Scott Peterson found guilty of 2 murders!

Remove all ads!

Or be executed for nothing.

 

Oh please! that's the worst use of logic I've ever seen!

 

It's not my logic, but it's how this case was handled. Peterson was labeled a lier so that anything he said would be held under suspicion even if it was true or not. If this is going to be a major piece of evidence used against anyone then the justice system is a joke.

 

I kind of agree with Abomination. I personally think Scott is the murderer, but I can't figure out how anyone can convict without a reasonable doubt. The only thing I can say without a reasonable doubt is that he is a piece of scum. Does that mean he is a murderer? Quite possibly, but if I was on the jury I would have required some actual evidence of the crime.

 

Without discussing the merit (or lack thereof) of the evidence and verdict, I'd like to remind you all that when a case is appealed it's not the evidence that gets re-tried. What happens is that the appeals court reviews the proceedings of the lower court to determine if there were any procedural or judicial lapses. If it's found that the trial wasn't conducted properly, then the verdict is overturned. The appeals court does NOT second-guess the jury's thought-process.

Honestly, I'm surprised that he was convicted of anything more than being a selfish prick. Let the apppeals begin.

On a side note, I have to say that I cared about this case only slightly less than I did about OJ, or Jon-Benet Ramsey, or Elizabeth Smart, or... pick any one of the sad, horrendous crimes that the media decides to take as a Cause. As horrid as these situations are, none of them have any impact on my life whatsoever. There's plenty of other sad, horrible news in my own backyard that doesn't get all that press and is far more likely to have some bearing on my day-to-day activities.

Is the media in other countries the same?

 

I find this hard to believe. In some instances circumstantial evidence can be more compelling that the non-circumstantial types, such as eye-witnesses. Perhaps by way of example:

Moe is accused of murdering Curly by dropping a piano on his head from a 10th story of a hotel.

Situation A: We have an eye witness account by Larry of Moe cutting the rope that held up the piano while Curry was standing beneath.

Situation B: There was long-standing knowledge of animosity between Moe and Curly known by many of their mutual acquaintances. Some even say that Moe had told them that he would kill Curly if given the opporunity. Additionally, the hotel manager remembers Moe entering the hotel, mere minutes before the murder, with a large pair of bolt cutters in his hand, and taking the elevator upstairs. However, no one actually saw Moe cut the cables in this case.

In the above scenarios, "B" is the much more compelling case, despite the fact that it is entirely circumstantial. Scenario "A" is not circumstantial - you have an eyewitness account, but is less compelling because you have to be able to prove that Larry is a reliable witness. Does Larry have some personal motivation (or even dislike of Moe) that would cause him to lie about what he saw? How certain are we that Larry actually saw Moe - he was 10 stories above him and might not have a clear view. Does Larry need corrective lenses to see correctly, and more to the point, if he does was he wearing his glasses or contact lenses at that time?

Not all murders occur like the assassination of JFK - where you have actual film evidence that it occurred. Writing off circumstantial evidence as too preposterous to convict someone is itself, preposterous.

 

I personally thought Scott was guilty -- but the evidence was simply not there. It's sad that we either have to protect the legal system and let a killer go, or we convict and make the legal system weaker.

Unfortunately, the judge dismissing the attorney on the jury (persumably because he wasn't willing to convict on circumstantial evidence) will cause the whole thing to be overturned during appeals and yet another killer will waltz away....

 

I also thought it was suspicious that the judge dismisses two jurors and then they come up with a verdict. I guess beyond a reasonable doubt means getting the people with doubts out of the jury pool.