SCOTT PETERSON VERDICT: GUILTY

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
gimpypimp

gimpypimp

Sicc OG
#21
May 2, 2002
3,895
163
0
#21
Sweet916 said:
What about the evidence that the media was not allowed to report?
Click to expand...
HA HA...O.K. Such as?

You think all of the sudden they're going to tell us there were all of the things that I mentioned. The prosecution admitted they only had circumstantial evidence.

This was the prosecution's case. "Who else had reason to kill Laci?"

I agree, but that and him being an asshole shouldn't be enough to convict him.
 
Sweet916

Sweet916

Sicc OG
#22
Apr 25, 2002
1,582
2
0
50
#22
gimpypimp said:
HA HA...O.K. Such as?

You think all of the sudden they're going to tell us there were all of the things that I mentioned. The prosecution admitted they only had circumstantial evidence.

This was the prosecution's case. "Who else had reason to kill Laci?"

I agree, but that and him being an asshole shouldn't be enough to convict him.
Click to expand...
I don't know, I wasn't in the courtroom, and I'm guessing you weren't either, so no one can say if he was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Like I said, there was a gag order in place for some of the evidence, read up on it.
 
gimpypimp

gimpypimp

Sicc OG
#23
May 2, 2002
3,895
163
0
#23
Sweet916 said:
I don't know, I wasn't in the courtroom, and I'm guessing you weren't either, so no one can say if he was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Like I said, there was a gag order in place for some of the evidence, read up on it.
Click to expand...
Read up on it? O.K. smart ass.

No, I wasn't in the courtroom...but I work in the legal field, so I have an idea of what's what.

Like I said...no motive, no weapon(s) of any kind, no eye-witnesses. There is nothing directly linking him to the murder of Laci. And those are facts...with or without a gag order.

He was convicted on circumstantial evidence...if you knew anything about this case you would know that. Maybe YOU should try reading up on it.
 
mrtonguetwista

mrtonguetwista

$$ Deep Pockets $$
#24
Feb 6, 2003
23,473
7,035
0
81
#24
mustynutz said:
Im serious tho...i wanna see some riots....I wanna hear about people in 3 piece suits cripwalkin and bumpin some 11/5 on the golf course screamin " HE AINT GUILTY" and then start a sideshow with golfcarts....

I wanna hear about Martha Stewart startin prison riots and shankin people and funkin wit the Mexican Mafia

lmao
Click to expand...
Old Navy is going up in flames as we speak...it's on CNN
 
28g w/o the bag

28g w/o the bag

politically incorrect
#25
Jan 18, 2003
21,669
6,942
113
metro's jurisdiction
siccness.net
#25
mustynutz said:
Im serious tho...i wanna see some riots....I wanna hear about people in 3 piece suits cripwalkin and bumpin some 11/5 on the golf course screamin " HE AINT GUILTY" and then start a sideshow with golfcarts....

I wanna hear about Martha Stewart startin prison riots and shankin people and funkin wit the Mexican Mafia

lmao
Click to expand...
*spits orange juice all over computer monitor*
 
mo-x

mo-x

Sicc OG
#26
May 4, 2002
2,764
4
0
www.unknownterritoryrecords.com
#26
gimpypimp said:
No motive, no weapon, no eye-witnesses, he didn't tell anyone...they have absolutely no proof that he killed his wife.

They didn't convict him on evidence.
Click to expand...
But we all KNOW he did it.... tell me in your gut you think he didn't do it? Justice was served IMO, but at the same time it's pretty scary they can convict you with no solid concrete evidence and that's the fucked up thing.
 
G

Ghostly

Sicc OG
#27
Jul 24, 2002
696
9
0
41
#27
man that fool was guilty even before they brought him to court..why else would he flee down south with his hair dyed blond and a wade of money in his pocket..i remember seein that shit on the news a week after they found his wife dead..money in the pocket with a hair color change..thats enough to say he's guilty
 
T

Tony

Sicc OG
#28
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#28
gimpypimp said:
There was nothing...nothing solid anyway.

No motive, no weapon, no eye-witnesses, he didn't tell anyone...they have absolutely no proof that he killed his wife.

They didn't convict him on evidence.
Click to expand...

Didn't need any evidence (even though the "boat" was pretty much all you needed)... all you needed was common sense like I've been saying for the last week. All 12 thought he was guilty! LOL!
 
T

Tony

Sicc OG
#29
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#29
Justice was served! Just because you dispose the evidence doesn't mean you can get away with murder! Gimpy pimp I hope you learned something from this.
 
T

Tony

Sicc OG
#31
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#31
Why would you need hard evidence to convict someone? You could have a serial killer on the loose killing up hella folks and then getting rid of the "hard" evidence and some of you would say since there's no "hard" evidence linking him to the killings let him go... WTF?

Laci was a young pregnant wife expecting to have a child real soon... It wasn't fair to her to have her life taken away. There was no evidence suggesting that someone could have committed these crimes. Scott Peterson did it. Why else would the bodies wash ashore less than one mile where he said he was fishing???? duhhhhhh And he said he was fishing for surgeon but the police said he wasn't even equipped to fish for surgeon. Lies built on top of lies... He did it and it's just what he gets. Justice was served. You shouldn't need hard evidence to convict someone of a vicious crime like this. He took two lives not one and you think he should of been let go because of no murder weapon?

