Yep he's involved if he didn't do it himself. I still think he did it himself though. You have all kinds of shows on how people murder people and then get caught because of hard evidence. He made sure there was no hard evidence so when he goes to trial it would be hard to convict him. But there's too many signs man too many.
Jury debates over Scott Peterson’s fate…
- Thread starter kiyoung80
- Start date
Exactly what I said...how are you supposed to act? I've had family members die and never cried. For me, it was more of being in shock...my emotions never came out. Some people deal with things in their own way.
And yeah...the video was the interview. The audio was in the phone conversations that they taped. The emotion was there...but yeah, he could be faking.
That's funny...wouldn't a polygraph make you nervous...even if you were telling the truth? I had to take a polygraph for my job one time...and I had nothing to hide...but let me tell you, I was one nervous motherfucker.
It wouldn't have helped him one bit. People pass when they lie, and fail when they tell the truth. The husband is always the first suspect, and a lie detector test isn't going to change that.
Being untrustworthy doesn't mean you're a killer. Do you know anything about criminal law? To "prove beyond all reasonable doubt" isn't that much? That means if there is any doubt, no matter how small, you have to let him go. The defense only needs one person to say he didn't do it. The odds are in favor of the defense, not the prosecution.
No, you don't need a murder weapon to have killed someone, but it sure does help. Where is the evidence? All they have now is circumstantial evidence...no smoking gun.
In a boat. Could it have been Scott's boat? Yeah, but thousands of people own boats.
And have you seen his boat? It's not that big. And it is covered by a little tarp. Driving that far out to the water with a dead pregnant lady in tiny boat...covered by a little tarp...during a storm seems pretty risky.
As for Scott being near the Mexican border with his hair dyed...you seem to forget he was playing golf. His hair? Who's to say that he just didn't want to be bothered? His face was everywhere...maybe he just wanted to play a quiet round of golf.
He knew he was being followed. If he wanted to leave so bad, why stop to play some golf? Why not just head on out of the country?
As I said, I think he did it too. But there are arguments to be made for the evidence that they have.
The only real thing they have is that the body washed up where he said was fishing. But with no proof that he put the body there...or no proof that he was the one who actually killed his wife...he walks.
That's what you call reasonable doubt.
And yeah...the video was the interview. The audio was in the phone conversations that they taped. The emotion was there...but yeah, he could be faking.
That's funny...wouldn't a polygraph make you nervous...even if you were telling the truth? I had to take a polygraph for my job one time...and I had nothing to hide...but let me tell you, I was one nervous motherfucker.
It wouldn't have helped him one bit. People pass when they lie, and fail when they tell the truth. The husband is always the first suspect, and a lie detector test isn't going to change that.
Being untrustworthy doesn't mean you're a killer. Do you know anything about criminal law? To "prove beyond all reasonable doubt" isn't that much? That means if there is any doubt, no matter how small, you have to let him go. The defense only needs one person to say he didn't do it. The odds are in favor of the defense, not the prosecution.
No, you don't need a murder weapon to have killed someone, but it sure does help. Where is the evidence? All they have now is circumstantial evidence...no smoking gun.
In a boat. Could it have been Scott's boat? Yeah, but thousands of people own boats.
And have you seen his boat? It's not that big. And it is covered by a little tarp. Driving that far out to the water with a dead pregnant lady in tiny boat...covered by a little tarp...during a storm seems pretty risky.
As for Scott being near the Mexican border with his hair dyed...you seem to forget he was playing golf. His hair? Who's to say that he just didn't want to be bothered? His face was everywhere...maybe he just wanted to play a quiet round of golf.
He knew he was being followed. If he wanted to leave so bad, why stop to play some golf? Why not just head on out of the country?
As I said, I think he did it too. But there are arguments to be made for the evidence that they have.
The only real thing they have is that the body washed up where he said was fishing. But with no proof that he put the body there...or no proof that he was the one who actually killed his wife...he walks.
That's what you call reasonable doubt.
