Posted on 12/03/2004 12:33:31 AM PST by kattracks
they got a boat and tried to simulate the dumping of the body.
also one of the jurors that got thrown off was thrown off because he took too many notes and that stalled the disicion. (I think this is the clincher)
That was the defense who did that. One or two jurors may have stood in the actual boat while it was on the trailer. Just like Scott did when he LOADED the body, not dumped it. No foul.
he took too many notes and that stalled the disicion.
The reason will be revealed when they unseal that portion of the record. Like every other defense theory, though, your claim will be debunked when the truth is revealed. BTW, we are still waiting for the Geragos' eyewitnesses that supposedly saw Laci walking the dog on the 24th and we are still waiting for believable testimony that backs the defense contention that Conner died much later than Laci.
I can only suppose you are unable to refute my post 59 to you.
the straight that brought the body back to that place is more likely to have originated on the other side of the coast. but this was ignored during the trial.
no i do not like rhetoric thrown at me like its confirmed. time will tell weather I was right or wrong. not your accusations. My opinion is mine alone I have every right to it.
I threw unconfirmed rhetoric at you? Okay. But the trial's over, he was convicted on all of that, so I'd say it's confirmed at this point.
time will tell weather I was right or wrong. not your accusations.
My accusations? What accusations? I stated the evidence from the trial, I have no accusations other than what came out as evidence.
the straight that brought the body back to that place is more likely to have originated on the other side of the coast.
I don't understand this. What does that mean, the other side of the coast? The bodies washed up 90 miles away from inland Modesto. How is it possible that she was driven all the way from Modesto by someone else, and just happened to be dumped right where he claims he was fishing?
My opinion is mine alone I have every right to it.
We all have a right to our opinions. Trials are not settled by opinion however. This murder conviction has nothing to do with an opinion. It's based on proven trial evidence.
wow. thats weird. most of the time the defense calls witnesses that say the defendant is a horrible person.
Presented circumstancial evidence
Guess they aren't at MJ's Neverland, but they sure are in one of their own. Strange people!
Like I've asked you before, HOW do you know this to be fact? ARE you employed by the court? Give it up & accept that justice has been done. You're probably one of the gals who are writing to him daily.
I m a guy... and I don't like hasteful disicions based on heartfelt feelings the jurors may have. Circumstantial evidince is in my opinion suitable to wipe yourself with after you take a d#@p.
Lots of people are really nice, until they kill someone.
But it was his first offense, and he is otherwise such a nice guy. so, c'mon people, cut the poor guy some slack!
*ducking from incoming*
Haha!
I actually did hear some talking head on, I think, Greta Van Sustern's show discussing the sentencing. He mentioned the "first offense" thing and that that could be mitigating. Of course, I started rolling my eyes at that. Murdering your pregnant wife and throwing her in the bay is one heck of a first offense!
A lot of those talking heads are lawyers. Lawyers will say anything with a straight face, I don't hold it against them. I just avoid them in my personal and professional life, that's all! :-)
I should know, I am a member of the NY Bar and worked in 2 major law firms for 8 years! ;-)
Seems that it was a kangaroo court, no ME made a finding of murder, there were no witnesses, no crime scene, no cause of death, no weapons.
I have read it, actually. Thanks! What there was against Scott Peterson, esentially, is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence.
The thing is, circumstantial evidence is evidence just the same, and completely legit.
I didn't hear all the evidence, so I can't speak on the merits. I will say, however, that you don't need any of those things to convict a person of murder.
Kooky? Maybe. But it's the law.
Uhh, like uh MG's satanist homeless people?
The reason will be revealed when they unseal that portion of the record.
I thought he ASKED to be removed? No?
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.