Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
The Coroner's office -- which is a political office -- listed the cause of death as "homicide." No ME could possibly conclude the cause of death as homicide because they were unable to determine a cause of death.
And if you want to go by the Coroner's official report, Scott Peterson is off the hook, because the official date and time of Laci's death is the day her body washed up on shore, April 14th -- not the previous Christmas Eve when Scott was supposed to be fishing.
JNS
I don't have to believe anything, if the state's case does not convince me. It does not.
I believe he probably did it. I do not believe the state met its burden. For him to be convicted despite that diminishes everyone's rights to a fair trial.
What would constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt in your eyes? In any murder case?
Anything more than supposition and coincidence would be a good start.
???? Even though it was apparent by the state of decomposition that she'd been dead for quite some time? Puhleeeze. So by your reasoning, Peterson couldn't possibly have done it because, officially, she died on April 14. Well, then there are probably a lot of people in prison who shouldn't be because the victims weren't found until quite some time later than when they might actually have been murdered. Makes perfect sense, eh?
Be more specific. Be mindful that objects with fingerprints can be moved from place to place, and that fingerprints can be scanned and duplicated. Video and phototographs can be manipulated to no end, of course. And eyewitnesses can easily be mistaken about many things. I find it hard to imagine a case where one couldn't formulate a scenario consistent with an accused killer's innocence. But the issue of plausibility rears its ugly head.
Scott Peterson is alleged to have done many things that would suggest he knew his wife was dead before her body was discovered. Collectively, they constitute pretty strong evidence that he knew his wife was dead. That Scott Peterson had such knowledge is not mere supposition; it is a theory which the prosecution has supported with considerable evidence.
You might argue that even proving that Scott Peterson knew of his wife's death would not prove his participation in her murder. That would be correct. On the other hand, possession of guilty knowledge does create a strong presumption of guilty involvement, just as possession of stolen property creates a strong presumption of involvement in theft. If the police find in a person's garage a large amount of merchandise that has been stolen from the area, that would generally be adequate to prosecute the person for theft even if nobody actually saw the person steal any of it. It may be in some cases that a person might have a reasonable explanation for possessing the merchandise; if, for example, he could produce a receipt that showed he paid a reasonable amount of money for it at what he reasonably believed to be an estate lot sale, that could be grounds for acquittal. It is not, however, the job of the jury to speculate that he might have acquired the property by what he thought were legitimate means. If the defense wishes to claim that he did so, the defense must claim that.
So again, I ask you to please break down for me: do you believe that the state failed to provide adequate evidence to show that Scott Peterson knew of his wife's death, or do you believe that such knowledge does not constitute evidence of his involvement in her murder?
Coroners have the authority to inquire into and determine in all cases the circumstances, manner, and cause of death. The difference is that a coroner is an elected official, while a ME is usually appointmend by some government body. Yes, it is a political office, but if a coroner is a physician, he can perform autopsies. He still has the authority to make the determination as to manner and cause of death, and whether or not that death was a homicide. So, according to you, because a coroner (oh, the horro) made the determination, it's not valid? And Scott's off the hook because the body wasn't found until April 14th? That's quite a stretch.
Indeed. They seem determined to prove that Lefist caricatures of conservatives as "mouth-foaming sadists" are true.
Sadly, these "FR caricature conservatives" reflect poorly on the more rational conservatives among us. It's one of the reasons I've come to call myself a libertarian -- they're more cool and rational.
Thank You
I could counter with, if he was smart enough to commit the crime and hide the evidence so completely, the last thing he would do is a whole string of things that would end up convicting him. That is just as strong "evidence" that he didn't do it as you suggest you have he did. I won't bite.
But one would generally expect that if someone had an innocent reason for doing them, they would likely be able to articulate what it was.
I could counter with, if he was smart enough to commit the crime and hide the evidence so completely, the last thing he would do is a whole string of things that would end up convicting him. That is just as strong "evidence" that he didn't do it as you suggest you have he did. I won't bite.
Many psychopaths are extremely arrogant. They have a certain level of intelligence, but their arrogance drives them to do really dumb things. I had a college roommate who boasted openly about his exploits stealing radar detectors, and showed off his switch blade knife and car-opening tools. He'd tell all sorts of stories about how he was so smart and the police were so stupid. Not sure exactly what happened to him after he got caught with stolen college computer equipment (after I'd moved out the room) and various other contraband.
Scott Peterson might well have gotten away with his crime if he weren't so arrogant. But the very notion that arrogant stupidity disproves psychopathy is absurd.
Peterson said he knew who did it. That utterance is on tape.
No, you don't.
Which, of course, makes your entire article bogus.
Pretty much.
Absolutely untrue.
You don't even need a body, FGS.
Before you waste bandwidth here,
you ought to READ the law regarding
what constitutes a murder.
Your entire rant is based on a false premise.
It's the defendant's responsibility to DEFEND himself, which he did NOT do. Because he can't.
His OWN attorney said he was guilty as hell.
You haven't been watching this trial, have you?
This guy will NEVER deal; not even know, when his own life is in danger.
There is absolutely no explanation for why he told somebody that his wife was dead two weeks before she disappeared, other than the fact that he was planning to kill her.
There is absolutely no explanation for why their bodies washed up where he TOLD the police he'd been "fishing" other than the fact that he dumped them there.
You're exactly right; the date of death is the day Conner died, which was the 23rd or 24th. Conner died because SHE died.
Right from the start, your argument is inconsistent with reality. Plenty of murderers have been convicted though their victims' bodies had never been found.
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.