a conviction on what appears to be nothing but circumstantial evidence is bad enough...
the news has presented absolutley no solid evidence to convince me that this jury is anything more than a bunch of oversensitive idiots....maybe there is something the news co's have been hiding from us? they are liberal scum after all right? oh yeah, i forgot, if the police charge somebody, they must be guilty?
the last i heard,
there is NO EVIDENCE at all..just a bunch odd behaviour...
to hand down a death penalty in circumstantial case? sickening.....
posted
Your right glass. I just told my wife the same thing. The news reported within days of her disappearance where he was that day. Anyone could have dumped the body in that area. Lord help any of us if anything similar to this happens.
Posts: 474 | From: Central PA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by keithsan: people are often convicted even without a body, lacking proof of actual death.
I hope he fries (no pun intended)
Yes they are, but there is usually more evidence than in this case. What bothers me the most about these cases is that with the press so absorbed in them, it leaves the possiblity of evidence tampering.
Posts: 474 | From: Central PA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he acted awfully strange, but I am waiting to hear the evidence from the trial, before I make a final decision, even though I think he was probably guilty! The jury must of been told things that we haven't been told, to make a decision like they did!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
keith are you sure we are convicting a lot of people TODAY with so little evidence..i know CSI shows are full of it, but we have made a lot of progress in the last 10 20 years--esp in DNA identification...
he's a creep. no question. but there is not anywhere near enough evidence that i have seen/heard to go beyond reasonable doubt.
i wasn't in court, maybe i missed something, but my take is that he was convicted on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. that is no reason to argue against a conviction in a jury trial, but to sentence death on circumstances? thats' pretty bad.... after all, it's an irrevocable puishment,and we may yet catch the real killer (if he isn't)...
furthermore, if we didn't have so many shoddy convictions, we wouldn't need 10 years of appeals before we carry out the sentence...so he'll be on death row when he dies of something else, in 15 years..... it's a mockery of justice...like a soap opera....
posted
CNN reported that people were cheering outside the courthouse when they heard the sentence... this is also diturbing to me...if anyone is guilty and does deserve to be executed? there is still nothing to cheer about..it's a solemn reponsibilty to deliver justice...not a sporting event
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by keithsan: you guys are loons.
Absolutely - the type who thought O.J. was innocent.
Peterson was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Sound inferences from evidence presented is what determines a gulty conclusion and these inferences all added up to guilt.
Peterson was a narcissistic personality who regarded others as objects to be exploited. He could feign shows of love to manipulate others in exploitation, but did not have any true love or empathy for others. He did not want children, wanted to be free to chase women, and solved his problem with murder of his wife and baby. Killing them was as easy as killing a fly for him.
Add the network of behavior before and after the murder, and the fact that he was getting ready to leave the country with dyed hair and much cash, and it clearly spells GUILT.
posted
glass, on a lot of people i dont know, but i know if someone is JUST missing, another person may be convicted of murder.
CSI-physical evidence. thats their whole show. there was almost none in this case as you point out.
Fact is she's dead, hes beyond a reasonable doubt her killer, do you have other options. Then who did it, in here case it isn't just anyone... thats more of a street crime beat.
I won't go through the little evidence i know of.
As far as CNN goes, you liberal, i don't even like the people in my community, never mind his. They are happy this wife and fetus killer is convicted. Its probably tough and constant to a community, i don't know though.
i know the jurors weren't cheering, that must've sucked.
.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott made concrete anchors to add weight to Laci's body so it would stay under water. Concrete particles were found in his boat, and her hair was found in his pliars, after she disappeared.
The night before she disappeared, Laci was on the phone talking to an airlines clerk about taking a flight the next day to visit a relative. The clerk heard Scott in the background yelling in anger at her about the plane tickets and the clerk's refusal to allow them to use Laci's sister mileage credit in buying the tickets. Scott was in a continued rage toward Laci, yelling at her during the more than 20 minutes she was talking to the clerk.
He only used the boat to dispose of Laci's body. Years earlier Scott had talked about getting away with murder by dumping the weight-attached body in water.
He referred to his wife as dead shortly before he killed Laci.
He was a lying sociopath who didn't want a child and wanted to be free of marriage.
No other possible killer can be found - only Scott, who had motive, means, and opportunity.
posted
after listening to juror exit interviews, i reamin unconvinced. obviously, that is why the case took 6 MONTHS to try. is this possibly a situation where the system just grinds the sanity out of the jurors? Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OJ was innocent.... and so were the people who ran the Little Rascals Daycare center in NC......
look up the details in that case, if you are amused by juror stupidity and mass hysteria....it's a true winner....
it was the most expensive trial ever in NC...i lived about 100 miles away and we heard "updates" daily for a year or 2, i had(supposedly intelligent) people telling me that the day care center had video cameras evereywhere and it was all on videotape, and they saw tape on the news proving these people were child molesters.... after the jurry handed out dozens of 99 year sentences to fewer than a dozen peole, a panel of judges had to step in and overturn it all....not on technicalities, but on LACK OF EVIDENCE.....no lie.... if they had the death penalty available they would have used it ....
posted
Sentencing someone to death, should never be cheered about! It is a decision made with a lot of responsibility on the jurors shoulders! Anyone who was outside cheering, is no better than the people who went to watch public hangings, for the thrill of it! I believe in the death penalty, but it isn't a funny matter! That man is a lost soul!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sentencing someone to death should be cheered when it is moral - reduces evil.
