Scott Peterson Is Innocent

50 murder victims

too slow

and the fact that the body washed ashore right where he was fishing that day/evening.... yup... no link.

and please with the "someone couda set him up"

like someone drove 90 miles to dump the body ecaxtly where he was fishing....

btw good thread starter.

what a brilliant and intelligent way to prove guilt or innocence.

your dad must have shot too much cum inside of you when you were a boy

he was innocent of the charges, just like o.j.

Did he do it, without a doubt..

Tell it to Ron Goldman. (Rest In Peace)

the fun part about this thread is all the "he is guilty" folks are the same people who cant tell when their girlfriend is fucking their best friend.

hahaha

keep sleeping in them sheets of deceit bitches

FUCKING CLASSIC!!

If you wake up, go outside and everything is wet; the grass, the trees, the road, that's sufficient evidence to say it rained out, even if you didn't see it happen.

In law school they use that example as what circumstantial evidence is. No physical evidence, maybe not. He committed the perfect murder... almost.

He is a psychopath and that's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact based on his emotionless behavior, actions and countless lies.

98% of murders are committed by people the victims know. (fact) A random person killed a 7 and a half month pregnant woman on Christmas eve in the short window of time her husband just happened to be gone and had time to dispose her body in broad daylight in the bay where he happened to be "fishing" an hour and a half away? Then while she is considered a missing person still, he sells her car and wants to sell their home. Where exactly was she supposed to come home to if he thought she was alive?

In the US, you don't even need a body to convict someone of murder. Sometimes a little common sense goes a lot further than a smoking gun.

He also sold her car a week after she disappeared, and was fishing by himself on Christmas!!! How the fuck does that make sense, my friend?

I've seen circumstantial evidence used before, in fact I was convicted based on circumstatial evidence myself... but dude, this case is 100% obvious. No question.

Ya, I'm sure he was framed. The only reason they convicted him is because he was white.


I knew if I made this smile it would come in handy...

That's circumstantial evidence. Physical evidence is required and I haven't heard of it if it exists.

That's not physical evidence.

There was physical evidence against OJ, if there's physical evidence against Scott Peterson, I have yet to hear of it.

As well it should, but that is not physical evidence against him, that's only circumstantial evidence.

My understanding is that circumstantial evidence is not enough to convice and physical evidence is required. There is no evidence directly linking Scott to the murders, as far as I know. All you have are sets of circumstances that indicate that but don't describe it beyond reasonable doubt.

gruesome

So, if someone near you was killed and you realized the cops were only looking at you and every TV station in the country was calling you the only suspect you might not be frightened enough to run? C'mon.

I think the hours and hours of phone calls where the cops had Amber Frey "interview" him provided more damning evidence than anything else in the case. His reactions while listening to his voicemail certainly didn't help him.

This case will win appeal on the jury nonsense.

Circumstantial evidence is all that is needed to convict anyone of anything. Look it up before you make claims like "is required". Don't know where ya heard that but it was a lie.

How can you possibly convict someone without any direct evidence? Without that you cannot hope to remove reasonable doubt. With circumstantial evidence, there will always be reasonable doubt, that's why it's circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence.

Edit: http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2.../cr99-928.html

"4. Evidence -- circumstantial evidence -- must be consistent with defendant's guilt. -- Circumstantial evidence can provide the basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion."

It could be condensation, not necessarily rain.

You can absolutely convict on circumstantial evidence alone. It's done all the time.

On May 11, 1982, Davis--an ex-convict--entered the Jacksonville, Fla., home of the John Weiler family. Weiler, an executive with the Westinghouse Corp., was on a business trip in Pittsburgh.

In the Weiler home, Allen Lee Davis attacked Nancy Weiler, 37, who at the time was three months pregnant with the family's third child. Davis bludgeoned Mrs. Weiler--who was the corresponding secretary of the PTA at her children's school--so severely that she was barely recognizable when police found her body. Davis brutalized Mrs. Weiler with such force that the trigger guard on the gun with which he was beating her broke, as did the wooden grips and metal frame of its handle.

Davis tied up the Weiler's 10-year-old daughter, Kristy--a 5th-grade student who hoped to become a nuclear engineer someday--and shot her in the face, killing her.

The Weilers' other child -- 5-year-old Kathy -- tried to run from Davis. He shot her in the back, and then beat her, crushing her skull.

There was quite a bit of blood in the Weiler home after Davis had killed the mother and her two children. Considerably more blood than inadvertently appeared on Davis' shirt during the execution.



I bet he doesnt look as bad as his victims

I hope none of you idiots ever get jury duty.

Peterson should have walked. People like you are the reason folks are released from prison 20 years later and given a bus ride to nowhere and $20 because "whoops he was innocent all along". I bet those jurors were just as convinced as your ass.

Wheeeeeeeeeeee go justice.


This case was full to the brim of reasonable doubt and not a bit of hard evidence. Wonder what you'd all say if you were on trial for obscenity and had the same idiot jurors deciding your fate.

not sure if he is guilty or innocent but his wife was hot...his mistress was butt ass ugly.

You're high.

I don't convict people. Courts do. You answered your own question with number 4. The circumstantial evidence supports his guilt. I don't know if he did it or not. I kinda think he did. But I didn't listen to all the evidence and neither did you. The jury did and they made their decision. However, from what I heard on the news there was nothing that would have led me to a guilty verdict. Even though I think he did it there was no actual link to him and the murder. So he went fishing near where they found the body. He died his hair and had some cash on him. It was explained why he did it. I find it more than plausible that he did it as he said because he was being hounded by the media so why not take off for a while and change your look a little so you can have privacy. Actors do it all the time when out in public. They wear sunglasses and wigs and hats to hide who they are sometimes so they will be left alone. As for the cash, he had an excuse for that to. I don?t recall what it was but I remember thinking as long as he had a good reason for having it then it?s ok by me. The law shouldn?t be about we think, it should be about the facts. If he couldn?t come up with an answer for any of his actions then I would have taken the whole circumstantial thing more seriously. But, everything they threw at him he had an answer for. It?s just that the jury decided not to believe his answers.

But I think you're missing the point here. Evidence is evidence. If it wasn't it would be called something else. It doesn't matter what kind it is as long as it supports a conclusion of either guilt or innocence. If he had a better attorney he probably would have gotten off. All that needed to be done with this case was to just point out to jury that there is absolutely no solid evidence that he did it. There is just a bunch of drawn out conclusions based on the facts and that if you are going to consider the DA?s conclusion of the facts then you have to consider the defendants as well. But, Scott was fucked from the get go. He had the affair, Lacy was pregnant, there was no way he was gonna get off. The jury I believe had him guilty in their minds before the trial even began. I don?t agree with the verdict they made even though I do believe he is guilty. Court isn?t about the truth. It?s about looking at the facts and drawing a logical conclusion to them. Unfortunately you can?t expect too much from 12 people not bright enough to get out of jury duty in the first place.

hmm, "left wing bullshit", and then you say go Vote for Bushy...

In case you were smoking too much crack on this post, I thought i'd let you know Bush/republicans are the right wing, and democrats/liberals are considered the left wing.

Or the morning DEW

is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have a lot of cash and I dyed my hair, so I am guilty of murder?

every piece of evidence was circumstantial....so it was basically up to the moral indignation of the jury (or lack thereof)

FYI you can convict on circumstantial evidence if the combined weight of many pieces of evidence justifies it...

but at that point, it moves away from the realm of fact to the abyss of emotion...and the jury HATED this guy

i agree he wasnt convicted on much