|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 16, 2007 14:07:22 GMT -5
I'll never figure out how anyone can justify OJ getting away with double murder and Peterson....give me a break; he goes fishing, doesn't know what the heck kind of fish he is after and gee, the bodies wash up in that area....he is guilty and got his just reward. If Scott killed Laci and Conner, where did he hide the bodies all those weeks and why would he want to cut his own son out of her body instead of simply waiting for him to be born?
|
|
|
Post by anvil46 on Sept 18, 2007 8:44:55 GMT -5
I do believe Scott is guilty, what happens to him beyond his current situation is up to God. I also believe there was plenty of evidence to convict Scott. Remember this: In American law if it can be proven you were in the area, you had a motive, and prosecutors have the body(s) there is a very good chance you will be convicted. I must say all this talk about bodies being planted and Scott being framed by the justice system is absolutely (reaching). I hate this for the families, there is never any closure surrounding a case such as this one. Thanks for listening Anvil46
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 18, 2007 9:40:09 GMT -5
I also believe there was plenty of evidence to convict Scott Evidence, nope there was none at all. That's exactly the one thing there was none of in this case- evidence.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 18, 2007 12:51:07 GMT -5
I'm pretty convinced OJ did it. Me too! Look, he's back in trouble again. You know what they say- once a criminal, always a criminal!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 18, 2007 13:59:41 GMT -5
I do believe Scott is guilty After a $4.13 million 'investigation' that found no evidence of guilt? what happens to him beyond his current situation is up to God. I also believe there was plenty of evidence to convict Scott. Actually, none. There WAS plenty to prove him innocent. Remember this: In American law if it can be proven you were in the area, you had a motive, and prosecutors have the body(s) there is a very good chance you will be convicted. Because far too many jurors guess instead of thinking. I must say all this talk about bodies being planted and Scott being framed by the justice system is absolutely (reaching). Other bodies have been dumped in the bay before and since. Why is this the exception? As for being framed, I see no evidence of an honest investigation by the MPD. I hate this for the families, there is never any closure surrounding a case such as this one. Thanks for listening Anvil46 There is never any closure in any case of murder.
|
|
|
Post by hartnsol on Sept 22, 2007 11:45:43 GMT -5
i thought he was guilty after i heard the conversation he had with his GF the day he was holding a candle light vigil for his wife.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 22, 2007 21:49:04 GMT -5
i thought he was guilty after i heard the conversation he had with his GF the day he was holding a candle light vigil for his wife. Points: - - He wasn't holding the vigil.
- He didn't call Frey during the vigil.
- The photo of him at the vigil is fake.
- You have no comparison to apply - unless you listen in to many, many men having conversations with their illicit 'girlfriends'.
- The vigil didn't help - in fact I am unaware of any that ever have.
I have yet to see any evidence at all of his guilt. I have seen much that proves his innocence.
|
|
|
Post by andie on Oct 31, 2007 12:23:29 GMT -5
statistics show that a person is most likely to be murdered by someone they know then a random stranger.
with that being said I do believe that Scott Peterson did murder his wife and unborn baby.
this could explain why there were no signs of a struggle.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Nov 3, 2007 14:24:33 GMT -5
statistics show that a person is most likely to be murdered by someone they know then a random stranger. with that being said I do believe that Scott Peterson did murder his wife and unborn baby. this could explain why there were no signs of a struggle. That makes no sense. You are trying to convict him because there is no evidence against him. There is no logic there. Here are the facts - A visibly pregnant woman vanishes from her home. No signs of a crime can be found - anywhere.
- Her body turns up four months later, found on the shore of San Francisco Bay, a place where many other bodies have been dumped.
- Her uterus has been cut open by someone unskilled in medical procedures.
- The fetus and the placenta are both missing.
- Some distance away, the body of her child is also found.
- He shows no signs of prematurity, he is full term and and he is not curled up in the fetal position.
- The fetal cord has been crudely cut.
- A piece of twine has been double knotted around his neck, not to harm him but to keep his body wrapped in plastic bags to protect it. One of the bags is found nearby.
- The mother is wearing underwear with a wear pattern which shows she has worn it for the whole period of her abduction.
- Her clothes are still on her body, something which could not happen unless they were retied after the baby was removed. It also shows she was in the water for a day or two at most.
- Her uterus is two to three weeks post partum, showing that she lived at least that long after the baby was removed from her body.
- Although the body of the mother is simply discarded in the sea, either from the Albany Bulb or more likely from Point Isabel, the body of the baby is carefully laid on the shore at Point Isabel so it can be found and buried. This is clearly the work of someone who cared for the baby.
What part of this does NOT look like a failed fetus napping, where both mother and child have died?
|
|
|
Post by andie on Nov 3, 2007 18:56:13 GMT -5
What doesn't make sense....that statistics prove that a person is mostly killed by someone they know.. look at Bobbi-Jo..who was one of those failed baby abductions: she knew her attacker.... statistics show that a person is most likely to be murdered by someone they know then a random stranger. with that being said I do believe that Scott Peterson did murder his wife and unborn baby. this could explain why there were no signs of a struggle. That makes no sense. You are trying to convict him because there is no evidence against him. There is no logic there. Here are the facts - A visibly pregnant woman vanishes from her home. No signs of a crime can be found - anywhere.
- Her body turns up four months later, found on the shore of San Francisco Bay, a place where many other bodies have been dumped.
- Her uterus has been cut open by someone unskilled in medical procedures.
- The fetus and the placenta are both missing.
- Some distance away, the body of her child is also found.
- He shows no signs of prematurity, he is full term and and he is not curled up in the fetal position.
- The fetal cord has been crudely cut.
- A piece of twine has been double knotted around his neck, not to harm him but to keep his body wrapped in plastic bags to protect it. One of the bags is found nearby.
- The mother is wearing underwear with a wear pattern which shows she has worn it for the whole period of her abduction.
- Her clothes are still on her body, something which could not happen unless they were retied after the baby was removed. It also shows she was in the water for a day or two at most.
- Her uterus is two to three weeks post partum, showing that she lived at least that long after the baby was removed from her body.
- Although the body of the mother is simply discarded in the sea, either from the Albany Bulb or more likely from Point Isabel, the body of the baby is carefully laid on the shore at Point Isabel so it can be found and buried. This is clearly the work of someone who cared for the baby.
What part of this does NOT look like a failed fetus napping, where both mother and child have died?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Nov 4, 2007 16:58:50 GMT -5
What doesn't make sense....that statistics prove that a person is mostly killed by someone they know.. look at Bobbi-Jo..who was one of those failed baby abductions: she knew her attacker.... You saidThere were no signs of a struggle in their home. The small bedroom over at the Medina's home was trashed - and it was the only room like that. No tests were done there for signs of Laci's abduction.
|
|
|
Post by annie08 on Nov 13, 2007 21:20:56 GMT -5
I believe that Scott Peterson is innocent. Always have.
|
|
|
Post by justice on Mar 14, 2008 2:08:23 GMT -5
Deleted... Tone it down and debate respectfully, if you wish to be here.
|
|
|
Post by justice on Mar 19, 2008 1:01:37 GMT -5
Sorry was not trying to be disrespectful by any means. I just think people should be accountable for what they do. I do not believe him to be innocent what so ever and niether did the jury. you reap what you sow, and so should he.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Mar 19, 2008 1:41:19 GMT -5
Sorry was not trying to be disrespectful by any means. I just think people should be accountable for what they do. I do not believe him to be innocent what so ever and niether did the jury. you reap what you sow, and so should he. So you believe in the death penalty for adultery - but only if the wife is young, attractive and white?
|
|