|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 5, 2005 8:54:06 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? No, I don't believe the media. I learned from Rich's case that the media is full of sh*t. I'm basically proving a point that just because I think he's guilty, I could be wrong. When I say, I'm uneducated about his case, the only thing I have to go on is the media, which means I need to educate myself better on his case, especially seeing that he has so many supporter, they may know something that I don't. I think it's great what your doing Maggie and respect everything you're doing for Scott. I can't debate his guilt or innocense being that the only thing I have to go by is the media thus far therefore, I'm surely not qualified. I will have to say that the interview that's posted with Diane Sawyer didn't look good on his part from my point of view. hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by janet on Aug 5, 2005 9:24:41 GMT -5
I tend to believe in Scott Peterson's guilt, however, not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The circus that was his trial, along with the media coverage lead one to doubt that he received a fair, impartial trial.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Aug 5, 2005 9:32:27 GMT -5
While I tend to believe that Scott Peterson is guilty, it is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. With the attendant circus and media attention during his trial, I think the trial must be considered unfair. He really was firstly tried in the court of public opinion.
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Aug 5, 2005 9:40:32 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? Or, common sense?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 5, 2005 16:24:23 GMT -5
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? Or, common sense? Exactly what does "common sense" tell you abou this case Truth? Please be specific. TIA ;D
|
|
|
Post by win on Aug 5, 2005 22:48:57 GMT -5
I think the issue comes back to the one of pre-trial disclosure in the media. The USA is unique in the sense that the media in the USA are allowed to disclose alot more in the media about pending criminal proceedings then in any other country. Thus they suffer from the "Mickey Mouse" trial (or trial by media) syndrome far more often then any other country.
It also appears to me that many of the previous posters in this thread were assuming that becuase the Peterson case was heavily covered in the media then of course the jury would be tainted. Could you not entertain the possibility that the jury could have acted like normal humans and looked at the evidence presented to them on its merits and still managed to return a a guilty verdict.
I will make the following conclusions,
* The media coverage of the trial of the Trial of Scott Peterson, gives the appearance of unfairness, while not actually proving that the trial of Scott Peterson was unfair.
* It is subject to speculation how much of an effect the media coverage had on the jury
* For the people to be satisfied justice was done, justice needs to appear to be done.
Note, I have only addressed the issue of the media coverage. It is a very important issue. I didnt talk about any other issues relating to the Scott Peterson case becuase I am generally unfamiliar with it, and I dont want to talk through my hat about this issue
|
|
Deb
Settlin' In
~If you regret anything in life, don't regret not spending enough time with your children~
Posts: 42
|
Post by Deb on Aug 6, 2005 3:35:52 GMT -5
I have followed the case from the beginning, read all the books out, read the transcripts and have spent a good amount of time reading the sites supporting him. ( Maggie, I have read all your points to your belief in his innocence and I have to say, you have made me maybe 1% of believing he could be innocent. You're doing a good job, and although I feel pretty confident in my vote of guilty, have definitley opened me to the small (imo) possibility to his innocence)
With that all said, I do believe that Scott is guilty, but I absolutely do not agree with him being sentenced to death. I just don't believe without absolute forensic proof in front of you that he should have received that sentence.
