WT Forums

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/?GT1=5809


"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

Smoke his Ass!

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

They should fry him!

At least he was finally found guilty!

_________________
\"I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives\"

Surprised no one has brought this up in civil liberties........

While I have the feeling he may have done it.

There was no evidence presented that he actually did it, this trial was one on the jurys feeling, not on the actual evidence. Seriously <b>with the evidence presented</b>, where is anything that shows he committed a murder? Sure, the guy is a liar, an adulteror, a cad who has done many odd things, but where is the real evidence that puts him behind the proverbial trigger <b>beyond a reasonable doubt?</b>

Some of the people scare me with how lightly they're taking all of this, and how quick they are to call him guilty. Do any of you see the negative precedent that's being set here? Do I think he did it? Probably. But it doesn't matter what I or any juror thinks or anyone here on this board thinks, <b>it matters what evidence is presented in the courtroom.</b> And based on the evidence there is no proof that he committed any crime. The only proof there is is that he is a cheating bastard of a husband, that's all.

If Peterson gets the death penalty, I'll be REALLY worried for this country's future, more so than I already am now.

Like I said, I'm not on Peterson's side or any other side; I'm on the side of protecting the integrity of the law. And the way this country is going, that integrity is slipping away fast.





Edited by - type 7 on Nov 13 2004 11:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
There was no evidence presented that he actually did it, this trial was one on the jurys feeling, not on the actual evidence. Seriously <b>with the evidence presented</b>, where is anything that shows he committed a murder? Sure, the guy is a liar, an adulteror, a cad who has done many odd things, but where is the real evidence that puts him behind the proverbial trigger <b>beyond a reasonable doubt?</b> <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<snipped for brevity>

Type 7, couldn't agree more. I mean, I have this feeling that he probably did it, but was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Not as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I'll be happy that Greta Van Susteren can shut the fuck up now.

100% behind you on this type 7. Whether he is guilt or not; he should not be going to jail right now because there is not enough proof. But what do we know? They may have said things in the court room that we did not hear through the media. Maybe there is good evidence that he did it. But maybe there wasn't. Maybe it was all based on feelings, and that scares me. What scares me even more is the fact that it was tried in the media long before it was tried in the court.

“I actual did voted for it, before I voted against it.”-John Kerry
“I actual did put out the fire, before I started it.”-A firefighter now in jail

And while we're at it, what's this 2nd degree murder for the fetus crap? That to me sets a dangerous precedent as well. They are looking at a fetus as though it has some sort of rights and all that stuff (which goes back to the abortion argument and if it is a "human" then the parents should be able to claim taxes on it and all that stuff discussed ad naseum in the media).

They, in essence, just made abortion illegal at <SOME> age. Of course it will be left to another court to decide at what age it's murder and at what age it's O.K. to abort.

What they've done is take the book, throw it at him, whatever doesn't stick, throw again with some industrial strength adhesive on it. This conviction is just so WRONG on so many accounts it is utterly pathetic, and a mockery of this country's justice system.

And before the bashing starts: I am not defending this SOB, nor am I debating the right of abortion or not. In this case, with the evidence that has been presented to the public, I think that justice was not served. I had hoped that if Scott was guilty, that with all the time, effort, and money spent, California would have done better.




Edited by - type 7 on Nov 13 2004 9:50 PM

Not sure I agree since we diodn't see the evidence the jury saw. Funny that her body turned-up in the exact spot he said he was fishing. He must've thought the body would never be discovered. Is there ANY other plausible explanation for why a pregnant young woman would turn-up murdered in the exact spot Peterson placed himself that day in an undersized boat with no fishing experience?? BTW, one doesn't go sturgeon fishing alone in a 14 ft boat. Funny also how he never showed any interest in fishing til the day his wife died. Not to mention the fact that he hinted in his conversations with Frey that he had killed her. The justice system succeeded where hard evidence failed. This is a triumph of the justice system and not a failure.

ATTACK!!!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This is a triumph of the justice system and not a failure.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That depends on what evidence was brought out, and hopefully the jury could shed some light on that now. Early reports are that the tossed jurors may have been done so due to their possibly questioning whether to make a conviction or not. I would hope that isn't the case. Coincidences don't make one a murderer, or even lack of an alibi. Being a capital case, I would hope they had some sort of direct evidence linking him to the crime. If they didn't, and they went completely off of circumstantial, I'd be very worried. Beyond a reasonable doubt is key here.

And again on the 2nd degree murder crap. By that logic, anyone that gets an abortion should be convicted of murder. I mean, both result in the death of the fetus, and both were done with the intent to terminate the fetus. Of course, I'm being facetious, but a real bad precedent is being set here with the murder of the fetus charge.

My take? Kalifornia needed a win BADLY. They botched Rodney King and OJ, so if this guy got away, then they looked bad again. So, they went forward with circumstantial evidence, questionable expert testimonies, and about four of five possible scenarios. Did he kill her in the bedroom and THEN move her, did he kill her on the bank, did he kill her in the boat? Honestly, they didn't really know. The answer was whichever one fit best at that point in the trial. <b>If they had gone with the original jurors, it would've been a mistrial, no doubt. Kalifornia couldn't afford that.</b> It wouldn't surprise me in the least if down the road we found out the state doctored the trial. I'm STILL not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" he killed her. What this does, however, is leave a HUGE appeal door wide open.

And the most laughable thing....... the fetus/murder ruling could come back to bite them in the ass concerning the new stem cell research funding.....






Edited by - Type 7 on Nov 14 2004 10:27 PM

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both convicted of 1 count each of 1st degree murder for the death of the fetus of one of their victoms, who was 8 months pregnant.

This case is probably acting on that precedent.

Regardless, if it's murder at all, it should be 1st degree- same as for the mother.

"Molon labe".
Leonidas, King of Sparta,
Thermopylae, 480 B.C.