|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 6, 2007 0:49:42 GMT -5
A pregnant woman vanishes from her home without a trace of a crime. Later, her badly decomposed body is found on the shore of the bay. Her uterus has been cut open and there is no trace of the fetus or the placenta. The baby is found, full term and not in the fetal position, on a different part of the shore. There is no sign he was ever in the sea. What part of this DOESN'T scream 'failed fetus napping'?
Despite a desperate search by the police not a trace of any evidence linking her husband to the crime can be found, and the prosecution is forced to resort to extreme efforts to spin what little they can find into a case against the husband. They play recorded telephone conversations between the husband and a woman he had sex with 3 or 4 times in an effort to blacken his reputation although nowhere in these calls does he ever make the slightest admission of guilt or anything approaching it.
Despite the total lack of credible evidence of guilt he is convicted, mainly on the strength of these conversations.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 9, 2007 4:56:01 GMT -5
Ummm...I haven't read the trial transcript in full, mostly just news reports. And I do think there's a lot of 'circumstantial' evidence pointing to Mr. Peterson's guilt--although I normally demand more than 'circumstantial' evidence to convict. Still, the law allows for juries to do so, as in this case. The debate surrounding the DP tends toward the emotional and it leads to upshots like the Peterson case where, IMO, the jury came to HATE him and wanted to see him die. I do not think the verdict was justified, at least in my view, although I don't particularly find Mr. Petterson appealing either. In fact, I think he 'probably' is guilty, but that doesn't rise to the level I'd demand for a murder conviction. I do NOT like the man. He displayed plenty of behavior reminiscent of a 'guilty' conscience. But I would not have convicted him. Aside from that, I'm opposed to the DP in principle. I also think his attorneys pursued a bad strategy during the penalty phase of the trial. I would have attacked the DP itself rather than relying on the jury's certainty/doubt as to their verdict of guilt in the face of the DP.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 9, 2007 13:09:06 GMT -5
Ummm...I haven't read the trial transcript in full, mostly just news reports. And I do think there's a lot of 'circumstantial' evidence pointing to Mr. Peterson's guilt Actually, no, there was none. although I normally demand more than 'circumstantial' evidence to convict. Circumstantial evidence is GREAT evidence. Direct (i.e. eye witness) evidence is often very unreliable. What you fail to appreciate is that there was NO circumstantial evidence against Peterson, all of it was in his favor. If they had found her body in his locked warehouse, or a big bloodstain in the house, the truck or the boat he'd be toast. What they found was NO evidence against him. The fact that they took 5 months to prosecute a one week case shows that the prosecution knew that too, and were trying to cover up for it. The jury remarked on how boring it was to listen to endless trivia that added nothing to the case. This gave the illusion of evidence where there was none. In the end, all they had to judge him on was that he lied to Frey for whatever reason. What he never did do was confess to Frey OR say he loved her. She was merely slander - she proved nothing about murder. Still, the law allows for juries to do so, as in this case. The debate surrounding the DP tends toward the emotional and it leads to upshots like the Peterson case where, IMO, the jury came to HATE him and wanted to see him die. I do not think the verdict was justified, at least in my view, although I don't particularly find Mr. Peterson appealing either. In fact, I think he 'probably' is guilty, but that doesn't rise to the level I'd demand for a murder conviction. I do NOT like the man. He displayed plenty of behavior reminiscent of a 'guilty' conscience. Actually, no. He displayed behavior which went overwhelmingly to innocence. If he'd gone around with a bible under his arm, 'consulting' ministers and priests and proclaiming his great love for Laci and his abhorrence of Frey (like Jimmy Swaggart) I would have been much more cynical. But I would not have convicted him. Aside from that, I'm opposed to the DP in principle. I also think his attorneys pursued a bad strategy during the penalty phase of the trial. I would have attacked the DP itself rather than relying on the jury's certainty/doubt as to their verdict of guilt in the face of the DP. Not only did the jury hate Peterson, which was the prosecution's only weapon, but reading between the lines you can see that many of the witnesses that the defence might have relied upon were also ready to change their testimony to align with the popular view and, as a result, were not called. So much for truth and justice. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 9, 2007 18:10:44 GMT -5
You're speaking of 'physical' evidence, not 'circumstantial' evidence--i.e. the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding Mr. Peterson by which intent and actions are INFERRED rather than 'proven'.
