• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peterson is Guilty

Peterson

Well, sadly the only ones that probably know the truth are the killer and the victim. One can't tell, and one never will.

And since there was no forensic evidence in the case, it was whoever could put up the best spin.

The jury hated Peterson, so they convicted him. They didn't need evidence.
 
I think people add up all his lies, look at his character, and all the evidence, and one can't help but hate him. Seeing his family lie, you can tell how he got his character. A selfish lying, murdering character. He lied sooo much. To everybody.

I'm just happy to see justice served for once. This is a rare occasion, and I want to savor it :p

Now that he has been found guilty, we can all call him guilty. He did it.
 
CBL4 said:
The jury is deadlocked for a week. Then two jurors get dismissed. There is a verdict a day later. This does not pass the smell test.

IMO, if a jury cannot reach a verdict in a day or two, there is reasonable doubt. Badgering jurors to be unanimous defeats the purpose of unanimaty. Badgering followed by two dismissal followed by a conviction is not justice.

CBL
Click to expand...

That is an enormous assumption. Perhaps they were reviewing 5 (that's five) months of testamony. Do you know how long deliberations tend to be in capitol cases?
 
The verdict was reached after more than five months of testimony and several dramatic turns during jury deliberations. The 12-member jury began deliberating Nov. 3 in Redwood City, Calif. But this week, two jurors were removed and replaced by alternates, meaning deliberations had to begin anew.
Click to expand...

It took from Nov. 3 - Nov. 12. That's a good long time to go over things after sitting in court for 5 months.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Peterson/story?id=226187&page=1
 
A verdict comes in on a friday afternoon after just 3 hours of deliberation.Musical juriors,eyewitnesses who saw her walking the dog in the park after she was supposed to have been killed (one of whom,an elderly woman,dies before the trial),police bloodhounds following her trail head towards the park,But are called off by the police because it didn't implicate Scott.No forenic evidence of foul play anywhere in the house or boat.The entire world knows for over 6 weeks that Scott Peterson was at the Marina when she went missing & that's where the body shows up!!!I'd say there's 'resonable doubt'!!I don't know if he did it or not,But there IS reasonable doubt!
 
That old lady that couldn't see a darn thing? I've seen interviews of her. It could have been the day before that she saw somebody walking a dog, and she would mix it up with seeing it that morning.

And it's not like Peterson could have just let the dog out with a leash on. Noooo, not all. He only planned the rest of the murder, his alibi, and his homemade cement anchors, but he would never think of letting the dog out with its leash on.

So the dog headed to the park for a pee. So what? Doesn't mean the murdered woman was with him.

Not only that, but experienced fisherman said they would have never gone in that area to fish. Choppy waters, etc.

Yeah, I saw interviews on A&E. I'll see if they have anything on the site.

'Have you ever known the area around the Berkeley Marina as a place you can fish for Sturgeon,' Distaso asked.

'Not for me,' Cuanang said.

Cuanang testified that practically all sturgeon fishing in the San Francisco Bay in the early winter is done miles away from the Berkeley Marina and Brooks Island...
.
Click to expand...

Then they showed currents and such that did show how a body dumped where Peterson was "fishing" would end up where it did.

http://www.vallejonews.com/articles/index.cfm?artoid=197949


Grogan, the lead investigator, spent more than a week on the witness stand, explaining why police were so sure Peterson killed his wife. Some of the details:

-- Police dogs picked up Laci's scent at the marina.

-- Peterson's own alibi put him exactly where the bodies were found.

-- Fishing tackle found on his boat was meant for freshwater angling, not the saltwater sturgeon Peterson told authorities he was seeking.

-- Peterson initially told some witnesses on the night Laci vanished he had been golfing all morning, leading police to believe he had not settled on an alibi.
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/prosecutors_ready_to_wrap_up_peterson_case/
 
Ok,concrete anchor..so what?Boats need anchors.To my knowledge,no one has ever tied a concrete anchor to Laci Peterson's body(no pun intended).Her body was found washed up on the shore...if it was weighed down or with what is just speculation!!!That equals resonable doubt!

Ps...yes,the old woman COULD have been mistaken.She COULD have confused Laci with a different woman or she Could have seen her the day before,BUT she COULD have been right,too.The burden of proof lies with the prosecution!You have to prove she made the mistakes you claim she did!That wasn't done!Therefore there's resonable doubt.
 
The body was weighted. That is how the baby got expelled the way it did. If she had just floated, then a different scenario would have ensued.

After a while the body deteriorates to the point where it does get free and wash up on shore.

Five months. Five months of information you didn't see and the jury did.

They showed how it happened, why it happened that way, and Peterson had the motive, was in the area, etc. etc. plus the rest of the evidence.

The jury had enough information to come to their conclusion. They had no doubt.

He's guilty. Neener neener :D
 
I wasn't on the jury & you weren't on the jury.I didn't see the evidence & you didn't either.I've admitted that I don't know if he's guilty or not,But you're certain he is??!!I hope you're never on a jury... you seem too eager to jump to conclusions to me!


