-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
BREAKING - Scott Peterson verdict very shortly!!!
- Thread starter Baron Aloha
- Start date
- Status
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
AirBrian said:
There was a strand of Lacey's hair that was found twisted around a pair of pliers on Scott's boat and that's it. It was a completely circumstancial case. I've been following the case closely and to be honest I feel that it was Scott Peterson's own words and actions following his wife's disappearance that convicted him. Scott basically did their work for them.
I was somewhat expecting a Guilty veredict, but it's frightening the implications of a continuous legal precedent in this manner. It simply reinforces that circumstancial evidence is enough, and while it might be the case sometimes (you know, those OBVIOUS times,) it somehow lowers the degree of proof needed for a guilty veredict.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
None of us here were jurors. We haven't seen all the evidence. We haven't heard all the testimony. The jurors have -- and they made a decision based on that. We must have faith in the system.
And if he didn't do it, perhaps another jury wil acquit him on appeal.
And if he didn't do it, perhaps another jury wil acquit him on appeal.
jenov4 said:
and thus lies the problem with any legal system, some people are guilty and it can't be proven without a reasonable doubt.
given this, I honestly feel our criminal law system is the best it can be. hell, more guilty people probably go free than innocent people are convicted.
peterson is "more than likely" guilty, and I am glad the jurors found him as such.
for those who are "ashamed" of our criminal justice system, go ahead and propose your own system where all guilty suspects are incarcerated and all innocent suspects are released.
America's civil litigation system is suspect as all get out. our law enforcement is many times questionable at best. but our criminal trial system is as level a playing field as you can get IMHO.
Spectral Glider
Member
Well, I haven't heard or read all the evidence either. My big question is, if he didn't do it, then who did and what would be the motive? It would seem to me that they would have a hard time coming up with something.....though, I guess it could have been the same people OJ has been working hard to find for the past 9 years.
WTF?!? :lol Anyone with half a brain (I guess the jurors were exempt :lol) to comprehend the PHYSICAL evidence could see that OJ was guilty.
SP on the other hand had no PHYSICAL evidence linking him to the crime. Do I think he's probably guilty? Hell, yeah!! But like someone said above, circumstantial "evidence" sending folks to life in jail/deathrow is kinda unsettling....
Also I think this case has a good chance of being overturned. 3 jurors kicked the last being the foreman, who alledgedly took 5 notebooks worth of notes on the trial. Within one day of him being bounced the jury comes in with a verdict. Smells like BS to me. The foreman who took all the notes and paid attention was bounced because he wouldn't give in to the emotions of the others that wanted to convict because he went fishing on Christmas Eve or because he was cheating on the side.
Cloudy said:
I'll agree they want to see him fry for a reason, beacuse he's a fucking liar and a cheat, but I don't think it's a good reason. Also why the fuck is Amber Fry and Gloria Alread(sp) on my fucking TV talkinga about this? All Amber is was the chick on the side, she has nothing to do with the case, why is she getting face time. Jesus man, talk about trying to get your 15 minutes of fame.
They will both write books to make money off the case. I really dislike that Gloria Allred (aka attention-seeking opportunist) chick and her daughter (Nancy Bloom from CTV) Ugh...
As for Peterson....come on, dude. It's quite obvious he did it. Although I kinda think he killed her by accident (fight?) and tried to cover it up...
As for Peterson....come on, dude. It's quite obvious he did it. Although I kinda think he killed her by accident (fight?) and tried to cover it up...
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Raise your hand if you don't give a shit about Scott Peterson and wonder why people do.
*raises hand*
*raises hand*
my god.. sop acting like this will even set precedent. go back to my original quoteShadowRed said:
so you are ok with with someone going free who everyone, more than likely yourself included, believe with a 95% chance certainty that he did it.. he is a liar, an asshole, a cheat, and more than likely a murderer, a jury of his peers convicts him, but because there is no physical evidence, because he like many coporations made sure he cleaned up the situation good enough to no physically link him, we let him go.borghe said:
frankly I am happy we live in a system that does not require 100% proof.. does it suck in that an innocent person can get snared? of course it does. however
a) as I said previously, more guilty people go free than innocent people go to jail under our system.
b) there are some people who are, yes, that good at cleaning things up, and it is wrong to support a methodology that essentially rewards them for the cleanup and let's those guilty fuckos go free.
