NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sick of this trial and NS discussion has been mute on it and I want to get your reactions. I agree with the verdict and while hoping for the death of this psycho, know he will get life in most cases. Although, with California statute, this falls under special circumstances with Conner.

With all the developments in the jury and trial I can say I thought it would be hung jury or mistrial. I was pleasantly surprised though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/?GT1=5809

I agree... He will propley get the injection or chair whatever they got.
Reason-The unborn child. :(

I'm glad with the verdict. I hope the bastard dies for all I care. He murdered his wife... and HIS DAMN UNBORN SON so he could go screw off with some other woman. That just sickens me to no end. He's a liar. Plan and simple.

he's totally innocent (i base this on nothing at all).

but dear god, what the hell was up with the media on this one? why the hell were we supposed to care about this case more than any of the thousands of other ones?

he's totally innocent (i base this on nothing at all).

but dear god, what the hell was up with the media on this one? why the hell were we supposed to care about this case more than any of the thousands of other ones?

-puts on the cynic hat-

It's probably because the woman was cute. The fact he was a cold hearted fish and the fact his defense spouted off about satanists, flying monkeys, the 4 horseman, and Hitler all killed her.

- takes off the cynic hat -

Instincts to me say they guy did it. He just didn't act right for somebody who just lost he wife an child.

Most people would have a reaction of some sort and this guy was like "Hey whats on TV?"

He's a piece of shit; the lowest form of life. Sickens me.

Another piece of local US news the rest of the world couldn't care less about... :rolleyes:

Another piece of local US news the rest of the world couldn't care less about... :rolleyes:

If you didn't care, then why did you comment?

If you didn't care, then why did you comment?

In what way does my comment imply I care about this piece of US minutiae? I thought it did just the opposite.

electric jolt ,13 steps to the hangman , blindfolded and tied to a post with 7 rifleman trained on his heart, led up a walkway to place his head into a guilitine,led to a room and given lethal injection,again led into a room and gas is pumped into the room all this man deserves for the brutal killing of his wife and his unborn child :sniper:

What sealed it to me is the fact he dyed his hair, was near the Mexican border, and had $10K in cash. something is wrong there. Then add in the conversations with Amber Fry, the fact he went 100 miles on to fish for 1 hour etc.

In what way does my comment imply I care about this piece of US minutiae? I thought it did just the opposite.
Apparently you cared enough to add to the discussion.

He's goin to hell.

Anyway, I personally think that the jury was brainwashed by the media beforehand...I really do.

Scott's lawyer gave many good arguments of why Scott cannot be convicted of murder, at least not yet.

I think Scott just had a personality similar to mine, in which he does not show deep emotions on the outside.

Besides, who wouldn't want to dye their hair? Seriously, what moron does that after his wife is gone and police start to question him?


Although if Scott truly admits to it, then I won't feel so bad for him anymore.

Apparently you cared enough to add to the discussion.

Not about the US minutiae, but about the posting of US minutiae.

See. Reading comprehension needn't be that difficult.

Not about the US minutiae, but about the posting of US minutiae.

See. Reading comprehension needn't be that difficult.
So...


you care more than anyone else here because you've talked the most, I would believe.

So...


you care more than anyone else here because you've talked the most, I would believe.

If simplistically erroneous deductions comfort you and reading comprehension leaves you in want, then I could see how you could believe that.

If simplistically erroneous deductions comfort you and reading comprehension leaves you in want, then I could see how you could believe that.
I find it quite hilarious that you are so highly intrigued by my posting that you continue to reply to them.

I find it quite hilarious that you are so highly intrigued by my posting that you continue to reply to them.

Don't flatter yourself. Clicking "reply" really isn't that strenuous.

who wants to know why he was convicted?

his wife was pregnantm this isn't a homicide case or a double homicide, its a "the american right wing hates abortion and loves fetuses"

edit: i forgot to add adultery, he was convited on the charges of adultery and "hatin' fetuses"

why was clinton REALLY impeached? adultery. no one gives a fuck about lying under oath, and the investigation started before that, because it happened DURING the investigation

He's goin to hell.
He'll share a special level of Hell with Osama, Yasser Arafat ('bout time), the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Hussein boys.

who wants to know why he was convicted?

his wife was pregnantm this isn't a homicide case or a double homicide, its a "the american right wing hates abortion and loves fetuses"

edit: i forgot to add adultery, he was convited on the charges of adultery and "hatin' fetuses"

why was clinton REALLY impeached? adultery. no one gives a fuck about lying under oath, and the investigation started before that, because it happened DURING the investigation

He was convicted because a jury of his peers found him guilty on the basis of evidence presented.

It has nothing to do with the "american right" whatsoever.

Lazy journalism though.

Don't flatter yourself. Clicking "reply" really isn't that strenuous.
It's called a "quote" button. You are QUOTING me in the topic, not directly replying.

It's called a "quote" button. You are QUOTING me in the topic, not directly replying.

I needn't press "Quote" to quote you - I can do that manually (the Firefox BBCode extension makes it trivial). But I do have to press "(Submit) Reply".

He was convicted because a jury of his peers found him guilty on the basis of evidence presented.

It has nothing to do with the "american right" whatsoever.

Lazy journalism though.
oh please, the major points in his trial - he was committing adultery, and his wife was several months pregnant

oh yeah he was convicted solely on the evidence provided, last bit of evidence i heard was all circumstantial and helped the defense just as much as the prosecution

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
who wants to know why he was convicted?

his wife was pregnantm this isn't a homicide case or a double homicide, its a "the american right wing hates abortion and loves fetuses"

edit: i forgot to add adultery, he was convited on the charges of adultery and "hatin' fetuses"

why was clinton REALLY impeached? adultery. no one gives a fuck about lying under oath, and the investigation started before that, because it happened DURING the investigation
Though you are essentially correct about President Clinton (I try to use the honorifics), the rest is way off.

Adultery is wrong. Even if you believe abortion should be legal, killing an unborn child that is wanted (they even gave the kid a name) is wrong. How can you even come up with the insane idea that this trial was about the "right wing," when it was so obviously about a man who was tried for the murder of his wife and their unborn son, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Are you suggesting that every person in that jury was planted by the "right wing?" Are you suggesting that Scott Peterson was innocent, or that his actions were somehow either moral or at the least, justified? If you are, I'd certainly like you to simply say it out loud, rather than waste time with conspiracy crap.

Oh, and people do care about lying under oath. There is a reason that its a Federal Offense.

I needn't press "Quote" to quote you - I can do that manually (the Firefox BBCode extension makes it trivial). But I do have to press "(Submit) Reply".
No one told you to press Submit directly. You can always press the Preview button first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haloman
He's goin to hell.


He'll share a special level of Hell with Osama, Yasser Arafat ('bout time), the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Hussein boys.
Don't leave out Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin (sorry my Russian friends, but he did murder a lot of people), and so many others.

No one told you to press Submit directly. You can always press the Preview button first.

I needn't do that either. English spelling really isn't that difficult (nor do I care that it be correct at all times), and the aforementioned BBCode extension makes sure all the quote tags are in order.

Personally I don't think he has the balls to do it. I mean...look at him. He looks like a....well I'll just leave it to your imagination what I was gonna say.

oh please, the major points in his trial - he was committing adultery, and his wife was several months pregnant

oh yeah he was convicted solely on the evidence provided, last bit of evidence i heard was all circumstantial and helped the defense just as much as the prosecution

So, you can be convicted on cirumstantial evidence in most states.

Did you sit through the trail? No.

Do you know all the evidence? No.

It is entirely reasonable that the evidence pointed to peterson beyond a reasonable doubt.

And somehow, I highly doubt that any DA in Cal. is a christian fundamentalist.

Moreover I'm sure the jurors were questioned extensively about this during voir-dire, so it's just not a factor.

So stop with the right wing conspiracy theories about the trial.

