Skip to comments.
Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
The Hollywood Investigator ^
| 11/30/2004
| J. Neil Schulman
Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-395 next last
To: J. Neil Schulman
If he is innocent---
Why didn't he testify on his own behalf?
Why didn't he go to pieces when the bodies of Laci and Conner were found?
Why did he sit in that courtroom day after day looking like he didn't give a horses A@@ about his dead wife and child?
Why didn't he demand, demand and DEMAND his chance to get on the stand and cry his heart out at his terrible loss?
The argument of his innocence is saying is that if you kill right and dispose of the body correctly, then all the other evidence doesn't count. Even if every frigging' arrow in the universe is pointing at you. It just says "Hey guys, do it right and you too can kill!"
We got that from OJ, I resent like hell it being OK'd again.
41
posted on
11/30/2004 10:51:55 AM PST
by
najida
(Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.)
To: 7.62 x 51mm
Peterson could have gotten away with it had the bodies not washed up where he dumped them.
It was a close call. Nobody has ever been arrested for the murder of Chandra Levy.
42
posted on
11/30/2004 10:52:15 AM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Big government is still a big problem.)
To: Dashing Dasher
Do you know that the murderer is ALWAYS the father of said pregnancy? Really, truly, ALWAYS?
43
posted on
11/30/2004 10:52:41 AM PST
by
garyb
To: J. Neil Schulman
J. Neil Schulman's book, The Frame of the Century?, presents as strong a case for a suspect other than O.J. Simpson in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson Your credibility = zero.
44
posted on
11/30/2004 10:53:19 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along)
To: J. Neil Schulman
without an obvious motive What more obvious motive do you need? He was broke, he wanted to sell Laci's stuff, and he wanted to shack up with another woman.
45
posted on
11/30/2004 10:54:15 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along)
To: Judith Anne
If so, you're trolling. Nah, he's advertising his book.
46
posted on
11/30/2004 10:54:20 AM PST
by
.38sw
To: J. Neil Schulman
It doesn't matter whether he did it or not. He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore he is not guilty and a great injustice has been done, regardless of what actually happened.
I swear some people on Free Republic are bloodthirsty. From members condoning prison rape to unjustly throwing people into jail for the rest of their life.
47
posted on
11/30/2004 10:54:22 AM PST
by
FoxPro
(jroehl2@yahoo.com)
To: J. Neil Schulman; Conspiracy Guy
What a steamin' pile o' poo!!
48
posted on
11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST
by
Laura Earl
(1/2way290)
To: speed_addiction
Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me. Me too.
49
posted on
11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along)
To: Laura Earl
50
posted on
11/30/2004 10:55:46 AM PST
by
Conspiracy Guy
(This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
To: speed_addiction
Speed, I beg to differ. What we are being asked to believe is that
1) Laci and Scott had an argument (about Amber)-
2) Scott left and went fishing by himself.
3) McKenzie the dog left and went for a walk by himself.
4) Laci (8 mos.pregnant) waited a few minutes and then walked 90 miles to the Bay, tied weights/anchors to her wrists and ankles and threw herself in the water.
Makes sense!
51
posted on
11/30/2004 10:55:56 AM PST
by
sodpoodle
(sparrows are underrated)
To: elbucko
52
posted on
11/30/2004 10:57:30 AM PST
by
Conspiracy Guy
(This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
To: J. Neil Schulman
Sir, with all due respect:
This article proves you are neither lawyer or logistician. Most of us don't get our legal advice from watching old "Perry Mason" shows.
Your article on "Miracle Eye Drops that Cure Cataracts" demonstrates that you are neither physician nor practical. (Just a hint: Phacoemulsification and aspiration, the surgical procedure to emulsify then remove cataracts does not involve the retina nor its blood supply.)
I'm just wondering, as I wait with baited breath to read your "article" on Vulcan Mind Melds," will you soon be selling such Mind Melds on late night TV?
PS, Karl Hess was not the originator of Senator Goldwater's "Extremism...." line.
So far, you're 0 for 3.
53
posted on
11/30/2004 10:57:46 AM PST
by
MindBender26
(Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
To: FoxPro
He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt I guess you didn't hear the verdict.
54
posted on
11/30/2004 10:58:39 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along)
To: J. Neil Schulman
Well, it's a sad commentary on human nature, but I once sat on a jury where the accused, a street punk, thought it was a good strategy to give the jury "Attitude" looks. After an hour, the jury lost patience, and began giving the looks back.
And so terrifying were the looks of the average citizens, homemakers, grandmothers, Joe Sixpacks, that the Accused panicked and plead "Guilty".
Little Blue-Haired old ladies wanted to take him out and string him up from the nearest lampost.
Maybe if Richardson had adopted a more humble or contrite attitude, things would have gone differently. Nobody wins anything by having the knack of making people hate them, and a trial is a particularly wrong place to do that.
55
posted on
11/30/2004 10:59:28 AM PST
by
Gorzaloon
(This tagline intentionally left blank.)
To: sodpoodle
This man proves the truth of Califormia Drug Rule #1: "Never Buy Drugs by Price Alone. Cheap Is Not Always Good!"
56
posted on
11/30/2004 10:59:56 AM PST
by
MindBender26
(Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
To: FoxPro
He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore he is not guilty and a great injustice has been done, regardless of what actually happened.Huh? Not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? What does that mean? Apparently the jury believed that there wasn't any reasonable doubt.
57
posted on
11/30/2004 11:00:40 AM PST
by
.38sw
To: J. Neil Schulman
It's such a coincidence that Scott visited the crime scene 5 times in the 2 weeks she went missing even though it was a 2 hour drive away. It's coincidence that when he was arrested he had his brother's passport, $10,000 in cash and died his hair blonde. It's coincidence that he tried to sell his wife's car just one week after she went missing...and tried to sell their home just weeks after she went missing. Give me a break!
58
posted on
11/30/2004 11:02:24 AM PST
by
sonserae
To: Dashing Dasher
No, it was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe.
59
posted on
11/30/2004 11:02:42 AM PST
by
MindBender26
(Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
To: MindBender26
I love a good "gang up on the lunatic" thread.
60
posted on
11/30/2004 11:02:50 AM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-395 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson