Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether baring of one's teeth, is seen as a smile, a smirk, a grimance or a show of hostility, is also in the mind of the beholder, and governed by known facts and/or pre-concieved notions about the person baring their teeth.
For what little it is worth, I personally thank she was a very lovely young lady, with a genuine smile, that came straight from her heart.
Neither your opinion or my opinion or anyone elses opinion of how she looked, has one iota of bearing upon Scott's guilt or innocence.
If I were on the jury now charged with deciding whether Scott lives or dies, I believe I would vote for life without parole. That way, if new evidence ever surfaces that shows his innocence, he will be alive to benefit from it, and if not, he will have a long time to think about what he did.
I too believe that the prosecution and the police work on this case, was shamefully incompentent and buffoonesque, like the OJ case, the Koby Briant case and the Bonet Ramsey case, to name a few. How do these people ever get out of Law school, much less pass a state bar exam.
Both families in this case has been very close for a long time. One lost a daughter and a grandbaby, the other has lost a son and a grandbaby-the grandbaby that would have bound both families forever.
I know that what I am about to say will sound very liberalesque, but here goes. Would killing Scott bring any sort of comfort or closure to the family of Lacy, or just more pain and misery to all the innocent people in both families?
Sh*t, I don't know. Go ahead folks-flame away.
This was years ago, but if I recall, it was the little old lady and a couple three from his truck. It was "fresh" - about a week old when the grand jury was empaneled and very emotional. Our prosecutor was an elected official, in the deep, deep south. Need I say more?
This trials message to all those adulterers out there who don't care about their wives:
You better hope to hell she doesn't suddenly show up missing and/or dead!!!! You will definitely go down for it if she does. Better to divorce than to continue to be a cheatin', lyin' schmuck!
Oh BS!
And before someone says, "You can prosecute murder even without a body for the ME to examine" -- then why wasn't Peterson charged before Laci's body was found?
But there was a body -- two of them. And the ME wasn't able to conclude the cause of death was homicide.
Unless there was other compelling evidence eliminating the other possibilities, there should have been no charge.
This case doesn't even have enough hard direct or cirsumstantial evidence for a civil case which needs only to show a preponderance of evidence.
"Are we a bit paranoid?"
I don't know... are we? You wrote in your post that maybe a "lawyer" could correct you and I inferred from that statement that you don't think I am an attorney.
You would make a great juror to kick off a jury. Your verbal contortions are way off. Lawyers look for people capable of understanding critical and unemotional thinking. And you demonstrate the opposite. You are, however, a defense attorney's dream juror. All wrapped up in emotion and believing you have knowledge from "reading a lot."
Have you listened to jury instructions in a capital case? Do you have the written instructions given to this jury or any jury about what "reasonable doubt" is? YES, their doubt, if reasonable, MUST fit the evidence. The burden of proof is on the government but the burden of reasonableness is on the jury. You can't just sit in a jury room and say, "well, I have doubt." The doubt has to be explained and be in sync with the evidence.
What I did notice in your original description of the story is that you carefully omitted the number of deaths, you repeatedly refer to the deceased driver as a little old lady (why?) and now you need to offer up that this occurred in the deep, deep south.
I sense some real prejudices in your descriptions.
Oh BS
(I couldn't say it better....)
Ah, ad hominem. Then you admit you can't support your contentions with logic?
From the Contra Costa Times, June 7, 2003:
The coroner lists Peterson's manner of death as homicide. Death certificates for the 27-year-old and the son with whom she was eight months pregnant were made public late Friday.
Well said.
Once again--you omitted the word 'reasonable' to describe other possibilities. Why didn't you include the alien abduction theory in your article?
If you accurately state you are (something you have yet to do), then you may well be the one I was looking for. Unfortunately, you aren't automatically right, simply because you have a sheepskin and made a statement.
"If I were on the jury now charged with deciding whether Scott lives or dies, I believe I would vote for life without parole. That way, if new evidence ever surfaces that shows his innocence, he will be alive to benefit from it, and if not, he will have a long time to think about what he did."
I believe this would be the right approach. Killing Scott won't bring Laci or Conner back. Killing Scott will probably create even more pain for these families.
Well, I truly scratching hard here. As I recall, the average age in the pickem up was about 17. The little old lady was a retired (much loved) school teacher around 70 and it was in mid-Mississippi. I'll bow to your evaluation of whether any of my description was the result of accuracy or prejudice.
Gee..he missed one..LOL
Don't worry..there are 600 waiting on death row in Cal and they execute at the rate of one a year.
You obviously have not read the transcripts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.