Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
If O.J. is innocent of murdering his wife and that other fellow, given that he abused his wife on a regular basis, then how can Peterson be convicted based on circumstantial evidence? The issue of race is good for one case and not the other?
fer shur!
Absolutely, and no one has posted the "Time to get back on the Thorazine" line yet!
How did we know this gent was from California just by reading his first few words??????????
:~)
May I suggest that you learn the difference between reasonable and outlandish before submitting your next work for our review.
Consequently, I am not fully up to speed on the details. What little I have heard, despite my best attempts, however, supports this author's take on things. Your response completely misses the point. While he may not have cried and did not take the stand to wail and moan, there is no requirement for him to do either. It is the state's requirement to prove their case. Try countering the author's charge that almost every element of the crime was simply absent, unproven, or unprovable. Then, maybe you have a point.
Of course you're free to have an opinion without being held to "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the jury is not and based on this piece, they may have failed in their responsibility. It definitely wouldn't be the first time and inevitably won't be the last, but we should abhor it, instead of embracing it. Otherwise, any one of us may be the next to suffer for it.
Pimping a crappy book.
SCOTT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
After they removed the ones who thought he was not guilty....
What evidence was there that she was murdered?
shameless!
The jury convicted him because they hated him, not because they didn't have a reasonable doubt.
This is nearly, literally, a high tech lynching.
I hope you never have to sit in front of a jury that hates you.
yep
I agree. I don't know if he did it or not. It seems likely that he did. But this was a lynching.
Could it have been natural causes..Could she have hitched a ride to bay and committed suicide?/..Tune in!
How do you know that? Were you on the jury? How do you know that there was reasonable doubt? Were you in the courtroom every day?
Each piece of evidence may, by itself, not prove the murder. The thing is, the jury doesn't view each piece of evidence by itself. It views the totality of the evidence. So, the jury viewed that the woman washed up on shore with cinder block weights. The jury saw the same kind of cement in the boat. The jury saw that the dog was left outside. The jury saw that Scott had lots of motice (financial, romantic). The jury saw that Scott lied about his whereabout the next day. The jury saw that Scott did not remember what he had gone fishing for. The jury saw that he had freswater tackle on his fishing gear. The jury saw that he returned to the scene of the crime five times after her disappearence despite it being two hours away. The jury also saw that Scott talked about his wife in the past tense before her body was found.
Each piece of evidence, by itself, did not prove murder. Viewed in its totality, the evidence clearly proves murder.
They dont even know how Laci died, for crying out loud.
Washing up on shore after having been weighted down by concrete is usually a pretty good sign.
Is there a "comedy" section of FR? That's where this should be posted.
No, no, no! She was kidnapped and killed by some homeless people hanging out by the river (or maybe it was the satanists hanging out by the river). They kept her until they found out where Scott had been on the day they snatched Laci, then took her to the bay and dumped her. I guess the homeless people used a shopping cart and kept to the backroads to transport her body to the Berkeley marina. I think that the satanists had a tan van they could use.
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.