

 

[Penn]

BTW, I saw the undercover video of Marion Barry doing crack cocaine in that room with a woman, who was supposedly involved with the setup, catching his honor in the act.

There wasn't a doubt in my mind, nor should there have been in any other person's mind either.

The cops knew he was doing it, they knew he was purchasing it, so they set
up a sting operation and caught him white-handed, on video no less, if you catch my drift.

Heck, what else was he doing in there with the woman? Playing chess?

 

[Penn]

Here's my thought process...

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.

Sorry Bru, not to quote your entire post, but these last two paragraphs are really good.

Was this guy brilliant enough to pull off the perfect crime, given all the mistakes he's made? Wouldn't he have "covered his tracks" much better than he has if it were the case?

It all looks too good, too neat a package; I need something irrefutable.

And yes, I would believe a confession from Scott Peterson, if he were to come forth and explain how it went down. But it would have to be a good one.

 

[vraiblonde]

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?

Obviously he's NOT brilliant and this ISN'T the perfect crime. Or else he wouldn't be on trial right now.

 

[Bruzilla]

What really bothers me about the Peterson prosecution is that they have gone out and examined this guy's life under a microscope, then assigned sinister motives to everything that he's done. Just think about that for a second... suppose your wife or husband were to suddenly disappear, and the cops started looking at you the way they did Peterson. What have you done in the past few weeks that could be seen as sinister? Even worse... what have you done that some bystander, without a clue about what you're doing, could make sinister? That thought is damn scary to me.

"Well your Honor, I did notice that Vrai was a bit on edge the past couple of weeks. Sure, it could have been all the election drama, but with her husband vanishing at the same time, who knows!"

 

[vraiblonde]

Just think about that for a second... suppose your wife or husband were to suddenly disappear, and the cops started looking at you the way they did Peterson. What have you done in the past few weeks that could be seen as sinister?

Nothing. Despite the fact that I've said repeatedly, in front of witnesses, that "I'll never be a divorced person again, I'll be a widow instead", Larry's sisters and parents would be the first ones to come to my defense and they'd never believe in a million years that I whacked him. I'm not a suspicious character. I don't have some toy boy on the side. I don't buy boats without the whole world knowing about it - shoot, you all knew I bought a new car about an hour after I drove it off the lot.

Plus, I'd be despondent and upset, not distant. And I wouldn't fill my car with getaway gear. At least OJ had the good grace to act like he was distressed about Nicole's death. And she was just his ex-wife, not a current preggo one.

But Larry and I have a different relationship than the Peterson's apparently did. He's not planning to kill me. I don't think.

The look on his face tells me he's guilty. And this from someone who STILL has doubts about OJ. <---Larry almost didn't marry me because of that.

 

[vraiblonde]

I have four kids. I'm somewhat of an expert on what guilty people look and act like.

 

[Bruzilla]

It all looks too good, too neat a package; I need something irrefutable.

The only way that I can think of for those bodies to wash up where they were, is for someone to have placed them there. I'm sure there's always a 1% chance that some freak storm pushed those bodies directly towards the shore, at the exact time that the baby came free from the mother, and that was at the exact same time that the alledged anchors broker free, and that a result of this improbable coincidence was that the bodies washed up almost exactly where the media said Peterson had been fishing.

 

[Bruzilla]

Nothing. Despite the fact that I've said repeatedly, in front of witnesses, that "I'll never be a divorced person again, I'll be a widow instead", Larry's sisters and parents would be the first ones to come to my defense and they'd never believe in a million years that I whacked him. I'm not a suspicious character. I don't have some toy boy on the side. I don't buy boats without the whole world knowing about it - shoot, you all knew I bought a new car about an hour after I drove it off the lot.

Nothing eh? I think you're looking at things too broadly. Think about all the small things that you say and do that could be mis-interpreted. You left early from work one day, why? You always go straight home from work, but one day you were two hours late, why? You go home the same way everyday, but this one time you didn't, why? You went to Wal Mart and were there for an hour, yet only bought a few items, why? You usually eat a big lunch, but for the past few days you haven't, why? You have 1,000 reporters and cops camped out on your lawn, yet to try to run away, why?

And don't be so sure about your in-laws rushing to your defense. I'm sure Scott thought his in-laws would back him up, but they didn't... not after the police started getting them thinking along the lines of being guilty. "Well folks, we're sure Vrai would never hurt Larry, but has she ever made any threatening comments about him? Even if you thought she was kidding... at the time?"

 

[Penn]

Nothing eh? I think you're looking at things too broadly. Think about all the small things that you say and do that could be mis-interpreted. You left early from work one day, why? You always go straight home from work, but one day you were two hours late, why? You go home the same way everyday, but this one time you didn't, why? You went to Wal Mart and were there for an hour, yet only bought a few items, why? You usually eat a big lunch, but for the past few days you haven't, why? You have 1,000 reporters and cops camped out on your lawn, yet to try to run away, why?

And don't be so sure about your in-laws rushing to your defense. I'm sure Scott thought his in-laws would back him up, but they didn't... not after the police started getting them thinking along the lines of being guilty. "Well folks, we're sure Vrai would never hurt Larry, but has she ever made any threatening comments about him? Even if you thought she was kidding... at the time?"

Vrai, don't choke or laugh too hard over Bru's post, because, in reality he's simply expanding on the primary idea I touched on earlier.

Even the most innocent of moves that a person may make, in the eyes of the police, who are trying to form the essence of a suspect, can put you in the forefront of culpability, in essence - guilt.

People who you assumed were behind you, those who you thought were your friends, who'd never desert you, can become swayed by the media, the police, investigators, even the curious weirdos out there who are just as overzealous because they're human(they think), and want all their
answers handed to them so they can sleep at night.

Look at it: It was a heinous crime that was commited; so many loose ends, so many mistakes made by Peterson, putting him in the shadow of culpability, but still no direct linkage to the killing(s). Is/was it possible that he could have pulled all of this off?

Yes, of course, but where is this direct evidence? Nobody commits the perfect crime anymore: either that, or I've been watching too many
episodes of CSI: Miami.

 

[vraiblonde]

Make no mistake - if Larry's family thought I had anything to do with his demise, they'd be the first one's to fry me. They're all pretty close.

What I'm saying is that the people who know me would never suspect me of anything heinous like that. When you know someone well, you get an idea of what they are and aren't capable of. I just think Laci Peterson's relatives and friends would probably know her husband pretty well and EVERY ONE OF THEM has testified against him.

Most evidence is circumstantial. It's rare that someone commits murder in front of witnesses. Peterson's bizarre behavior is enough to hang him, IMO.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh my, my...

First off;

But can you blame me for wanting to see something conclusive

No, we all want the same thing. The problem is that in this case Bruz is right, all kinds of things lead to...reasonable doubt.

Imagine being bombarded, on the jury, with an endless stream of words, versions of events, all while under the pressure of holding a fellow human beings life in your hands. For 5 months.

And yet, Laci is still dead. The state still found myriad reasons to indict her husband.

But, with the millions being spent to put the jury in a stupor and only needing
ONE of them to cave, Scott will be free here shortly.

And, like Nicoles and Rons 'real killers', the hunt for justice will go on!

 

[Larry Gude]

Why...

...is my wife making a case, a public case, that NO ONE who knows her would EVER think her capable of doing anyone in?



Hmmm.

Just for the record, she's been acting strangely lately. And she dissapeared quite suddenly last weekend, with no witnesses, allegedly to Southern Maryland...where they sell boats.

 

[Penn]

...is my wife making a case, a public case, that NO ONE who knows her would EVER think her capable of doing anyone in?



Hmmm.

Just for the record, she's been acting strangely lately. And she dissapeared quite suddenly last weekend, with no witnesses, allegedly to Southern Maryland...where they sell boats.

OH MY GOSH!! It's starting. The seeds are being sown for the commision of a sinister act in Prince Frederick!

Yes Larry, I did hear a rumor that vrai was down in Sou. Md, auspiciously to look at a new boat. Lord, I wasn't even aware the she was a fisheresse, heck to be honest, I don't know what she was fishing for down here at all!
(Did I say that? Disregard the last comment, please)
She is quite attractive for a middle-aged lady, I'm told, very winsome in a coquettish sort of way.

Still, this could all amount to nothing, you know? I wouldn't put too much stock in this rumor, or any others that may arise in the coming days and weeks............................?



















J/K I hope!

 

[Pete]

Dee Jay,

I finished making those concrete anchors. You can pick them up anytime you want.


Your Pal,

Pete43764568745674365345623465234653457645

 

[Penn]

pete, are you willing to make public your cellphone records?

We may need them for evidence if anything foul were to happen in the Prince Frederick area.

 

[Pete]

pete, are you willing to make public your cellphone records?

We may need them for evidence if anything foul were to happen in the Prince Frederick area.

Anything is possible with the correct warrant.

 

[vraiblonde]

She is quite attractive for a middle-aged lady, I'm told, very winsome in a coquettish sort of way.

Look everyone! Penn is trolling for bad karma!

 

[Penn]

Look everyone! Penn is trolling for bad karma!

Who me?? Look, I said this was a rumor, only what I'd been told!