SCOTT PETERSON---GUILTY!! x2

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: TheNinja
Those who are saying there is no evidence - we can't be absolutely sure. We were not in that courtroom for all this time like the jurors were. They are probably a little more informed than we are on the subject. And in order for a conviction they have to ALL be in agreement. Apparently they were, so that's 12 people who know a lot more than us who found him guilty. I'll believe the justice system on this one.

Eventually there were 12 jurors in agreement.

The first juror to be dismissed was definately for the not guilty side. He has stated so on every media outlet he has milked his 15 minutes of fame from.

We have no idea what the lawyer/doctor thought. Given that he is a lawyer and knows about the law on lack of physical evidence, the lack of motive, the lack of cause of death and that lack of murder weapon... combined with whatever his medical training taught him, I would think there is no way he would have convicted. It is my opinion that he was leaning to not guilty, but that is purely speculation on my side.

Then there was the next juror to be tossed out... why? Rumor has it that it was because that juror was doing her own research on the law, which they said is not allowed.

The only thing that they did have, which was not easily explained was the fact that no shoes belonging to Lacie seemed to be missing. Everything else had an explaination... whether the explaination was reasonable or not... I dont know.

I do want to say, however, that Amber was the biggest joke in the world... what a loser she is. She has a history of dating married men... has two children by two separate father and has been married to neither. She had like TWO dates with Scott and all of a sudden, it was the romance of the century. And I am not fooled by the hours and hours of taped phone calls... Anyone listening to more than five minutes of that can be sure he knew he was being taped. And why is it that everyone tied to the case has a gag order, except the loudmouth Gloria Alred? She was allowed to go on teevee every night and offer inside opinion.

Lookit, I think he did it. I think he is guilty as sin itself. I do not think, however, that he had a fair trial... and I do not think that the state proved it's case. It is easy to build a circumstancial case against anyone for any thing if they have enough man power and money to do so.

No time, place, cause of death. No murder weapon. No motive. No physical evidence.


 

elanarchist

Senior member
Dec 8, 2001
694
0
0
Can someone tell me why Scott Peterson was newsworthy in the first place? There has to be hundreds of murder trials going on at the moment, so why does the media cram this case down our throats when even something like "Ms. Kansas opens local mall" would be more newsworthy?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am kinda disappointed...

I mean... in my heart, I tihnk he did it... but legally....

There was no cause of death
There was no murder weapon
There was no phyiscal evidence tying Scott to the murder

And if that is not bad enough...

The judge allowed them to get in the boat and jump up and down ..during deliberation!!! That is not allowed and will DEFINATELY be a cause for appeal. And it seems to me... that every time they had a juror that did not tow the guilty line.... they replaced him.

I know I will probably be flamed for saying this... but if I were to follow the letter of the law, I do not think the State proved it's case beyone a reasonable doubt.

great post. i totally agree too. just think about this for a second. if your girlfriend turns up dead, guess who is getting the chair.
 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76
Have to agree in being extremely surprised at the guilty verdict. I would have put money on Not Guilty after hearing they reached a verdict so quickly. I feel he did commit the murders, but I'm not so sure the prosecution had a good enough case against him... apparently they did and I definitely support the jury's decision since they are the ones that were in the courtroom, heard all of the facts and testimony.

But maybe now after the punishment phase is complete my sleepy little hometown of Redwood City can go back to normal.

l2c
 
Jul 12, 2001
10,142
2
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am kinda disappointed...

I mean... in my heart, I tihnk he did it... but legally....

There was no cause of death
There was no murder weapon
There was no phyiscal evidence tying Scott to the murder

And if that is not bad enough...

The judge allowed them to get in the boat and jump up and down ..during deliberation!!! That is not allowed and will DEFINATELY be a cause for appeal. And it seems to me... that every time they had a juror that did not tow the guilty line.... they replaced him.

I know I will probably be flamed for saying this... but if I were to follow the letter of the law, I do not think the State proved it's case beyone a reasonable doubt.

great post. i totally agree too. just think about this for a second. if your girlfriend turns up dead, guess who is getting the chair.

what purpose was getting on the boat and jumping up and down? was it like recess for them?

 

luv2chill

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2000
4,611
0
76
Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am kinda disappointed...