I don't think the jurors took the case lightly, nor let the media influence them, those people looked like they searched the very depths of their souls to come to the decisions that they did. I would be very interested to know if any of them have read any books out since then, or did any searching on their own, and if so do they still fully support their decision of death. Or what I would really love to see is their responses or opinions to the people that support his innocence and how they would answer to the points these other people claim show his innocence.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Aug 6, 2005 6:56:48 GMT -5
Have you seen the interviews with the jurors? Anyone with a legal perspective is very disturbed by the attitudes displayed; the highly emotional visceral responses of the jurors; jurors saying they dreamed about the case nightly; and jurors discussing writing a book about the case together.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 6, 2005 7:20:34 GMT -5
Have you seen the interviews with the jurors? Anyone with a legal perspective is very disturbed by the attitudes displayed; the highly emotional visceral responses of the jurors; jurors saying they dreamed about the case nightly; and jurors discussing writing a book about the case together. Also the first foreman of the jury was a doctor and a lawyer. He was bullied off that jury. He told the judge he felt threatened and was so stressed by the hostility that he wanted off the jury. The man was trying to analyze the evidence and the rest didn't want to hear it. Had he stayed on the jury, he could have hung it. Petri-head Delucchi knew this and booted him. I think this will be a BIG appeal issue, as it should! The jurors that gave interviews came off as less than intelligent, imo, and nobody will ever convince me that the one with the dyed "red" hair was not a stealth juror. She went so far as to make up her own theory ignoring what was said in court. I'm glad they ran their mouths after the verdict..... you can bet Scott's defense took it all in. Oh, then we have the bartender who took the fifth when questioned in court about possible jury misconduct. This jury prompted me to write this: Media Brainwashing Think it can’t happen? Think again. Consider the trial of Scott Peterson. Twelve people came back with a guilty verdict and death sentence. The law states that a guilty verdict will only be reached when the guilt of the defendant is certain….. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Was there reasonable doubt in the trial against Scott Peterson? This question would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. The better question is was there any evidence whatsoever that Scott was guilty of the crimes he was charged with. The answer is, without doubt, NO. How does a man sit on death row with no evidence that he committed a crime? I ask you to consider the media frenzy, the misinformation that was feed to the public on a daily basis and the fact that so called news anchors like Nancy Grace spewed twisted speculation of Scott’s guilt numerous times, every day, until the public no longer questioned it. Media brainwashing at it’s finest. The dangers of media brainwashing should be obvious to all, but let’s consider the jury pool. A FAIR trial by a jury of ones peers is a constitutional RIGHT in this country. What happens when the media is allowed to tamper with the jury pool? They have in effect, tampered with the jury. Does this report, which quoted juror number 10, sound like a person who might have gotten a little bit caught up in the pre-trial media frenzy? "Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family," Mylett said. "I was at Laci's baby shower. I was there for Christmas, for their graduations. When I dream at night, I'm part of their family. "They are all very nice dreams — there isn't a nightmare among them — and it's helped me a lot because Laci is always smiling and Sharon is always smiling," she continued. "My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night." Scott’s trial was far from over in July. Not only did this juror not follow the law, given she had already decided Scott was guilty and giving her nightmares in court, but she sounds downright unstable to me. Just one more growth in that admitted appellate lawyer’s Petri dish that Delucchi also called a trial. The above being said, I've met very few people in my life that I think should qualify to sit on a jury, as media driven bias is all too alive and well. That's why I think the jury system as it is today needs to go. Morons and/or brainwashed people should not be deciding a person’s fate. The government has manipulated a system originally designed to protect us from abuse, to one where we are abused without protection. The State has unlimited powers with no accountability and somehow they have made manipulation of jurors by way of the media a perfect loophool to unlimited power. The government and the media is the most powerful “partnership” on earth. Too bad back in the day the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine such a vile partnership. Perhaps if they had, we the people would still have a chance at real justice.
|
|
|
Post by jayden24 on Aug 6, 2005 11:09:46 GMT -5
My reasoning for believing in Scott's innocence is a little different that Maggie's. And Maggie and I have been on the same forum for months and we get along great. ;D
My reasoning comes down to Conner. His autopsy report and Dr. Peterson and Dr. Wecht. Conner's body was found some 14 ft beyond the shoreline. He was "washed up" beyond a rock jetty with only ONE laceration to the chest. There was no evidence of any marine feeding. There was twine around his neck with only a 2 cm gap which could not just be slipped over his head. It was tied with a BOWTIE. There were also square pieces of black "debris" which has been describe as seaweed and tape, but it was discarded before Dr. Wecht was allow to see it.
I have read everything I can on the subject of babies head's conforming in shape. (Or however you want to word it) To the point I can't read anymore about it. Most is very graphic because I was reading post mortem. For the condition of Conner's body, the tape/twine on this neck, and the Dr. reports (both doctors) I don't believe for a minute that Conner was not removed from Laci's body. The how or why I don't understand. But the evidence is there, and it came from Dr. Wecht, who is certainly one of the best forensic doctors of our time.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 7, 2005 17:29:32 GMT -5
I too believe he is guilty but as others said it was not proven. It was let known that he was at Berkley Marina that morning, thus if anyone wanted to "frame" him they knew where they could dump the body to make it look like he did it. The jury was tainted, I'll say that but Scott was to unwilling to cooperate and showed no show of emotion that I could see other then a few "crocodile tears" on a tv interview. And the phone calls with Amber? Especially the one during his wifes candlelight vigil, where he said he was in Paris?
C'mon now...
|
|
mrap4
Settlin' In
Take time to stop and smell the roses
Posts: 24
|
Post by mrap4 on Aug 7, 2005 19:30:06 GMT -5
Weather or not, Scott killed Laci remains to be proven. The MPD and the DA's office were unable to prove he did. I for one believe Scott is innocent. I just don't think Scott could have been smart enough to commit the perfect crime and leave no evidence. Yet stupid enough to place him where he placed the bodies.