Though you are essentially correct about President Clinton (I try to use the honorifics), the rest is way off.

Adultery is wrong. Even if you believe abortion should be legal, killing an unborn child that is wanted (they even gave the kid a name) is wrong. How can you even come up with the insane idea that this trial was about the "right wing," when it was so obviously about a man who was tried for the murder of his wife and their unborn son, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Are you suggesting that every person in that jury was planted by the "right wing?" Are you suggesting that Scott Peterson was innocent, or that his actions were somehow either moral or at the least, justified? If you are, I'd certainly like you to simply say it out loud, rather than waste time with conspiracy crap.

Oh, and people do care about lying under oath. There is a reason that its a Federal Offense.


good job, you prove my point. your whole focus is on the unborn child. your feelings are blinding you to any fact. the man is accused of killing his wife and unborn kid so you got "What-what-what?!?!?!" and freak out and try to get him killed no matter how sketchy the evidence.

this was not a trial of fact and reason, it was a trial of get a an convicted using as much emotional warfare as possible. dead unborn kid + adultery = definate conviction


i didnt care about clinton lying under oath, wow, he lied about having sex, why the fuck were we investigating it?

So, you can be convicted on cirumstantial evidence in most states.

Did you sit through the trail? No.

Do you know all the evidence? No.

It is entirely reasonable that the evidence pointed to peterson beyond a reasonable doubt.
it is entirely reasonable he was convited on a mix of circumstantial evidence plus everyone going OMG UNBORN KID, ADULTERY, MURDER!!

it is entirely reasonable he was convited on a mix of circumstantial evidence plus everyone going OMG UNBORN KID, ADULTERY, MURDER!!

As I said, the jury will have been screened for exactly that during the voir-dire.

He had top legal advice, they would have dealt with that during jury selection.

There's a good reason NS has been quiet about this...it's such a non-issue that it's painful. As a couple other people have said, this was in no way a remarkable case. This was a shorter, but more irritating, version of the OJ Simpson trial. Good riddance. The verdict is the only news about this trial that I've read throughout its duration.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
good job, you prove my point. your whole focus is on the unborn child. your feelings are blinding you to any fact. the man is accused of killing his wife and unborn kid so you got "What-what-what?!?!?!" and freak out and try to get him killed no matter how sketchy the evidence.

this was not a trial of fact and reason, it was a trial of get a an convicted using as much emotional warfare as possible. dead unborn kid + adultery = definate conviction


i didnt care about clinton lying under oath, wow, he lied about having sex, why the fuck were we investigating it?
*Sigh*
Okay, I'm ready. I'll start with the least important part first.

President Clinton was being investigated for a variety of reasons, but Ms. Lewinsky's friend (can't remember her name, Tripp, I think) recorded phone conversations involving mention of adultery. While it is not a crime (sadly) in and of itself, many people who didn't like President Clinton felt that it would damage his character to have that exposed. For the most part, the trial was essentially a trap to force the President into a position where he could not escape. The result was a desperate man lying in court about something that had virtually no bearing on the original investigation. I don't like adultery, but I thought Bill was a good President, even if he wasn't a good man, and it was wrong to set him up like that.

Next up, Mr. Peterson may not be killed, although that is very likely, and I doubt any of the jurors were "freaking out." Perhaps they were sobbing hysterically at the thought of murdering a pregnant woman (something that has pretty much been taboo for most of human history, not counting out-of-wedlock mothers in some cultures). The prosecutors were not "freaking out," because that kind of conduct is generally frowned upon in a court of law.

Finally, I must ask some questions. Where do I say what my feelings are? I would consider it universally accepted that adultery is wrong in that it betrays someone who is committed to you, that murdering your wife is wrong, and that killing a loved and wanted child is wrong. These are things that 90%, at the least, of human beings should consider wrong.

How is my focus on the unborn child? I mention him in one short sentence, then refer to him in my summary of the case. I was under the impression that my focus was on the fallacy of your conspiracy theories, as that was the bulk of my post.