I mean... in my heart, I tihnk he did it... but legally....

There was no cause of death
There was no murder weapon
There was no phyiscal evidence tying Scott to the murder

And if that is not bad enough...

The judge allowed them to get in the boat and jump up and down ..during deliberation!!! That is not allowed and will DEFINATELY be a cause for appeal. And it seems to me... that every time they had a juror that did not tow the guilty line.... they replaced him.

I know I will probably be flamed for saying this... but if I were to follow the letter of the law, I do not think the State proved it's case beyone a reasonable doubt.

great post. i totally agree too. just think about this for a second. if your girlfriend turns up dead, guess who is getting the chair.

what purpose was getting on the boat and jumping up and down? was it like recess for them?

They did so to try to determine whether the act of heaving a 160 lb. person overboard would cause the boat to capsize or not.

And the judge didn't really "let" them do it. He just didn't declare a mistrial after finding out that they did it. It's a judgement call. No one knows to what extent the jurors were in the boat. Maybe it was only a second or two.

There's a great deal about this case that us "armchair jurors" don't know (and probably never will know until someone decides to write a book and get rich off this sad story).

l2c
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: luv2chill
Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I am kinda disappointed...

I mean... in my heart, I tihnk he did it... but legally....

There was no cause of death
There was no murder weapon
There was no phyiscal evidence tying Scott to the murder

And if that is not bad enough...

The judge allowed them to get in the boat and jump up and down ..during deliberation!!! That is not allowed and will DEFINATELY be a cause for appeal. And it seems to me... that every time they had a juror that did not tow the guilty line.... they replaced him.

I know I will probably be flamed for saying this... but if I were to follow the letter of the law, I do not think the State proved it's case beyone a reasonable doubt.

great post. i totally agree too. just think about this for a second. if your girlfriend turns up dead, guess who is getting the chair.

what purpose was getting on the boat and jumping up and down? was it like recess for them?

They did so to try to determine whether the act of heaving a 160 lb. person overboard would cause the boat to capsize or not.

And the judge didn't really "let" them do it. He just didn't declare a mistrial after finding out that they did it. It's a judgement call. No one knows to what extent the jurors were in the boat. Maybe it was only a second or two.

There's a great deal about this case that us "armchair jurors" don't know (and probably never will know until someone decides to write a book and get rich off this sad story).

l2c

Im fully expecting a appeals court to order a new trial. Theres just way to many grounds for appeal for it not to eventually happen.
 

M13

Member
Nov 8, 2004
50
0
0
I agree that there is no sure evidence of anything done by Scott and this whole thing was a media circus and it shows the travesty of our legal system. Over in Europe they are laughing at the US because of the woman who sued MacDonalds and won for spilling hot coffee. And when we have more lawyers per capita than anywhere else, don't ya have to wonder..................
Whether or not we believe he killed her or not is irrelevant. I sure didin't see any conclusive evidence either. We better watch our sons!!
I guess I will watch "Time for Killing" tonight.
 

aplefka

Lifer
Feb 29, 2004
12,014
2
0
Originally posted by: TheNinja
Those who are saying there is no evidence - we can't be absolutely sure. We were not in that courtroom for all this time like the jurors were. They are probably a little more informed than we are on the subject. And in order for a conviction they have to ALL be in agreement. Apparently they were, so that's 12 people who know a lot more than us who found him guilty. I'll believe the justice system on this one.

That's stupid of you to say. Well not the first part, but the second. They dismissed two of the jurors and had alternates come in. How do you know that those two wouldn't have made a difference? I think for sure that the lawyer guy would have caused a hung jury because he would've analyzed it and seen that no substantial evidence was given. I dunno, just my two cents. I think he was convicted based on the fact that people thought "Well if he cheats on his wife, maybe he could murder her too."
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
O.J. got off scott free (guess we can't use that one any more) with much more evidence against him. I'm really suprised at the verdict and wouldn't be surprised if it gets overturned on appeal.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Obviously we aren't privy to the same information a jury is. Nobody here has sat in court for god knows how many hours. There was so much circumstantial evidence (often there is no direct in a case) as to be absolutely ridiculous if he was let go - except on a technicality. I'm pretty confident (again, not like I know that much because I followed the case little) that he was guilty, based upon what I heard about.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |