Where do you stand?

[Frydaddy]

I'm curious to know where the current group of posters stand on the issue of Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence. Hopefully these three poll options are suitable to choose one. TIA

[Hey Paula]

Hi Frydaddy! :seeya:

I cast my vote:

Conviction - Scott killed his wife and unborn baby and he convicted himself.

[Babes]

On the fence :D

[Mamie]

I chose #3, without hesitation. I knew the day she hit the news missing and haven't wavered since.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

:seeya: good to see you Frydaddy!

Thanks for the poll, looks interesting and a great idea.

I voted conviction though I hoped it wasn't true. Right up to the end I had hopes but it wasn't to be. Two families ruined. The horror for the jurors.


It would have been much easier to accept some burglars or Devil worshippers or drug dealers. But the perfect husband...so sad.


JMO

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Frydaddy
I'm curious to know where the current group of posters stand on the issue of Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence. Hopefully these three poll options are suitable to choose one. TIA [/*]

Long time no see.

And I know I don't have to tell anyone how I voted.

[Okito]

Originally posted by Mamie
I chose #3, without hesitation. I knew the day she hit the news missing and haven't wavered since. [/*]

Same here Mamie. And I don't think all the wishful thinking in the world will spare him from his fate.

[brodysho]

I voted that he did it, but the pros didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
One major factor that proves his guilt is the fact that he said he lost his wife prior to her disapperance.
The things that make me doubt is the lack of physical evidence, and the fact that the media screamed out his alibi for that day, which would have given another perpetrator ample opportunity to dump the bodies in that same location.

[Frydaddy]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
:seeya: good to see you Frydaddy!

Thanks for the poll, looks interesting and a great idea.

I voted conviction though I hoped it wasn't true. Right up to the end I had hopes but it wasn't to be. Two families ruined. The horror for the jurors.


It would have been much easier to accept some burglars or Devil worshippers or drug dealers. But the perfect husband...so sad.


JMO [/*]

Sturge!!! Thanks for the comments, appreciate ya! I think many who agree with conviction are of a similar mind...someone else doing it would have been easier to comprehend. I've missed some of your questions from back in the day, many of which kept me thinking longer than I thought I would have.

Peace!!! :beer:

[Frydaddy]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Long time no see.

And I know I don't have to tell anyone how I voted. [/*]

Dragon, you ole dog, how the hell are ya?

LMAO - No, I don't think anyone is going to wonder where your thoughts lie on this one. The only two questions that remain are success or failure in the civil trial and whether appeals will be successful. Civil trial seems likely to be a formality at this point, easy win against Scott.

As for the appeals, I'll still be checking in here when the time comes. I promised my apologies would flow freely if SP is successful in his appeal, so I gotta keep checking in once a year or so.

If you are bored, maybe dazzle the crowd here with bullet points on what might constitute success in the civil trial or appeals. My opinion is get a bulldog reporter to hunt down Diane Jackson, Karen Servais, Aponte, Todd, Pearce...the whole cast of characters and let us "experts" interrogate them.

Be well bro! (I'll spare you the indignity of the mugs here! :D)

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by denny
I voted 100% without a doubt guilty. The Not Guilty will never prove otherwise.

Wish the murderer were dead already. Can't believe Sharon has to be put through this pain again. omo

:flamemad: [/*]

LMAO


Be put through this pain? She's the one who's bringing it about. She's not being "put through" anything.

She filed this suit.

Scott has NEVER attempted to make money off this case. Unlike so many others.

How freaking melodramatic.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Frydaddy


Dragon, you ole dog, how the hell are ya?

LMAO - No, I don't think anyone is going to wonder where your thoughts lie on this one. The only two questions that remain are success or failure in the civil trial and whether appeals will be successful. Civil trial seems likely to be a formality at this point, easy win against Scott.

As for the appeals, I'll still be checking in here when the time comes. I promised my apologies would flow freely if SP is successful in his appeal, so I gotta keep checking in once a year or so.

If you are bored, maybe dazzle the crowd here with bullet points on what might constitute success in the civil trial or appeals. My opinion is get a bulldog reporter to hunt down Diane Jackson, Karen Servais, Aponte, Todd, Pearce...the whole cast of characters and let us "experts" interrogate them.

Be well bro! (I'll spare you the indignity of the mugs here! :D) [/*]

The civil trial will be more of a sham than the criminal trial ever dreamed.

The only way Scott could ever successfully defend a civil trial would be to submit someone else's confession of the murder, with video or photographic evidence of that other person doing it.

It's a no brainer.

The appeals get a little bit hairy. I'm sure he we get a new trial. There were far, far too many errors in the trial. Not sure if the outcome will be the same or not. Public opinion is cemented. And it's very polarized. I think it would be very, very difficult to find a jury that hasn't determined his guilt or innocence and has an open mind about listening to the case. Way too much media attention.

To this day a vast majority of people still believe there was a smell of bleach in the house. You can't unring a bell.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by TexMex


Howdy old friend!

Who is Sharon suing? Who will pay out once this is settled, if you know?

TIA [/*]

Hey Tex, long time no see with you too.

Sharon and Dennis filed a wrongful death suit against Scott ages ago. (Back in 2003 I believe)

No one will be paying anything because Scott has no assets nor can he make money in prison.

This will basically just make it so that any future earnings Scott may make will go to Sharon and Dennis.

[Babes]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Hey Tex, long time no see with you too.

Sharon and Dennis filed a wrongful death suit against Scott ages ago. (Back in 2003 I believe)

No one will be paying anything because Scott has no assets nor can he make money in prison.

This will basically just make it so that any future earnings Scott may make will go to Sharon and Dennis. [/*]

Wuhooo ur back!!!!

Long time no chat :seeya:

Nice to see u back

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0

snipped

To this day a vast majority of people still believe there was a smell of bleach in the house.

snipped


To this day a minority of people still believe Scott Peterson is innocent.

Now that's a reason to LMAO. :lol:

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


To this day a minority of people still believe Scott Peterson is innocent.

Now that's a reason to LMAO. :lol: [/*]

Grats?

I'm impressed, how?

We want to discuss min/max let's head on over to the statistics forum and have it out. We can go discuss the merits behind statistical analysis and it's meaning in life.

It takes courage not to be a sheep. Don't you feel good that you are in the majority? I'm sure it does your self esteem good to not believe you're different than others. Obviously an important point for you to bring up on this forum, which has nothing to do with your comment whatsoever.

Being in the minority doesn't bother me one bit.

Believing that Scott isn't guilty doesn't bother me either, because I know I'm right. Everyone is solid in their beliefs; why should they be ashamed or hide it?

Or, is this a cry for all sheep to unite? We shall crush them with great numbers!! And those that remain, we shall taunt. Endlessly. How silly.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0

snipped

Believing that Scott isn't guilty doesn't bother me

snipped


It doesn't bother me either.

It entertains me.

For that I thank you. :)

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Hey Tex, long time no see with you too.

Sharon and Dennis filed a wrongful death suit against Scott ages ago. (Back in 2003 I believe)

No one will be paying anything because Scott has no assets nor can he make money in prison.

This will basically just make it so that any future earnings Scott may make will go to Sharon and Dennis. [/*]It is conceivable that Scott could write a book in his spare time, pay to save his parents' home from foreclosure and have some money to pay for a good appeal lawyer. But this lawsuit when won, will dash any hope and send Scott's family to the food closet.




:hat: MOO:hat:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Beebee


You do realize who filed the civil case don't you??

snipped


You do realize who filed a continuance motion don't you?

It was Scott Peterson's lawyer.

Tells me they are not prepared.

I don't believe they'll ever be prepared for the inevitible guilty verdict.

[Land Shark®]

Complaining?

Please.

I'm entertained every time I visit this forum.

The next day is always more humorous than the one before it. :)

[Babes]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
It is conceivable that Scott could write a book in his spare time, pay to save his parents' home from foreclosure and have some money to pay for a good appeal lawyer. But this lawsuit when won, will dash any hope and send Scott's family to the food closet.




:hat: MOO:hat: [/*]

But who will buy his book when everyone thinks he's a liar? Are you going to buy the book? Why would they make money if he'll write a book when nobody wants to hear him out?

[kimmy56]

Originally posted by Babes


But who will buy his book when everyone thinks he's a liar? Are you going to buy the book? Why would they make money if he'll write a book when nobody wants to hear him out? [/*]

How many people do you think were going to buy OJ's book? I think there's alot more people who think OJ's a liar than even know about SP and the case. And I think OJ's book would have sold like hotcakes because people would want to see just how outlandish his lies were. Same thing with a book from SP. Plus, there do seem to be a few who believe SP. They might buy more than one book just to help him out.

[Babes]

Originally posted by kimmy56


How many people do you think were going to buy OJ's book? I think there's alot more people who think OJ's a liar than even know about SP and the case. And I think OJ's book would have sold like hotcakes because people would want to see just how outlandish his lies were. Same thing with a book from SP. Plus, there do seem to be a few who believe SP. They might buy more than one book just to help him out. [/*]

LOL spending money on a book just to see some outlandish his lies were on this present economy? Hmmm some serious problems in there IMO.

I dont believe in SP but i do believe the case isnt deliver right in the trial and i am not buying his book :D

[kimmy56]

Originally posted by Babes


LOL spending money on a book just to see some outlandish his lies were on this present economy? Hmmm some serious problems in there IMO.

I dont believe in SP but i do believe the case isnt deliver right in the trial and i am not buying his book :D [/*]

I would agree that it's outlandish - but look how many people spend money every week on crap like National Enquirer. Same sort of people would buy this book. And there are alot of them.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by denny


I notice what you said has been posted on another thread. Why is that poster ignoring it and attacking me?

:shrug:

You'd have to ask the attacking poster that question.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by Babes


But who will buy his book when everyone thinks he's a liar? Are you going to buy the book? Why would they make money if he'll write a book when nobody wants to hear him out? [/*]
Maybe someone who doesn't mind reading about a bunch of fertilizer?

[Beach]

Originally posted by Beebee


*SNIPPED*
There is a very real chance Scott Peterson is innocent, (READ: ADAM TENBRINK), so maybe you just better get used to the idea and calm down. You want the truth don't you? There is no justice if the wrong man is in prison. [/*]

Wrong man in prison? What are you talking about? Wasn't he convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1


The problem with this board is that some posters won't accept and respect the fact that others don't think he is a cold blooded killer. [/*]Even if he isn't a cold blooded killer he is guilty ad sitting on death row, isn't he? Don't most people consider convicts guilty until proven innocent?

[MsSax5thAve]

Scott had his criminal trial and was found to be 100% guilty by the jury. I also voted guilty in this poll.

[higharm]

I really doubt Scott Peterson is going to be writing a book. Why would he? If he had anything to say he would have already said it, wouldn't he? If he would not say it to save his life, why would he say it to try to make some money from a book?