Justice was served!!
 
T

Tony

Sicc OG
#32
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#32
Lil Lefty 602 said:
Yeah that the legal system is fucked even if they cant prove shit they can still convict you boy what a country
Click to expand...
They did prove he was responsible they just couldn't prove how he committed the murders. It's a difference. He did it like they proved... they just don't know how he did it. The murder weapon or whatever he used is in the water and bodies were so decomposed they couldn't perform an autopsy. He thought he had his tracks covered... but people aren't dumb as he thinks they are.
 
gimpypimp

gimpypimp

Sicc OG
#33
May 2, 2002
3,895
163
0
#33
mo-x said:
But we all KNOW he did it.... tell me in your gut you think he didn't do it? Justice was served IMO, but at the same time it's pretty scary they can convict you with no solid concrete evidence and that's the fucked up thing.
Click to expand...

No...we all THINK he did it. We don't know for sure.

In my gut, yeah, I think he did it.
 
L

Lil Lefty 602

Sicc OG
#34
Sep 9, 2004
216
0
0
39
#34
Tony said:
Didn't need any evidence (even though the "boat" was pretty much all you needed)... all you needed was common sense like I've been saying for the last week. All 12 thought he was guilty! LOL!
Click to expand...
So were convicting people on personal opinions rather than solid evidence now? I think he did the shit but that dosent mean I can actually prove it
 
gimpypimp

gimpypimp

Sicc OG
#35
May 2, 2002
3,895
163
0
#35
Tony said:
Didn't need any evidence (even though the "boat" was pretty much all you needed)... all you needed was common sense like I've been saying for the last week. All 12 thought he was guilty! LOL!
Click to expand...
Don't you think that's a problem? That you don't need any hard evidence to convict someone?

To be convicted over a boat....hmmm.

Tony said:
Justice was served! Just because you dispose the evidence doesn't mean you can get away with murder! Gimpy pimp I hope you learned something from this.
Click to expand...
Like what?
 
T

Tony

Sicc OG
#36
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#36
Lil Lefty 602 said:
So were convicting people on personal opinions rather than solid evidence now? I think he did the shit but that dosent mean I can actually prove it
Click to expand...
It's not about personal opinions. You convict people using "common sense". Scott was a sneaky dude and he proved it by playing two women at the sametime. Since he thought he could get away with playing two women he thought that he could get away with murder. There was solid evidence like the concrete that was missing... and Scott coudn't explain what happened to it. He had an 80 pound bag of concrete and some of it was missing. The boat was pretty much all you needed. If he didn't have a boat then you can question it further. How did Laci make out to the Marina because it was so far from their home? Could Scott have taken her there? Very possible and that' beyond resonable doubt! After all he did go fishing in the same water that the bodies were found.... duhhh... don't call me stupid.

He murdered his wife and then took her body out to the Berkeley Marina and dumped her in the water. He used some concrete anchors to keep her body underwater but the body broke apart and washed ashore. BUSTED!! hahahaha
 
T

Tony

Sicc OG
#37
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#37
gimpypimp said:
Don't you think that's a problem? That you don't need any hard evidence to convict someone?

To be convicted over a boat....hmmm.



Like what?
Click to expand...
No I don't think that's a problem. Because like I said before... you can have murders killing people and disposing their murders weapons and getting off because of "no hard evidence"... Not that easy man. You shouldn't need a murder weapon to convict someone of murder. Scott thought since there was no murder weapon and they couldn't determine how she died... that he was going to get away with it. BUSTED!!

You should learn not to think like Scott Peterson. It seems that both of you thought since there was no hard evidence that he could/should not get convicted.
 
Sweet916

Sweet916

Sicc OG
#40
Apr 25, 2002
1,582
2
0
50
#40
this is too funny. Have any of you who say there is no solid evidence ever taken any type of Criminal Justice classes in college? You might understand the system a little bit better if you do.

You have direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and probative evidence. When you submit circumstantial evidence (which is basically what everyone is saying he got convicted on) into the court, it somehow has to be backed up, not at that time but in the course of the trial. So in this case they say he killed his wife. Bam, you can't just say someone killed someone without proof right? First they examine means, and until they found the body, they didn't have that. Then they found her body. This is when they bring in psychologists, forensic investigators, etc. People who have been doing this for years and know the patterns of humans, and mind you, all humans follow the same exact pattern depending on the crime committed, this has been proven over and over. (Take a beginning forensic analyst or scientist class) Believe it or not, that is evidence. Then they examined motive and opportunity. You have motive with that nasty girl he was creepin with, not only while Lacy was alive but after they found her dead, and duri g the time they were looking for her. Opportunity comes in with 1) the boat 2) fishing on Christmas eve. 3) readily having things that would provide you an alibi when you are not normally an organized person (saving receipts etc), his own family fucked him up on that when they said he wasn't the type to save anything, but all of a suddon that day the police had 6 receipts of places he had been that day. Not only that, he continually lied, to the media, to the police, to everyone. All this is evidence folks, do you not understand??? Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. I could go on and on but I wont

And like I said before, there is evidence that is on gag order from the judge until the trial is over with. Things that the media could not speak about. Wait a couple weeks and I'm sure they will have a special on court tv on what everyone in the court room really saw. The outside looking in is a different view than sitting in a courtroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom