Wednesday
September 2 2015
9:52 AM
Oregon State Media Online School of Journalism The Oregon Herald
More
Public - Scott Peterson, innocent guilty?



Navigation:


FORUMS > GENERAL DISCUSSIONS [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: Scott Peterson, innocent guilty?



Posted by
A Voice of Sanity

Msg # 1667


Posts: 5
Joined: Jun 2007

Mon June 11, 2007 5:46 PM, Msg # 1667

I cant sit here and say hes guilty. But i cant say he is innocent either. How can I acuse a man of something there is NO PROOF to? There is no proof.....just leads that arent proving anything! How does it work? There are certian things that say he did it. But all the while there are plenty of things saying he didnt do it.....What is the right answer???

Actually, there is no evidence that he was involved at all. It was all inference and suspicion with nothing to back it up.

Ask yourself these questions:
    Where exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?
    When exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?
    Why exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?
    What exactly was the way that Laci was killed? What is the proof?

Now ask yourself how you can be certain of guilt when you don't know where, when, how or why Laci was killed and where the prosecution could not find any evidence of guilt.

Even the prosecutors and police knew he was innocent. That is why they avoided any tests that might have proved Scott was innocent, preferring instead speculation without any evidence to back it up. Look at what they did:
    First they tried desperately to prove he wasn't at the bay. They failed.
    Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the house. They failed.
    Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the truck. They failed.
    Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the boat. They failed.
    Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the warehouse. They failed.
    Then they tried to find evidence at the bay. They failed.
    By then they were so desperate that they listened in to his phone calls to his attorneys. They learned nothing.

Finally, when the bodies were found months later dumped on the shore, they picked them up without sending a forensic tech or a forensic entomologist to check the dump sites out. They used the little they had and spread a one week trial out over 5 months to try to make it appear as if they had evidence. They had none. To this day there is none. So much for 'proof'.

The prosecution couldn't find even one molecule of evidence - one item that went to guilt and was incapable of innocent explanation.

What sort of case is based on evidence that doesn't exist?

See these for more comments:

The Assumptions
The Odds
[ Reply | Quote | Top | Bottom ]



Posted by
A Voice of Sanity

Msg # 1670


Posts: 5
Joined: Jun 2007

Wed June 13, 2007 2:20 PM, Msg # 1670

> Scott Peterson goes fishig 90 miles away from his home. His wifes body turns up within two miles of the area where he launched his boat.

In a bay which can be accessed by over 2 million people. Four months later.

> You would have to believe that Laci Peterson was kidnapped shortly after Scott Peterson left his wife.

She was abducted. Without a crime scene your assumptions are just that - no proof is offered. She could have been abducted and driven away just as Scott was returning home -- there is no evidence she was not.

> Also, you would have to believe the kidnapper just happened to decide to kill Laci and take her body 90 miles away from Laci 's home.

All you have to believe is that the killers had a reason, some reason, any reason to dump the bodies where they were found. Why did the Hillside Stranglers (they thought it was one - they found there were two!!) dump their bodies in various places to display them? Why did the killer of the 'Black Dahlia' display his kill as he did? Why do so many others do the same?
[ Reply | Quote | Top | Bottom ]



Posted by
A Voice of Sanity

Msg # 1671


Posts: 5
Joined: Jun 2007

Wed June 13, 2007 2:35 PM, Msg # 1671

Fate of insurance policy in Peterson case up in air
The Fresno Bee
06/12/07 14:27:13


A Superior Court decision to award proceeds from an insurance policy to the mother-in-law of convicted murderer Scott Peterson appeared to be in jeopardy based on questions Tuesday by a state appeal court panel in Fresno.

In late 2005, Sharon Rocha — the mother of Laci Peterson — was awarded the proceeds of the $250,000 life insurance policy by Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne.

Scott Peterson, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, appealed the decision, saying his case is on appeal and, therefore, the verdict on his guilt is not final.

A three-judge panel of 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno made no decision Tuesday, but clearly was skeptical of arguments by Modesto attorney Adam Stewart, who represented Rocha.

Peterson’s attorneys argued that Rocha should not receive the insurance proceeds while the case still is on appeal, and they objected that Stewart submitted a copy of the jury’s judgment to the Superior Court as proof of Scott Peterson’s guilt.

Rocha declined comment after the hearing, but it was clear she and longtime companion Ron Grantski were unhappy with the tone of the hearing. Grantski yelled that Peterson’s “not getting out,” a reference to the possibility that the conviction could be overturned and Peterson could then be entitled to collect the insurance settlement.

Authorities say Scott Peterson smothered or strangled his pregnant wife just before Christmas in 2002. He was convicted of the murder in November 2004 and sentenced to death a day later. He remains on death row.
[ Reply | Quote | Top | Bottom ]



Posted by
A Voice of Sanity

Msg # 1672


Posts: 5
Joined: Jun 2007

Wed June 13, 2007 7:27 PM, Msg # 1672

Quote

Originally posted by: tiffanysmith228
I cant sit here and say hes guilty. But i cant say he is innocent either. How can I acuse a man of something there is NO PROOF to? There is no proof.....just leads that arent proving anything! How does it work? There are certian things that say he did it. But all the while there are plenty of things saying he didnt do it.....What is the right answer???
The right answer is that he is not merely not guilty but is actually, factually innocent.
Ask yourself these questions:

  1. Where exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?

  2. When exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?

  3. Why exactly was Laci killed? What is the proof?

  4. What exactly was the way that Laci was killed? What is the proof?


Now ask yourself how you can be certain of guilt when you don't know where, when, how or why Laci was killed and where the prosecution could not find any evidence of guilt.

Even the prosecutors and police knew he was innocent. That is why they avoided any tests that might have proved Scott was innocent, preferring instead speculation without any evidence to back it up. Look at what they did:

  • First they tried desperately to prove he wasn't at the bay. They failed.

  • Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the house. They failed.

  • Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the truck. They failed.

  • Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the boat. They failed.

  • Then they tried to find traces of homicide in the warehouse. They failed.

  • Then they tried to find evidence at the bay. They failed.

  • By then they were so desperate that they listened in to his phone calls to his attorneys. They learned nothing.


Finally, when the bodies were found months later dumped on the shore, they picked them up without sending a forensic tech or a forensic entomologist to check the dump sites out. They used the little they had and spread a one week trial out over 5 months to try to make it appear as if they had evidence. They had none. To this day there is none. So much for 'proof'.

The prosecution couldn't find even one molecule of evidence - one item that went to guilt and was incapable of innocent explanation.

What sort of case is based on evidence that doesn't exist? For more see: -

The Assumptions
The Odds
[ Reply | Quote | Top | Bottom ]

FORUMS > GENERAL DISCUSSIONS [ REFRESH ]