![]() |
Scott Peterson: Not Guilty
I came across this article online. At first I thought it was just some conspiracy theorists but as an undergraduate law studnet, I have access to case files (really any member of the public does as well in most cases, but I can get some classified information for on a valid educational reason) and I have come to the conclusion that Scott Peterson is not guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child.
Please note that "not guilty" does not mean "factual innocence". It just means that there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty so I'm open to the possibility that he may be guilty but the law require surety of guilt for a conviction. Here's a link to the article I came across: http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2004/peterson.htm If you don't want to take the time to read the full article, here is a summary of points pointing to innocence: 1) The prosecution never provided any evidence that the cause of Laci's death was in fact a homicide. This is an essential part of proving any murder case. 2) There was no crime scene and also the prosecution did not provide a murder weapon. Without 1 and 2, any reasonable jury would acquit even someone with a criminal history. 3) The prosecution did not provide any forensice evidence that linked the defendant to the victim's death The prosecution pretty much gained a conviction purely on character evidence. Scott's affair with Amber Frey and making him look like an unfaithful husband. There are tons of unfaithful husbands in the world but the most of them aren't murderers. P.S. The article says the prosecution not being able to show a motive is a point towards innocence. This is not true. A motive does not have to be shown to properly gain a conviction. Prosecutors do that on their own accord to help their case make sense to the lay people on the jury. It also says the judge and prosecutor should be sued. Both have immunity except under very rare special circumstances. While one can attempt to have them disbarred, a civil lawsuit would be impossible. |
If there's no crime scene, how can there be a murder/death?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just hook the guy up to a goddamn lie detector.
|
Quote:
|
Okay... I knew our justice system was screwed up, but this is just...ugh. The only proof they had was that he was having an affair, and even that wasn't a very clear motive. :cer_disbelief:
|
... I am basically speechless. I can't believe that it happened. If I was him, I would fight every step of the way.
|
Well the law require that we come as close to near certainty as humanly possible to obtain a conviction. In practice; however, we allow the prosecution to base a case off evidence that does not fit any of the elements of the crime they are supposed to prove.
This isn't just a circumstanial case; it's worse. I've seen circumstanial cases but the circumstanial evidence was relevant and competent to prove the elements of the crime. Evidence, such as bullet wounds r cut marks that show that homicide caused Laci Peterson's death are circumstanial yet relevant, competent evidence. Having someone testify about statement's Scott made could point to the premeditation (this would fall under an exception to the hearsay rule). The prosecution didn't have any of this. If they were trying to prove he was a cheater (and if that was a crime) I'd convict him in a heartbeat. For a murder charge, I'd acquit him in a heartbeat. |
What I don't understand is, if there was barely any evidence for or against him, why bother to go to court at all?
|
Quote:
|
He's guilty, trust me on this, I'm an expert. look at his cold stare, his lack of any noteworthy life achievements, that's the profile of a killer.
|
matt's right, his smug facial expressions in the courtroom are enough for me to see a cold-hearted killer. i mean seriuosly, he died his hair black so he could camouflage himself in mexico, only someone with serious blood on their hands would stoop as low as to transform himself into a mexican. to me it seems like the insurance money and property he would obtain from his wife's death was the motive.
|
I'd have to back the above post from one professional to another. There is no way this man is innocent. OJ Simpson on the other hand.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
ikr. i swear, the judicial system is so prejudiced. dont get me started on the police. that youtube video with the girl who was attacked by the cop over a JAYWALKING ticket? there was no reason for the cop to behave that way, the woman was trying to explain her side calmly and he just punches her in the face. he ought to hand in his badge, and while he's at it, get heeled in the nuts by the woman he punched.
|
Someone's "stare" is irrelevant to a criminal case.
How would you feel if you were sentenced to death in a kangaroo court like Scott was? They had no evidence that homicide cause Laci's death , no crime scene, and nothing else that linked Scott to Laci's death (for example, they never had a murder weapon). How can their there not be any reasoanble doubt in your mind of his innocence when all the essential elements of proving a murder are missing? I'd say OJ was more guilty than Scott Petereson is. He got off because his attorney proved the one the lead investigators for the prosecution was racist against black people. While I would probably acquit too after finding that out, the prosecution still had some clear and convincing evidence in that case. |
Quote:
Also, you can read the first two pages HERE which will take under 3 minutes and you will see that the whole case was nonsense. The state spent $11 million and couldn't find even one piece of evidence that went to guilt. Not one! In fact many of their own witnesses provided evidence that proved Peterson innocent - and did it more than once. This case became an IQ test for America. Almost everyone failed the test - miserably. BTW, as for motive, the motive was $160,000 -- some say more like $1 million. (I'd tell you where to find this information but this silly system won't let me post the links!) Quote:
So, all of your facts are wrong. Not a good way to judge a man, is it? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:21 PM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.