Scott Peterson and Double Murder

whoa! - quite a story...

it only takes a single mistaken encounter with law enforcement to illustrate the importance of due process, the right to a defense, the right to a public trial, and the genius of the men who created them.

 

There's a big difference between a mother and father consenting to end an 8 week pregnancy and someone killing a mother carrying a viable 8 month healthy baby that could have been delivered via cesarian.

I don't see the confusion.

 

Hey Optional, based on your argument in another thread, do you think a corrupt cop might have planted that DNA evidence? They do it all the time, as you're well aware....

 

How could the thought not cross anyone's mind that a corrupt cop could have planted evidence?

 

If the thought crossed your mind, it sure wasn't illustrated in your post. Indeed, you saw the DNA evidence as "hard evidence, proof."

 

optional i just have to come and post now, and must say man ... you are dumb. no offense but you are.

i am from new orleans and something like this isnt unusual , but by reading your post you seem to think that noone would do this. like if an alien abducted her or something. you must be from a high-class knit group and havent been out into a ''city'' environment. seems that you are stuck in pretty boy, high class, la-la land.

i mean just look at the evidence so far. not unusual to you ?

you mention corrupt cops. why would a cop do this ? there are alot more reasons why the peterson guy would do this then there are that some crooked cop would.
just look at his actions, they speak for thereself ... and i believe that is all that is needed.

sure he should have a fair trial, but i think it is pretty obvious that he is guilty.
saying that a crooked cop is involved is sort of going to the extremes. you need to leave oregon or whereever you are , stop watching so much televison and movies, and enter the real world.

sorry jmho

 

You left out some important details. Did you kick her ass in pool that night?

 

So, you want a fair trial. Good. Does that include a jury who hasn't already come to a determination of guilt? If so, a person like you wouldn't make a good juror, as you have come to a conclusion without examination and cross examination of all the facts.

I am not saying he didn't do it. I am saying, I don't know. I look at these situations dispassionately, and believe in the legal process of innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial in which the defendant is allowed to have counsel vigorously defend him and attack the evidence presented by the D.A.

If after all the evidence is in, then make a conclusion.

The problem with your bias, is that you will ignore evidence that would diminish the case against him.

Your mentality may indeed by common in Louisiana. There are many in this forum who subscribe to the lynch mob mentality.

However, in the North, where the constitution was developed and rights were granted, and supplemented with constitutional amendments, a man is still innocent until proven guilty and deserving of a fair trial.

 

I was so traumatized by the whole thing, I couldn't tell you. I probably lost.

 

It's not clear to me on what basis you can speculate on Optional's lifestyle or background. That doesn't sound too smart to me.