I doubt he ever has any assets for anyone to be concerned about. What, some hidden contraband? That is about the extent of anything he will ever own.

btw, I don't think he killed her ;)

[Babes]

Originally posted by kimmy56


I would agree that it's outlandish - but look how many people spend money every week on crap like National Enquirer. Same sort of people would buy this book. And there are alot of them. [/*]

LOL but i'll buy a National Enquirer if they have stories about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[Babes]

Originally posted by higharm
I really doubt Scott Peterson is going to be writing a book. Why would he? If he had anything to say he would have already said it, wouldn't he? If he would not say it to save his life, why would he say it to try to make some money from a book?

I doubt he ever has any assets for anyone to be concerned about. What, some hidden contraband? That is about the extent of anything he will ever own.

btw, I don't think he killed her ;) [/*]

Well if there is new trial and he'll be acquitted then he'll sue the city of Modesto and Redwood City and then he makes money and then Sharon wants that money IMO.

Please respect the wod "IF" :D

[andyswig]

100% Stone Cold Guilty.

He was raised to think he was better than everyone else and he could do anything he wanted and have anything he wanted. He tossed Laci and Conner away just like he did his expensive fishing rod he left in Laci's mom's garage.

[Okito]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


It doesn't bother me either.

It entertains me.

For that I thank you. :) [/*]

Me too, my old friend!! It's really entertaining to see the same old, same old trotted out again.....and repeated ad nauseum as if that will change the act or the verdict resulting from that narcissism.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You might but not everyone does. And sitting on death row means nothing. I can google and come up with a dozen or more names of people on death row who were exonerated because they were innocent. [/*]A dozen out of thousands, hardly impressive. Death row means a great deal, he can't hurt anyone else.

imo

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by W_D_1



A couple of weeks after Laci disappeared a tugboat almost collided with a small inflatible boat on the bay in the middle of the night. No one ever found that small boat so that kind of blows your claim that "everyone was lloking (sic) out to the bay" clean out of the water.

Criminals play "freaking mental games" all the time. Some criminals have been "dumm" (sic) enough to lead cops to the body because they were playing games. and some criminals have been very smart. Dumping the body where the husband said he was that day would have been a very smart way to get away with murder. [/*]It was a rental and the guy turned himself in IIRC.

http://www.sausbay.com/

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by W_D_1



I've never heard or read that anywhere. [/*]I did a search but doubt it exist any longer. I recall there was some fear he might be going to bomb a bridge. There was some paranoia at the time. National Guard on the bridges.



imo

[higharm]

Well if there is new trial and he'll be acquitted then he'll sue the city of Modesto and Redwood City and then he makes money and then Sharon wants that money IMO.

Please respect the wod "IF" [/*]



yes guess he would sue {IF} he is acquitted. But if acquitted then that would kind of blow Sharon suing him? Wouldn't it?

I really don't expect him to be acquitted though, unless someone comes up with something really incriminating about someone else. I really don't ever see that happening either.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Babes


Well if there is new trial and he'll be acquitted then he'll sue the city of Modesto and Redwood City and then he makes money and then Sharon wants that money IMO.

Please respect the wod "IF" :D [/*]

Dream on. The numbers in CA that are released from death row because of acquqittals are few and far between. Most are granted a new trial and that it is.

Acquiqttal implies innocence. Innocence cannot occur unless someone else steps up to the plate to assume guilt.

My tax money is very safe, thank you.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by stopthemurde
truely amazing... 5 posters believe someone else killed laci.
Do they have any idea how absurd the idea is and statistically impossible for the "real killers" to

1. either take the enourmous risk and trouble of framing Scott by placing the bodies where they MAY HAVE NEVER surfaced to frame Scott - a stranger would not have known that Scott would hang himself with his lies, porn and Amber tapes.

2. accidentally end up dumping the bodies where Scott was that day. By pure lucky chance. Odds are so small there arnt enough zeros on my laptop

Both alternatives to explain other than SP killing LACI are NOT ONE BIT reasonable to a rational person - I would say both cases almost impossible.

Unless Scott was dumm enough to hire a hit man who then dumped out the bodies where he knew Scott had been so that if he ever was exposed he could frame Scott at the same time.

Well - little prince charming would not be sitting on death without blaming a hired hit man (hired by some one other than him) - he would be trying to wring and spin his way out of hiring any hit man. [/*]

If the goal was to frame Scott, why hide the bodies for 4 months? Why not put them there immediately after Scott was at the Marina.

I guess the experts saying that Laci's body had been in the water for 3-6 months means nothing.

As for Conner, the people who found him said he was at least a quarter of a mile from any path and there was no vehicle access. His poor body was so deteriorated that the Coroner's Investigator was afraid to handle him . Teh Coroner's Investigater is the one who picks up bodies for the Coroner and has seen many bodies in many conditions. There was also no lighting where Conner's body was found and it was under water at high tide. There were no footprints near Conner's body yet it was a fvery marshy area - described as muddy with puddles of water at low tide.

Laci's body was discovered on teh rocks of the largest dog-walking park in the US. She was found with a dog gnawing on her elbow. Yet she lay there for 4 months waiting to be discovered?

Now my favorite. Conner's birth. Her fundus was abraded (scraped away). There was no evidence of any cuts on her uterus so IF Conner was cut out of her body, the uterus would have had to be cut in that area of the fundus (the toip of) her uterus. At her stage of pregnancy, that area of the uterus is around the 9th rib. So to cut Conner out, somseone would have had to cut thru the stomach, heart, and lungs and then pull the bavy out through the ribs. I say that is impossible with her organs present. The only reason he escaped at all was because her body was skeletonized in that area so there was room for Conner to escape.