And you have to admit that having dyed hair, all that money, and being so close to the border was pretty damning evidence.

Not about the US minutiae, but about the posting of US minutiae.

See. Reading comprehension needn't be that difficult.

you may find this hard to believe... but a lot of Americans go to this site, and many of them are Californians...

if you have nothing to add, or it doesnt interest you, find another thread

So, you can be convicted on cirumstantial evidence in most states.

Did you sit through the trail? No.

Do you know all the evidence? No.

It is entirely reasonable that the evidence pointed to peterson beyond a reasonable doubt.

And somehow, I highly doubt that any DA in Cal. is a christian fundamentalist.

Moreover I'm sure the jurors were questioned extensively about this during voir-dire, so it's just not a factor.

So stop with the right wing conspiracy theories about the trial.

Well, I was just reviewing the evening's crop of news media... and the one consistent thread seems to be that all admit Scott got what he deserved, despite there being no way to actually PROVE he did it....

This is a case of guilty until proven innocent.

The headless body was found, and the newspapers, etc. quite openly say that theycannot tell how she was killed (they THINK EITHER suffocation or strangulation, apparently), or WHERE she was killed, or WHEN she was killed... and yet, they have linked the body to Scott by virtue of the fact that he was fishing near 'there' at 'that' time?

How can they make a statement like that? We don't know where she was killed or when... but we can prove Scott was there, too?

Whether or not he 'did it', remains to be seen... but the trial was a mockery of justice. You should NOT be able to find someone guilty of a double homicide with no evidence.

All they had was some 'uncharacteristic' behaviour for a mourning partner, and a possible infidelity. THAT doesn't equate to murder - at least, it shouldn't in a court of law.

I have some concerns about the verdict though.... there in my opinion seemed to be sufficient reasonable doubt to make conviction difficult at the very least. Granted, his attorney spouted all kinds of nonsense, and this guy Peterson is clearly a slimeball (cheated on his wife, lied routinely to his mistress, never seemed to show the reactions people would expect)

and his fleeing to San Diego was pretty questionable... although, not a few days before he fled, a radio talk show host literally parked in front of his house and demanded he confess (that would make me consider fleeing).

My gut tells me he is guilty as hell, but I have real concerns that they didn't prove that he did it so much as prove he was definitely an asshole.

So hopefully they won't chose death.... the special circumstances cited was multiple murder (includes the unborn child very near full term).... it would have been better to cite other special circumstances (he got a lot of life insurance after her death, murder for money under California law is special circumstances)..

Because they couldn't directly prove he did it, they should give him life in prison.

I have some concerns about the verdict though.... there in my opinion seemed to be sufficient reasonable doubt to make conviction difficult at the very least. Granted, his attorney spouted all kinds of nonsense, and this guy Peterson is clearly a slimeball (cheated on his wife, lied routinely to his mistress, never seemed to show the reactions people would expect)

and his fleeing to San Diego was pretty questionable... although, not a few days before he fled, a radio talk show host literally parked in front of his house and demanded he confess (that would make me consider fleeing).

My gut tells me he is guilty as hell, but I have real concerns that they didn't prove that he did it so much as prove he was definitely an asshole.

So hopefully they won't chose death.... the special circumstances cited was multiple murder (includes the unborn child very near full term).... it would have been better to cite other special circumstances (he got a lot of life insurance after her death, murder for money under California law is special circumstances)..

Because they couldn't directly prove he did it, they should give him life in prison.

That's the crux... most people are SURE he did it.... but, that isn't what the court case was for... it was intended to PROVE him Guilty of murder, or Innocent of murder.

Whether or not he did it, there wasn't enough evidence to make any REAL case for murder by Scott.... but, circumstantial evidence has damned him, and the jury has been allowed to convict a man based on bias, rather than evidence.

There were noo witnesses, no weapon, and no cause of death....hmmm. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, but I'm not saying I think he's guilty either. And what's up with the 2 jurors that were dismissed?? No reason was given as to why it was just done. I heard on CNN today that one of them was dismissed because he refused to render a guilty verdict. If that's at all true, then that's fuckin unfair and the system sucks!!!

