Simply moving the train wreck that started in this thread, courtesy of Voice of Sanity.
That’s nice-now how about adding some content. What have you got to say on the matter?
Guilty, guilty, guilty. Too much circumstantial evidence, and Peterson simply did not act like an innocent man.
It will be interesting following the appeals process.
At the time I thought that he was PROBABLY guilty, but didn’t see the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence. I remember the prosecution saying that he killed his wife so that he could be with Amber Frye. That still makes me laugh. Scott Peterson was such a poon hound that he didn’t care about Amber Frye, or probably his wife. I don’t get how adultery deserves the death penalty.
He got the death penalty for committing adultery? Wow, Clinton got off easy.
I think he probably did it, but I wouldn’t have voted him guilty based on what I have read about the case, too much doubt. Unfortunately he was really convicted by the fact he cheated on his pregnant wife.
No one likes that. Look at John Edwards, polls indicated his popularity went way down when his wife had cancer and he didn’t drop out of the race. People thought he should’ve spent time with his dying wife, not running for president. And that was BEFORE he was known to cheat on her.
Now he’s villified for cheating on a dying woman.
I’m not excusing his behaviour but people cheat, they do it all the time both men and women, but there’s something “really bad” about cheating on a dying women.
This is similar when a husband or wife is cheating on a pregnant women or a dying spouse.
This happens a lot in criminal cases, the person is not convicted by the evidence but rather on the personality of the accused.
Guilty and he’s a dumbass to boot.
Like it or not, the evidence against Peterson is pretty damned slim.
Really? Scott goes fishing on Christmas Eve-and its a 90 mile drive from his home?
Lacey disappears-and Scott has no clue? Later, poor Lacey is found…in SF Bay…not far from Scott’s favorite fishin’ spot.
The only “mystery” is how Scott transported poor Lacey to the boat.
The man is a psychopath and a liar-his poor MIL was charmed by him-the poor woman believed a man who killed her only daughter.:eek:
He might very well be, but in point of fact there just isn’t much evidence. I’d like to say there is, but there isn’t.
Circumstantial Evidence is what he was convicted upon for the most part. On its own it does not make the conviction unsafe, but certainly makes an Appeal more likely to succeed.
Aren’t most people convicted on circumstantial evidence? People use the phrase as though it is somehow weaker than direct evidence, but it isn’t when properly supported. Also, no one who wasn’t on the jury knows the amount of evidence against Peterson. It is my understanding that it was overwhelming, so I do not get this ‘the evidence against him was slim’ attitude at all.
When the best alternate theory of the crime presented was that Lacy was kidnapped by persons or persons unknown, held until the baby came to term and was born, and then killed them both, I’m not surprised he was convicted.
The evidence against Peterson is entered into the court records, available to the public. It is true that we don’t have access tot the deliberations of the jury, but twelve presumably rational people, following a set of extensive instructions by the judge, opined that Peterson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife.
In court, making a case is all about presenting the evidence in a way that supports the theory of the prosecution. Five pieces of circumstantial evidence that all point conclusively to a single conclusion can be far more persuasive than a single fingerprint or clothing fiber which could have come to be at the crime scene by any number of reasonable events. In the case of Scott Peterson, setting aside his post-accusation behavior that certainly smells like the rotten fish of guilt, his evasions, documented actions, and holes in his original story all add up to someone who had a big secret to hide. He had arguably the best legal defense money could buy, and even that couldn’t keep the jury from handing out a death penalty sentence. This was no Sam Sheppard, railroaded into a questionable verdict with spurious testimony, or the fictional Dr. Richard Kimble, framed for a murder to cover up a pharmaceutical conspiracy. If Scott Peterson wasn’t guilty, he was a combination of the most unlucky and most idiotic sucker ever.
Stranger
Ok, I will point out that the law reports are filled to the brim with cases where a person “acted guilty” and was in fact not. And yes circumstantial evidence is weaker then direct evidence as it requires an inference to connect it to a fact and that inference may be unsustainable. Again this is not a comment on the trial itself or the verdict, merely a comment that circumstantial evidence can be attacked much more easily then direct and that convictions based upon it while not necessarily nor indeed always questionable are nevertheless far less watertight.
There’s only one way I’d believe he’s innocent: if someone else is proven guilty. But I concede that his innocence is possible. It’s for cases like this that I prefer life without parole, rather than the death penalty.
“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Direct evidence, even physical evidence with scientifically incontrovertible matches can be attacked on the basis of quality and credibility. In fact, much direct evidence–particularly eyewitness testimony–is not particularly reliable, and there is no legal preference for direct evidence over circumstantial evidence; there is just the burden for the prosecution to convey the corroborative theory behind the circumstantial evidence to the jury or judges panel.
Unless you have a video of the accused committing the crime, the vast majority of evidence in criminal cases is circumstantial, at least in terms of the primary criminal act. Pile on enough circumstantial evidence that all points to one unique theory and you achieve the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Stranger
Of course he’s guilty. He just happened to be out boating on Christmas day in exactly the same area his wife’s body was found. He had a pair of pliers on his boat with her hair in them. He lied and changed his story in numerous ways. He sold Laci’s car after she disappeared, and tried to sell their house, which means he knew she was dead and wasn’t coming back. There is no evdience pointing to anyone else. His guilt is established beyond any reasonable doubt, even though someone could probably devise some kind of fantastic, Hollywood, frame-up story if they tried hard enough.
I’m sure my wifes hair is on all sorts of stuff I own. I always hate on CSI shows when having a murdered family members DNA on some object the accused owns is presented as such crushing evidence that the suspect immedietly breaks down and confesses.
Granted the rest of the stuff looks pretty bad. But then I never hear the other side, surely the Defense team at least tried to give an explanation of why he was trying to sell his house and car. What were the explanations?
Who cares? While selling his wife’s car and house are indicative of a state of mind that is consistent with the fact that he didn’t believe she would be returning, they aren’t in and of themselves proximate evidence of the crimes of which he was accused, unless they go to motive, which itself is not a necessary element for the prosecution to obtain a conviction. The evidence of the crime consists of Peterson’s alibi during the time of the abduction, records of the acquisition of implements to restrain someone, physical evidence in the boat that Peterson took fishing and is alleged to have used to dump the bodies, Peterson’s affair with Amber Frey and pattern of deceptions, and the extensive effort he went to alter his appearance and apparent attempt to flee. Either Peterson is an unfortunate victim who was not only framed by an impressive cabal of conspirators but also did every possible stupid thing to increase his appearance of culpability, or he is guilty as sin.
Stranger
Guilty. He was the last person to see her alive, and her body surfaced right where his own alibi placed him at the time of her murder.