Not rocket science - common sense.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


LMAO


Be put through this pain? She's the one who's bringing it about. She's not being "put through" anything.

She filed this suit.

Scott has NEVER attempted to make money off this case. Unlike so many others.

How freaking melodramatic. [/*]

Not yet anyway. I fully expect him to as money is so important to him and his family as evidenced by his actions. I expect a book like OJ's - "If I Did It." I seriously doubt that he'll donate proceeds to something useful either. And yes, he can benefit in prison from it. The larger the Commissary fund, the more popular the prisoner. Those without Commissary funds have to beg for coffee from those more wealthy prisoners.

I have interviewed people in State prisons in CA, and they say a Commissary fund is pure gold.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Hey Tex, long time no see with you too.

Sharon and Dennis filed a wrongful death suit against Scott ages ago. (Back in 2003 I believe)

No one will be paying anything because Scott has no assets nor can he make money in prison.

This will basically just make it so that any future earnings Scott may make will go to Sharon and Dennis. [/*]

Of course he can make money in prison. Charles Manson sold a song.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


You do realize who filed a continuance motion don't you?

It was Scott Peterson's lawyer.

Tells me they are not prepared.

I don't believe they'll ever be prepared for the inevitible guilty verdict. [/*]

DELAY DELAY DELAY - the mantra of Geragos & Geragos. They've already managed to delay it two or three times. Time to p*** or get off the pot

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by W_D_1



You might but not everyone does. And sitting on death row means nothing. I can google and come up with a dozen or more names of people on death row who were exonerated because they were innocent. [/*]


How many in CA?
And how many were not just granted a new trial and found not guilty - which is NOT the same thing as innocent. - per Alan Dershowitz.

Innocent means that someone else was convicted of the crime.

How many in CA - there are almost 700 men on death row in CA and that's since the death penalty was reinstated. in 1978 I believe.

I doubt you can find a dozen, but good luck with that.

Here is Dershowitz on guity vs. innocent. He is talking about Simpson, but it still applies:

Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.
In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. We may find a similar result in the Louima case. The defendants who were acquitted in the criminal case may well be found liable in a civil case.


.
He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by earth goddess



How many in CA?
And how many were not just granted a new trial and found not guilty - which is NOT the same thing as innocent. - per Alan Dershowitz.

Innocent means that someone else was convicted of the crime.

How many in CA - there are almost 700 men on death row in CA and that's since the death penalty was reinstated. in 1978 I believe.

I doubt you can find a dozen, but good luck with that.

Here is Dershowitz on guity vs. innocent. He is talking about Simpson, but it still applies:

Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.
In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. We may find a similar result in the Louima case. The defendants who were acquitted in the criminal case may well be found liable in a civil case.


.
He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent [/*]Same thing. Innocent until proven guilty.


imo

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
Same thing. Innocent until proven guilty.




mo [/*]
iNot guilty means that guilt was not proven. Innocent means they did not do it. Ther is a difference and innocent until proven guilty only applies to a court of law. As citizerns, we do not have to assume the innocence .

[Babes]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Dream on. The numbers in CA that are released from death row because of acquqittals are few and far between. Most are granted a new trial and that it is.

Acquiqttal implies innocence. Innocence cannot occur unless someone else steps up to the plate to assume guilt.

My tax money is very safe, thank you. [/*]

Did you see that there are currently 15 people now who voted for acquittal on this poll? Only one of them needs to sit in the jury and convince the rest and If that is Wudge then you need to work harder as your city might even file for bankruptcy if that will happen IMO.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Babes


Did you see that there are currently 15 people now who voted for acquittal on this poll? Only one of them needs to sit in the jury and convince the rest and If that is Wudge then you need to work harder as your city might even file for bankruptcy if that will happen IMO. [/*]

Suing Modesto would be a dumb move because he was not convicted here and we are not a wealthy county. He would do far better suing Redwood City.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Babes


Did you see that there are currently 15 people now who voted for acquittal on this poll? Only one of them needs to sit in the jury and convince the rest and If that is Wudge then you need to work harder as your city might even file for bankruptcy if that will happen IMO. [/*]If it is only one, that one might feel very uncomfortable.


imo

[Babes]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
If it is only one, that one might feel very uncomfortable.


imo [/*]

Not if it is Wudge - or BFD or who is that famous atty? :D

[Babes]

Originally posted by earth goddess


Suing Modesto would be a dumb move because he was not convicted here and we are not a wealthy county. He would do far better suing Redwood City. [/*]

LOL IF i am on his feet and i got acquitted - i am telling you - I will sue both Modesto, Redwood City and the city of Tracy - I will sue Brochhini and everyone else - I will leave Laci's family alone as i knew that they are the real victims here IMO.

Again, please respect the word - IF

Thanks.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by earth goddess

iNot guilty means that guilt was not proven. Innocent means they did not do it. Ther is a difference and innocent until proven guilty only applies to a court of law. As citizerns, we do not have to assume the innocence . [/*]In legal discussions, which I think this is, innocent until proven guilty. In religious discussions, perhaps there are no innocents because we are all sinners once the age of accountability is achieved. There are other definitions and circumstances but I think it is clear that guilty go to prison, innocent=not guilty don't.

