|
|
The lovely, the talented, the vibrant, and oh-so-effervescent Dotty Lynch. |
What a hottie.
Posted on 01/19/2005 6:24:14 PM PST by CHARLITE
Yeah, and they want to secede. I say let 'em. Well after the few normal people living there escape.
"Let Scott Peterson Live"
"NO"
There are plenty of "lonely" inmates awaiting his arrival, and those who miss their own families and can't stand the thought of a pregnant mom-killer in their midst. Yes, let him live.
|
|
The lovely, the talented, the vibrant, and oh-so-effervescent Dotty Lynch. |
What a hottie.
You are an idiot
My eyes! My eyes!! The burning!!! The projectile vomit!!! Please stop the pain!!!!
Evidence suggests strongly that Scott Peterson has done many things which would make a lot of sense for someone who planned to murder his wife or had recently done so, and comparatively little sense for someone with no such designs.
It is certainly true that there would be plausible innocent explanations for Scott Peterson's actions. But it's not the jury's job to imagine why he might have done them; it's his job to tell them. He didn't do so.
Very few people are actually convicted on 100% direct evidence. Really, the only people who could be are those who are caught in the process of committing a crime. Nearly every other form of evidence is essentially circumstantial. Proof that a defendant at some time visited a crime scene or handled a murder weapon does not constitute proof that the defendant committed a murder. It certainly tends to suggest it, but there may be other innocent explanations for those things. It is the absense of plausible alternative explanations that turns circumstantial evidence solid.
But it's the defense's job to try to create doubt.
Suppose you were on the jury for a man accused of murder; blood that matched his DNA was found on the murder victim even though the man claims to have been 750 miles away at the time of the attack.
Suppose further that the defendant had been able to offer evidence that (1) he had an identical twin brother, and (2) the twin brother had flown to the murder locale shortly before the murder occurred, and flew out shortly thereafter; (3) the twin brother is a DNA match for the found blood; (4) the twin brother had just taken out a life insurance policy on the murder victim.
In such a case, should a jury have reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime (yes, because an alternate explanation exists for the DNA evidence). Suppose that evidence hadn't been presented by the defense. Should the jury have had a reasonable doubt, on the basis that there could have been a twin brother they didn't know about?
Innocent defendants, of course, will often not be able to come up with absolutely solid explanations for things. They may offer several explanations, some of which the prosecution may show cannot possibly be true. If the explanations are all ones the defendant might reasonably have believed to be true, however, the fact that they were offered up and disproven probably won't hurt. On the other hand, if the prosecution can show that the defendant knew some of the explanations to be false, that will likely lead the jury to decide the rest are probably false as well.
Yes, but that's between Scott Petersen, the judge, the jurors, his lawyers and God. It's none of the CBS's business nor ours. In fact it is insensitive and sickening or them to talk about such an idea at this time.
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.