Scott Peterson is...

Quote:

---

What exactly is needed to convict a man other than concrete evidence?

---

That is not concrete evidence. I tjust makes it seem likely that he did it.

Quote:

---

From what you're saying, it's like if a man's fingerprint is found on the murder weapon, you'll say it's not enough to convict him. If a man is caught on camera, that's not enough to convict him. What kind of evidence do you think would actually need to prove the guy's guilt or innocence?

---

What you have mentioned here is concrete evidence, and it is enough to convict someone. As far as I can tell, no evidence of this magnitude was present in the Scott Peterson case.

Quote:

---

What exactly is needed to convict a man other than concrete evidence?

---

That is not concrete evidence. I tjust makes it seem likely that he did it.

Quote:

---

From what you're saying, it's like if a man's fingerprint is found on the murder weapon, you'll say it's not enough to convict him. If a man is caught on camera, that's not enough to convict him. What kind of evidence do you think would actually need to prove the guy's guilt or innocence?

---

What you have mentioned here is concrete evidence, and it is enough to convict someone. As far as I can tell, no evidence of this magnitude was present in the Scott Peterson case.

EDIT: Woosps. Im not exactly sure how that happened...

Quote:

---

That is not concrete evidence. I tjust makes it seem likely that he did it.

---

Not that your wrong, but many statements today can go a long ways just by even mentioning something. If someone said that they saw a murder, the police arnt going to take it lightly. As for this case about leaving after the murder, agreed that it looked suspicious, and that alone cannot judge a man if he's innocent or not, but it can sure as hell make a case out of it, and with todays corruption, that information alone could probably lead to a trial.

Now, which ones of you have watched the trial? I mean really watched it. I personally have only watched snippets, and I've gathered the evidence I've listed from that. Do any of you know if the evidence was solid enough? You cant say it was all circumstantial unless you've watched the trial, and nik it doesnt seem like you have according to your first few posts.

I have not watched the trial. I thought I said so in my first or second post, but perhaps not. I am simply saying that from the information I know, it seems like it was unfair, and I have yet to see anybody give any hard evidence as to whether or not he commited the crime. That, to me at least, is reason enough to think that there may not have been any hard evidence against Peterson. It would seem logical to me that if there was any real evidence, the media would have talked about it, and that I have yet to see. Im not saying that there for sure was no real evidence presented against Peterson, but I sure haven't seen any.

You probably did make it clear, I just didnt want to go back and double-check.

You may wanna check into that. Personally I think enough circumstantial evidence is far too much to ignore and perfectly fine and admissable. One or two things, maybe, but as many 'odd' things as he was up to just didnt seem right.

Regardless of what we think, though, he's been judged. As far as the media goes, those jurors were most likely kept from any and all forms of media during the trial, so it shouldnt have effected anything but the public's view of things, which of course is always skewed.

And again, regardless of how much media coverage there is or how overblown it is, it doesnt warrant the case to be thrown out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

He's been proven guilty.

---

THANK GOODNESS!!!

The news on my computer needs to be updated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean

I disagree. The media shoves it down our throats and decide what we want to hear. Kind of like MTV a few decades ago, they shoved that music down our throats until we liked it.

I never liked the idea of a jury. These are people who are not lawyers and never had experience with these cases before and are asked to decide the fate of someone they don't even know.

---

I was speaking more in a general sense. It's obvious that people enjoy situations like this, based on the types of television shows they watch. So, if broadcast news organizations want good ratings, they'll deliver what statistics say will get them those ratings. So, in a sense, I agree with you. But ultimately, I feel the public only gets what it asks for.

And I think a jury is the fairest way to go about things. You get people from all walks of life and ask them to use common sense.

I agree with foa. But personally, I think it's abhorrent, and disgusting, that we as humans derive satisfaction from events like this.

I haven't watched the trial, but I've read plenty about it, and discussed it with a good many people. Plainly put, the defense could've given any number of arguments (and did) to account for Peterson's behavior. Everyone KNOWS he did it, because of what he had to gain from it, but that alone is not enough to convict anyone. From the opinions I've read, one solitary piece of viable concrete evidence in conjunction with all of the circumstantial evidence would be enough to make this case not so controversial. But there's not, which is what makes it so hard to deal with, and why there have been THREE jury members who have been dismissed.

I think this is an interesting case for the simple fact that Peterson, who has no "smoking gun" in his case has been found guilty, while the OJ Simpson, who's circumstances were nearly identical DID have a smoking gun, and he was acquitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

I think this is an interesting case for the simple fact that Peterson, who has no "smoking gun" in his case has been found guilty, while the OJ Simpson, who's circumstances were nearly identical DID have a smoking gun, and he was acquitted.

---

Glad I'm not the only one. That sickened me, to see him go free. At least we didn't see a repeat of that in the Peterson case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

Regardless of what we think, though, he's been judged. As far as the media goes, those jurors were most likely kept from any and all forms of media during the trial, so it shouldnt have effected anything but the public's view of things, which of course is always skewed.

---

The television movie of this whole situation came out long before the trial took place, long before jury selection could take place. Only once the jury has been selected is the jury sequestered for the duration of the trial. There was plenty of time for the media to pollute the evidence of the case.

also, the snippets and bits and pieces people have seen and read of the trial? those come from the media and therefore cannot be wholly trusted. with the right "spin" you can make somebody say something diametrically opposite of what they actually said or intended. guess who invented "spin?" well, it was politicians actually, but the media dominates the practice now.

According to CNN, the prosecution had neither the murder weapon or the cause of death. They never found out how she died. They say she must've been murdered, but they don't know in what way. They don't know where she died, be it in the house, on the boat, or whatever. The prosecution's case: she was found in the water and Scott has a boat. I doubt even the DA in Law and Order could get a conviction with such a case, and she can prosecute anything. I for one, do think that Scott is guilty. However, I don't like that he was convicted with such evidence. If Lacy was found on the side of the highway, would he have been convicted for owning a car that was driven on the highway- all other lack of hard evidence standing?

Quote:

---

I disagree. The media shoves it down our throats and decide what we want to hear. Kind of like MTV a few decades ago, they shoved that music down our throats until we liked it.

---

Well, I dunno. If everyone just changed the channel (or, better yet, shut off their TV's) when this kind of stuff comes on, the ratings would reflect that, and the sponsors would start to take notice. As much as it seems like we're getting all this crap shoved down our throats, I think it's still our fault...well, it's the fault of whichever subset of the population is monitored for ratings purposes, anyway.

Zap! Zap! :mad2: