SCOTT PETERSON VERDICT: GUILTY

[Lil Lefty 602]

So by what you're saying... you should be able to get away with cold blooded murder if you can get rid of the solid evidence?

What are you saying? That you should be convicted of murder by what 12 people think rather than actual proof?

 

[gimpypimp]

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.

I think you need to re-take your criminal justice and forensic analyst classes.

Either way...no one is saying that they don't have evidence. I'm talking about real hard evidence.

Show me a weapon. Or prove she was poisoned, choked...whatever the case may be. How about a witness? Did anyone see him do it? Did anyone see him dump anything in the water?

And as for Amber...why would he kill Laci for her? He cheated on Laci twice before and never tried to kill her. Reasonable doubt.

As I've said, I think he did it too. But I look at it as...what if that was me on trial?

As someone on TV said, either he did it, or he just has real bad luck. What if he just has real bad luck?

Strange shit happens in this world, and I would want someone juding me on real evidence, rather than the type of person I may or may not be.

 

[Sweet916]

I hear you and I feel you, but thats not how the system works.

I think you need to re-take your criminal justice and forensic analyst classes.

LOL....ok

Either way...no one is saying that they don't have evidence. I'm talking about real hard evidence.

How do you know what they have? Were you in the courtroom? How many times does it have to be said that most of the evidence was under gag order. You don't know what they got and I don't know what they got, only the folks who were in the courtroom know what they got. We will find out, however, when the gag order is lifted.

Show me a weapon. Or prove she was poisoned, choked...whatever the case may be. How about a witness? Did anyone see him do it? Did anyone see him dump anything in the water?

Thats where FS comes in, but I have no idea what I'm talkin about.

And as for Amber...why would he kill Laci for her? He cheated on Laci twice before and never tried to kill her. Reasonable doubt.

Thats not reasonable doubt. Thats a play of words.

Strange shit happens in this world, and I would want someone juding me on real evidence, rather than the type of person I may or may not be.

When your in a court of law, EVERYTHING YOU DO, HAVE DONE, OR WILL DO, is evidence against you. Its fucked up, but hey, the citizens make the laws that keep the justice system the way it is..... and bottom line, dude has it all the way messed up, the concrete,the boat, the affair, selling her truck when she was "still missing", turing his baby's room into a storage room, speakin on her in the past tense on the news program before she was found, in a court these are evidence. Think aboutit, your sister comes up missing, and dude down the street thats close with your family comes around and says, hey heard about your sister, she was a cool girl. Nobody knows shes dead, but later she turns up in some bushes somewhere, who would be the first person you would look at?

 

[Tony]

It's not that hard to understand. You don't or shouldn't need "hard solid" evidence to prove that you murdered someone. Dont you guys understand that a pregnant woman was murdered? Scott had too many lies and inconsistancies. The prosecutors proved that Scott was surely capable of committing this horrible crime. Why do you need hard evidence? There's no telling what Scott could have done with the evidence. It's probably in the water somewhere and probably would never be found again. Did you guys know that dogs picked up Laci's scent where Scott said he had been fishing? They had to have some good evidence to get all 12 jurors to decide on a guilty verdict.