Scott Peterson ... Said To Have Adjusted Well To Prison

[Wudge+]

"Contrary to some reports, some of the guards told us that Peterson has adjusted pretty well to prison life, and by this point has become just another guy on Death Row. "

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/997666.aspx

[wandering]

Well isn't that sweet. :rolleyes:

3 hots (served to them), TV, jobs, beautiful view, etc. He//, they don't even have to worry about paying bills.

What are they missing? The right to hop in their cars and go chase girls.

Some punishment. :cuss:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by wandering
Well isn't that sweet. :rolleyes:

3 hots (served to them), TV, jobs, beautiful view, etc. He//, they don't even have to worry about paying bills.

What are they missing? The right to hop in their cars and go chase girls.

Some punishment. :cuss: [/*]


Not just a beautiful view but a million dollar view too.

[S Tigertail]

A million dollar view he seldom gets to see in that historic old building with 654 of the worst criminals in the state living in his section.
He spends most of his time in a room the size of most hallway bathrooms. He sleeps in the same room he chits in.

No golf, no expensive wine or nice restaurants.

But he does have that nice address with the beautiful panoramic views. I'm surprised he didn't plead guilty so he wouldn't have to wait a year to move in. LMAO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Wudge+
"Contrary to some reports, some of the guards told us that Peterson has adjusted pretty well to prison life, and by this point has become just another guy on Death Row. "

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/997666.aspx [/*]

What I am about to say should not be taken as a sarcastic statement because it is how I sincerely feel.

I am not surprised to hear Scott has adjusted well. I've always felt he could detach himself from reality and enter a place his mind chooses to go to instead, not unlike what he did at Laci's vigil. I think if he didn't have this ability, Scott might have cracked a long time ago.

IMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


What I am about to say should not be taken as a sarcastic statement because it is how I sincerely feel.

I am not surprised to hear Scott has adjusted well. I've always felt he could detach himself from reality and enter a place his mind chooses to go to instead, not unlike what he did at Laci's vigil. I think if he didn't have this ability, Scott might have cracked a long time ago.

IMO [/*]


Scott knows that his appeal will almost assuredly result in a second trial or, at the very least, reduce his sentence.

[wandering]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


What I am about to say should not be taken as a sarcastic statement because it is how I sincerely feel.

I am not surprised to hear Scott has adjusted well. I've always felt he could detach himself from reality and enter a place his mind chooses to go to instead, not unlike what he did at Laci's vigil. I think if he didn't have this ability, Scott might have cracked a long time ago.

IMO [/*]I recall his sister Anne Bird saying he'd already adjusted early on. She said he was talking about learning to live minimally, and that when he got out, he could get everything he needed at Home Depot.

He's a chameleon.

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by Wudge+



Scott knows that his appeal will almost assuredly result in a second trial or, at the very least, reduce his sentence. [/*]

now SP is well versed on the law?.....SP knows? too funny....

hope he does better than the literary aficionado he purported to be with AF....

....JACK CADILLAC...

best regards,
Pru

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


now SP is well versed on the law?.....SP knows? too funny....

hope he does better than the literary aficionado he purported to be with AF....

....JACK CADILLAC...

best regards,
Pru [/*]

Scott heard Judge Delucchi say this case would become an Appellate attorney's petri dish, which is accurate due to the breadth and number of probable appeal issues.

[ellvarn]

Most people like him do real well and it jus warms my heart. And I think Westerfield and SP should be cell mates. JMO
Have a good night.:seeya:

[monica]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Scott knows that his appeal will almost assuredly result in a second trial or, at the very least, reduce his sentence. [/*]

Both you and Scott can keep dreaming.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by monica


Both you and Scott can keep dreaming. [/*]

Even Greta finally recognized the number of strong appeal issues and said she now believes Scott's conviction will be reversed. Moreover, there are several strong appeal issues that could result in a reversal with prejudice, which would make Scott a free man.

[wandering]

Here's Anne Bird in the Dateline interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7047103/

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by RachelRose
This is certainly a case that will be debated for decades.

The visceral reaction the public had to Scott Peterson, I believe, cost him his freedom. I don't believe there was any evidence to convict him - and in fact, the tidal evidence that brought the "Target Bags" from the bridge construction area right along with Laci's remains (so close to her remains, and arrived at the same time that the construction Target bags were considered to be part of her remains) should have made it clear to everyone where she washed up from - the base of the bridge. If the cement bags washed from there, why is there any doubt that Laci washed in from there - where it would be easy for anyone to deposit her, without use of a boat?

Why has the pawn ticket been ignored? Why have the lying thieves across the street at the time of her disappearance been ignored?

Had Laci been ugly, and Sharon Rocha been unlikeable, Scott Peterson wouldn't be in prison. [/*]

it wasnt ignored, it was a 'prop' that had zero mileage on it...didnt go anywhere, did it....

he didnt bring in the the pawner nor the pawn broker who handled the transaction, therefore he couldnt 'talk' about it' with any other witnesses.....

....and they WERE available. the TJ bread expert was more important than that...LMAO

duh

best regards,
Pru

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Scott heard Judge Delucchi say this case would become an Appellate attorney's petri dish, which is accurate due to the breadth and number of probable appeal issues. [/*]

petri dishes dont always cultivate a viable specimen.

SP heard? time travel is pretty intense stuff.....Im sure over the past years he has caught up on the trial, you know, read all the parts he missed when he was off in his mind, dreaming of France, Maine and other locations to impress someone of his wealth and worldliness.....

best regards,
Pru

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by RachelRose
This is certainly a case that will be debated for decades.

The visceral reaction the public had to Scott Peterson, I believe, cost him his freedom. I don't believe there was any evidence to convict him - and in fact, the tidal evidence that brought the "Target Bags" from the bridge construction area right along with Laci's remains (so close to her remains, and arrived at the same time that the construction Target bags were considered to be part of her remains) should have made it clear to everyone where she washed up from - the base of the bridge. If the cement bags washed from there, why is there any doubt that Laci washed in from there - where it would be easy for anyone to deposit her, without use of a boat?

Why has the pawn ticket been ignored? Why have the lying thieves across the street at the time of her disappearance been ignored?

Had Laci been ugly, and Sharon Rocha been unlikeable, Scott Peterson wouldn't be in prison. [/*]

Many people agree that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges. If Appellate jurists also agree, a reversal with prejudice would attach and double jeopardy would preclude a second trial.

In addition to the Richmond Bridge (probable Target bag source) being where Laci's body might have been dumped into the bay, access to the Hoffman Marsh is right between where the bodies of Connor and Laci were found. A secluded bridge also crosses the channel that flows from the bay to that marsh.

There is no reliable evidence to support Distaso's wild claim that Laci's body was submerged via weights and lay on the bottom of the bay for over three months. In fact, the evidence supports that Laci's body was exposed to continual wet/dry cycles, which could not have happened if her body was submerged in the bay as Distaso speculated.

I believe that Laci's body was dumped into the Hoffman marsh, and that her body eventually washed out to the bay from the marsh as a result of backwash from a storm.

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Wudge+
"Contrary to some reports, some of the guards told us that Peterson has adjusted pretty well to prison life, and by this point has become just another guy on Death Row. "

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/997666.aspx [/*]


Isn't that special?

[monica]

What time do the guards make Scott rise and shine out there every day?

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by Wudge+
"Contrary to some reports, some of the guards told us that Peterson has adjusted pretty well to prison life, and by this point has become just another guy on Death Row. "

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/997666.aspx [/*]

Of course he is adjusting to his life surrounded by the lowest of the lows. Living with those that have the same mentality will do that for you.

:read:

[monica]

Originally posted by RachelRose


Holiday, I know this case quite well, actually. Time will tell - I think 20 years from now, this will look different than it does now. [/*]

Yep, it's going to look different. It's going to be the gray, thinning hair look.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee



Hi Wudge,

Agree with you on all points above.

Then we have the baby..... so obviously placed where he was found. There is no way he was protected in Laci's hollow torso, "washed ashore" and flew over the rock jetty getting twine to somehow tie around his neck. I could go on and on about the baby. So many issues....

Like you, I feel Scott is adjusted because he has hope, rightfully so, and I also know he has a strong and loving family that give him an excellent support system, as well as long time supporters and friends.

I know one thing, he doesn't know or care about the people spewing hate for him on this message board, lol.

