|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 11:51:30 GMT -5
I don't "know" one way or the other. I do. If the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof (which they did) he must be acquitted, however in this case the evidence of his innocence is overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by randex on Sept 10, 2007 18:40:43 GMT -5
I don't "know" one way or the other. I do. If the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof (which they did) he must be acquitted, however in this case the evidence of his innocence is overwhelming. You were not there at the time of Laci's death were you??
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 10, 2007 20:10:52 GMT -5
I do. If the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof (which they did) he must be acquitted, however in this case the evidence of his innocence is overwhelming. You were not there at the time of Laci's death were you?? Don't need to be. Nobody knows (or admits to knowing) when or where she died, however my conclusions are based on the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by looking4justice on Sept 11, 2007 2:45:28 GMT -5
1. No known time of death
2. No known cause of death
3. No witness
4. No forensic evidence
5. No known place of death
6. No motive
7. No crime scene anywhere
8. A number of people had more motives than Peterson
9. CE can prove any number of people could have murdered Laci.
JMO
|
|
|
Post by randex on Sept 11, 2007 3:50:55 GMT -5
I do. If the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof (which they did) he must be acquitted, however in this case the evidence of his innocence is overwhelming. You were not there at the time of Laci's death were you?? Don't need to be. Nobody knows (or admits to knowing) when or where she died, however my conclusions are based on the evidence. Based on your interpretation of the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 11, 2007 4:20:29 GMT -5
Some confusion appears to surround the meaning of 'circumstantial evidence' which almost all concede the jury relied on to make their determination of 'guilty' in the Scott Peterson murder case.
Black's Law Dictionary (revised 4th ed.) defines CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE as follows:
It is well established law that juries are allowed to use circumstantial evidence to convict and a number of murderers are on DR due to this. Peterson's attorney(s) possibly erred in underestimating the power of circumstantial evidence in the jury's mind. And given the deference appeal courts give to jurys, the conviction may well be upheld. Many prosecutors recognize the power of cases built on circumstantial evidence--even prefering it in some instances to more easily attacked eye-witness testimony or physical evidence since it is more difficult for the defense to refute. If you don't think 'circumstantial evidence' can convict/hang you, you're living in a naive and dangerous land of barkers and colored balloons.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 12, 2007 21:39:47 GMT -5
Don't need to be. Nobody knows (or admits to knowing) when or where she died, however my conclusions are based on the evidence.Based on your interpretation of the evidence? No. Based on the interpretation of anyone who can follow a logical argument. Unfortunately that eliminates 98% of the population!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 12, 2007 21:42:42 GMT -5
... It is well established law that juries are allowed to use circumstantial evidence to convict and a number of murderers are on DR due to this. Peterson's attorney(s) possibly erred in underestimating the power of circumstantial evidence in the jury's mind. And given the deference appeal courts give to jurys, the conviction may well be upheld. Many prosecutors recognize the power of cases built on circumstantial evidence--even prefering it in some instances to more easily attacked eye-witness testimony or physical evidence since it is more difficult for the defense to refute. If you don't think 'circumstantial evidence' can convict/hang you, you're living in a naive and dangerous land of barkers and colored balloons. Too many US juries now understand their job to be to guess who they think might be guilty. The instructions are clear and comprehensive enough, but most jurors can't parse them, and, it seems, therefore ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 13, 2007 4:08:43 GMT -5
I agree that the term 'reasonable doubt' has become diluted/ineffective with too many current juries in criminal cases. They, in effect, substitute the 'preponderance of evidence' standard--a substitution that cause due process in criminal cases to break down. Sometimes I think that 'preponderance' isn't fair even in many civil cases and should be replaced with 'clear, convincing, and cogent evidence'. I think O.J. was 'probably' guilty of murdering Nicole, but I would have acquitted him as the jury did because of the requirement for being persuaded beyond 'reasonable doubt'. That does NOT mean 'absolute' certainty, however. I need not exhaust the universe of any/all possible explanations to the contrary but only arrive at a reasonable conclusion eliminating reasonable doubt. In other words, I can convict with merely 'human' capacities--I need not have godlike powers to convict. Still, in DP cases, perhaps godlike powers are (and inappropriately) inferred/required--if not in law, then morally. Since we don't (obviously) have such godlike powers, we should refrain from imposing sentences as if we did.
|
|
|
Post by randex on Sept 13, 2007 8:10:46 GMT -5
Don't need to be. Nobody knows (or admits to knowing) when or where she died, however my conclusions are based on the evidence.Based on your interpretation of the evidence? No. Based on the interpretation of anyone who can follow a logical argument. Unfortunately that eliminates 98% of the population! Where are the remaining 2%
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 13, 2007 10:14:20 GMT -5
No. Based on the interpretation of anyone who can follow a logical argument. Unfortunately that eliminates 98% of the population! Where are the remaining 2% Places like this pointing out the holes in the prosecution arguments!!
|
|
|
Post by randex on Sept 14, 2007 14:48:18 GMT -5
Need to increase the number - 2% is not enough
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 15, 2007 10:11:28 GMT -5
Need to increase the number - 2% is not enough Unfortunately the percentage is going down, not up. I have seen comments that some people now who have a masters degree in English, say, can't write a sentence.
|
|
|
Post by sparrow on Sept 15, 2007 19:01:52 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.
|
|
Paka
Settlin' In
Posts: 10
|
Post by Paka on Sept 16, 2007 1:07:41 GMT -5
The difference between Peterson's and OJ's cases is, the physical evidence in OJ's case is FAR stronger. I'm pretty convinced OJ did it. I want to believe the best of people, but the evidence is too overwhelming, and I see no evidence of a mass conspiracy to account for it. Scott, on the other hand, and next to no physical evidence against him (one hair or something, I think). He certainly doesn't look good either with all things considered, and yeah, I think he very well may have done it, but on a jury I'd have a very hard time feeling the reasonable doubt standard was met and wouldn't convict. Impossible to say, even if he did it, whether premeditation was involved or it happened in the heat of some moment.
With these two cases you can see the problem with capital punishment and the arbitrary nature of its application illustrated-- differences in juries and their interpretations, differences in $$$ and fame involved, ect. Juries often put more value on gut feelings, eyewitness testimony, and other unreliable things than on hard scientific evidence. The cases reversed, Scott would still be on death row, because he isn't OJ. OJ shouldn't be on death row either-- nobody should-- but locked up for life? Yeah. With Scott, what if evidence were to surface after the execution that someone else did it? A quick search will turn up cases of executed innocents. I don't think an "Oops, sorry... " is acceptable when it comes to human life.
|
|