Are we discussing actual events, or people’s opinions of them? The poll asked for opinions I thought.
People’s motivations for the details of their opinions seem like fair game to me.
Since A Voice of Sanity doesn’t seem to dispute the claim that there is a blog of his or hers that discusses this topic in detail, and Vinyl Turnip seems to be saying that it is in the “whacko/woo” category, is it appropriate for Vinyl Turnip to share the url?
At the very least, there might be more detailed discussion of Sanity’s opinions here, perhaps we are only getting a small glimpse of it.
In any case, can you explain why it is the mod’s opinion that this thread is about actual events as opposed to opinions about actual events?
It wasn’t my intention to categorize the blog that way (or any way)— but it is out there and appears to be the work of the same person posting in this thread. I’ll allow him/her to share the URL if they care to; otherwise, it’s pretty easily found with a Google search.
I think it is fair to ask our poster here what is the origin of his or her interest in the case, because statistically speaking, the level of interest after all these years is an outlier.
That doesn’t mean anyone is being judged, but it is curious if someone so into a topic is not willing to share why they are interested.
Thread was opened in 07-31-2010. Have you asked Annie-Xmas the same question? Or me?
Although personally I think Scott is likely guilty, I also see there was no real evidence, thus if the crime had not been so horriffic and Scott not such a dickweed, then any normal jury would have had to conclude there was “reasonable doubt”.
The first two pages take less than 3 minutes to read and destroy the prosecution’s 5 month long chaotic ‘case’ against him. The other material supports this in detail.
I have a Google search that reports new comments to me. Someone posted something here: I responded.
Eventually this will be the case that supersedes the Sam Sheppard case as perhaps the most egregious wrongful conviction ever, and once more shows what happens when the media gets involved.
Now you answer my question: Where is your outrage against Gilbert Cano? Why aren’t you crying out for justice for Martha Moreno and her fetus – as well as her 10-year-old daughter? Where were her vigils? Where is the law passed for her? Where are the books about her case? When was Nancy Grace screeching about her victimhood? When was every network wailing for her?
When? Where/ Why not?
The actual case in court proved Scott was innocent. He could not have committed the crime. The state admitted, after 5 months, it had no evidence against him except for the weakest possible coincidence, and yet their own case required the assumption of so many miraculous coincidences that the odds against them happening are one chance in one trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (1 in 1E+132). This exceeds any DNA calculation ever made - by a very large number indeed.
Two tiny items alone put the odds at over one in 10,000:
That Scott would ask Amy Rocha over for pizza. About 16,000 homicides occur per annum in the USA. If as many as 160 of those responsible for these acts invite another person over on the night of their planned offense, the odds are 1 in 100. This seems to be a very unusual occurrence, but we have erred on the conservative side. One in 100
That Scott would agree to pick up the gift basket. Once again we assume that no more than 160 of these persons would interfere with their own plan or alibi – a very conservative estimate. One in 100
[Mod Note]If you think that those others deserve their own threads, you are welcome to start them. They are off-topic for this thread, however.[/Mod Note]
Ah BUT! Did you follow the link and read the thread? If you do you’ll find out why this case is SO relevant to the Peterson case.
It was the murder of a pregnant woman.
It happened in Modesto.
The prosecutors were the same ones who prosecuted Scott Peterson and called HIM “the worst of the worst”.
When you read the case and the evidence and look at the result be prepared to have your jaw hit the floor, bounce and hit it again.
[Moderator Warning]The cases are not tied together in any way, and you were told not to bring them up as a way to divert attention away from the actual topic of conversation of this particular thread. If you truly felt that their deaths were equally important, you would start another thread on them. In the meantime, you are receiving an infraction in this one.[/Moderator Warning]
I’ll be curious to see whether the appeals justices are swayed by the argument in post #131, in which guessing at the odds of two different events happening and then multiplying them together apparently constitutes incontrovertible proof that Peterson is innocent. I have my doubts, but I am not a legal expert.
Normally, no, it is not an argument. However it WAS the argument the state used.
This was the prosecutor’s summation of his own case:
A cynic might point out that Scott Peterson would certainly be pleased if all he had to do in regards to his execution was to drive as close as 2 miles from San Quentin, 4 months before the scheduled date. However few would expect that this would be sufficiently close to the “exact location” required by the state for this purpose. Odd, then, that it is apparently sufficiently close to convict him. One suspects that any bank that saw this ‘check’ would call the police and have Mr Distaso arrested for fraud.
Incidentally, this closing contains more lies. There’s no evidence Conner “washed ashore”. All of it proves he was laid where he was found.
Further, Laci could have been abducted any time that day, even as late as 5 minutes before Scott got home. He was only at the bay for a brief time trying out his boat. You cannot make the claim that he “was in the exact location where Laci and Conner’s bodies washed ashore, at the exact time that they went missing”. No evidence supports this silly claim, and what does it prove anyway? It’s as good a proof that he was 90 miles away when she was abducted as it is anything else.
But my complaint is that if people are going to attack me for some unstated personal interest other than in a grave injustice, they should ask themselves why they are so selective in their outrage? That’s the real comparison between the two cases, and the only reason I can see for such shockingly different outcomes and for such shockingly different public opinion.
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t particularly give a shit about either case or either defendant. I’m familiar with the Peterson case because it was extremely high-profile and had ubiquitous exposure for months in the tabloid and “regular” media. Never heard of the Cano case, which for whatever reason wasn’t the focus of intense media scrutiny.
If people aren’t “outraged” about it it’s likely because they don’t know about it. Or because Laci was white and the other victim is brown. Whatever it may say about the media or social attitudes, the fact that people are more intrigued by one case than the other doesn’t exculpate Scott Peterson, nor explain how you came to be so personally invested.