PS...ok, the body was weighted.It doesn't prove it was weighted with a concrete anchor from the peterson's garage!Could have been isn't good enough!!Could have been aliens did it....'Could' &'If' are awfully big words,but they don't prove anything.
 
waitew said:
Ps...yes,the old woman COULD have been mistaken.She COULD have confused Laci with a different woman or she Could have seen her the day before,BUT she COULD have been right,too.The burden of proof lies with the prosecution!You have to prove she made the mistakes you claim she did!That wasn't done!Therefore there's resonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Not reasonable doubt at all. Especially when the defense promises all of these "facts" in opening arguments, but then never presents them into evidence. BIG mistake. From what was said by Dan Abrams on MSNBC this evening, the jury never heard about the old lady.
 
Peterson Case

Everybody here knows about the same as the jury. There were reporters in the court room, who updated every night on the crucial evidence.

The jurors are not some kind of brilliant legal minds who can automatically infer with 100% accuracy whether people are guilty are innocent. There was really no evidence worth anything in this case to show that Peterson killed his wife. There are a ton to show that he was a phlandering cad. This is what he was really found guilty of.

And there are most likely 1000s of people in prison who are not guilty of the crime of which convicted, whether anyone chooses to believe it or not.

And in this case, it is pretty much a guess, since there is no real evidence, which there should have been tons of. This guy was no expert killer.

The media, the tabloids, etc. pretty much created a hysteria about Scott Peterson, and this case. It kind of reminded me of the bizarre day care sexual molestation cases of the 60s, etc. Where people got so hysterical, they believe the most bizarre of stories, and let logic and common sense fly out the window. Probably more often than not these resulted in innocent people being sent to prison. If such an hysteria had not prevailed in this case, the case probably should have not even been brought to trial, and given to a jury who really don't know anymore if the guy is guilty or innocent than we do.

Then by allowing the endless hours of testimony, tapes etc. Peterson was demonized, and the jury hated him. So the evidence that existed showing reasonable doubt, the lack of forensic evidence, etc. was discounted.

Now, Peterson needed his butt kicked for his behavior, philandering, etc. He was a sorry husband.

But there is a very real chance that Peterson is not the man that killed Lacy. And if you get the opinion of the real top minds and forensic experts, they will tell you the same. You can't just listen to the former prosecutors, the washed out detectives, etc. on TV. They think everybody of guilty of everything.

But regardless, the sad thing remains, that lives and families have been destroyed by this murder.

And just like the Ramsey case, we will probably never really know who the killer was.
 
Re: Peterson Case

nightwind said:
And just like the Ramsey case, we will probably never really know who the killer was.
Click to expand...

This is not at all like the Ramsey case. We know who the killer is - Scott Peterson. It's in all the papers.
 
Case

Well, if the parents in the Ramsey Case had been put on trial. They would have had the very real chance of being found guilty, because of public opinion and hysteria. Even though I do not believe they had anything to do with it.
 
"It kind of reminded me of the bizarre day care sexual molestation cases of the 60s, etc. Where people got so hysterical, they believe the most bizarre of stories, and let logic and common sense fly out the window. Probably more often than not these resulted in innocent people being sent to prison.'



Are you talking about the Mc Martin pre-school case??That was in the 80's?
 
Re: Case

nightwind said:
Well, if the parents in the Ramsey Case had been put on trial. They would have had the very real chance of being found guilty, because of public opinion and hysteria. Even though I do not believe they had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Possibly. My gut tells me that Patsy (the mom) knows what happened.
 
Peterson

Yes, I mean the 80s. McMartin, but also the Little Rascals Case, and bizarre case in Wenatchee, Washington. These are some of the best cases of how hysteria, witch trials, false allegations, etc are built.

We even had a case here in East Texas a few years ago, when a young girl was murdered, and it almost got stuck on a bunch of folks who were being accused of satanic sexual abuse, even the lead investigator in the case got accused. And if some psychologist had not figured out what happened, and the folks finally realeased, they most likely would have been tried, and found guilty, just because of hysteria.

Oh, well, time goes on. This case will fad away, and the news will find another to get on.
 
Re: Peterson

nightwind said:
...And since there was no forensic evidence in the case, it was whoever could put up the best spin...
Click to expand...

Nightwind, you've been watching way too much CSI. Did you know that they used to convict people before forensic science existed?

Look at the facts in the case, and there is no reasonable doubt.
 
There are ways to find out what the jury got to evaluate. And some here need to look up what the definition of some terms are (circumstancial) when in the context of the law.
So yes, I have seen a lot of what the jury got to, and of course so many others. I cannot find any reasonable doubt. Neither did they.

The police don't see any doubt. The defence is supposed to try to raise it, but there is just too much evidence.

I'm just relieved that he has been found guilty, and now we can say he is without the nagging "he's not guilty until tried, blah blah". The ridiculous stories about her being kidnapped by some cult was laughable. Once you look at the evidence though, you simply know he is guilty rather than just "feel" he's guilty.

I do find the folks that "just feel" he's guilty annoying. That is no way to look at things.

It is hard to accept he would do such a thing, until you look at all the crap he pulled, all the lies he spewed, and look at all the evidence that points its fingers glaringly at him.
 
I have heard from that judge on Fox that the prosecuction did not demonstrate that foul play even occured. If so, it seem sort of odd that the guy was convicted of murder.
 
Ed said:
I have heard from that judge on Fox that the prosecuction did not demonstrate that foul play even occured. If so, it seem sort of odd that the guy was convicted of murder.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. I wonder if he misspoke?

BTW, I LOVE your sig!!! Would make a great t-shirt!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom