Posted on 11/12/2004 11:24:19 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Whoa, poor little Pixley is not looking too good on CTV!
Perhaps you have mistaken Nancy Grace with Catherine Crier. They both have similar blond hair styles.
And the boat; that boat was a HUGE mistake for Geragos.
that because the "legal experts" are always defendant biased - they don't want jurors using common sense.
Yeah, anybody could have been convicted for it.
Anybody who made missing anchors he didn't need.
Anybody who was the last person to see her.
Anybody who was at the very place where the bodies washed up.
Anybody who had looked up the tide charts for where she washed up.
Anybody who had said weeks before that she was already dead.
Yeah, anybody could have been convicted of it.
Where's my remote. I can't stand this Allred woman.
I hope this apparent inconsistency
in the 2 verdicts aren't overturned
on appeal. I think some jurors were unsure with regard to the death penalty.
He proved what an a** he is by pulling that stunt
Due to the inlaws stopping by, I didn't hear why Lee Peterson didn't come to the verdict reading
And the family had a 5 hour notice??
Nancy Grace - the prosecutor was always rooting against Scott Peterson.
Won't do you any good; she's on all of them.
Try to focus on the PIN she has on; it helps to distract you.........LOL.
bttt
What are they saying? Radio guys are saying he knew what was coming and didn't want footage of him leaving the courthouse, defeated, to be played every day for the rest of his life.
I just heard that. How could that be?
Who are these so-called "legal experts" you are referring to?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the courts work.
You very, very rarely get "direct evidence" (that's the opposite of circumstantial evidence) of a premeditated murder. The perpetrator plans to commit it when there are no witnesses around, of course. And does his best to sanitize the crime scene and dispose of the body.
But you can still get a good, solid conviction of a premeditated murder with circumstantial evidence. And a good prosecutor can explain it in closing so the jury understands.
Common example: You have one child. You have no pets; your husband is at work. The doors are locked. You come downstairs and find the cookie jar rifled. You follow a trail of crumbs to the chair where your child is watching TV. There are cooky crumbs on the chair.
Who took the cookies? That's all circumstantial evidence, but it's pretty much a slam dunk.
If you mean "NEVER HEARD," consider the case of Irene Silverman, who was murdered by the wacky mother-son incestuous duo in an attempt to take over her Manhattan townhouse. The body was never (even) recovered. They were both convicted.
Later the son confessed that he dumped Mrs. Silverman in a construction site in New Jersey.
And BTW!
HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN
THE SKIES ABOVE ARE CLEAR AGAIN
LET US SING A SONG OF CHEER AGAIN
HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN....
What a week... Bush Wins, Arafat Dies, Peterson Convicted...
The Fox news crawl is blocking the pin.
Oh cool, the Nasdaq is up 24.07
All cases are based on circumstantial evidence.
He was fishing in the bay.
Her body washed up from the bay.
He had a girlfriend who was told "I lost my wife" before he lost her.
Use your common sense.
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.