[Howlin]

Refusing to take a lie detector test doesnt prove guilt.

No, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it.

Just like his mother telling him to "deny, deny, deny" sounds bad.

Or his own mother saying even Scott wasn't stupid enough to dump their bodies in the bay.

Or that he had Viagra in his car when he was arrested.

You keep harping on not convicting somebody on circumstantial evidence; how can you be in college and not know that MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence?

YOu act like there's something wrong with circumstantial evidence -- it's like you don't even realize that circumstantial evidence is treated just like direct evidence.

[onyx]

You keep harping on not convicting somebody on circumstantial evidence; how can you be in college and not know that MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence?







By his own admission, he is 32 years old
and still a student. A trite slow perhaps?

[theconservativerepublican]

I agree with that. True, most cases do have alot of circumstantial evidence but they also have a motive and a weapon. Neither in the Peterson Case.

[Poodlebrain]

"Refusing to take a lie detector test doesnt prove guilt."


"No, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it."

Do you believe in the presumption of innocence? Do you believe in the rights listed in the Fifth Amendment?

Scott Peterson is under no obligation to defend his behavior under our legal system. It is the obligation of the state to prove he committed the crimes that he was charged with. According to the verdict in his trial the state met that burden.

However, Peterson has the right to appeal that errors were made that resulted in an unfair trial. The only possible errors I'm aware of that would warrant such a decision are the jurors rocking the boat issue and the removal of jurors. (One juror was removed for conducting her own investigation, how is that materially different than the other jurors rocking the boat? Both were intended to gain information that was not entered into evidence at the trial.)

I think Peterson's trial was as fair as a trial could be given the media attention. I do not think he got very good counsel for his money, as you can tell from the issues I've tried to raise.

I wasn't a juror, and I'm aware of facts not entered into evidence. I think Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn child. Despite that, and with the information unknown to the jurors, I couldn't vote to convict him with the evidence presented at trial because I don't think they proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It all goes back to the presumption of innocence.