I won't go into listing them again--plenty of others have done so, often concluding they were sufficient, in their eyes, for the conviction. I don't agree because I require 'hard' evidence (blood, dna, ballistics, hair samples, etc.)--BTW, wasn't there a hair sample found in the boat or one of its accessories belonging to Laci? The jury, IMO, convicted Mr. Peterson because they came to HATE him rather than based on the physical evidence. They're allowed to do so in law. But I think it's a very bad idea so far as public policy goes for a jury to do so. Possibly Mr. Peterson would have fared better if he had refused to discuss his wife's disappearance with ANYBODY. I am not convinced of his actual innocence, only that the standards I think should be required for a capital offense conviction were not met.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 9, 2007 21:28:32 GMT -5
You're speaking of 'physical' evidence, not 'circumstantial' evidence--i.e. the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding Mr. Peterson by which intent and actions are INFERRED rather than 'proven'. I won't go into listing them again--plenty of others have done so, often concluding they were sufficient, in their eyes, for the conviction. I don't agree because I require 'hard' evidence (blood, dna, ballistics, hair samples, etc.)--BTW, wasn't there a hair sample found in the boat or one of its accessories belonging to Laci? The jury, IMO, convicted Mr. Peterson because they came to HATE him rather than based on the physical evidence. They're allowed to do so in law. But I think it's a very bad idea so far as public policy goes for a jury to do so. Possibly Mr. Peterson would have fared better if he had refused to discuss his wife's disappearance with ANYBODY. I am not convinced of his actual innocence, only that the standards I think should be required for a capital offense conviction were not met. I have a comment on that single hair of Laci's being found.... My comment is that one day, my husband called me up from work and told me over the phone that he found one of my hairs in his clothing. He also tells me that he finds my hair among his belongings often-- in his truck, and through out our house. I have dark hair. Long dark hair travels! |
|
|
|
Post by randex on Sept 10, 2007 8:30:16 GMT -5
IMO that single hair of Laci's was planted by Brochinni
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 11:47:16 GMT -5
You're speaking of 'physical' evidence, not 'circumstantial' evidence--i.e. the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding Mr. Peterson by which intent and actions are INFERRED rather than 'proven'. I won't go into listing them again--plenty of others have done so, often concluding they were sufficient, in their eyes, for the conviction. I don't agree because I require 'hard' evidence (blood, dna, ballistics, hair samples, etc.)--BTW, wasn't there a hair sample found in the boat or one of its accessories belonging to Laci? The jury, IMO, convicted Mr. Peterson because they came to HATE him rather than based on the physical evidence. They're allowed to do so in law. But I think it's a very bad idea so far as public policy goes for a jury to do so. Possibly Mr. Peterson would have fared better if he had refused to discuss his wife's disappearance with ANYBODY. I am not convinced of his actual innocence, only that the standards I think should be required for a capital offense conviction were not met. You need to look at the definition of CE. It is any evidence that is not direct, i.e., not provided by an eye witness to the events. As an example, watching TV porn is not CE because it does not relate to the crime. Despising the defendant is not CE because it is not material to the crime. Telling lies to Frey for sex is not CE because it is not material to the crime. The judge instructed the jury that they may NOT use reasonable, normal and legal behaviors by the defendant to convict him - they must find that whatever he did or said which is weighed against him must be extraordinary and/or illegal - must have no reasonable explanation except that which goes to guilt. Like too many you do not grasp what CE is, although the judge's instructions are quite clear. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 17:22:38 GMT -5
OK, so how do you explain 12 jurors deciding to kill Mr. Peterson after the trial?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 17:30:32 GMT -5
OK, so how do you explain 12 jurors deciding to kill Mr. Peterson after the trial? - They hated him.
- They didn't understand what evidence there was against him, but they guessed that since it took 5 months to wade through the prosecution case there must have been some evidence in there somewhere.
- When they were out and about people kept walking up to them and saying, "Fry him" so other people thought he was guilty.
- The people on Court TV all kept saying he was guilty.
Those were the reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 17:39:51 GMT -5
All those pictures of Laci, a beautiful young woman, must have hurt. Most pro-DP arguments are based on emotion. It's a powerful rhetorical device.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 17:55:12 GMT -5
All those pictures of Laci, a beautiful young woman, must have hurt. Most pro-DP arguments are based on emotion. It's a powerful rhetorical device. It was a simpleminded, easily saleable story. Too bad there was no evidence to support it. Ironically, no one loved Laci more than Scott or was less likely to harm her or his child. |
|
|
|
Post by randex on Sept 10, 2007 18:49:10 GMT -5
I don't personally know Scott and didn't know Laci so I don't know what their
real interpersonal relationship was
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 20:09:28 GMT -5
I don't personally know Scott and didn't know Laci so I don't know what their real interpersonal relationship was Read Crier's book. It makes the case for their relationship quite convincingly. She draws the wrong conclusions from her own book, but then she is an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 10, 2007 22:41:21 GMT -5
I don't personally know Scott and didn't know Laci so I don't know what their real interpersonal relationship was Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 10, 2007 22:44:09 GMT -5
OK, so how do you explain 12 jurors deciding to kill Mr. Peterson after the trial? He's still alive, isn't he? So, not sure what you mean there. |
|