I hope all is well with you :seeya: [/*]

BeeBee, I agree that the twine around Connor's neck is exonerating evidence. It is not reasonable to conclude that a circle of twice-knotted twine with a circumference significantly smaller than the circumference of Connor's head defied physics and worked it's way down Connor's head and past his ears to end up around his neck.

Not only is it not reasonable to conclude that, there was no testimony or other evidence presented at trial to even remotely explain how this could have happened; i.e., if the twice-knotted twine was not tied around Connor's neck by hand.

Moreover, Connor's head was not said to have been damaged by the twine being forced over his head via an assumed secret meeting of serendipity and happenstance. Yet Dr. Peterson testified that he probably would have damaged Connor's head if he attempted to do work the twine off without cutting it.

In other words, no damage was done when the twine was theoretically forced down and over Connor's head, however, if the twine were to have come off his head in the same way, Dr. Peterson believed he probably would have damaged Connor's head in the process.

By itself, the twine represents reasonable doubt. It's exonerating evidence.

[mrsmcgoo]

What is so hard to understand about tides and currents? I live near the water, my husband is a fisherman and let me tell you, it is nothing for twine to wrap around anything in the water. My husband can pull up a lobster trap that weighs 125 pounds or more and find all kinds of things wrapped around it. Old rope, sea weed, ect.

Tides and currents, along with sea life move all kinds of debris, big and small on the oceans floor. It's not science, it is common sense.

Hate to disappoint you that the so called "theory" isn't going over anyones head on this board, because the theory is non sense. It is fictional and to be honest, laughable.

:read:

Is the next theory one that involves the lochness monster tying the twine, it is equivalent in creditablity? lol

[redcard]

Why are people so afraid of Scott getting another trial? Is there really that much concern that the evidence is shaky?

Look, if he gets a second trial, they convict him again, big deal.

[Nikki77058]

Snip ...should have made it clear to everyone where she washed up from - the base of the bridge. If the cement bags washed from there, why is there any doubt that Laci washed in from there - where it would be easy for anyone to deposit her, without use of a boat?

Why has the pawn ticket been ignored? Why have the lying thieves across the street at the time of her disappearance been ignored?

Had Laci been ugly, and Sharon Rocha been unlikeable, Scott Peterson wouldn't be in prison. [/*][/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

Seriously?? How can you totally dismiss all of the circumstantial evidence?? Your last comment is hysterical!! IMO

[monica]

If there really was info that would free Scott then Jackie would be screaming from the rooftops. She's quiet as a mouse.

[monica]

Originally posted by redcard
Why are people so afraid of Scott getting another trial? Is there really that much concern that the evidence is shaky?

Look, if he gets a second trial, they convict him again, big deal. [/*]

I'm not scared of Scott getting another trial. I just hate wasting money and it would be a BIG waste of money!

[mrsmcgoo]

We all know that criminals facing the death penalty are given ample opportunity to introduce new evidence and facts that could result in them being rewarded a new trial.

However, when there is no such thing as NEW evidence, and the theories being bantered around are unproven and complete fiction, than the burden is placed on the tax payers for new trials. In this particular case it isn't coming out of my pocket, but regardless, it comes out of someone's pocket.

If anything, we should be speeding up the process for Scott Peterson alone.

:read:

JMO

[redcard]

Originally posted by mrsmcgoo
t.

If anything, we should be speeding up the process for Scott Peterson alone.
[/*]

No no no.

I'm anti-death penalty, and I think that THAT's a waste of money in the long run, but.. that aside, we should support Scott getting every single appeal he wants or deserves. (Perhaps not successfully winning them.. but at least getting them.)

The act of taking a life , be it by the state or otherwise, I find deplorable. However, if we live in a society where the state gets to take a life, I want it to be after FULL consideration , and FULL reconsideration. It should not be sped up or done lightly, it should be deliberately slow and weighted to the defendant.

Notice, I'm not saying the defendant is going to get out. I'm not saying find him innocent. ALL I'm saying is that if we're going to do something we cannot undo, we should make every effort to make absolutely certain that this is the right course of action.

No speeding up necessary. I've seen too many people who were convicted because they couldn't afford a good attorney, and that tells me that we MUST work on treating these cases with due diligence.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by holiday

NOT=exhonerating evidence.

Links to back up this ridiculous claim must be posted per TOS. Those must be from credible news sources not from sii. Marlene Newell, a fired secretary with no education has no credibility. I've reported you and have asked CW if we can prove where you continue take your garbage from.


:read: [/*]

I know of no reasonable explanation for how the twine came to be around Connor's neck other than having been tied there by hand.

The M.E., Dr. Peterson, testified at trial.

9 Q. Now, did you examine it to see if it had anything
10 to do with any injury or any cause with Conner?
11 A. It wasn't so much of examining the tape, or
12 whatever it was. It was more a matter of examining the
13 neck. And I looked at the skin beneath that loop, and the
14 skin was undamaged. And I also dissected the neck organs
15 beneath the skin, and they were undamaged. So my --
16 Q. So what does that mean?
17 A. My conclusion was that that material had not
18 caused damage to the neck. And, in fact, my opinion was
19 and is that it was simply debris that had become associated
20 with the body.

Net, Dr. Peterson testifying that the twine "had become associated with the body" is hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the twice-knotted twine magically defied physics and was tied around Connor's neck other than by hand.

HTH

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by redcard


No no no.

I'm anti-death penalty, and I think that THAT's a waste of money in the long run, but.. that aside, we should support Scott getting every single appeal he wants or deserves. (Perhaps not successfully winning them.. but at least getting them.)

The act of taking a life , be it by the state or otherwise, I find deplorable. However, if we live in a society where the state gets to take a life, I want it to be after FULL consideration , and FULL reconsideration. It should not be sped up or done lightly, it should be deliberately slow and weighted to the defendant.

Notice, I'm not saying the defendant is going to get out. I'm not saying find him innocent. ALL I'm saying is that if we're going to do something we cannot undo, we should make every effort to make absolutely certain that this is the right course of action.

No speeding up necessary. I've seen too many people who were convicted because they couldn't afford a good attorney, and that tells me that we MUST work on treating these cases with due diligence. [/*]

Well said.

(take a bow)

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by holiday


What part of "link" don't you understand. Link to where you got this. I know for a fact where you take it from. The whole thing, not just snippets. You got in trouble on WS for playing the same game.

link link link A C R E D I * L E L I N K

:rolleyes: [/*]

The testimony of the M.E., Dr. Peterson, that I posted is from a privately sourced transcript of the trial record that I have on my computer. Obviously, I can't post a link to that.

HTH

ETA: What is WS?

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by redcard


No no no.

I'm anti-death penalty, and I think that THAT's a waste of money in the long run, but.. that aside, we should support Scott getting every single appeal he wants or deserves. (Perhaps not successfully winning them.. but at least getting them.)

The act of taking a life , be it by the state or otherwise, I find deplorable. However, if we live in a society where the state gets to take a life, I want it to be after FULL consideration , and FULL reconsideration. It should not be sped up or done lightly, it should be deliberately slow and weighted to the defendant.

Notice, I'm not saying the defendant is going to get out. I'm not saying find him innocent. ALL I'm saying is that if we're going to do something we cannot undo, we should make every effort to make absolutely certain that this is the right course of action.

No speeding up necessary. I've seen too many people who were convicted because they couldn't afford a good attorney, and that tells me that we MUST work on treating these cases with due diligence. [/*]

Yes, he is being afforded those opportunities you speak of.

He is being given MORE opportunity than most due to the media coverage, his high profile case and legal team, not to mention parents who are financially well off compared to most defendants. Also we have web pages asking and soliciting people to contribute to his legal cause. He is being looked after, believe me!

I think the death penalty is needed. Life in prison doesn't always mean life in prison. Ruthless criminals, such as Scott Peterson who kill innocent babies and women, the most vulnerable in our society need to be put to death.

JMO

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by redcard


No no no.

I'm anti-death penalty, and I think that THAT's a waste of money in the long run, but.. that aside, we should support Scott getting every single appeal he wants or deserves. (Perhaps not successfully winning them.. but at least getting them.)

The act of taking a life , be it by the state or otherwise, I find deplorable. However, if we live in a society where the state gets to take a life, I want it to be after FULL consideration , and FULL reconsideration. It should not be sped up or done lightly, it should be deliberately slow and weighted to the defendant.