If he is actually innocent, that would really suck wouldn't it?

he's totally innocent (i base this on nothing at all).

but dear god, what the hell was up with the media on this one? why the hell were we supposed to care about this case more than any of the thousands of other ones?
Short answer to the second question--we shouldn't have. Nothing personal for the family of Laci Peterson, but this case didn't deserve the media scrutiny it got. It was a murder much like the thousands of murders that are committed each year, but the press took it and ran with it for whatever reason. It's really an indictment of the press in this country, as far as I'm concerned. I mean--there were slightly more important issues to be reported on and discussed over the last two years, weren't there? Hmmmm?

And a question to everyone out there who wasn't related to Laci or Scott or knew them personally and who followed this trial so closely that you have an opinion on his guilt or innocence--

Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Is your life so vacant that you can't worry about something that might actually affect you instead of a murder trial in California? Jeez--read a book or something.

Could we update the options? I was thinking along the lines of:

o Yes
o No
o Unsure
o Really don't care apart from being glad that CNN "international" won't be banging on about it all the time anymore.

I know which way I'm voting.

And a question to everyone out there who wasn't related to Laci or Scott or knew them personally and who followed this trial so closely that you have an opinion on his guilt or innocence--

Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Is your life so vacant that you can't worry about something that might actually affect you instead of a murder trial in California? Jeez--read a book or something.

it got attention because it was considered interesting by a lot of people, rule number one in the journalism business....

but it deserves interest because a California jury may have convicted a man who probably deserved it not based on the evidence, but based on their opinion of his deserving it.... which is troubling and deserves continued scrutiny.

One juror was kicked off because she broke the rules and was trying to analyze the evidence on her own (its complex, but thats the crux of it)... the other, well, no one seems to know yet that I have heard

hence the continued scrutiny needs to continue a while longer to make sure the system works the way its supposed to, and if it doesnt, then we need to know why.

it got attention because it was considered interesting by a lot of people, rule number one in the journalism business....

but it deserves interest because a California jury may have convicted a man who probably deserved it not based on the evidence, but based on their opinion of his deserving it.... which is troubling and deserves continued scrutiny.

One juror was kicked off because she broke the rules and was trying to analyze the evidence on her own (its complex, but thats the crux of it)... the other, well, no one seems to know yet that I have heard

hence the continued scrutiny needs to continue a while longer to make sure the system works the way its supposed to, and if it doesnt, then we need to know why.
exactly what happened some 40+ years ago in a case nearly identical to this.

i still hold they arnt convicting him on murder but on the implication of murder of his obviously pregnant wife and adultery

it got attention because it was considered interesting by a lot of people, rule number one in the journalism business....

but it deserves interest because a California jury may have convicted a man who probably deserved it not based on the evidence, but based on their opinion of his deserving it.... which is troubling and deserves continued scrutiny.

One juror was kicked off because she broke the rules and was trying to analyze the evidence on her own (its complex, but thats the crux of it)... the other, well, no one seems to know yet that I have heard

hence the continued scrutiny needs to continue a while longer to make sure the system works the way its supposed to, and if it doesnt, then we need to know why.But why was it considered interesting inthe first place? What set it apart from the hundreds of other murders that occurred during that same period of time? And more importantly, what set it apart from all the other more far-reaching issues that were affecting the world at the time?

No--the fact is that this was a media driven circus from the very beginning, and if the jury system was compromised, it was because of the ludicrous amount of media coverage.

But why was it considered interesting inthe first place? What set it apart from the hundreds of other murders that occurred during that same period of time? And more importantly, what set it apart from all the other more far-reaching issues that were affecting the world at the time?

No--the fact is that this was a media driven circus from the very beginning, and if the jury system was compromised, it was because of the ludicrous amount of media coverage.

Because fox cnn msnbc et al. Have a bunch of legal analysts on staff with nothing better to do. (Thank you impeachment). It was a case of the media making the news.