As an opinion, of course, you can assign any meaning you choose but then so can others, obviously, if a person is not proven guilty, that person retains the assumption of innocent. You can, if you wish, assume that person is guilty regardless of the verdict but that doesn't make it true.



imo

[LisaM22]

Originally posted by earth goddess



How many in CA?
And how many were not just granted a new trial and found not guilty - which is NOT the same thing as innocent. - per Alan Dershowitz.

Innocent means that someone else was convicted of the crime.

How many in CA - there are almost 700 men on death row in CA and that's since the death penalty was reinstated. in 1978 I believe.

I doubt you can find a dozen, but good luck with that.

Here is Dershowitz on guity vs. innocent. He is talking about Simpson, but it still applies:

Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.
In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. We may find a similar result in the Louima case. The defendants who were acquitted in the criminal case may well be found liable in a civil case.


.
He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent [/*]

on the flip side, being found guilty doesn't mean you committed the crime

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
In legal discussions, which I think this is, innocent until proven guilty. In religious discussions, perhaps there are no innocents because we are all sinners once the age of accountability is achieved. There are other definitions and circumstances but I think it is clear that guilty go to prison, innocent=not guilty don't.

As an opinion, of course, you can assign any meaning you choose but then so can others, obviously, if a person is not proven guilty, that person retains the assumption of innocent. You can, if you wish, assume that person is guilty regardless of the verdict but that doesn't make it true.



imo [/*]

My information came from Alan Dershowitz, noted atty and legal professor at Harvard.

Personally, I Do not believe that every person let out of prison on an appeal is truly innocent. n Some may be, but some may have just had better attorneys

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by earth goddess


My information came from Alan Dershowitz, noted atty and legal professor at Harvard.

Personally, I Do not believe that every person let out of prison on an appeal is truly innocent. n Some may be, but some may have just had better attorneys [/*]I prefer the system that is in some other countries where there is a verdict of "not proven". But we don't have that. As far as I am concerned a person is either innocent or guilty of a crime.


imo

[NatalieB]

No ifs, ands, or buts, IMO, 100%
GUILTY!!!

[NatalieB]

Originally posted by Babes


Did you see that there are currently 15 people now who voted for acquittal on this poll? Only one of them needs to sit in the jury and convince the rest and If that is Wudge then you need to work harder as your city might even file for bankruptcy if that will happen IMO. [/*]

How many are alter egos? I'm sure a good half. :D

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
If it is only one, that one might feel very uncomfortable.


imo [/*]

LOL

I would love to see 11 people attempt to talk me out of a reasoned decision with melodramatic, emotional BS.

I never feel uncomfortable in my convictions. Nor should anyone else.

If someone does feel uncomfortable in their own beliefs and/or reasoning, then they are not fit to sit on a jury in the first place.

[margaritaville]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


LOL

I would love to see 11 people attempt to talk me out of a reasoned decision with melodramatic, emotional BS.

I never feel uncomfortable in my convictions. Nor should anyone else.

If someone does feel uncomfortable in their own beliefs and/or reasoning, then they are not fit to sit on a jury in the first place. [/*]

ITA

[caphill]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


LOL

I would love to see 11 people attempt to talk me out of a reasoned decision with melodramatic, emotional BS.

I never feel uncomfortable in my convictions. Nor should anyone else.

If someone does feel uncomfortable in their own beliefs and/or reasoning, then they are not fit to sit on a jury in the first place. [/*]


Nice to see you hanging around this parts again. LOL. I believe if those 11 people had an uzzy to your head it still wouldn't make you uncomfortable enough to change your convictions.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Melodramatic? I don't see any drama at all. I don't see the Rocha's on talk shows, no speaking out in public. The civil trial is their business after all.

It's perfectly normal and acceptable for the Rocha's to move forward with this. They didnt invent civil trials, they're in place for a reason.

OJ wrote "If I did It" years after her murdered Ron and Nicole. The Goldman's stopped him in his tracks, because they won the civil trial earlier.

It's not rocket science. [/*]

This whole site is oozing melodrama. How anyone cannot see it is beyond me.

Look at a few signatures of the posters on this site.

But for someone to say Sharon is being "put through" this, it is melodramatic. But, Sharon is a drama queen herself. So it fits.

[MichelleL]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


This whole site is oozing melodrama. How anyone cannot see it is beyond me.

Look at a few signatures of the posters on this site.

But for someone to say Sharon is being "put through" this, it is melodramatic. But, Sharon is a drama queen herself. So it fits. [/*]

Hi BFD,

So nice to see you here! OT - what is your take on Hans Reiser case? :seeya:

[California]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


LOL

I would love to see 11 people attempt to talk me out of a reasoned decision with melodramatic, emotional BS.

I never feel uncomfortable in my convictions. Nor should anyone else.

If someone does feel uncomfortable in their own beliefs and/or reasoning, then they are not fit to sit on a jury in the first place. [/*]If you think someone is insane you may be right. If you think everyone is insane you may be wrong.


jmho

[Raven]

Originally posted by terrestrial*
He's guilty as sin and he's going to lose this trial just as surely as he lost the last one.

I guess this means his mama will be out there calling the US Nazi Germany again, huh? [/*]

GUILTY!! GUILTY!!! GUILTY!!!! He'll NEVER get out of jail!! Thank Goodness!!

[Cooper]

Originally posted by Frydaddy
I'm curious to know where the current group of posters stand on the issue of Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence. Hopefully these three poll options are suitable to choose one. TIA [/*]


GUILTY.