Notice, I'm not saying the defendant is going to get out. I'm not saying find him innocent. ALL I'm saying is that if we're going to do something we cannot undo, we should make every effort to make absolutely certain that this is the right course of action.

No speeding up necessary. I've seen too many people who were convicted because they couldn't afford a good attorney, and that tells me that we MUST work on treating these cases with due diligence. [/*]

I agree, well said

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by Beebee




What "theory" are you talking about?

I'm all eyes as to your theory of how the twine got tied around Conner's neck. Please explain. I would love to hear it. Please keep head and neck circumference in mind.

TIA [/*]

I was talking about the theory that was expressed here on this board.

As for my theory, unless that twine was tied in a bow, it was exactly as presented at trial. Do you have information that it was?

The motion of the current placed it around Connor's neck. It's simple. It is explainable and accurate. It is something that happens alot I might add, having fished many long days. I am not saying this because I want to disagree either, I am saying this because I have SEEN it happen.

JMO but it is also fact!

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by redcard


No no no.

I'm anti-death penalty, and I think that THAT's a waste of money in the long run, but.. that aside, we should support Scott getting every single appeal he wants or deserves. (Perhaps not successfully winning them.. but at least getting them.)

The act of taking a life , be it by the state or otherwise, I find deplorable. However, if we live in a society where the state gets to take a life, I want it to be after FULL consideration , and FULL reconsideration. It should not be sped up or done lightly, it should be deliberately slow and weighted to the defendant.

Notice, I'm not saying the defendant is going to get out. I'm not saying find him innocent. ALL I'm saying is that if we're going to do something we cannot undo, we should make every effort to make absolutely certain that this is the right course of action.

No speeding up necessary. I've seen too many people who were convicted because they couldn't afford a good attorney, and that tells me that we MUST work on treating these cases with due diligence. [/*]

wake up: this is the US. full consideration IS afforded convicts such as SP.

he already has his legal rights protected.....the DP has an automatic appeal. end of story. due diligence is afforded by the mere fact that he will go thru every avenue of appeal, year after year after year, probably up to 15 years.

he is supported by the laws in this country. your point is moot.

SP had a million dollar defense. he isnt one of the 'too many people being convicted because he couldnt afford a good attorney'.

best regards,
Pru

[Amy]

Originally posted by holiday
You just proved differently. Fact.

20 yrs from now? Scott will be executed. duh!

:patriot: [/*]

Nope, he's in CA, not TX. In fact, the information about appeals (in CA) @ the time of his sentencing was that it takes up to 10 years for the appeal process to wend it's way thru the hoops---and he's "next in line" behind hundreds of other appealees (is there a word?) PLUS, he's so far down the execution line, he's more likely to die of old age before his date for execution comes up.

I personally don't think his appeals have the chance of a snowball in hades, but that's just me.

If he uses state appellate attorneys, he has to wait a long time. If privately hired appellate attorneys have been hired, it would seem, IF there was something there for appeal, in 4+ years they would have presented it by now, or filed to present it. IMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by mrsmcgoo


I was talking about the theory that was expressed here on this board.

As for my theory, unless that twine was tied in a bow, it was exactly as presented at trial. Do you have information that it was?

The motion of the current placed it around Connor's neck. It's simple. It is explainable and accurate. It is something that happens alot I might add, having fished many long days. I am not saying this because I want to disagree either, I am saying this because I have SEEN it happen.

JMO but it is also fact! [/*]

The problem is that there was no reasonable explanation offered at trial, by any witness, as regards how the twice-knotted twine could have come to be around Connor's neck if it was not tied there by hand.

In the preliminary hearing, the M.E., Dr. Peterson, was asked this very question by Judge Delucchi, and his attempted explanation was thought to be so good that the prosecutors refused to ask Dr. Peterson to repeat the answer he gave at preliminary hearing when he testified at trial.

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by holiday


Oops, my bad.


http://www.scottisinnocent.com/

Warning: Do not attempt to eat/drink while reading this site.

barf [/*]

Oh my!! :eek:

So many things to dispute, so little time!! Glancing at just a few, I actually feel sorry for those that believe that stuff!!!


Thank you for link. :seeya:

[Amy]

Originally posted by RachelRose
This is certainly a case that will be debated for decades.

The visceral reaction the public had to Scott Peterson, I believe, cost him his freedom. I don't believe there was any evidence to convict him - and in fact, the tidal evidence that brought the "Target Bags" from the bridge construction area right along with Laci's remains (so close to her remains, and arrived at the same time that the construction Target bags were considered to be part of her remains) should have made it clear to everyone where she washed up from - the base of the bridge. If the cement bags washed from there, why is there any doubt that Laci washed in from there - where it would be easy for anyone to deposit her, without use of a boat?

Why has the pawn ticket been ignored? Why have the lying thieves across the street at the time of her disappearance been ignored?

Had Laci been ugly, and Sharon Rocha been unlikeable, Scott Peterson wouldn't be in prison. [/*]

I'm thinking that, if those were exonerating pieces of evidence, and the prosecution didn't introduce them, that the DEFENSE (who had that information, in fact, brought it to the public's attention via the media) would have certainly introduced them in their DEFENSE of SP.

His DEFENSE lawyer, the one who shouted from the top of the courthouse steps that they KNEW who the murderer was---did not produce ANYTHING that pointed to anyone else, let alone produce the name of the murderer that was known to him (according to him.) It seems these pieces of "evidence" were "ignored" by defense, probably because these pieces of "evidence" proved to not be anything that were helpful to the defense of SP. IMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


It was tied in a bow tie knot. [/*]

People's Exhibit 253E, clearly shows the bow. I don't know if you can still upload and post pictures BeeBee, but if you can, posting 253E could be helpful.

[redcard]

Originally posted by Pruddennce


wake up: this is the US. full consideration IS afforded convicts such as SP.

he already has his legal rights protected.....the DP has an automatic appeal. end of story. due diligence is afforded by the mere fact that he will go thru every avenue of appeal, year after year after year, probably up to 15 years.

he is supported by the laws in this country. your point is moot.

SP had a million dollar defense. he isnt one of the 'too many people being convicted because he couldnt afford a good attorney'.

best regards,
Pru [/*]

Wrong.

This is California.

And in California, he is getting his appeals heard. California is a heavily liberal state where the death penalty enjoys an on again off again mentality. Currently, it's on again, but in five years or so, I can see it being under another moratrium. It's just how the state works.

If he were in Texas, well, to quote Ron White "My state's installing an express lane."

It's the "Express Lane" mentality that concerns me.

I am watching a man right now with MS who was convicted because the Tennessee Brueau of Investigation literally splashed a vial of the victim's blood on his jeans, intentionally. He is STILL behind bars, despite DNA evidence, misconduct, and a witness perjuring himself saying differently.

If he was in California, he'd be freed by now.

If he was in Texas, he'd be dead by now.

So don't say that Scott gets these rights because he's in the US. He gets these rights because he's in a liberal state that doesn't like the death penalty. If he were in Texas, or even here in Tennessee, he'd be dead by now.

So yes, everyone SHOULD get those rights. No, everyone DOESN'T get those rights.

[Land Shark®]

Damn. I sure wish Scott was in Texas. Or even Tennessee.

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by Wudge+


People's Exhibit 253E, clearly shows the bow. I don't know if you can still upload and post pictures BeeBee, but if you can, posting 253E could be helpful. [/*]

Please DO NOT post any such picture here!

No one here wants to see a picture of Connor! Unlike SP, it disturbs most of us to see such a thing!!!

AS for the bow, you know full well that I meant a bow, tied perfectly with two loops. Run with it all you want. You are dead wrong.

JMO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Damn. I sure wish Scott was in Texas. Or even Tennessee. [/*]

What is the inculpatory evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott killed Laci with malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by redcard


State of Tennessee vs Paul Gregory House

www.tcask.org/cases/house/house.html

By the way, our DA , despite being told by the various courts of appeals to retry House or free him, and even being threatened with contempt of court charges for refusing to abide by the higher court's decision, contested House even GETTING a bail hearing for a retrial.

A man in a wheel chair who needs help cleaning himself, changing his diapers, and feeding himself is still in the eyes of the state of Tennessee, a threat to commit rape and murder. [/*]

Thanks.

