The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Scott Peterson: Not Guilty (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=222677)

FreakyLocz14 June 17th, 2010 12:31 AM

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.

Zet June 17th, 2010 12:50 AM

If there's no crime scene, how can there be a murder/death?

FreakyLocz14 June 17th, 2010 2:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zet (Post 5888230)
If there's no crime seen, how can there be a murder/death?

This man was convicted beacuse the prosecution argued that he had an affair and cheated on his wife and that he killed her to get out of his marriage to be with his mistress.

Eldrei June 17th, 2010 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5888222)
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.

It's like saying Michael Jackson is not guilty of pedophilia..

FreakyLocz14 June 17th, 2010 2:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldrei (Post 5888309)
It's like saying Michael Jackson is not guilty of pedophilia..

According to the Court, he is not guilty. Remember proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed to establish guilty. The defendant does not have to prove their innocence.

Zet June 17th, 2010 2:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5888332)
According to the Court, he is not guilty. Remember proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed to establish guilty. The defendant does not have to prove their innocence.

Didn't kids come forward about it and even MJ admitting to it?

FreakyLocz14 June 17th, 2010 3:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zet (Post 5888339)
Didn't kids come forward about it and even MJ admitting to it?

The parents of the child he was tried for molesting were found to have a history of trying to extort money out of wealthy people, which is probably why he was acquitted. They even tried to settle for money in the case against MJ.

Guillermo June 17th, 2010 3:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5888308)
This man was convicted beacuse the prosecution argued that he had an affair and cheated on his wife and that he killed her to get out of his marriage to be with his mistress.

You can't put someones entire future on something you don't know for sure, really.

Dawn June 17th, 2010 7:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guillermo (Post 5888438)
You can't put someones entire future on something you don't know for sure, really.

I think you'll find that we in fact can and do, and that accepting proof that is not 100% certain is one of the major flaws of the legal system. http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8311/depressionplz.gif

FreakyLocz14 June 17th, 2010 3:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PkMnTrainer Yellow (Post 5888824)
I think you'll find that we in fact can and do, and that accepting proof that is not 100% certain is one of the major flaws of the legal system. http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8311/depressionplz.gif

California law doesn't allow for that. We require certainty or at least near certainty. This case didn't have any evidence that he murdered his wife. All of the pieces of the puzzle are missing. This doesn't even come close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zet June 17th, 2010 5:43 PM

Just hook the guy up to a goddamn lie detector.

FreakyLocz14 June 17th, 2010 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zet (Post 5889995)
Just hook the guy up to a goddamn lie detector.

U.S. law conisders lie detector tests unreliable.

Trap-Eds June 19th, 2010 11:16 PM

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:

ANARCHit3cht June 20th, 2010 10:15 AM

... I am basically speechless. I can't believe that it happened. If I was him, I would fight every step of the way.

FreakyLocz14 June 20th, 2010 11:28 AM

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.

Trap-Eds June 20th, 2010 7:05 PM

What I don't understand is, if there was barely any evidence for or against him, why bother to go to court at all?

FreakyLocz14 June 20th, 2010 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trap-Eds (Post 5898392)
What I don't understand is, if there was barely any evidence for or against him, why bother to go to court at all?

Becuase this was a high-profile case and District Attorneys are elected officials. If they dropped the case, the would lose their re-election bid. Since everyone and their mother was convinced that Scott was guilty, losing this case would also end the DA's career at the next election so they proceeded to obtain a conviction without any evidence of guilt at all purely by playing mind games with the jury.

Fox♠ June 21st, 2010 3:24 PM

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.

poopnoodle June 21st, 2010 3:30 PM

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.

Fox♠ June 21st, 2010 3:32 PM

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.

poopnoodle June 21st, 2010 3:35 PM

Quote:

OJ Simpson on the other hand.
exactly. he's as innocent as MJ. what happens in vegas stays in vegas.

Fox♠ June 21st, 2010 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopnoodle (Post 5900392)


exactly. he's as innocent as MJ. what happens in vegas stays in vegas.

That kid had it coming, MJ was duped!!

poopnoodle June 21st, 2010 3:50 PM

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.

FreakyLocz14 June 21st, 2010 7:14 PM

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.

A Voice of Sanity June 29th, 2010 4:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 (Post 5888222)
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.

Uniquely, in this case, the whole transcript, almost all photos, pre-trial motions, appeals and all are online HERE

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:

Originally Posted by poopnoodle (Post 5900376)
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.

You mean the expression his lawyer ordered him to have? The demeanor that his lawyer told him would be best? If Scott Peterson had walked into court every day wearing a leather g-string and given the jury a Nazi salute he couldn't have gotten a worst result could he? And BTW, he bleached his hair blond, not black, and it turned orange from the chlorine in a pool. He had just been to Mexico -- and returned. He lost a lot of money when Laci was murdered - she will never inherit from her grandfather's estate. The insurance money is far less than that.

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.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 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.