|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 11, 2007 4:40:28 GMT -5
I have no personal relationship/investment with Mr. Peterson. I do have one with seeing justice done. I've stated repeatedly I think murder convictions need to be based on more than circumstantial evidence and that I thought the physical evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. A dry eyed assessment of this belief is, IMO, helpful to any who want to see justice done by ALL the parties--including Mr. Peterson. I work in the field of helping people wind their way through the legal system and have for many years. Criminal law is not my specialty, although I'm not a stranger to it either. The 'truth' (I would think) should 'help' Mr. Peterson if we accept the premise he is factually innocent. I'll leave it to others who may wish to send 'sympathy' cards--I'm simply looking at a situation where a person (metaphorically speaking) has terminal cancer and could use a straightforward diagnosis and prescription. Mr. Peterson's attorneys are, no doubt, engaged in that pursuit, but they're not posting here. I, on the other hand (and presumably) can. To that end and because I have not disparaged Mr. Peterson, I believe my posts are consistent with the intent expressed herein.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 12, 2007 21:45:14 GMT -5
OK, so how do you explain 12 jurors deciding to kill Mr. Peterson after the trial? He's still alive, isn't he? So, not sure what you mean there. They sent him to be killed. Only the delays in the system prevent that happening immediately. It is not that long ago that he would have been executed within 90 days of the verdict. I trust they will all burn in hell forever - they certainly have earned that punishment. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 12, 2007 21:48:50 GMT -5
I have no personal relationship/investment with Mr. Peterson. I do have one with seeing justice done. I've stated repeatedly I think murder convictions need to be based on more than circumstantial evidence No, CE is fine. Circumstantial evidence is GREAT evidence. Direct (i.e. eye witness) evidence is often very unreliable. What you fail to appreciate is that there was NO circumstantial evidence against Peterson, all of it was in his favor. If they had found her body in his locked warehouse, or a big bloodstain in the house, the truck or the boat he'd be toast. What they found was NO evidence against him. The fact that they took 5 months to prosecute a one week case shows that the prosecution knew that too, and were trying to cover up for it. The jury remarked on how boring it was to listen to endless trivia that added nothing to the case. This gave the illusion of evidence where there was none. In the end, all they had to judge him on was that he lied to Frey for whatever reason. What he never did do was confess to her OR say he loved her. She was merely slander - she proved nothing about murder. I and that I thought the physical evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. IMO it was sufficient to reach a verdict of innocence, not that any court can do that. I A dry eyed assessment of this belief is, IMO, helpful to any who want to see justice done by ALL the parties--including Mr. Peterson.... No just to him, to Douglas S. Mouser, to David Camm, to Fr Gerald Robinson and many, many more convicted by the idiots who now are serving all too often on US juries. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 13, 2007 3:58:32 GMT -5
I've seen too many incompetent and prejudiced judges to pile on wholeheartedly to the observation that many juries shirk their responsibilities also. I envision the day when a perfect lie detector (perhaps a philadendron?) sits in the jury box and, for all I know, a rose bush at the judge's bench. But then we'd have to rethink whether we want all these 'malum prohibita' laws on the books. With all of its flaw and little in the way of an alternative to our current judicial system, I'll take the jury everytime.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 13, 2007 10:20:01 GMT -5
I've seen too many incompetent and prejudiced judges to pile on wholeheartedly to the observation that many juries shirk their responsibilities also. I envision the day when a perfect lie detector (perhaps a philadendron?) sits in the jury box and, for all I know, a rose bush at the judge's bench. But then we'd have to rethink whether we want all these 'malum prohibita' laws on the books. With all of its flaw and little in the way of an alternative to our current judicial system, I'll take the jury everytime. There's no doubt that far too many judges 'have their thumbs on the scales'. Delucchi in this case, Fidler in the Spector case, they bend over backwards to help the prosecution when they see how bad the case is, apparently feeling this is somehow more 'fair'. It's hardly fair on the defendants. |
|
kim
New Arrival
Posts: 6
|
Post by kim on Sept 21, 2007 9:51:28 GMT -5
OK, so how do you explain 12 jurors deciding to kill Mr. Peterson after the trial? I just finished reading the book written by a handful of the jurors. Most of it deals with the relationships between the jurors themselves, the difficulty involved in being a juror in general, and how things from each juror's life were affected by being on such a huge case. Less focus is given to anything actually regarding the case. And specifically, regarding why they reached the decision they reached. As has been stated before- and as is stated rather directly in this book- most of the jurors were " convinced" of Scott's guilt based only after hearing the Frey calls. They cited the one he had during Laci's vigil. How and why they could allow their personal feelings about Scott's affair convince them he murdered Laci just boggles my mind! If they had the same LACK OF any evidence and had heard tapes of him crying ceaselessly to someone in despair, why then I guess they would not have convicted him. It all boiled down to their judgment on whether he was a good or bad man based on this affair and his behavior with Amber. In the USA , this can be reason enough to convict someone of murder. Frightening, yes? Terrifying. I have always held a strong thought about the Frey situation. I am no therapist , but I am a human and know what it feels like to deal with a high stress level situation. At such times, one of the most used coping strategies ( aside from drugs or alcohol, which Scott did not succumb to ) is to just get lost in some form of escape from reality. Some people go online and get lost in those role acting games. Some get lost in X Box games. Others escape to a book. Others, perhaps, invent a world they are not living in just to escape the pressure and the stress of their reality. Maybe Scott told Amber of Paris and so forth because it was his only tiny little pocket of escaping the horror of his life. Now bear with me..I am not thinking this is a stretch. What are we taught as coping mechanisms for stress? Creative visualization, for one thing. During my labor, I was supposed to focus on my " focal point" to reduce the pain and stress of the childbirth pains. Maybe, during those times Scott could talk to and/or see Amber, after Laci's disappearance, developing those stories was simply his refuge in a world that had collapsed around him. We have all been guilty of doing things other's find distasteful, or making choices others have not agreed with. We have all been guilty of not behaving or reacting in a manner that someone else thinks would " suit" the situation . But God willing, we have not had to have those be the reasons a jury convicts us of murder, with not a shred of evidence! One final thought- some of the jurors on Scott's case have become depressed, despondent, suicidal. They do not seem to all be quite at peace with their decision. That alone speaks volumes.One of the overriding messages of the book was the importance of having in place some kind of counselling or PTSD therapy for jurors after cases like this. My feeling is, you would sleep like a baby if you knew you made the right decision with your verdict. Where would PTSD come from aside from feelings of regret, remorse, guilt and sadness for having realized that THE WRONG VERDICT WAS REACHED. |
|
kim
New Arrival
Posts: 6
|
Post by kim on Sept 21, 2007 14:45:18 GMT -5
You're speaking of 'physical' evidence, not 'circumstantial' evidence--i.e. the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding Mr. Peterson by which intent and actions are INFERRED rather than 'proven'. I won't go into listing them again--plenty of others have done so, often concluding they were sufficient, in their eyes, for the conviction. I don't agree because I require 'hard' evidence (blood, dna, ballistics, hair samples, etc.)--BTW, wasn't there a hair sample found in the boat or one of its accessories belonging to Laci? The jury, IMO, convicted Mr. Peterson because they came to HATE him rather than based on the physical evidence. They're allowed to do so in law. But I think it's a very bad idea so far as public policy goes for a jury to do so. Possibly Mr. Peterson would have fared better if he had refused to discuss his wife's disappearance with ANYBODY. I am not convinced of his actual innocence, only that the standards I think should be required for a capital offense conviction were not met. The law states that they must find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that they can overlook a lack of evidence and just decide they hate the man and have that be the same legal standing. In that regard , they did not follow the law of the court in handing down a verdict. |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Dec 22, 2007 8:01:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 22, 2007 9:57:48 GMT -5
... Maybe Scott told Amber of Paris and so forth because it was his only tiny little pocket of escaping the horror of his life. ... Actually the derivation of the 'Paris' story is simple. He wanted to dump Frey and needed to 'be unavailable'. 'Paris', while unimaginative, was an easy story for him to come up with. It was a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion for this to be used as proof of anything except as a message to Frey that Scott "was not that into you". |
|
|
|
Post by annie08 on Dec 24, 2007 17:41:57 GMT -5
Scott was SET UP. Why can't everyone see that?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 25, 2007 16:11:05 GMT -5
Scott was SET UP. Why can't everyone see that? Not necessarily. It's possible he was the victim of a series of unfortunate occurrences, aggravated by the MPD and the media. |
|
|
|
Post by john318 on Dec 27, 2007 22:34:26 GMT -5
Scott was SET UP. Why can't everyone see that? Not necessarily. It's possible he was the victim of a series of unfortunate occurrences, aggravated by the MPD and the media. Isn't that so scary that the police, people that we are taught to trust, would send a man to death row? I don't know about the media. I really don't watch TV. Could you explain that part. Thanks! Free Scott! |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 11, 2008 2:37:42 GMT -5
Not necessarily. It's possible he was the victim of a series of unfortunate occurrences, aggravated by the MPD and the media. Isn't that so scary that the police, people that we are taught to trust, would send a man to death row? I don't know about the media. I really don't watch TV. Could you explain that part. Thanks! Free Scott! As they have done in far too many cases, the US media showed no respect for the legal system and rode this hobby horse to profitable ratings while destroying any chance Peterson had for a fair trial. |
|
|
|
Post by john318 on Jan 15, 2008 22:19:39 GMT -5
Not necessarily. It's possible he was the victim of a series of unfortunate occurrences, aggravated by the MPD and the media. Isn't that so scary that the police, people that we are taught to trust, would send a man to death row? I don't know about the media. I really don't watch TV. Could you explain that part. Thanks! Free Scott! As they have done in far too many cases, the US media showed no respect for the legal system and rode this hobby horse to profitable ratings while destroying any chance Peterson had for a fair trial. I understand what you mean. That's why I don't watch much tv, they show hour upon hour expounding on speculation and when that fails, they really make things up. Like that Don Henley song that I can't think of the title. |
|
|
|
Post by lsmith510 on Jan 21, 2008 13:41:54 GMT -5
As they have done in far too many cases, the US media showed no respect for the legal system and rode this hobby horse to profitable ratings while destroying any chance Peterson had for a fair trial. I understand what you mean. That's why I don't watch much tv, they show hour upon hour expounding on speculation and when that fails, they really make things up. Like that Don Henley song that I can't think of the title. Hi John! You mean "Dirty Laundry"?  |
|