(tip of my hat)

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by holiday


Scott living in a cold dark roach invested box w/bars on it, noise is constant, maggots on his food, always looking over his shoulder, barely sees daylight and is rotting away.

She thinks it is wonderful.

;)

:seeya: [/*]
Wait..he's "living in a cold dark roach invested box w/bars on it, noise is constant, maggots on his food, always looking over his shoulder, barely sees daylight and is rotting away?"

(You know what's coming, don't you? If you don't, welcome to the boards; you're apparently a newbie.)

A concerned nation reacts!! (http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii65/barskin2/applaud.gif)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Wudge+


What is the inculpatory evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott killed Laci with malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation?

With so called access to a private transcript of the trial, you don't know?

A better question would be what is the inculpatory evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott didn't kill Laci & Connor with malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation?

There is no answer to the above question.

Because Scott Peterson did indeed murder his wife & unborn child.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by barskin&co.

Respectfully Snipped

A concerned nation reacts!! (http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii65/barskin2/applaud.gif)

I'm the guy five rows back in the center.

Concerned as always. :)

[mrsmcgoo]

Ok...I'm out of here!! :seeya:

After reading bits and pieces of that link provided, I don't have the time or energy needed to address the imaginary injustices committed to SP. lol

(Seriously, here's a taste from link that was provided: "The State used Amber and the tape recordings she made to portray Scott as an adulterer and liar, and romancing Amber instead of looking for Laci. "

Ummm HELLO, Scott did this all by himself!! LMAO)

JMO...

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


With so called access to a private transcript of the trial, you don't know?

A better question would be what is the inculpatory evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott didn't kill Laci & Connor with malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation?

There is no answer to the above question.

Because Scott Peterson did indeed murder his wife & unborn child. [/*]

Counselor, did you forget that the burden of proof is entirely with the prosecution?

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Counselor, did you forget that the burden of proof is entirely with the prosecution?

Did you forget what a fantastic job the prosecution did with that burden?

12 jurors. Unanimous decision.

Guilty.

Impeccable. :)

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Counselor, did you forget that the burden of proof is entirely with the prosecution? [/*]


Yes, and a person is innocent until he has been found guilty in a court of law. SP was found guilty in a court of law. The burden is now on those who believe the murderer was wrongfully convicted to prove their case. Get back to me when that happens. Meanwhile I have to go and work for a living, eventually retire, celebrate my 70th birthday, my 75th, my 80th...

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Beebee



I recall Ron White and the express lane comment. You would be horrified at how many Texans are proud of that.

Great post and I agree with you.

I'm in Georgia & I'm damn proud of Texas. :)

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Did you forget what a fantastic job the prosecution did with that burden?

12 jurors. Unanimous decision.

Guilty.

Impeccable. :) [/*]


Now that your memory is refreshed as to the prosecution having the entire burden of proof, I ask again: What is the inculpatory evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott killed Laci with malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation?

[barskin&co.]

Originally posted by Beebee


So sea life ate the umbilical cord but not the baby? Come on that makes no sense. Umbilical cords are strong. Had Conners been attached any pulling on the cord would have ripped his stomach wide open in the state of decay he was in. I fully believe the cord was cut by human hands when he was removed from Laci. [/*]

Oh you do? Well, then. And I, did you know, believe that martians have stolen my luggage.

[monica]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


I'm the guy five rows back in the center.

Concerned as always. :) [/*]

::santa::

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by holiday
If Scott were to be moved amongst the general population he would mostly likely stomped or stabbed to death. Is that what you want?

:D [/*]

if he was at risk, I would want him in protective custody - just like any other prisoner - jmho

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Beebee



Why don't you own up to the fact that you can't answer the question?

Sure I can answer the question.

But I don't have to answer the question. :)

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Did you forget what a fantastic job the prosecution did with that burden?

12 jurors. Unanimous decision.

Guilty.

Impeccable. :) [/*]

you mean the ones that wanted to get in and stand on the boat to see how stable it was in the water?

he may very well have killed her, but there was definitely not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by LisaM22


you mean the ones that wanted to get in and stand on the boat to see how stable it was in the water?

Are they the same jurors that deliberated the totality of evidence & came to the correct verdict of guilty?

If so... then yes. Those are the ones.

An impeccable job done by the prosecution & the jury. :)

[redcard]

By the by, in case people are curious..

I think Scott did it. I think the jury reaches the right decision vis a vis guilt or innocence.

I do not believe in the death penalty, and I certainly don't think it is something a civilized culture does.

I also think that calls to hasten the application of the death penalty are barbaric and serve no purpose other than a sick sense of vengeance. Scott is not a danger to you in prison right now. Your family is just as safe if he died in 20 years or if he dies tomorrow.

So that's my opinion. Believing he should spend the rest of his life behind bars versus be put to death in the name of all citizens of the state of california are two separate beliefs, but both of them afford precisely the same level of safety to myself and my family and friends.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by LisaM22


you mean the ones that wanted to get in and stand on the boat to see how stable it was in the water?

he may very well have killed her, but there was definitely not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did [/*]

Credited.

[wandering]

Originally posted by Beebee


It makes sense to you that sea life ate the cord, but didn't even so much as touch or bite the baby?? [/*]They would naturally go for the richest source of nourishment first. That would be the cord. Common sense.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by wandering
They would naturally go for the richest source of nourishment first. That would be the cord. Common sense.

Alas, common sense is so uncommon these days.

But it's easy to spot those who have it.

And those who don't. ;)

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Beebee


SNIP

See this is why I think all jurors need to take basic competency tests, and I am not joking.

SNIP



I agree. I have long held that we should either have professional jurors or that people called for jury duty should first be given an applied logic test. If they didn't score 80% ( a "C" ) or better, then they would not eligible for voir dire.

At the very least, capital cases should require jurors to demonstrate that they are reasonably proficient in Aristotlelian logic.

[redcard]

It's hard to prove a negative.

Are you saying that Connor was never in the ocean?

There would be indications of this on his body and inside his body. Do those indications exist?

[Pruddennce]

Originally posted by redcard


Wrong.

This is California.

And in California, he is getting his appeals heard. California is a heavily liberal state where the death penalty enjoys an on again off again mentality. Currently, it's on again, but in five years or so, I can see it being under another moratrium. It's just how the state works.

If he were in Texas, well, to quote Ron White "My state's installing an express lane."

It's the "Express Lane" mentality that concerns me.

I am watching a man right now with MS who was convicted because the Tennessee Brueau of Investigation literally splashed a vial of the victim's blood on his jeans, intentionally. He is STILL behind bars, despite DNA evidence, misconduct, and a witness perjuring himself saying differently.

If he was in California, he'd be freed by now.

If he was in Texas, he'd be dead by now.

So don't say that Scott gets these rights because he's in the US. He gets these rights because he's in a liberal state that doesn't like the death penalty. If he were in Texas, or even here in Tennessee, he'd be dead by now.

So yes, everyone SHOULD get those rights. No, everyone DOESN'T get those rights. [/*]

California is in the UNITED STATES.

quiz: how many states have an AUTOMATIC APPEAL on behalf of death penalty convicts?

clue: they are all in the UNITED STATES. which was my point.

your point is moot. he isnt in another state. and he isnt in another country.

best regards,
Pru

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard
By the by, in case people are curious..

I think Scott did it. I think the jury reaches the right decision vis a vis guilt or innocence.

I do not believe in the death penalty, and I certainly don't think it is something a civilized culture does.

I also think that calls to hasten the application of the death penalty are barbaric and serve no purpose other than a sick sense of vengeance. Scott is not a danger to you in prison right now. Your family is just as safe if he died in 20 years or if he dies tomorrow.

So that's my opinion. Believing he should spend the rest of his life behind bars versus be put to death in the name of all citizens of the state of california are two separate beliefs, but both of them afford precisely the same level of safety to myself and my family and friends. [/*]That is not the only issue. Scott has already "adjusted" to his life in prison, so he's not suffering at all; ie; it's not punishment.

He needs to be put to death because the jury determined that he is not fit to live on this earth, in prison or out.

The law. Don't like it? Change it (if you can).

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by redcard
By the by, in case people are curious..

I think Scott did it. I think the jury reaches the right decision vis a vis guilt or innocence.

I do not believe in the death penalty, and I certainly don't think it is something a civilized culture does.

