Posted on 12/07/2004 6:15:31 AM PST by crushelits
Where was that reported?
This is stunning.
You ARE resorting to ad hominem attack in your arguments here. I'm sorry, but it just looks that way.
And, we don't really need backup for a contention that many people have been convicted that were not guilty, some of them sentenced to death. Do we? I mean, if he were making an off the wall point that we had good reason to question, then okay.
By the way, I think it has been longer than 4 years since I have been posting on FR. I think you and I first met on April 7, 2000 when we were discussing the latest government data on income and taxes that showed the earliest tax freedom day in 37 years (the day in the year we have met our tax obligation to the federal government). Or maybe that was someone else. My memory may be slipping.
Scott is missing an opportunity here to bring out the battered husband defense.
I think there is at least as great a likelihood of a wrongful conviction through errant "direct" (i.e., eye-witness) evidence. I suspect that there have been more wrongful convictions based upon intentional or mistaken identification of criminal defendants. The system relies upon humans at all levels, and is subject to error. We use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to make the hurdle very high for the prosecution. If people are willing to lie in order to convict someone, that can occur, and is no less criminal than the murder that occurred at another's hand. The question is, so what? Do we then not try people for crimes? Abolish the death penalty? What? I think the system as it is, with its flaws, is a good one, and for what it is worth (that is, what you are paying for my opinion), I think Peterson did it, and his defense fell apart because there WAS no good defense.
Shucks... Grampa used to haul in 120Lb. bluecats from the river in just that size boat.
My jaw is still on the floor. I'll be away from news so keep an ear out. As I say, it was reported by the female who is reporting on this for Fox (I was in the other room and could only hear, not see the screen).
The Associated Press
December 7, 2004
REDWOOD CITY -- Scott Peterson was a mediator and problem solver, once even breaking up a dog fight that led his now slain wife to begin punching one of the animals, a friend of the former fertilizer salesman testified Tuesday on the sixth day of the penalty phase in the double-murder trial.
God help me if I am ever in this situation and the only thing people can say about me is that I once broke up a dog fight........and try to characterize that as a problem solver.........LOL.......LOL.
If there loads were balanced in some way, no problem -
Fox--I believe on Shep's show.
(Now I'm trying to remember if maybe it was a guy reporter! But I know I heard about Scott saving the dog from Laci)
Penalties applied by the law should not be looked at under the view of a single case. And, of course we can not see now what evidence might point to his unlikely innocence in the future. We are not in the future yet.
I love that description.
About the only non-judicial error of any consequence is failure to prove the case. But that hurdle as established in Jackson v. Virginia is almost impossible to surmount - in shorthand, the appellant has to demonstrate that a rational trier of fact could not have found guilt under the evidence presented. And on appeal the burden shifts to the convicted. You can count cases reversed on Jackson grounds on one hand or at most two.
And a Jackson reversal doesn't win a new trial - it wins an outright judgment of acquittal. The State doesn't get another bite at the apple.
I meant to say battered dog defense.
Either way, I believe you.
It is quite stunning, nonetheless.
Trash Laci... that's desperation deluxe.
Thanks for the links!
The first one is great and it was nice to have all the evidence put out in a timeline etc. It is a tapestry with every stitch creating Scott as the killer. Lots of little things I didn't know about, but dang, they all point to his guilt.
The second sight! EEK! I KNOW the creator of that page has posters of Scott all over her bedroom and wants to marry him. That is why she wants him free. VERY creepy.
Laci, a dog-beater. What else to expect form the friend of a fertilizer salesman?
The washing of the clothes still gets me. My hubby would take them off as soon as he got home....and put them in the laundry. He knew his little old wife (c'est moi) would take care of it. And if I was MISSING.....I'm sure he wouldn't have even taken them off....even if they were wet. And the first question to relatives would have been.....Is Laci there? Her car's here. Did tell me she had the baby without me. (Don't forget, he didn't know WHEN the dog was found at that time.)
Next we'll hear that Laci slapped a niece or nephew of Snott's.
Thank you for finding that.
Unbelievable! I don't think the jury will be amused.
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.