Posted on 11/12/2004 2:11:40 PM PST by JFK_Lib
So the jury thought that Scott Peterson was guilty for much the same reason the cops did from the first day they saw Scott; he was Laci's husband.
The complete void of damning direct physical evidence left no reasonable doubt in the juries mind. There was no proven cause of her death, no proven scene of the crime, no time of death, and no murder weapon or even a known lethal injury.
All the jury saw was a mountain of circumstantial evidence that only appears to imply guilt if one is leaning towards such a decision to begin with. While Scott was having an affair and told repeated lies to cover for himself in various ways, even absurd ones, that does not prove guilt. There was no history of violence in Scotts life that almost always accompanies such men willing to kill not only their wife, but there firstborn sons as well.
That he disguised himself just before arrest does not prove anything other than he wanted to avoid being identified, but then who wouldnt in his situation? Still, that was what convinced most people and it is completely excusable for anyone trying to avoid paparazi.
The only physical evidence was the presence of Laci's hair in a pair of pliars found in Scotts boat. But a spouses hair is almost omnipresent. Most of us who are married have our spouses DNA on us somewhere, especially if we sleep with our spouses. So the hair only proves that Laci was around Scott enough to get hair on him or his clothing and it then blew off into the boat and got tangeled in the pliars. More significantly, no one has yet explained what Scott might have been doing with that pair of pliars to get Lacis hair tangled up in it.
Even those in favor of a guilty verdict admit that the prosecutions case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. But they are convinced that this is enough to convict a person of first degree murder and to sentence him to death and they have no reasonable doubt at all? Despite there being no murder weapon, scene, known cause and time of death? These are not quibbles, these are the building blocks of how one proves a case of murder. The prosecution had none, but still the jury came back with this utmost certitude; guilty! Based on what? Talk shows and Court TV?
And where does all the chain of circumstantial evidence begin? It started the first day the police showed up at Scott Peterson's door. They brought cadaver dogs trained to find corpses on the presumption that Laci was already dead despite no evidence to that effect. They lied to Lacis family and said that Scott had taken out insurance on her just recently and that he had a long running affair with another woman and that he was still trying to carry on that affair with repeated phone calls, ignoring the fact that Amber initiated two-thirds of them and Scott had not made an attempt to see her since Laci's disappearance.
And over and over again the public that most suspected Scott defended their presumption with one main falsehood; that the person most likely to have killed a woman is her husband. This lie has attained the status of Truth in our society. This lie is based on studies that do not differentiate between a boy-friend, a date, a pimp or a man who is willing to put a ring on a woman's finger and take an oath before God Almighty. These 'studies' are driven by man-hating feminazis, and their allies who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Well, today they certainly put a torpedo into it beneath the waterline, for sure. What man is going to marry now, when it sets you up for getting reamed if it ends in divorce and you are suspect number one if the wife gets killed?
This is about as bad as it can get in theory. When men are not only the sole acceptable subject of derision in our society, are jeared as unfit for anything except taking out the kitchen trash, laughed at whenever they get injured in the testicles, and now are the first suspects for any foul play directed at their wives, can we be slandered any more than this? Can expectations get any more hostile than this?
All that is left is for the process of running men into complete and adject cowardace to kick in to high gear. And dont doubt that this will happen. The vast majority of those voting against the leftist establishment's reign are white men. And now the legal stage is clearly set to be able to prosecute and convict any of us for any suspicious crime purely on presumption, with no clear evidence needed, even for a First Degeree murder charge. What chance do we have on domestic violence if the kid has brittle bone disease or the wife takes karate lessons?
A couple I know had a child with brittle bone disease and they were lucky that their child was taken from them for two and ahalf years and that is all. Today, I suspect they would have been prosecuted for criminal assault, much like that mother who everyone thought was video-taped punching her daughter in the car, but later was found to have sustained exactly ZERO injuries.
For men, what we have endured with one-way sexual harrassment laws we will now have to endure in criminal cases where there is no evidence of foul play, and even when the spouse denies that any violence took place, because battered women are 'known' to lie to protect their tormenters! We have gone into the looking glass and most dont even realize it.
And in all of this I remember a Mr Ricci, back in the Elizabeth Smart case. The cops were so sure he did it, and everyone slammed the man's wife for providing him with an alibi. When he died in jail a few weeks later, no one shed a tear for him, everyone was so happy that Elizabeth was alright, and that is all that really mattered, right? Not the lives of men like Ricci, who was proven innocent only after his life was ripped to shreds and the stress of it all likely killed him.
But who cares? He was just a man, and likely a scumbag like we all are, no? Innocent of this crime, but surely guilty of being male if nothing else, right?
If I am wrong, why then is his unjust slandering, incarceration and death completely ignored to this very day? Where are the flowers for Richard Ricci?
Back to todays events; Scott Peterson did some low-life things, but I dont think he killed his wife. And the prosecution only proved it to a jury that apparently wanted to get home in time to see the matinee, and after two jurors were dropped from the case who were apparently holding things up.
If it all turns out later that Scott is innocent, where does he go to get his reputation back? Or his career, his home, his family?
American pop culture has come to absolutely hate men, and we had all better be careful where we step till this insanity is over.
GET REAL
Do you think he didn't do it?
This is not a good case to argue for men's rights, father's rights of the media bais against masculinity.
You might have a decent agenda, but your choice of reference material is highly questionable.
If you consider Scott Peterson a "man" you've got problems.
If I behaved as disgracefully and unmanfully as he did, my dad would disown me.
LMAO
But, at least you can console yourself by remembering that OJ was found not guilty. You see, it's not as bad as you think.
Huh?
He put himself at the crime scene. He told the police where the bodies would eventually be found. Case closed.
Oh, come on.
What about changing his looks and running for Mexico?
Frankly, I would blithely send him to his death for cheating the way he did... while his wife was pregnant, but the "circumstantial" evidence is pretty damning, too.
Laci's hair fell off Scott, blew in the boat, and just somehow got tangled in the pliers??
I guess you think that the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his disgusting behavior was an attack on "men" too.
I'm just glad this is finally over so I no longer have to see or hear Gloria Alred again !!!
I suppose OJ is innocent too.Only circumstancial!
Not so fast! Gloria's holding a press conference now! LOL!
Okay then. But twelve jurors unanimously found that he did. Does your opinion trump theirs? How do you KNOW he's not guilty, because you "think" so? Frankly, I "think" he did, so I am pleased with the verdict. Your rambling diatribe is not persuasive in the least.
To be beyond a reasonable doubt means that to the jury there isn't a real possibility that the defendant didn't commit the act.
I'm glad it's over for Laci and Conner's family.......maybe God will grant them some peace.
Gloria's like a bad case of herpes - she never goes away.
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.