Most people I know feel the same way you do, totally disinterested. Yet they kept on showing it. Who cares. (Other than the families of course.)

I think that the verdict is correct beczuse i think that if he did not want to be with Laci all he had to do was leave her and not kill her he could of just told her that there was not a spark anemore and then she could have child support the child after he/she would be born.

I think that the verdict is correct beczuse i think that if he did not want to be with Laci all he had to do was leave her and not kill her he could of just told her that there was not a spark anemore and then she could have child support the child after he/she would be born.
bravo, you proved my point

bravo, you proved my point

And was she a jury member?

No.

Try again, that is nothing like approaching proof.

And was she a jury member?

No.

Try again, that is nothing like approaching proof.
what he hell are you talknig abou?

the jury are the common people, the person i was referring to a common person. the poster assumed he killed his wife because he wanted to leave, thus proving him guilty on not even questionable eveidence

what he hell are you talknig abou?

the jury are the common people, the person i was referring to a common person. the poster assumed he killed his wife because he wanted to leave, thus proving him guilty on not even questionable eveidence

It's called voir dire.

The jury is screened for exactly this type of bias. If you have it you are disqualified.

Don't you at least watch law and order?

It's called voir dire.

The jury is screened for exactly this type of bias. If you have it you are disqualified.

Don't you at least watch law and order?
they are screened for what?
bias torwards the case
one would think they are screened for knowledge of the case first off

bias is going to be inherent and unremovable for the first part

for those of you who have never sat on or been called for jury duty in California they do indeed first screen for knowledge of the case, then for likely bias (both sides get their chance for this) and that is after screening for other disqualifying factors like serious hardship etc....

so the jury is made up of people the defense and the DA could agree on more or less.

Apparently there is significant continued interest because the story hasn't died (ratings must be up or something), so if you aren't interested, change the channel, and the news you watch will eventually notice if enough people do it.

I think the media circus may have contiminated the jury, but they were sequestered (for the entire trial) and were supposed to have been insulated from most of that. They even missed seeing the boat the defense lawyer parked a couple of blocks away that showed that dumping a body from a 14 foot boat wasn't going to be an easy task... but they saw the actual boat.

I think they were persuaded by the circumstantial evidence provided, and that they felt it was enough. That worries me, as no solid evidence or witnesses were able to be found showing he did it. The problem was that Peterson was so clearly an asshole, and the defense was so clearly all flash and no show (lots of big promises never delivered) that the trial ended up being about his character, and whether or not it was believable that he did it tied to the circumstances that pointed at him.

In the end it appeared that they believed he could have done it and likely did. Reasonable doubt in their mind was dispelled by his badly flawed character and badly thought out defense (lawyer deserves a lot of blame for that one).

Capital punishment in this case would be an even worse problem with the trial and possibly the system. Lets hope not. I for one believe that the death penalty should be reserved for situations when it is clear the defendent did it (evidence is overwhelming)(death penalty discussions and their morality belong on other threads by the way).

There were noo witnesses, no weapon, and no cause of death....hmmm. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, but I'm not saying I think he's guilty either. And what's up with the 2 jurors that were dismissed?? No reason was given as to why it was just done. I heard on CNN today that one of them was dismissed because he refused to render a guilty verdict. If that's at all true, then that's fuckin unfair and the system sucks!!!

If every case was only set on damning evidence then many guilty people would be free right now.

The defense painted a picture the jury did not buy.

Bias is a major concern on any murder trial. I sat through a selection and the question came up of where you feel you can judge the evidence fairly. They two lawyers looked at the body languange and tossed people they didn't like.

As the the jury member who "refused to render a guilty verdict." He didn't say the refused because he thinks he is innocent. He felt he could not weigh things honestly anymore. I give him credit for being able to know that and step down.

The system is not perfect but it's better then many others....

they are screened for what?
bias torwards the case
one would think they are screened for knowledge of the case first off

bias is going to be inherent and unremovable for the first part

CS Dave is right.