The Modesto police gave false information to the press and the press delivered those rumors as facts. This is how the media succeeded in brainwashing the public. Later the truth was revealed and the media was in no hurry to admit to reporting false information. Instead the only people who knew, were those of us who read the court transcripts and closely followed this case. The jurors did not convict Scott on the evidence set forth, rather convicted Scott because they had a gut feeling. No doubtedly brought on by listening to the media. Which they were told they were unable to do? The interviews that followed the verdict is proof in itself that these jurors did not abide by the law. Comments they made during these interviews proves they were influenced by information outside of the deliberation room.
Surely you can all agree, Scott did not receive a fair and impartial trial. I think we can all agree Scott was never proven to have killed Laci. Scott was convicted by the media before he ever stepped into the court room. Scott should have been acquitted IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jayden24 on Aug 7, 2005 20:22:47 GMT -5
I too believe he is guilty but as others said it was not proven. It was let known that he was at Berkley Marina that morning, thus if anyone wanted to "frame" him they knew where they could dump the body to make it look like he did it. The jury was tainted, I'll say that but Scott was to unwilling to cooperate and showed no show of emotion that I could see other then a few "crocodile tears" on a tv interview. And the phone calls with Amber? Especially the one during his wifes candlelight vigil, where he said he was in Paris? C'mon now... This is one comment that bothers me the most. Scott showed NO emotion. Scott was going through this for over a year by the time the trial started, his lawyers had shown him the autopsy photos, the recovery photos, gone through the testimony of witnesses so many times he was removed from it. Yes after a year of this you do get removed. Kind of like a bad movie. You could be asking why Geragos and Distaso weren't crying during these photos as well, the jury was, the judge even cried a bit, and yes Scott dropped his head, and cried, he had to use a tissue to wipe his eyes. (Check out the reports from Beth Karas who was in the court room that day) Even when he showed emotion, just like in your post, everyone says it was faked. He couldn't win either way. Amber, I won't even try to be an armchair shrink. I don't understand that one. I don't buy into anyone who hasn't met with and personally interviewed Scott either. Their evaluations are clearly unprofessional. Psych 101 you can't evaluate a client with out doing an in person evaluation and background fact gathering. I personally don't think Scott thought Amber knew, and believed Laci would be coming home. OR another possibility he thought she knew where Laci was and needed to figure out how to find out. Who knows?
|
|
mrap4
Settlin' In
Take time to stop and smell the roses
Posts: 24
|
Post by mrap4 on Aug 7, 2005 21:28:40 GMT -5
My reasoning for believing in Scott's innocence is a little different that Maggie's. And Maggie and I have been on the same forum for months and we get along great. ;D My reasoning comes down to Conner. His autopsy report and Dr. Peterson and Dr. Wecht. Conner's body was found some 14 ft beyond the shoreline. He was "washed up" beyond a rock jetty with only ONE laceration to the chest. There was no evidence of any marine feeding. There was twine around his neck with only a 2 cm gap which could not just be slipped over his head. It was tied with a BOWTIE. There were also square pieces of black "debris" which has been describe as seaweed and tape, but it was discarded before Dr. Wecht was allow to see it. I have read everything I can on the subject of babies head's conforming in shape. (Or however you want to word it) To the point I can't read anymore about it. Most is very graphic because I was reading post mortem. For the condition of Conner's body, the tape/twine on this neck, and the Dr. reports (both doctors) I don't believe for a minute that Conner was not removed from Laci's body. The how or why I don't understand. But the evidence is there, and it came from Dr. Wecht, who is certainly one of the best forensic doctors of our time. Thank you Jayden for bringing up a very valuable and undeniable piece of crucial evidence. You are so right! There is no way Scott could have killed Laci, because Conner was removed from Laci's womb. The knot in the noose around his neck and the location he was found in is significant evidence to support this theory.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 2:52:48 GMT -5
Welp, it's official, I'm sitting on the fence with this case after reading the defenses opening statement.
It's going to be a long long while due to lots and lots and lots........ of reading before I have an educated decision on guilt or innocense.
See y'all, you can't take the media's word for sh*t on these cases. You need to look into it yourselves.
dammit, I can't delete my vote or vote innocent to void out my guilty vote!
Let me add this. I'm going to "assume" there is definately going to be some "reasonable doubt" in this case. There is a lot of things the media left out of the picture.
hugggz, Suzanne
|
|