|
Post by jrabielec on Aug 3, 2005 11:35:54 GMT -5
Innocent or Guilty Scott should never have been convicted! The judicial system in California keeps failing miserably. Scott Peterson was found guilty and sentenced to death with no evidence and Michael Jackson is INNOCENT on all counts, with mountains of evidence. That makes me sick!!!
Another NOT GUILTY vote! Is it just me or is there more to Amber Frey? Her sister lived around the block from Scott and Laci, makes me wonder when Amber really found out Scott was married! It seems Amber has a real problem keeping men, Dave the father of her son has left her too!
|
|
|
Post by rain on Aug 3, 2005 12:58:39 GMT -5
Oh yeah.... blame it all on Amber. Come on people!! Innocent or guilty Scott should not have been convicted? What the heck does that mean??? Oh well, what the heck, let him walk?? Putting ANY blame on the 'other woman' to take away what the guy did is more of an injustice!
|
|
|
Post by catskillz on Aug 3, 2005 13:10:57 GMT -5
Rain.. it just means in order to convict someone of capital murder you need credible evidence. I'm not advocating for him, is he is guilty he should be put away of course. 'Whether or not guilty' is irrelevant if one can't prove it in court since it must be based on evidence not assumptions without evidence. I think he is guilty but i also think there is not enough evidence for a conviction.
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Aug 3, 2005 13:12:27 GMT -5
Oh yeah.... blame it all on Amber. Come on people!! Innocent or guilty Scott should not have been convicted? What the heck does that mean??? Oh well, what the heck, let him walk?? Putting ANY blame on the 'other woman' to take away what the guy did is more of an injustice! I agree that he should have been found guilty. As far as Amber is concerned, I think she is a trollop that craves attention. I was extremely pleased to learn that her book was a flop. She is just as bad as Linda Tripp was in the Clinton years. They are both bad memories that will hopefully go away.
|
|
|
Post by rain on Aug 3, 2005 14:48:27 GMT -5
Rain.. it just means in order to convict someone of capital murder you need credible evidence. I'm not advocating for him, is he is guilty he should be put away of course. 'Whether or not guilty' is irrelevant if one can't prove it in court since it must be based on evidence not assumptions without evidence. I think he is guilty but i also think there is not enough evidence for a conviction. Well said. This I can comprehend. Shoving the blame of the situation onto someone else, I cannot. Drop the stuff about Amber and focus on the case. :-) Yes, let's forget the 'bad memories'. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 4, 2005 7:32:58 GMT -5
I know one thing. The media isn't very credible in my book. I've learned from personal experience that they're information isn't always accurate, meaning that they will leave things out and stories could lead to the opposite of the truth, so we can't judge a case from what the media presents, not even Michael Jackson's case.
hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by freerob on Aug 4, 2005 7:37:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 4, 2005 8:14:47 GMT -5
I think I may have seen a small part of that before, the part about him talking about abuse is not "approachable".
The problem I have with that interview is when he talks about Laci not being very upset when she was told about his affair.
Personally, if I was 8 months pregnant and and my husband having an affair I would be very upset and my husband would very well know how upset I was. Pregnant women are very emotional, especially, about their bodies, thinking that they are not attractive being pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Aug 4, 2005 8:32:25 GMT -5
I think I may have seen a small part of that before, the part about him talking about abuse is not "approachable". The problem I have with that interview is when he talks about Laci not being very upset when she was told about his affair. Personally, if I was 8 months pregnant and and my husband having an affair I would be very upset and my husband would very well know how upset I was. Pregnant women are very emotional, especially, about their bodies, thinking that they are not attractive being pregnant. I agree. He must not be very intelligent if he honestly thinks people believe that. There are so many things that point to his guilt it is incredible. For instance, when he was in church holding his nephew and he began to cry. Touching, right? Well, what does he do afterwards? He goes home and phones the cable company and requests that two porn channels be added to his service. Then he calls his girlfriend. Sounds lika a grieving husband, huh? His case was very high profile. Didn't he think that the person at the cable company would find his carnal request a little odd? That is another example of how smug he really is. He thinks he is playing everyone like a fool. But, if he was really as slick as he thinks he is, we would not be having this debate.
|
|
|
Post by Alyce on Aug 4, 2005 10:31:16 GMT -5
Tonight on Court TV there is a story on Scott. I think it's on at 8pm Eastern time.
Bless All!!
|
|
|
Post by kali on Aug 4, 2005 14:34:37 GMT -5
Scott is definately innocent of this crime. He was the only suspect that the MPD focused on from day one without any evidence besides a theory they put this man on death row and then patted themselves on the back ! The igored obvious evidence such as the tips from Tracy and the burglars. There is even a phone call that proves that Scott is innocent. Scott may not have been a perfect husband , have not met one yet , LOL ! But seriously Scott is innocent in everyway ! I noticed some of you said you were not sure so I will invite you to visit our site www.savescottslife.com so you can read up and form an opinion. OK - correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you had to have been on the defense team, or a member of the jury to make such statements? You can believe he is innocent all you want, but unless some HARD proof surfaces to convince the powers that be otherwise, he was found guilty of murder. He had a fair trial by a jury of well-informed, unbiased citizens who had a lot of time to review the facts and the evidence. You obviously have no faith or knowledge of the US Justice system.
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Aug 4, 2005 14:37:18 GMT -5
Scott is definately innocent of this crime. He was the only suspect that the MPD focused on from day one without any evidence besides a theory they put this man on death row and then patted themselves on the back ! The igored obvious evidence such as the tips from Tracy and the burglars. There is even a phone call that proves that Scott is innocent. Scott may not have been a perfect husband , have not met one yet , LOL ! But seriously Scott is innocent in everyway ! I noticed some of you said you were not sure so I will invite you to visit our site www.savescottslife.com so you can read up and form an opinion. OK - correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you had to have been on the defense team, or a member of the jury to make such statements? You can believe he is innocent all you want, but unless some HARD proof surfaces to convince the powers that be otherwise, he was found guilty of murder. He had a fair trial by a jury of well-informed, unbiased citizens who had a lot of time to review the facts and the evidence. You obviously have no faith or knowledge of the US Justice system.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 4, 2005 19:41:11 GMT -5
Scott is definately innocent of this crime. He was the only suspect that the MPD focused on from day one without any evidence besides a theory they put this man on death row and then patted themselves on the back ! The igored obvious evidence such as the tips from Tracy and the burglars. There is even a phone call that proves that Scott is innocent. Scott may not have been a perfect husband , have not met one yet , LOL ! But seriously Scott is innocent in everyway ! I noticed some of you said you were not sure so I will invite you to visit our site www.savescottslife.com so you can read up and form an opinion. OK - correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you had to have been on the defense team, or a member of the jury to make such statements? You can believe he is innocent all you want, but unless some HARD proof surfaces to convince the powers that be otherwise, he was found guilty of murder. He had a fair trial by a jury of well-informed, unbiased citizens who had a lot of time to review the facts and the evidence. You obviously have no faith or knowledge of the US Justice system. Actually you wouldn't. I wasn't on Richard Cartwright's defense team nor on his Jury, however, I continue to make such statements about Rich. We don't know why this supporter believes so much in Scott. I'm sure he/she has his/her reasons. See, you have a bit of an advantage to learn why I support Rich so much. Read his Uncensored articles so you can understand Rich's and my relationship before you assume I have no right to defend Rich. I have little faith in the Justice System in the US when it comes to the death penalty. I know "a little bit" about how it works. hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by desperado on Aug 5, 2005 0:23:26 GMT -5
"He had a fair trial by a jury of well-informed, unbiased citizens who had a lot of time to review the facts and the evidence. You obviously have no faith or knowledge of the US Justice system."
The very reason this debate is going on... on guilt or innocence... is because all that is quoted above is false.
If there was conclusive physical evidence... If the jury had not been tampered with... If the media had not biased all citizens of the World... If Delucci had used his discretion less biasedly...
Your above statement would have the impact of truth... as it stands.. it does not.
If the case had been proven for all who the media made witness it, beyond a reasonable doubt... the only debate would be about the death penalty... not guilt or innocence.
The very fact that so many are not convinced and come to places like this to express that idea... demonstrates the obvious.
Further... if what you stated was accurate, then only anti's and lonely women who write inmates would be responding in the Scott Peterson threads.
From my perspective, the very nature of these debates demonstrates your statment (shown above) as patently innacurate.
Des
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 5, 2005 8:27:16 GMT -5
I think he's guilty. But I don't know much about his case to make an educated opinion about it, so I'll read up on it. In the meantime, I put guilty, but I can't debate that or give a valid reason for it. hugggz, Suzanne (now I guess that disproves that all of us anti's believe everyone on DR is innocent ....still don't want Scott Peterson executed regardless on my beliefs of his guilt or innocense.) Suzanne, Think about what you are saying..... you think he's guilty, but you don't know about the case. What kind of statement is that? I am not trying to be sarcastic...... but I don't understand why you assume guilt when you admittedly don't know about the case. Media brainwashing maybe?
|
|