I see your points but the way he's acted is waaay too suspicious. As far as the polygraph thing goes... I mean, I mean, damn if you didn't kill your wife why not take it. He knew he was going to fail period. There shouldn't be nothing to be nervous about if you're telling the truth. Why didn't he take the stand? He's guilty that's why he's hiding behind his lawyers. He's a proven liar so anything that he says isn't credible.
Put it like this... if I am a juror I'd say he's guilty (no hard evidence needed)... because with him leading a double life tells me that he really didn't honor or care about his marriage. Around the holidays he'd go to one party and Laci would go to another. I find it funny that his wife (that he cheated on and lied to) came up missing on Christmas Eve when this fool decides to go fishing by himself. No polygraph? Didn't take the stand? Are there any witnesses that was with Scott around the time his wife was supposedly missing? And a motive... with him seeing Amber Frey and spending time with her and her daughter tells me that he didn't want Laci anymore. He was ready to move on but probably didn't want the financial ties (divorce, child support). If I am a juror he's guilty. There's no way I'd let him walk a free man.
Put it like this... if I am a juror I'd say he's guilty (no hard evidence needed)... because with him leading a double life tells me that he really didn't honor or care about his marriage. Around the holidays he'd go to one party and Laci would go to another. I find it funny that his wife (that he cheated on and lied to) came up missing on Christmas Eve when this fool decides to go fishing by himself. No polygraph? Didn't take the stand? Are there any witnesses that was with Scott around the time his wife was supposedly missing? And a motive... with him seeing Amber Frey and spending time with her and her daughter tells me that he didn't want Laci anymore. He was ready to move on but probably didn't want the financial ties (divorce, child support). If I am a juror he's guilty. There's no way I'd let him walk a free man.
And that's why we have some innocent people in prison right now.
You judge by emotion and your own moral ethics, when you should be judging on evidence.
What if that was you on trial?
Maybe you cheated on your wife...some people thought you were an asshole. Wouldn't you want someone to judge you on the evidence rather than your character?
You judge by emotion and your own moral ethics, when you should be judging on evidence.
What if that was you on trial?
Maybe you cheated on your wife...some people thought you were an asshole. Wouldn't you want someone to judge you on the evidence rather than your character?
You can't judge him (Scott) on evidence alone because there is none. Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean he didn't kill her. He could of strangled her, poisened her, or knocked her unconscience and then dumped her in the water. He did a good job of getting rid of the evidence. He must have been watching those "Forensic File" shows or something. So by what you're saying... you can get away with killing a pregnant woman if you get rid of all of the evidence? People know that fool did it. Why do you think he's in a protected unit while in jail? The inmates know he did it. Didn't y'all hear Amber Frey's testimony? The person that hooked them up found out he was married (in early December) and when he got confronted he said "they're gone" and this was before Laci came up missing!
If I was on trial and I "know" I didn't kill my wife...
I would of taken the polygraph test to prove my innocence. I wouldn't use a "coward's" excuse talking about I am nervous...
I would of taken the stand to defend myself. All you have to do is tell the truth! It's not that hard!
And this is why you have guilty people (O.J.) on the streets right now.
If I was on trial and I "know" I didn't kill my wife...
I would of taken the polygraph test to prove my innocence. I wouldn't use a "coward's" excuse talking about I am nervous...
I would of taken the stand to defend myself. All you have to do is tell the truth! It's not that hard!
And this is why you have guilty people (O.J.) on the streets right now.
It's easier to convict with evidence and harder to convict without. If judging on evidence alone then he's innocent. So he's innocent because he got rid of the evidence? So by what you're saying you can get away with cold blooded murder if you get rid of the evidence? You have to take into account that this guy didn't value his marriage by seeing another woman and carrying on a relationship with another woman and her child. He even picked Amber's daughter up from school. That tells me he was ready to move on with his life. And another question... why did he trade in Laci's truck before the bodies were found? Because he knew she wasn't coming home. For all he knew she could of been kidnapped and held against her will for a few months and then returned home. But he knew she wasn't coming home.
Tony .. I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that he ACTED suspicious, we all know that, but at the same time that doesn't PROVE he killed his wife either.
See when it comes to court there is 2 different kind of rulings. I'm not exactly sure what it's called but my examples should help. For instance .....
