|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 3:07:42 GMT -5
Ok, Maggie, this TS really has me questioning the evidence. Here's my new poll.
hugggz,
Suzanne
|
|
|
|
Post by edinkansas on Aug 8, 2005 7:44:27 GMT -5
I voted innocent - no doubt...
I have never had the slightest doubt of Scott's innocence....
;D
|
|
happy
New Arrival
Posts: 7
|
Post by happy on Aug 8, 2005 7:57:26 GMT -5
I voted innocent, no one could be that smart to commit a murder without leaving any DNA evidience anywhere. JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Aug 8, 2005 8:02:03 GMT -5
I voted innocent, no one could be that smart to commit a murder without leaving any DNA evidience anywhere. JMO Of course they could. That is why there are cold case files. |
|
|
|
Post by Bushmills on Aug 8, 2005 8:38:25 GMT -5
Cold cases means no evidence to convict, Scott was convicted.
I agree with Happy here, there was no evidence against Scott, he had an affair if an affair constitutes murder then have the male world population will be on DR waiting execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Aug 8, 2005 8:53:55 GMT -5
Cold cases means no evidence to convict, Scott was convicted.
I agree with Happy here, there was no evidence against Scott, he had an affair if an affair constitutes murder then have the male world population will be on DR waiting execution. "Cold cases means no evidence to convict" DNA is evidence, hence there are such things as not leaving any DNA. She said that no one could murder without leaving DNA. There are unsolved murders where the murderer did not leave DNA. |
|
AW2B
Doin' Time
Posts: 71
|
Post by AW2B on Aug 8, 2005 9:43:50 GMT -5
Ok, Maggie, this TS really has me questioning the evidence. Here's my new poll. hugggz, Suzanne Officers also lied big time.. For example during the preliminary hearing, officer Evers testified that he asked Scott if he had a receipt to show that he was at the Berkeley Marina...in the trial, in an effort to make Scott look guilty, the same officer testified that Scott volunteered the Marina receipt and that he didn't ask him for it...  Mark Geragos confronted him about it.. |
|
|
|
Post by mhdubuha on Aug 31, 2005 16:03:22 GMT -5
Cali again you know I'm with you and truth you are right on point yet again. A cold case can mean many things, including no evidence at all. He was plenty smart to try to get away with this, and also arrogant enough to think it would work!
Aw2b- How would him offering the recipt or being asked for it make the slightest difference and even if it did not enough to change the verdict. It also doesn't change where he was that day...
|
|
|
|
Post by dio on Aug 31, 2005 17:06:00 GMT -5
Just because you kill someone does not mean there will be DNA evidence left behind.If say I was to shoot you in the back of your head from 100 yards how could I possibly leave such evidence behind.Or say I drugged you to the point of unconsciousness,then tossed you overboard.Very few people in a drug induced sleep would fight or resist me in anyway so where is your prescious DNA?I voted guilty beyond all doubt,sadly I couldn't read that Petersen was executed yesteray making me a day late.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhdubuha on Sept 1, 2005 12:01:31 GMT -5
I'll second that Dio!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by wyldflowers on Sept 1, 2005 22:45:31 GMT -5
Whoaaaaaaaa! Some of these siggys are HUGE!!  I didnt see that option |
|
Mark Geragos confronted him about it..