Respectfully,


Cooper

[Pooh]

Originally posted by Mamie
I chose #3, without hesitation. I knew the day she hit the news missing and haven't wavered since. [/*]
I'm with you!!

[Frydaddy]

Just wanted to say thanks to all who voted.

:hat:

[Poochie Pie]

Originally posted by oldschool
Conviction - Scott killed his wife and unborn baby and he convicted himself.

Thats how I see it but more important is thats how the jury seen it. [/*] ahhhh... A man after my own heart... That's exactly how I see it as well, oldschool... Hope you're having a great day.. :seeya:

Poochie

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0


Long time no see.

And I know I don't have to tell anyone how I voted. [/*]

Me either.

:seeya:

[ZumbaGirl]

Guilty!

[Regina.Lampert]

Originally posted by BFD - v2.0



(snipped)

The appeals get a little bit hairy. I'm sure he we get a new trial. There were far, far too many errors in the trial. Not sure if the outcome will be the same or not. Public opinion is cemented. And it's very polarized. I think it would be very, very difficult to find a jury that hasn't determined his guilt or innocence and has an open mind about listening to the case. Way too much media attention.

[/*]

He will NEVER get a new trial, imo. It's also absurd to say that the judicial system can't find twelve honest people to hear a trial and determine a defendant's fate based on the evidence they see and hear in the courtroom.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is cynical and biased. IMO.

The fact is, the little failed manure salesman is nothing special, just another male who killed his baby and wife. Unfortunately in this Country it happens far too often.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by insighter


What are the issues with the trial that one judge already sees?

TIA [/*]

First of all, no attorney has been hired for his first appeal. That attorney will have to go through the transcripts with a fine-toothed comb. The esteemed Gardner and Gibbs can't do jack until that appeal is resolved. That court would have to find that Deluccchi did something wrong in the trial. He gave his reaswoning for every judgmenet he made. Geragos THREATED him which I thought deserved sanctions, but the Judge did not. In his long career on the bench, he was overturned ONE TIME and he didn't make that mistake again. I think the Judge was on solid ground and gave the defendent MORE than a fair trial - letting all those red herrings and deliberate ATTY errors get a pass. There is precedent for his decisions. This is not the only jury that had a juror removed after deliberations began - except in this case, Jackson would not let them deliberate - that was one of the reasons for his exit.

FAlconer was Geragos's first stealth juror but he couldn't keep his fat mouth shut. Jackson was the second and he didn't want to do it and did efverything he could to get out of being a juror. I don't think Jackson would dispute what the judge did at all - it's only the "do over" defense that wanted it stopped.

Judge Delucchi had more about the law in his head than Geragos has in his law library. I really don't see a judicial overturning of the judgment -= particularly when appeals courts don't like to overturn trial judges.

After this appeal is done, then Gardner and Gibbs can present their habeas. I wonder if they have the "secret evidence" that so many claim to know.

[fierce1]

lol @ this poll. He is 100% guilty and everyone knows it.

[Details]

When the case first came out, when I first heard about the affair - I was still unconvinced. He could have been having an affair, even could have wanted a divorce, and it still could have been someone else who killed her. The golfishing story is a lot more convincing - but still short of proof - just. Telling someone before, and someone after he got back that he was golfing when he was really out with the boat at the bay - that says he's hiding something, and puts him as a solid suspect. But when you go the extra step, and Laci is found in that bay, all evidence showing she's been there since Christmas - that's proof BARD, easily.


And if somehow there is a Wudge on the jury (not impossible), and somehow he convinces all the rest (nearly impossible - see how well it works here? Has one person been convinced?) - in that highly unlikely circumstance, all that means is that the civil trial failed. It changes nothing. However - this is very unlikely. You see cases like that now and again, but very rarely. And that would mean absolutely nothing so far as suing the city would go. The criminal verdict would stand, and is more meaningful since the standard of proof there is higher.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by earth goddess


First of all, no attorney has been hired for his first appeal. That attorney will have to go through the transcripts with a fine-toothed comb. The esteemed Gardner and Gibbs can't do jack until that appeal is resolved. That court would have to find that Deluccchi did something wrong in the trial. He gave his reaswoning for every judgmenet he made. Geragos THREATED him which I thought deserved sanctions, but the Judge did not. In his long career on the bench, he was overturned ONE TIME and he didn't make that mistake again. I think the Judge was on solid ground and gave the defendent MORE than a fair trial - letting all those red herrings and deliberate ATTY errors get a pass. There is precedent for his decisions. This is not the only jury that had a juror removed after deliberations began - except in this case, Jackson would not let them deliberate - that was one of the reasons for his exit.

FAlconer was Geragos's first stealth juror but he couldn't keep his fat mouth shut. Jackson was the second and he didn't want to do it and did efverything he could to get out of being a juror. I don't think Jackson would dispute what the judge did at all - it's only the "do over" defense that wanted it stopped.

Judge Delucchi had more about the law in his head than Geragos has in his law library. I really don't see a judicial overturning of the judgment -= particularly when appeals courts don't like to overturn trial judges.

After this appeal is done, then Gardner and Gibbs can present their habeas. I wonder if they have the "secret evidence" that so many claim to know. [/*]

You think Gardner and Gibbs have been hired and are just hanging around waiting for what if not the appeal???:rolleyes:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Details
When the case first came out, when I first heard about the affair - I was still unconvinced. He could have been having an affair, even could have wanted a divorce, and it still could have been someone else who killed her. The golfishing story is a lot more convincing - but still short of proof - just. Telling someone before, and someone after he got back that he was golfing when he was really out with the boat at the bay - that says he's hiding something, and puts him as a solid suspect. But when you go the extra step, and Laci is found in that bay, all evidence showing she's been there since Christmas - that's proof BARD, easily.


And if somehow there is a Wudge on the jury (not impossible), and somehow he convinces all the rest (nearly impossible - see how well it works here? Has one person been convinced?) - in that highly unlikely circumstance, all that means is that the civil trial failed. It changes nothing. However - this is very unlikely. You see cases like that now and again, but very rarely. And that would mean absolutely nothing so far as suing the city would go. The criminal verdict would stand, and is more meaningful since the standard of proof there is higher. [/*]

A civil jury only requires a majority, not total agreement if I understand it correctly.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Details
When the case first came out, when I first heard about the affair - I was still unconvinced. He could have been having an affair, even could have wanted a divorce, and it still could have been someone else who killed her. The golfishing story is a lot more convincing - but still short of proof - just. Telling someone before, and someone after he got back that he was golfing when he was really out with the boat at the bay - that says he's hiding something, and puts him as a solid suspect. But when you go the extra step, and Laci is found in that bay, all evidence showing she's been there since Christmas - that's proof BARD, easily.


And if somehow there is a Wudge on the jury (not impossible), and somehow he convinces all the rest (nearly impossible - see how well it works here? Has one person been convinced?) - in that highly unlikely circumstance, all that means is that the civil trial failed. It changes nothing. However - this is very unlikely. You see cases like that now and again, but very rarely. And that would mean absolutely nothing so far as suing the city would go. The criminal verdict would stand, and is more meaningful since the standard of proof there is higher. [/*]

This poll shows 30% of the responders would have found Scott "not guilty" in the criminal trial. To me, this indicates that as time has passed, it's become clear to ever more people that the prosecution failed to produce the evidence required to support the charges.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by feathergirl


The only thing it shows is that Scott has supporters who post on the internet - and that 30% of those who responded on this particular board would have found him Not Guilty.

This has nothing to do with what the general population might feel. I have never, in real life, met one person who thought that Scott Peterson was not guilty, or that he didn't get a fair trial. [/*]

And most of those people ignore the testimony or rely on media to prove their points.....lol

I have yet to meet anyone in Modesto who thinks he's not guilty, even though they WANT to believe in his innocence.

[ZumbaGirl]

Originally posted by fierce1
lol @ this poll. He is 100% guilty and everyone knows it. [/*]


I agree with this. I believe 100% his family knows he's guilty but just wants him to beat the rap.
IMO

[CSloper]

Originally posted by W_D_1



They are playing tiddly winks. ;) [/*]
I might say where, but that would frighten people. Does Earth Goddess really have "secret evidence"?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by CSloper

I might say where, but that would frighten people. Does Earth Goddess really have "secret evidence"? [/*]

No, it's the NG's who claim to have "secret" evidence that will set him free. Howefver, they won't take it to the media or anywhere. If I had secret evidence that would set someone free, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

I believe he's as guilty as they come. Just a failed fertilizer salesman who thought he was smarter than everyone else. He's kinda sad, really, but that doesn't get him off the hook for what he did imo

[Okito]

Originally posted by insighter


What are the issues with the trial that one judge already sees?

TIA [/*]

I believe it smacks of Judge Ito-ism and attendant publicity for a lowly civil court judge with higher ambitions. IMO, JMO, MOO!

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by earth goddess


First of all, no attorney has been hired for his first appeal. That attorney will have to go through the transcripts with a fine-toothed comb. The esteemed Gardner and Gibbs can't do jack until that appeal is resolved. That court would have to find that Deluccchi did something wrong in the trial. He gave his reaswoning for every judgmenet he made. Geragos THREATED him which I thought deserved sanctions, but the Judge did not. In his long career on the bench, he was overturned ONE TIME and he didn't make that mistake again. I think the Judge was on solid ground and gave the defendent MORE than a fair trial - letting all those red herrings and deliberate ATTY errors get a pass. There is precedent for his decisions. This is not the only jury that had a juror removed after deliberations began - except in this case, Jackson would not let them deliberate - that was one of the reasons for his exit.

FAlconer was Geragos's first stealth juror but he couldn't keep his fat mouth shut. Jackson was the second and he didn't want to do it and did efverything he could to get out of being a juror. I don't think Jackson would dispute what the judge did at all - it's only the "do over" defense that wanted it stopped.

Judge Delucchi had more about the law in his head than Geragos has in his law library. I really don't see a judicial overturning of the judgment -= particularly when appeals courts don't like to overturn trial judges.

After this appeal is done, then Gardner and Gibbs can present their habeas. I wonder if they have the "secret evidence" that so many claim to know. [/*]

This is one of the most inane, ill-informed, cockamamie posts I've yet to read on this forum.

Do you go back and read what you write?

Because a judge gives his reasoning on his decisions, therefore he's "right"? How idiotic. EVERY judge gives their reasoning for making a decision. And their our convictions tossed every day of the week due to a judge's screw up.

No attorney hired? Ummm.. okay. Sure. You have some kind of fantasy appeal you're talking about no one else is aware of?

Falconer and Jackson were "stealth" jurors? Now that is rich.

"More" than a fair trial? How does one get "more" than a fair trial? Prejudicial "evidence" with NO probative value whatsoever allowed to drone on for days upon days. That's "more than fair"?

Wow. Thank goodness the majority of America's judicial systems aren't run like the circuses in California.

Stranger yet that the folks in California think it's "good".

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I think the Judges call is a bit more credible than a poster on a message board. He probably has more information, lol and imo. [/*]

Judge Delucchi was respected and admired by attorneys from both sides, not only for his legal wisdom and fairness, but for his humanity as well. Mark Geragos thought of him as a dear uncle.

IMO

[caphill]

Originally posted by earth goddess


And most of those people ignore the testimony or rely on media to prove their points.....lol

I have yet to meet anyone in Modesto who thinks he's not guilty, even though they WANT to believe in his innocence. [/*]


Since you are back home in Modesta, whats the word on the streets about the death of Ron Grantski's son? Did the local media report this death?

[joey4421]

100% guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am surprised people are still debating this issue. He's going to be executed sooner or later, but his time will come.

I hope he eventually confesses and admits his dirty deeds but I have no doubt that this narcissistic, selfish murderer will whimper while the needle is stuck into his arm - about how he's innocent and they are killing an innocent man.

Yeah right. I hope his appeals are on the fast track and he gets the needle soon. IT will save tax payers a lot of $$.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by AngelWings


I think the Judges call is a bit more credible than a poster on a message board. He probably has more information, lol and imo. [/*]

Huh?

That's another inane bit of posting.

I've yet to see one judge ever give a decision and think it was the wrong one. How freaking stupid would that be?

Of course EVERY judge thinks EVERY decision they make is the proper and legal one.

So comparing Delucchi's opinion of his decisions to mine is stupid.

Delucchi himself knew that there were a lot of his decisions that could be borderline one way or the other. That was the whole point of his "petri dish" comment. If his decisions were "ironclad", that comment would never have been said.

You also have to think that this case had some legal "firsts" in it. And those most definitely will be tested on the legal soundness of the decision. For no other reason than the fact that there was no previous precedent to rule from.

I know very little about California law, but I know a great deal about the Constitution and my own state's laws.

And so far as the "more information". That's ludicrous. If there was "more information" that was not exposed that he was determining his decisions with, and that was not a part of the record, that would be an automatic reversal. We (the public) know what he used to make his decisions and his reasoning behind those decisions due to the court record.

There is no great mystery out there. Inform yourself. Don't just depend upon an opinion to be fed to you or the rhetoric to be spewed through you like a ventriloquist's dummy. You have the power to educate yourself and see exactly what was said. The fact that you posted what you did tells me you are not aware of how the legal system operates, nor how straight forward the trial (and the nuances within) really was.

[BFD - v2.0]

Originally posted by feathergirl


For all of your pomposity and name-calling, your man is still safely tucked away on death row, and it's getting deeper for him by the day.

His biggest legal advocate is some non-legal internet woman who throws stuffed animals in the bay and calls it "research and investigation". [/*]

And you reply to a post about people informing themselves with an ill-informed post?

Irony at it's best.

First, Scott Peterson is not "my man". Scott Peterson is a stupid dumbass. Anyone listening to those tapes can hear just how stupid he is. (Not sure how one on death row is getting in "deeper" by the day when no execution date has been set.)

So far as his "legal advocate", well; an advocate is one who speaks on another's behalf. At this time the only people I know that are speaking on Scott's behalf is his family and the attorney's they have hired. Not sure who the stuffed animal throwing person is, but I can guarantee you she is no "advocate" for Scott Peterson. She might advocate on behalf of the legal system and what she perceives as it's flaws in his case (much like myself), but she is definitely not Scott's advocate.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess



snip

Geragos THREATED him which I thought deserved sanctions, but the Judge did not. In his long career on the bench, he was overturned ONE TIME and he didn't make that mistake again.

snipped the rant[/*]
Link to any threat made by Geragos to the judge.

He did indeed make that mistake again by failing to include the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Not all the cases Delucchi has heard have exhausted all their appeals so there may indeed be more remands.

[chilione]

Originally posted by Frydaddy
I'm curious to know where the current group of posters stand on the issue of Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence. Hopefully these three poll options are suitable to choose one. TIA [/*]

Hi Frydaddy! LTNS! :seeya:

I am sure that I don't have to tell you how I voted. :D

[aubrey04]

Guilty ~ beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Pruddennce]

this was a circumstantial case. there was more than enough 'c' evidence to convict.

best regards,
Pru

[margaritaville]

Words straight from Mark G's mouth......


GERAGOS:
"But the one thing that I would say has got him most up against it is the fact that the bodies and the remains are found within one mile or two miles of the very location that he provided to the police as his alibi. That is devastating, in terms of why they've arrested him so quickly. In fact, I -- you know, my feeling was as soon as these bodies washed ashore, the fact that he -- that it was a mile or two miles away meant to me that he was going to be arrested any moment."

GERAGOS: ... even though it's -- even though it's a circumstantial evidence case, the most damning piece of circumstantial evidence comes out of his own mouth and his own hands, when he hands the police that receipt from the very location where two miles away, she's found. I mean, that is just a devastating thing. And if you believe that he's the one who, for whatever reason, got into it with her, killed her, put her in a tarp, put her in the boat, did all of that..

GERAGOS: It does not. But the fact that -- the fact he's up there and the fact that he's giving them the evidence, the fact that if it's true -- and we don't know if it is -- that there's apparently information on the tides and currents on his computer when they do the search, that is some pretty compelling evidence.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/18/lkl.00.html

Scott is EXACTLY where he should be and where he will spend the rest of his "glorious"life.....

I just wonder if he is still "Jazzed" up about being in san Q?!