I kill my wife but make sure there isn't a shred of evidence to connect me, congratualtions I go free.... that's wrong and you know it..
now if we had thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people being convicted every year on this, I would certainly agree with you, but the fact is that we don't whereas we do have thousands and probably even tens of thousands of guilty people going free every year as a result. excuse me if I don't weap for the system when when of those jerks actually goes to jail.
Does anyone remember that guy who supposedly murdered his wife and kids in the late 70's early 80's? Everyone was sure he did it. They even made a mini series for tv about it called Fatal Vision which among other things showed how he tried to fake evidence to prove his innocence before he was arrested. The whole country was sure he did it... but it turned out he didn't, they even had to do another made for tv mini series called False Witness.
I'm just saying, calling this justice or saying yeah I'm glad he's gonna get what he deserves is pretty naive or at least short sighted. I'm not trying to stir up an argument... I hope this verdict is correct. But just don't be so sure of what you think is true.
I believe this was adusted in murder cases because before sometime in the 70's killing a pregnant woman had no greater affect than killing one who was not pregnant, or punching a woman in the stomach repeatedly to try to kill the baby was no more than battery or something... so this language does not speak to the situation of abortion and as far as I know was merely added to allow for larger penalties when a person knows someone is pregnant and tries to kill the baby and/or the mother.
I'm just saying, calling this justice or saying yeah I'm glad he's gonna get what he deserves is pretty naive or at least short sighted. I'm not trying to stir up an argument... I hope this verdict is correct. But just don't be so sure of what you think is true.
tenchir said:
I believe this was adusted in murder cases because before sometime in the 70's killing a pregnant woman had no greater affect than killing one who was not pregnant, or punching a woman in the stomach repeatedly to try to kill the baby was no more than battery or something... so this language does not speak to the situation of abortion and as far as I know was merely added to allow for larger penalties when a person knows someone is pregnant and tries to kill the baby and/or the mother.
Spectral Glider
Member
levious said:
I don't recall False Witness being about the case, I do remember there being a book called Fatal Justice that appeared after the TV movie, Fatal Vision, as a source of rebuttal. That case was more complicated as Jeff MacDonald was a Captain in the Army and deals with evidence that supposedly was surpressed. Also turns out that the prosecutor in the case was later convicted of several felonies. I also don't remember "everyone" thinking he did it. And, as MacDonald sits in prison today, you can't simply say, "He didn't do it." Nobody has determined anything further about his guilt or innocence. He's waiting for DNA testing and a possible retrial.
MASB said:
Oh that makes it better cause now he sits in jail for the rest of his life for a crime he may or may not have commited. I can sleep easy tonight thanks.
borghe said:
Oh my bad again. He's going to be the only person to be convicted of a crime with no motive, evidence, or body. Thanks now I really can sleep tonight. Anyhow yes I'm ok with someoen who might look to be guilty but there is no evidence to prove he did it. Your kind of thinking fucking scares me. I know this person commited a crime but I can't prove it so lets throw them in jail and possibly kill them. YOU'RE FUCKING OK WITH THAT LINE OF THOUGHT!!!!!!!! The system you discribe above is the total antithisis of the system we are supposed to have. I believe it was Franklin who said, "Better a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man suffer."
PS. On another note. If people are thrown in jail with no evidence then how can you say that there are not thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people being convicted every day? I mean how do you tell which guy convicted with no evidence was canvicted wrongly?
Y'know, if you were the person that was wrongly convicted for a murder charge, i'm sure that "insignificant" amount of innocents being wrongly accused would be a lot more signficant.
BTW, I mean that as nothing to do with the Peterson case. I don't have an opinion one way or another whether scott is guilty or not.
- Status