Ridiculous media coverage being on the same level as stabbing a pregnant woman seems a little bit of an exaggeration, but yeah, it was pretty bad.Originally Posted by nik0tine
Ridiculous media coverage being on the same level as stabbing a pregnant woman seems a little bit of an exaggeration, but yeah, it was pretty bad.
I hope that's just a FOS. But it's not the media's fault he tried to run away from the country.
Oh please, let's sentence reporters to death because they blatantly (it WAS bad) covered and OVER covered a story, and let's set free a man who decapitated HIS PREGNANT WIFE. Yeah. That makes sense.
Well, if I knew what an FOS was, I could tell ya.I hope that's just a FOS.
Have you watched any of the coverage? There was plenty of evidence, even if they didnt have the smoking gun. If it was all circumstantial, it wouldnt have gone to trial, and circumstantial evidence is fine as long as there's enough of it. He was cheating on her and expressed his wishes to leave her many times, but couldnt. He was abusive to her, according to her friends. Not heavily abusive, but he wasnt very nice. He was fishing in the area her body was found, or at least said he was fishing, even though the boat he was in wasnt the kind of boat one can use to fish where he said he was fishing. He did nothing while everyone was searching for her, actually he spent a lot of time on the phone with his girlfriend, trying to convince her to stay with him. When they found her body, as Strider already mentioned, he made a run for it with 10 grand in cash. I'm sure there was more, but I can only stomach so much so I didnt watch everything. Those're the facts learned from the news alone.
Actually, many people believe, and rightly so, that the evidence presented isn't enough to convict anyone, even though it's very obvious he did it. Circumstantial evidence is rarely ever enough to convince a jury, but ... like I said it's pretty obvious.
I had similar questions concerning the 2nd degree murder charge. It makes very little sense to me.
And as for my newly acquired mantra: The media only gives what the public shows interest in.
Signature by rubah. I think.
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.
Scott Peterson is guilty. WHY CAN'T ANYBODY SEE THAT???!!!
...Oh yeah.....I forgot......
"Everyone is innocent untill proven guilty."
All life begins with a Nu and ends with a Nu.
is something wrong with that system? oh wait, just like the catholic priests scandel; preists were getting accused of molesting children, and they were being locked up with no evidence inplying they were guilty!
innocent until proven guilty, what a fine country this is.
as for scott peterson, i havent been paying to much attention to the trial, so i cannot say much on the subject. if he did murder his wife and unborn child, i dont believe he should get the death penalty. NOBODY deserves the death penalty, since they can serve enterity in the circles of hell and if he did actually do it, he can go insane in prison for all i care
He's been proven guilty.
yes, but everyone knows that people have been proven guilty, when they are acutally not. money is power, and the one who has more money can be easily presuaded...
That is not enough to convict anyone. I would like someone to give me at least SOME hard evidence that he did it. Because if that is all there was, than his conviction is a crime, in my opinion. (Figuratively, of course.)Have you watched any of the coverage? There was plenty of evidence, even if they didnt have the smoking gun. If it was all circumstantial, it wouldnt have gone to trial, and circumstantial evidence is fine as long as there's enough of it. He was cheating on her and expressed his wishes to leave her many times, but couldnt. He was abusive to her, according to her friends. Not heavily abusive, but he wasnt very nice. He was fishing in the area her body was found, or at least said he was fishing, even though the boat he was in wasnt the kind of boat one can use to fish where he said he was fishing. He did nothing while everyone was searching for her, actually he spent a lot of time on the phone with his girlfriend, trying to convince her to stay with him. When they found her body, as Strider already mentioned, he made a run for it with 10 grand in cash. I'm sure there was more, but I can only stomach so much so I didnt watch everything. Those're the facts learned from the news alone.
I'm not sure if you even bothered to read my posts, but the news reported he tried to flee the country in a flurry of disguises. That should tell you all you need to know.
Yeah that makes it seem like he did it, and he probably did. However, that still isn't enough evidence to convict him, because that alone is the only somewhat valid point I have heard so far, and you can't convict someone on that alone.I'm not sure if you even bothered to read my posts, but the news reported he tried to flee the country in a flurry of disguises. That should tell you all you need to know.
That doesn't make it seem like he did it, it makes him react to actually doing it. He didn't probably did, he did.
What you're asking is the same for all cases. I mean there's only 2 people who know what Scott Peterson did, him and Lacey. It's the same way in ALL murder cases. I don't get your point...it's like you're saying everyone is innocent. What exactly is needed to convict a man other than concrete evidence?
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?
Posting Permissions