Death can be moral and continued life can be immoral.
Arafat's death was a cause of celebration because it will contribute, along with the presence of the U.S. armed forces in Irag and Afghanistan, to eventual Arab peace with Israel and peace and stability in the mideast.
Scott's sentence is cause for cheer since it will send a mesage to all sociopathic husbands who might beat or kill their wives that what happened with Scott should be a stern message.
If Scott's sentence saves just one woman's life then it is cause for widespread cheer. Let the religious crazies cry over Scott - their universal and unconditional love is stupid and based on ignorance - Jesus was a stupid and ignorant moral philosopher who found agreement with the stupid and ignorant masses.
Scott won't die for over 15 years anyway and may well rot in prison and die there.
posted
but not one single fact made the case... that's darn near impossible in a case like this, in 2004..... no mistakes? he's obviously an odd person, but i have a hard time believing he pulled this off...i'll be interested to see ALL of the evidence in a book or something...
i'm not saying he's innocent, but, i don't see how they can pass death in this case....
too many loose ends here...
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited December 14, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Art! you apologize right now.....stop picking on jesus...
My picking on Jesus, and his third rate ideas, is a moral act.
Ignorance is sin in that it leads to suffering.
The idea of universal unconditional love promotes a morality that can result in evil, and is based on ignorance.
When Christ said turn the other cheek when attacked, he should have added "only when it resolves conflict and leads to peace, otherwise retaliate with all you've got and destroy your enemy until they no longer will seek revenge on you." That is the morality that promotes peace - weakness all too often invites immorality (aggression and exploitation).
Have a happy holiday. My message of love and morality for the holiday season is: kill your enemies before they can kill you, but if you can't be successful, placate them to buy time for when you can kill them.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i like the placate part...that's good....
Yes, but unfortunately it only works with a moral aggressor. Chamberlain tried to placate Hitler and it only encouraged Hitler to be more evil. JFK tried to placate Castro in emasculating the Bay of Pigs invasion so that it would fail - a horrible mistake on Kennedy's part that emboldened Khreusev to send nuclear missiles to Cuba to aim at the U.S. Only when Kennedy threatened war did Russia back down - an aggressive threat with an aggressive embargo-seige that was moral in avoiding WW III.
Aggression and killing are moral as many times as thet are immoral in human affairs. To say they are always immoral is stupid and/or based on ignorance.
Let's all pray for moral aggression, killing and wars - wars that eventually will promote less suffering than compared to peace that promotes more killing and war.
posted
you are correct Art, THIS part of the universe is definitely set up that way,
america does represent the epitome of struggle and inner turmoil, while still managing to fend off ALL external threats
to the victor goes the spoils,
and,i agree that slacking off is death, but, what is it that makes us need more than we NEED?
at what point does the fighting destroy the prize? it's sibling rivalry....that's all that is left after you reach the top your ecological niche......LOL
posted
G:...you are correct Art, THIS part of the universe is definitely set up that way,
Art: All of life is set up this way.
G: ....to the victor goes the spoils, but, what is it that makes us need more than we NEED?
Art: An inner drive that is part of the life force of the universe, necessary for the creative expansion and proliferation of life. This can't be changed and should not be.
G: at what point does the fighting destroy the prize? it's sibling rivalry....that's all that is left after you reach the top your ecological niche......LOL
Art: The fighting never destroys the prize - it clears the air for change and development - death into life - destruction into creation - the beat goes on.
Most of you need to accept reality and quit trying to live in idealistic fantasy.
posted
some very bright molecular biologists i know argue that all of us higher life forms are nothing more than a way for the "original" lower life forms to get around..... Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: but that idealistic fantasy IS what we are fighting for....
Quite true, and very insightful.
That is why I am fighting against idealistic fantasies.
We dream, and from these dreams set goals as ideals. We strive for these goals, come in conflict with others who have mutually inexclusive goals relative to ours, and then fight with them. The battle is disequilibrium and the winner represents a new state of being (progress), and we have temporary peace until a new battle develops. This is the process at the essence of universal development.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: some very bright molecular biologists i know argue that all of us higher life forms are nothing more than a way for the "original" lower life forms to get around.....
Don't listen to everything your wife tells you.
Actually, the reason why we started the universe, from the beginning of atoms forming from energy until we have the present day expansion and proliferation of matter and life, is so you and I could be born, and grow up, and someday meet and discuss ideas on this forum.
posted
actually, i introduced her to the idea...however,i didn't thunkitup muself i appropriateed/assimilated it from Lewis Thomas...Lives of a Cell...good read..worth the time..
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.....LOL
