Quote:
Originally posted by warren
I dont give two fucks about your assumptions about Me, the facts are very simple, in this case and if You ask any of the thousands of guys locked up right now what evidence the cops had on them they will all say circumstantial, its only because this case hit the main stream media that this saga goes on.
|
Yeah, I remember one time I was in a courtroom holding cell waiting for my bail hearing (my case was not circumstantial), and there was this other guy there that was being held on circumstantial evidence for the robbing of an AM/PM on Halloween night. The robber had a mask on. THe video camera could not ID him. , , , , purely circumstantial evidence.
So anyway, the DA pulled him from the cell, as he wanted to see if he could get him to plead guilty for a lower charge. The perp wasn't taking any offers, they had nothing on him. "Are you sure? You won't be getting this offer in court," said the DA. "Nope, I am innocent, you can't prove nuthin'"
Purely circumstantially, while he did have a mask on, he was wearing a tank top (call them wife beaters these days?) . . . so anyway he is wearing a tank top, and across his back from shoulder to shoulder, in big tattooed letters, is . . . . you guessed it, his name. While the security camera did not get his face, it did get the sign he was wearing on his back.
So yeah, I am sure there are dozens of guys that are innocent, and 80% are there on circumstantial evidence. However, usually with the circumstantial evidence comes DNA, gunshot residue, weapons, scratches . . . security camers to help it along.
They have none of that on Peterson.