I also think that calls to hasten the application of the death penalty are barbaric and serve no purpose other than a sick sense of vengeance. Scott is not a danger to you in prison right now. Your family is just as safe if he died in 20 years or if he dies tomorrow.

So that's my opinion. Believing he should spend the rest of his life behind bars versus be put to death in the name of all citizens of the state of california are two separate beliefs, but both of them afford precisely the same level of safety to myself and my family and friends. [/*]

I agree, plus if a mistake is made as sometimes is, you can't undo killing someone - I think scott probably killed his wife as well, he is at least the most likely suspect, I do not think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and definitly not to the higher standard required for the jury to decide to kill him - jmho

[aubrey04]

I can't believe that people still think SP is innocent/not guilty. There was more than sufficient evidence to have this sociopath convicted. If there was some sort of appeal issue, which I highly doubt.. but if there was, the state would surely try him again... and he would get a similar result... maybe LWOP, but he would surely get convicted again. There is no way that 12 people on a jury panel would find this sicko innocent.

..and I hardly doubt that San Quentin measures up to the life that he led outside of prison. The only way prison would be a step up from your former life .. is if you were homeless.

IMO.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by redcard
It's hard to prove a negative.

Are you saying that Connor was never in the ocean?

There would be indications of this on his body and inside his body. Do those indications exist? [/*]


I have never seen anyone, anywhere, who was able to use the evidence presented at trial to generate the necessary premises that would force the conclusion, at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that Laci's body was submerged somewhere within that shallow bay for over three months and that Connor resided within her body for all but a short period of time.

If you believe that such evidence was presented at trial that forces such a high certainty conclusion, cite both the premises and the evidence the premises are based on.

Reminder: the reliability of an inferred conclusion can be no greater than the reliability of the premises upon which it is based.

[wandering]

Originally posted by LisaM22


I agree, plus if a mistake is made as sometimes is, you can't undo killing someone - I think scott probably killed his wife as well, he is at least the most likely suspect, I do not think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and definitly not to the higher standard required for the jury to decide to kill him - jmho [/*]What YOU think won't matter one whit to the appeals court.

[aubrey04]

Originally posted by Beebee



I recall Ron White and the express lane comment. You would be horrified at how many Texans are proud of that.

Great post and I agree with you. [/*]

Are you in Texas?

[wandering]

Originally posted by Wudge+



I have never seen anyone, anywhere, who was able to use the evidence presented at trial to generate the necessary premises that would force the conclusion, at the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that Laci's body was submerged somewhere within that shallow bay for over three months and that Connor resided within her body for all but a short period of time.

If you believe that such evidence was presented at trial that forces such a high certainty conclusion, cite both the premises and the evidence the premises are based on.

Reminder: the reliability of an inferred conclusion can be no greater than the reliability of the premises upon which it is based. [/*]The condition of the body itself is the proof. The anchors were attached to her neck, arms and legs. 3 months, in the rocking motion of the water.

End of story.

[wandering]

I can't believe we are still chewing on this...:rolleyes:

[aubrey04]

Originally posted by redcard


Wrong.

This is California.

And in California, he is getting his appeals heard. California is a heavily liberal state where the death penalty enjoys an on again off again mentality. Currently, it's on again, but in five years or so, I can see it being under another moratrium. It's just how the state works.

If he were in Texas, well, to quote Ron White "My state's installing an express lane."

It's the "Express Lane" mentality that concerns me.

I am watching a man right now with MS who was convicted because the Tennessee Brueau of Investigation literally splashed a vial of the victim's blood on his jeans, intentionally. He is STILL behind bars, despite DNA evidence, misconduct, and a witness perjuring himself saying differently.

If he was in California, he'd be freed by now.

If he was in Texas, he'd be dead by now.

So don't say that Scott gets these rights because he's in the US. He gets these rights because he's in a liberal state that doesn't like the death penalty. If he were in Texas, or even here in Tennessee, he'd be dead by now.

So yes, everyone SHOULD get those rights. No, everyone DOESN'T get those rights. [/*]

Wow. Absolutely amazing post. I am shocked. There is no "express lane" to execution in Texas, no matter what people think. We have people on death row that have been there for 20 plus years.

I went ahead and went straight to the source and found out what the estimated time waiting for execution is in Texas --- I will provide the link.

The AVERAGE time on death row before execution is 10.26 years -- According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Death Row Facts. (see my link)

Now, I think 10 plus years is adequate time to appeal your prison/death sentence.

I am only pro-lethal injection for extremely heinous crimes.. but let's not misstate the facts, especially if you don't even live in that state. It is offensive to the people who do reside here and who know that you aren't giving accurate information.

Link:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by aubrey04
I can't believe that people still think SP is innocent/not guilty. There was more than sufficient evidence to have this sociopath convicted. If there was some sort of appeal issue, which I highly doubt.. but if there was, the state would surely try him again... and he would get a similar result... maybe LWOP, but he would surely get convicted again. There is no way that 12 people on a jury panel would find this sicko innocent.

..and I hardly doubt that San Quentin measures up to the life that he led outside of prison. The only way prison would be a step up from your former life .. is if you were homeless.

IMO. [/*]

Even Nancy Grace had trouble with the State's storyline.

The State claimed that Scott committed a willful, premediated and deliberated murder that had him excuting his plan by submerging Laci's body in the bay in the full daylight of high noon.

On Larry King's show, 6-15-04, Nancy stated that if Scott were guilty, that could not be true.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.

Net, Nancy totally rejected the critical centerpiece of the State's storyline. Obviously, she did that because the critical centerpiece of the State's case does support premeditation, it works against it. It's better suited to support insanity.

[wandering]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Even Nancy Grace had trouble with the State's storyline.

The State claimed that Scott committed a willful, premediated and deliberated murder that had him excuting his plan by submerging Laci's body in the bay in the full daylight of high noon.

On Larry King's show, 6-15-04, Nancy stated that if Scott were guilty, that could not be true.

CALLER: Hi, Larry. My question is for Nancy. First, Nancy, let me quickly say that Court TV message boards love you. Nancy, do you think the prosecution will present a one-trip or a two-trips-to-the- bay theory by Scott Peterson?

GRACE: I think, given what we know right now, they'll have to present a two-trip-to-the-bay because, when he went to go fishing in the afternoon, believe you me, if he is, in fact, guilty, he did not dispose of Laci's body at that time in plain view in the middle of the day.

Net, Nancy totally rejected the critical centerpiece of the State's storyline. Obviously, she did that because the critical centerpiece of the State's case does support premeditation, it works against it. It's better suited to support insanity. [/*]Nancy wasn't on the jury. ;)

[aubrey04]

Originally posted by RachelRose
Had Laci been ugly, and Sharon Rocha been unlikeable, Scott Peterson wouldn't be in prison.

I edited your post down to this line because the rest of it didn't jive with me and I don't wish to debate it, but this simple statement could certainly be used in another way.

If Scott Peterson wasn't a decent looking guy, I doubt he would have any supporters. If he looked like Charles Manson, Richard Allen Davis or John Couey.. I highly doubt there would be anyone still championing his cause.

There was just too much circumstantial evidence for Scott to innocent.

[redcard]

Originally posted by aubrey04


Wow. Absolutely amazing post. I am shocked. There is no "express lane" to execution in Texas, no matter what people think. We have people on death row that have been there for 20 plus years.

I went ahead and went straight to the source and found out what the estimated time waiting for execution is in Texas --- I will provide the link.

The AVERAGE time on death row before execution is 10.26 years -- According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Death Row Facts. (see my link)

Now, I think 10 plus years is adequate time to appeal your prison/death sentence.

I am only pro-lethal injection for extremely heinous crimes.. but let's not misstate the facts, especially if you don't even live in that state. It is offensive to the people who do reside here and who know that you aren't giving accurate information.

Link:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm [/*]

And Phil House has been in jail on death row in Tennessee for nearly 20 years.

I stand by my statement.

If he were in Texas, Texas would have killed an innocent man.

If he were in California, he would have been freed by now.

And when you have a minimum of FOUR YEARS backlog for federal appeals pro bono lawyers, and those only come into play after state appeals are exhausted, and that usually is around the six or seven year mark.. that ten years gets INCREDIBLY short.

I know my stats, thank you very much. Your state STILL executes people faster than other states, and has been known to do so even when appeals attorneys aren't available.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by wandering
The condition of the body itself is the proof. The anchors were attached to her neck, arms and legs. 3 months, in the rocking motion of the water.

End of story. [/*]

Your anchor premise is not true. The State's mythical submerging anchors were never found.

No one testified how many anchors there were nor what was allegedly used to attach them to Laci's body nor how much they allegedly weighed (singularly or in total). Nor is there evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that more than one anchor was even made.

HTH

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by wandering
What YOU think won't matter one whit to the appeals court. [/*]

I think plenty was done wrong at that trial that might be apealable, we will see - jmho

[aubrey04]

Originally posted by holiday
Ohio according to her on her website. [/*]

Wow.

Well, with that I think I am leaving this thread. There is way too many people speaking for an entire state that do not even live in that state. (I wouldn't even have the gall to speak for my entire state's population, much less another states).

And it appears there is a lot of elitism amongst people who live in other states, which think their criminal justice system is superior than others.

I am offended; therefore, out of this discussion.



:seeya:

[aubrey04]

Originally posted by redcard


And Phil House has been in jail on death row in Tennessee for nearly 20 years.

I stand by my statement.

If he were in Texas, Texas would have killed an innocent man.

If he were in California, he would have been freed by now.

And when you have a minimum of FOUR YEARS backlog for federal appeals pro bono lawyers, and those only come into play after state appeals are exhausted, and that usually is around the six or seven year mark.. that ten years gets INCREDIBLY short.

I know my stats, thank you very much. Your state STILL executes people faster than other states, and has been known to do so even when appeals attorneys aren't available. [/*]

disgusting and shameful.

:no:

Have a nice day insulting.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


And Phil House has been in jail on death row in Tennessee for nearly 20 years.

I stand by my statement.

If he were in Texas, Texas would have killed an innocent man.

If he were in California, he would have been freed by now.

And when you have a minimum of FOUR YEARS backlog for federal appeals pro bono lawyers, and those only come into play after state appeals are exhausted, and that usually is around the six or seven year mark.. that ten years gets INCREDIBLY short.

I know my stats, thank you very much. Your state STILL executes people faster than other states, and has been known to do so even when appeals attorneys aren't available. [/*]This doesn't look like an express line to me.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/permanentout.htm

[redcard]

How about this for an express lane?

Number of Executions in the US since Re-enactment in 1976:

1100

Texas percentage of total execution since 1976: 37%

On average, 1 person every month for the last 32 years.

Texas occupies the number one spot in executions since 1976, and has executed more people than the next six states COMBINED.

In 2007 , Texas executed ten more people than the rest of the US COMBINED.

That sounds like an express lane to me. You cannot pick any six states that have executed MORE people than Texas has.

Texas has freed 8 people and granted clemency to 2 people, and executed 405, for a rate of around 2% exonerated to executed.

California has freed 3 people, and granted clemency to none, and executed 13, for a rate of around 23% exonerated.

So I repeat.

Paul House is a man who was convicted on falsified evidence by the state. If he was in Texas, he would have been killed long ago by the state.

If he was in California, he would not have.

Stats from DPIC:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by aubrey04


Wow. Absolutely amazing post. I am shocked. There is no "express lane" to execution in Texas, no matter what people think. We have people on death row that have been there for 20 plus years.

I went ahead and went straight to the source and found out what the estimated time waiting for execution is in Texas --- I will provide the link.

The AVERAGE time on death row before execution is 10.26 years -- According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Death Row Facts. (see my link)

Now, I think 10 plus years is adequate time to appeal your prison/death sentence.

I am only pro-lethal injection for extremely heinous crimes.. but let's not misstate the facts, especially if you don't even live in that state. It is offensive to the people who do reside here and who know that you aren't giving accurate information.

Link:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm [/*]

not everyone would agree 10 years is enough time


http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/25/dna.prisonrelease.ap/

[redcard]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wandering
This doesn't look like an express line to me.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/permanentout.htm [/*][/QUOTE

The Supreme Court ruled , at one point in time, that you could not be executed if you were 17.

All your list proves is that the federal appeals court thinks that the state is too rash and in violation of the 8th amendment.

Oh, and being killed by an inmate , or killing yourself is something to be "proud of" on the state level.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard
How about this for an express lane?

Number of Executions in the US since Re-enactment in 1976:

1100

Texas percentage of total execution since 1976: 37%

On average, 1 person every month for the last 32 years.

Texas occupies the number one spot in executions since 1976, and has executed more people than the next six states COMBINED.

In 2007 , Texas executed ten more people than the rest of the US COMBINED.

That sounds like an express lane to me. You cannot pick any six states that have executed MORE people than Texas has.

Texas has freed 8 people and granted clemency to 2 people, and executed 405, for a rate of around 2% exonerated to executed.

California has freed 3 people, and granted clemency to none, and executed 13, for a rate of around 23% exonerated.

So I repeat.

Paul House is a man who was convicted on falsified evidence by the state. If he was in Texas, he would have been killed long ago by the state.

If he was in California, he would not have.

Stats from DPIC:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org [/*]Paul House wasn't in Texas OR California. He's just ONE example. Stop beating the drum.

I think California should move along, it's unfair to both the condemned and the taxpayers supporting these monsters.

I applaud Texas for it's superb justice system, and intolerance for the feeding and care of those who had no mercy for their victims.

[monica]

Originally posted by redcard
How about this for an express lane?

Number of Executions in the US since Re-enactment in 1976:

1100

Texas percentage of total execution since 1976: 37%

On average, 1 person every month for the last 32 years.

Texas occupies the number one spot in executions since 1976, and has executed more people than the next six states COMBINED.

In 2007 , Texas executed ten more people than the rest of the US COMBINED.

That sounds like an express lane to me. You cannot pick any six states that have executed MORE people than Texas has.

Texas has freed 8 people and granted clemency to 2 people, and executed 405, for a rate of around 2% exonerated to executed.

California has freed 3 people, and granted clemency to none, and executed 13, for a rate of around 23% exonerated.

So I repeat.

Paul House is a man who was convicted on falsified evidence by the state. If he was in Texas, he would have been killed long ago by the state.

If he was in California, he would not have.

Stats from DPIC:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org [/*]

You obviously are very passionate about Mr. House. What are you personally doing to help him right this wrong?

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wandering
This doesn't look like an express line to me.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/permanentout.htm [/*][/QUOTE

The Supreme Court ruled , at one point in time, that you could not be executed if you were 17.

All your list proves is that the federal appeals court thinks that the state is too rash and in violation of the 8th amendment.

Oh, and being killed by an inmate , or killing yourself is something to be "proud of" on the state level. [/*]Take it to the DP/prison board. ;)

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
Paul House wasn't in Texas OR California. He's just ONE example. Stop beating the drum.

I think California should move along, it's unfair to both the condemned and the taxpayers supporting these monsters.

I applaud Texas for it's superb justice system, and intolerance for the feeding and care of those who had no mercy for their victims. [/*]

One example?

Would you like more?

Wilbert Lee, Convicted 1963, Freed 1975
Freddie Pitts, 1963, Freed 1975
Lawyer Johnson, 1971, Freed 1982
Joseph Green Browne, 1974 Freed 1987
Vernon McManus, 1977 Freed 1987
Randall Dale Adams 1977, Freed 1989
James Richardson 1968, Freed 1989
Gary Nelson 1980 , Freed 1991
James Robson 1977 , 1993
Adolph Munson, 1985 1995
Robert Cruz, 1981, 1995
Rolando Cruz, 1985, 1995
Alejandro Hernandez 1985, 1995

Now.. there are 13 people in that list. I can name 45 others who have served more than ten years before exoneration, and I can name 71 more that served LESS.

And the average time between sentence and exoneration? 9.5 years

So do you want more names, or do you want to admit that a shorter length of time to death only hurts innocent people on death row?

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by DogsRule

That is entirely possible imo. Do you have a link to the medical examiner's report on Conner's condition at autopsy? I'd like to read it if you do. Or if anyone else does - please share. tia [/*]


Not sure how reliable this is....


http://www.findlaci2003.us/autopsy-index.html

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
Take it to the DP/prison board. ;) [/*]

Whoops. Sorry, was working on that post when you sent that, I'll take it there.

[wandering]

Originally posted by redcard


One example?

Would you like more?

Wilbert Lee, Convicted 1963, Freed 1975
Freddie Pitts, 1963, Freed 1975
Lawyer Johnson, 1971, Freed 1982
Joseph Green Browne, 1974 Freed 1987
Vernon McManus, 1977 Freed 1987
Randall Dale Adams 1977, Freed 1989
James Richardson 1968, Freed 1989
Gary Nelson 1980 , Freed 1991
James Robson 1977 , 1993
Adolph Munson, 1985 1995
Robert Cruz, 1981, 1995
Rolando Cruz, 1985, 1995
Alejandro Hernandez 1985, 1995

Now.. there are 13 people in that list. I can name 45 others who have served more than ten years before exoneration, and I can name 71 more that served LESS.

And the average time between sentence and exoneration? 9.5 years

So do you want more names, or do you want to admit that a shorter length of time to death only hurts innocent people on death row? [/*]That is what appeals are for. What you are proving to me is that the system works. :shrug:

[redcard]

Originally posted by wandering
That is what appeals are for. What you are proving to me is that the system works. :shrug: [/*]

I picked out cases that are longer than 10 years. That's the average in Texas. On average those people, and the 45 others, would have been dead if they were in Texas.

And a system that has executed 1100 people and let 129 that didn't commit the crime is not evidence of a system that works, it's evidence of a system that is in disarray.

For every 9 people executed, one person goes out the front door because they never should have been in that position.

That's not a system working, I'm sorry.

And if you analyze those 129 cases, do you know what it takes to GET you in death row if you never committed the crime?

1. A previous criminal history of any kind.. jaywalking, whatever. An affair during a marriage counts.
2. A DA who wants to make a career for themselves
3. A jailhouse snitch or two who wants to get out early and is receptive to talking to the DA.

That's it. That's what has happened to 129 people.

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by wandering
That is what appeals are for. What you are proving to me is that the system works. :shrug: [/*]

will when you or a loved one do 15 years on death row for a crime you did not commit, we will see if you still say the system worked for you :shrug:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by redcard


I picked out cases that are longer than 10 years. That's the average in Texas. On average those people, and the 45 others, would have been dead if they were in Texas.

And a system that has executed 1100 people and let 129 that didn't commit the crime is not evidence of a system that works, it's evidence of a system that is in disarray.

For every 9 people executed, one person goes out the front door because they never should have been in that position.

That's not a system working, I'm sorry.

SNIP




If you were to peel the onion back on the 129 defendants who were, seemingly, wrongfully convicted by backing out the cases where prosecutors and/or LE and/or testing centers either withheld evidence or falsely manufactured, planted and/or willfully misrepresented alleged probative evidence, you should be left with a strong nucleus of cases where the jury assessed clean evidence, yet almost assuredly concluded in error that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged.

I would be interested in knowing if data allows the onion to be peeled in that manner.

[wandering]

Originally posted by LisaM22


will when you or a loved one do 15 years on death row for a crime you did not commit, we will see if you still say the system worked for you :shrug: [/*]Oh, did that happen to you? I thought this thread was about Scott Peterson. :confused:

[redcard]

Originally posted by Wudge+



If you were to peel the onion back on the 129 defendants who were, [/*]

It's been done.

We'll take this discussion elsewhere, but suffice to say it, the top causes of the 129 innocent people (soon to be 130) is prosecutorial misconduct. Not necessarily intentional.. but once everyone gets focused on someone, they tend to stay on that person at the exclusion of all others.

There's very few cases in the 129 where the jury got to see the evidence fairly presented.. in most cases, evidence is withheld.. witnesses are coerced.. snitches are offered better deals.. and prosecutors make careers.

You're welcome to investigate that yourself. But, let's continue over in DP/P

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by wandering
Oh, did that happen to you? I thought this thread was about Scott Peterson. :confused: [/*]

oh, what were you talking about, I thought you were talking about appeals and proof the system worked because innocent people got out after years and years of appeals if they could eventually get lucky enough to prove their innocents :shrug:

[wandering]

Originally posted by LisaM22


oh, what were you talking about, I thought you were talking about appeals and proof the system worked because innocent people got out after years and years of appeals if they could eventually get lucky enough to prove their innocents :shrug: [/*]Yes, that was my response.

innocents? Don't you have spell check?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innocence

[Amy]

Originally posted by mrsmcgoo
Ok...I'm out of here!! :seeya:

After reading bits and pieces of that link provided, I don't have the time or energy needed to address the imaginary injustices committed to SP. lol

(Seriously, here's a taste from link that was provided: "The State used Amber and the tape recordings she made to portray Scott as an adulterer and liar, and romancing Amber instead of looking for Laci. "

Ummm HELLO, Scott did this all by himself!! LMAO)

JMO... [/*]

Ah, of course SP was ON the tapes, but, really, should the STATE have been allowed to actually present evidence AGAINST the DEFENDANT in a trial??? (Just in case, this IS a sarcastist statement.)

That always slays me when I read where a defense lawyer is petitioning for the court to rule that EVIDENCE not be allowed, as it is predjudicial (sp) against the defendant. DUH.

[redcard]

Originally posted by Amy


Ah, of course SP was ON the tapes, but, really, should the STATE have been allowed to actually present evidence AGAINST the DEFENDANT in a trial??? (Just in case, this IS a sarcastist statement.)

That always slays me when I read where a defense lawyer is petitioning for the court to rule that EVIDENCE not be allowed, as it is predjudicial (sp) against the defendant. DUH. [/*]

The problem comes into play when the prejudice has nothing to do with the actual crime.

Men cheat. Lots of men cheat. Men lie when they cheat. Lots of men lie when they cheat. The question is, did the jury think Scott killed Laci because the evidence moved them that way, or because he was a womanizing prick.

I think personally that the evidence should have been supressed. It could be argued that it showed the defendant's state of mind, but I think the purpose was to just inflame the jury.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by redcard
By the by, in case people are curious..

I think Scott did it. I think the jury reaches the right decision vis a vis guilt or innocence.

I do not believe in the death penalty, and I certainly don't think it is something a civilized culture does.

I also think that calls to hasten the application of the death penalty are barbaric and serve no purpose other than a sick sense of vengeance. Scott is not a danger to you in prison right now. Your family is just as safe if he died in 20 years or if he dies tomorrow.

So that's my opinion. Believing he should spend the rest of his life behind bars versus be put to death in the name of all citizens of the state of california are two separate beliefs, but both of them afford precisely the same level of safety to myself and my family and friends. [/*]


Well your wish will probably come true... He has hundreds in line in front of him and at the rate that California actually follows through with the death penalty. scott will die of old age before they even get to him........imho

[Amy]

Originally posted by RachelRose


I thought the hours and hours of tapes were boring, and could have been cut to a lesser time frame - but for me, they showed two things:

1. Scott Peterson lied a lot about things that don't matter, he just kind of habitually had a veneer over what he was doing and
2. He wasn't interested in Amber for anything besides sex.

So the tapes hurt and helped him. He's a casual liar, that came out clearly, but anyone who would think he killed Laci because he was in love with Amber and wanted to share his life with her, would realize that was far from the truth. [/*]

NOT a "casual" liar. A habitual liar, a pathological liar. He also lied about things that DID matter.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Amy


NOT a "casual" liar. A habitual liar, a pathological liar. He also lied about things that DID matter. [/*]


What lies were inculpatory evidence?

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Amy


Ah, of course SP was ON the tapes, but, really, should the STATE have been allowed to actually present evidence AGAINST the DEFENDANT in a trial??? (Just in case, this IS a sarcastist statement.)

That always slays me when I read where a defense lawyer is petitioning for the court to rule that EVIDENCE not be allowed, as it is predjudicial (sp) against the defendant. DUH. [/*]

The tapes were a necessary and crucial element of the Pros' case, not merely to reveal Scott for whom he really was, in lieu of the perfect husband he portrayed himself to be, but most importantly to prove premeditation. How could the Pros otherwise prove to the jury Scott knew he would lose his wife two weeks before she disappeared and that Christmas 2002 would be his first without her?

There were hundreds of hours of taped recordings the jury never heard between Scott and Amber, as well as other incriminating conversations between Scott and his mother, e.g., discussing Conner's bedroom furniture.