1. If your suing someone for damages like for example the show Judge Judy, you don't have to prove anything, it's more along the lines of what the judge believes is more likely true then not.
2. In a Murder case you have to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Meaning there is no possible way it was another person that committed the murders.
In this case that has not been proven, that is why Scott will not be charged as Guilty.
See when it comes to court there is 2 different kind of rulings. I'm not exactly sure what it's called but my examples should help. For instance .....
1. If your suing someone for damages like for example the show Judge Judy, you don't have to prove anything, it's more along the lines of what the judge believes is more likely true then not.
2. In a Murder case you have to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Meaning there is no possible way it was another person that committed the murders.
In this case that has not been proven, that is why Scott will not be charged as Guilty.
Peterson trial judge replaces juror, orders panel to 'start all over again'
By Brian Skoloff
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:36 p.m. November 9, 2004
Associated Press file photo
These photos released by the San Mateo County Superior Court show the anchor from Scott Peterson's boat that jurors asked to see during their deliberation.
REDWOOD CITY – A juror in Scott Peterson's murder trial who apparently did her own research on the case was replaced with an alternate Tuesday, and the judge ordered the panel to "start all over again" with their deliberations.
The replaced juror, No. 7, is a retired PG&E employee. It wasn't immediately clear what she did to prompt her dismissal, but a source told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that she had apparently disobeyed the judge's orders to consider only the evidence presented at the trial.
"We're going to send you back. Start all over again and keep in touch," Judge Alfred A. Delucchi told the panel after replacing the juror with an alternate.
"You must decide all questions of fact in this case form the evidence received in this trial and not from any other resource," he added. "The people and the defendant have the right to a verdict reached only after full participation."
Juror No. 7, an Asian woman in her 50s or 60s, was replaced with the next alternate – a white woman in her 30s with nine tattoos and four sons. The woman said during jury selection that she was willing to quit her bank job to serve on the jury, and had told her partner he would have to support her. Her brother was in and out of prison for drugs, leading her mother to become a drug counselor at a methadone clinic.
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041109-1436-ca-lacipeterson.html
Tony.....
I understand what you are trying to say...but try and understand what I'm saying for a second.
There you go! No evidence means that you can't (or shouldn't) be convicted. Why do you think people try so hard not to leave any evidence when committing a crime?
Yes...that is exactly what I'm saying. If there is no evidence to prove that he did it, how can you say he did it?
If I kill the lady down the street...no one sees me, I leave no finger prints, there is no evidence left behind to show that I killed her...how can they prove that I did it? Do you know how many unsolved murders there are every year?
All that means squat.
Polygraph's do not prove your innocence. A lack of evidence proves your innocence. If a polygraph proved one's innocence, they would allow the results in court.
It's all strategy. Everyone knows Scott is an asshole. Why put him on the stand? The prosecution would have just went on and on about how much of an asshole he is. Nothing they say would have been about evidence that they have...just crap to try and influence the jury.
I understand what you are trying to say...but try and understand what I'm saying for a second.
There you go! No evidence means that you can't (or shouldn't) be convicted. Why do you think people try so hard not to leave any evidence when committing a crime?
Yes...that is exactly what I'm saying. If there is no evidence to prove that he did it, how can you say he did it?
If I kill the lady down the street...no one sees me, I leave no finger prints, there is no evidence left behind to show that I killed her...how can they prove that I did it? Do you know how many unsolved murders there are every year?
All that means squat.
Polygraph's do not prove your innocence. A lack of evidence proves your innocence. If a polygraph proved one's innocence, they would allow the results in court.
It's all strategy. Everyone knows Scott is an asshole. Why put him on the stand? The prosecution would have just went on and on about how much of an asshole he is. Nothing they say would have been about evidence that they have...just crap to try and influence the jury.
Right, the standard of proof in a civil court is much lower than in criminal - its called preponderance of the evidence. Most trials are before a jury, some are bench trials and the judge is really tied to what the law says and the proof shown at trial, not their own gut feeling. It just sounded like you were saying in a civil case the judge has the ultimate power to decide on something without any material proof at all - which would be false.