I sat through a murder trial selection process. They understand bias in inherit. What they would like is a person who is able to look past it.

The lawyers know what they are doing and look for many cues in body language comments and what not. There is not reason for how they toss.

Nobody want's to be there and they know it. People said they don't belive in the death penalty(it was an option for this case) and yet they made it on. There was one that was nothing but a rant about "fucking police abuse" and he made it on. I was tossed and 3 people on the jury all said "what why?"

Screen for the knowledge of the case is rather hard these days.

How many people in state would have been found to have no knowledge of OJ?

I agree with the verdict. The culmulative weight of the circumstancial evidence was overwhelming. The probability that all of those circumstances could happen, and the he is innocent, is really slim.
However, he shouldn't get the death penalty. For one, I find it unethical. For another, should he get it, the crime does not justify the punishment. Besides, it's probably a worse punishment to keep them alive in their misery.

He's goin to hell.

And so are you (and I). 'Thou shall not judge.'

I agree with the verdict. The culmulative weight of the circumstancial evidence was overwhelming. The probability that all of those circumstances could happen, and the he is innocent, is really slim.
However, he shouldn't get the death penalty. For one, I find it unethical. For another, should he get it, the crime does not justify the punishment. Besides, it's probably a worse punishment to keep them alive in their misery.

Oh really? What would you say the circumstantial evidence was, then?

This crushing burden of circumstatial evidence, that was SUFFICIENT to prove "without a shadow of a doubt" that Scott was guilty of murder?

This crushing burden of circumstatial evidence, that was SUFFICIENT to prove "without a shadow of a doubt" that Scott was guilty of murder..

Why would we be having this discussion if the verdict was proven "without a shadow of a doubt"?

Oh really? What would you say the circumstantial evidence was, then?

This crushing burden of circumstatial evidence, that was SUFFICIENT to prove "without a shadow of a doubt" that Scott was guilty of murder?
It was sufficient. Laci's body was found, and Scott's alibi was that he was in the same harbor that day. That, plus the fact about his affair, and mental instability.

Why would we be having this discussion if the verdict was proven "without a shadow of a doubt"?

Sorry, isn't that the whole point of a trial for murder? To prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Accused was, in fact, guilty?

It was sufficient. Laci's body was found, and Scott's alibi was that he was in the same harbor that day. That, plus the fact about his affair, and mental instability.

Interesting.

So, when the police said they couldn't even tell how long she had been dead... how do you know Scott was in the same harbour 'that day'?

Sorry, isn't that the whole point of a trial for murder? To prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Accused was, in fact, guilty?

Ahh, misread your post. I thought you were claiming the guillty verdict had been proven beyond doubt. Pardon moi.

He will be released on the fact of there is eveidince that he was fishing at the time.

my opinion, the man doesnt deserve death. If he did commit the horrible acts than if u put him to death, there, hes dead, its over with. if you give him life, he has his whole life to think of what he has done, and it will eat at him much worse than death, please feel free to comment back

Hmmmm personally I do think he did it... HOWEVER, I think legally speaking there's really no way to prove whatsoever that he did it...

No murder weapon, no cause of death, no time of death....

His supposed motive for killing his wife is something that could be spun up about almost anyone....

Of course I won't be upset if he is executed because

a) I think he did it
b) He cheated on his wife, so even if he DIDN'T kill her, the bastard still deserves to die

Anyways though, this entire case is circumstancial, I don't think there's a single piece of solid evidence either way. The prosecution says he had a motive, and he acted suspiciously. The defense says he might have been framed, and little things like someone used their computer that morning (speculation it was Laci, hence implying she wasn't dead at the time)

my opinion, the man doesnt deserve death. If he did commit the horrible acts than if u put him to death, there, hes dead, its over with. if you give him life, he has his whole life to think of what he has done, and it will eat at him much worse than death, please feel free to comment back

Doubtful, the animal is cold. Even his business associates call him the iceman.

I say just put him in general population the cons will get him.