I think the tapes, which were played for the jury, did not exceed being probative, because it was necessary for the jury to be aware of Scott's mindset, in realtime, as events unfolded before, during and after Laci's disappearance. Hence, the tapes were not prejudicial. Furthermore, they were Scott's own words, spoken directly by him and they conveyed his demeanor and state of mind.

IMO

[redcard]

Originally posted by holiday
What happened to this thread? Redcard? If you don't like the system, do something about it. Sitting on the computer and complaining achieves nothing.

:rolleyes: [/*]

What makes you think I'm not doing anything?

If you didn't notice, there was a large moratorium on the DP because of the drugs being used.

How do you think things like that happen? I've been convincing lawyers to do pro bono work for DP appeals cases.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by holiday
Why do ask when you have been told this answer every day? Oh that is right, you ignore the answers because it doesn't suit your illogical thinking. Why do you lie and say you don't take info from MN? You have been caught red handed and yet you still lie about it.

New theory from Wudge, but no evidence to support it:

Scott accidentally punched Laci and she died.

NO, but you'll make on up daily because you need the attention. Scott isn't part of your plan anymore. It's obvious.

I showed your posts to a very high profile attorney last night. Would you like me to repeat what he said? Because he knows the law and you don't, he thinks you are making it worse for Scott. I'd repeat the other part, but I'd be banned. I'm sure you get the picture..it's not pretty. Something is very wrong when you spend every second of your life going from board to board making a fool of yourself because you always wrong and rude.

Your actions will never help Scott. You show him to be even more guilty than he already is.

:rolleyes: [/*]

It's not a secret that I hold Scott to be not guilty based on a lack of required evidence to support the charges. I do not profess to know that he is absolutely innocence. Thus, as I have often said: He might have killed Laci. He might not have killed Laci.

That said, when asked if Scott might have killed Laci by accident, I replied that: "It's possible that Scott and Laci fought. He punched her. She died. However, I greatly favor the "burglars did it and framed Scott" option."

That is my complete quote and in context, unlike your representation. I have no new theory. I favor the "burglars did it" option.

As for supporting my not guilty position, I hold that the evidence presented at trial lacks the necessary inculpatory evidence to support the charges. It's that simple. And I have never seen anyone, anywhere, (including high-profile attorneys) identify the required clear and unyielding proof of malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation.

HTH

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by DogsRule

It sounds to me like you want proof beyond ALL doubt so every last piece of the crime MUST be presented in order for you to convict anyone. That is not the state's burden. Look up the word REASONABLE. I think that's your problem with this case. He was found guilty beyond all REASONABLE doubt. 12 REASONABLE people made this decision. [/*]


As regards supporting a guilty verdict with the necessary evidence, Judge Delluchi instructed the jury using instruction 38.

38. Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

To say the least, the State's alleged homemade submerging anchors were certainly not proved to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

[wandering]

Originally posted by Wudge+


It's not a secret that I hold Scott to be not guilty based on a lack of required evidence to support the charges. I do not profess to know that he is absolutely innocence. Thus, as I have often said: He might have killed Laci. He might not have killed Laci.

That said, when asked if Scott might have killed Laci by accident, I replied that: "It's possible that Scott and Laci fought. He punched her. She died. However, I greatly favor the "burglars did it and framed Scott" option."

That is my complete quote and in context, unlike your representation. I have no new theory. I favor the "burglars did it" option.

As for supporting my not guilty position, I hold that the evidence presented at trial lacks the necessary inculpatory evidence to support the charges. It's that simple. And I have never seen anyone, anywhere, (including high-profile attorneys) identify the required clear and unyielding proof of malice, intent, premeditation and deliberation.

HTH [/*]He bought the boat, he made the anchors, the anchors are missing, etc. That's circumstantial evidence. There's more, but I think you will never be satisfied. Give it up, you are beginning to look...well, uneducated...

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by wandering
He bought the boat, he made the anchors, the anchors are missing, etc. That's circumstantial evidence. There's more, but I think you will never be satisfied. Give it up, you are beginning to look...well, uneducated... [/*]

How many anchors were proven to have been made? What was the proven weight of each alleged anchor? What evidence entered at trial proved that the total weight of the State's alleged anchors would have been sufficient to keep Laci's body submerged on the bottom of the bay for over three months? Who were the witnesses who gave any such testimony?

[wandering]

Originally posted by Wudge+


How many anchors were proven to have been made? What was the proven weight of each alleged anchor? What evidence entered at trial proved that the total weight of the State's alleged anchors would have been sufficient to keep Laci's body submerged on the bottom of the bay for over three months? Who were the witnesses who gave any such testimony? [/*]Are you juror #10 from the
Spector trial? Or maybe you are the knit-picking accountant who left the SP jury?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by wandering
Are you juror #10 from the
Spector trial? Or maybe you are the knit-picking accountant who left the SP jury? [/*]

As regards the case against Phil Spector, I held him to be guilty as charged, still do. As regards the case against Scott Peterson, I held him to be not guilty, still do.

[redcard]

Originally posted by oakleyfan


Well for one thing, you are here posting away. That isn't pro-active. All talk. There is no proof you've been convincing any lawyers to do pro-bono work. More talk.

All you are doing is taking this thread OT though.

:rolleyes: [/*]

No, you are CONTINUING to take the thread OT. I've already said repeatedly that we have taken this conversation to DP/P.

So stop being a hypocrit.

[wandering]

Originally posted by holiday
She's never served on a jury.

Don't pay attention to anything Wudge posts. She is the broken record from hell. All she just posted has been answered, but she choses to ignore facts. She does it to bait because she has nothing better to do all day and night. Sad isn't? She does this for OJ too. She adores OJ. Enough said?


barf [/*]Yes. Thank you. :D

[monica]

Originally posted by holiday
She's never served on a jury.

Don't pay attention to anything Wudge posts. She is the broken record from hell. All she just posted has been answered, but she choses to ignore facts. She does it to bait because she has nothing better to do all day and night. Sad isn't? She does this for OJ too. She adores OJ. Enough said?

barf [/*]

A fan of OJ too???

Oh my stars...~~~THUD~~~

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by holiday
She's never served on a jury.

Don't pay attention to anything Wudge posts. She is the broken record from hell. All she just posted has been answered, but she choses to ignore facts. She does it to bait because she has nothing better to do all day and night. Sad isn't? She does this for OJ too. She adores OJ. Enough said?


barf [/*]

For the record, I am neither a she (no new news) nor a "fan" (snicker...that's a new one) of OJ.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by redcard


What makes you think I'm not doing anything?

If you didn't notice, there was a large moratorium on the DP because of the drugs being used.

How do you think things like that happen? I've been convincing lawyers to do pro bono work for DP appeals cases. [/*]

That's certainly a good cause, nice.

(take a bow)

[andyswig]

Originally posted by mrsmcgoo


Oh my!! :eek:

So many things to dispute, so little time!! Glancing at just a few, I actually feel sorry for those that believe that stuff!!!


Thank you for link. :seeya: [/*]

Please note: I got a virus alert from the SP is innocent link posted upthread.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by andyswig


Please note: I got a virus alert from the SP is innocent link posted upthread. [/*]


So did I....:chicken:

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by Wudge+



To say the least, the State's alleged homemade submerging anchors were certainly not proved to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH [/*]

Sure they were... There were circles left on his table in his warehouse where he made them.
I have seen the pictures..

Because they were not found at the bottom of the ocean doesn't matter. Her legs, head and arms were never found either but I would say beyond REASONABLE doubt that she did have them ( I have seen pictures to prove that too)

Unfortunately they were disarticulated from her body due to weights being tied to them. (the same way Scott explained to his college buddy how to get rid of a body) Kind of AMAZING isn't it? He does exactly that....IMHO

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by margaritaville


Sure they were... There were circles left on his table in his warehouse where he made them.
I have seen the pictures..

Because they were not found at the bottom of the ocean doesn't matter. Her legs, head and arms were never found either but I would say beyond REASONABLE doubt that she did have them ( I have seen pictures to prove that too)

Unfortunately they were disarticulated from her body due to weights being tied to them. (the same way Scott explained to his college buddy how to get rid of a body) Kind of AMAZING isn't it? He does exactly that....IMHO [/*]

Cement circles or partial circles do not prove more than one anchor was made.

Cite the premises and layout the logic than forces that conculsion to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Include how many anchors were made and what their individual and combined weight was as supported by testimony.