o Scott Peterson j (966 hits)
Category: NewsRating: 0.52 on 30 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (View user info) at 2004-12-13 23:53:24 EST
I'm surprised at myself when I think of how intrigued I was with this trial.
Scott Peterson shouldn't have been given the death penalty. In fact, he shouldn't have been convicted at all.
Do you know who "Strawberry Shortcake" is? You will.
She's a brightly dyed redhead mother of four - unemployed. She was a jury member on the trial. You couldn't have a confession sway this woman's initial opinion. You couldn't go back in time and put her at the scene of the crime and change her decision. You couldn't hold a fucking gun to this woman's head to change her mind.
Default.
People are so sickened with themselves, that it makes them feel better to go "guilty" on a man like Scott within the first day of hearing about it. Almost 99% of the people I met reached their own personal verdict. This isn't a surprise.
We put a man to death over circumstantial evidence. This isn't debatable. This is freely (and accidentally?) admitted on pretty much every news broadcast. 12 people reached a decision to end someone's life, and they had no hard evidence. Nothing.
Even if you think he did it!
It's sad that the remaining truth behind this trial is this: Even if Scott Peterson did it, he should've gone free. He should've gone free, and the investigation should've been ridiculed. The incompetence of the police in finding - really - no hard evidence.
Guess what else. If I to be falsely convicted of murdering my 'wife,' and it be publicized, I'd leave the country. I'd get 10 grand together. I'd dye my hair. And my parents would help me.
I'm no dummy - your decision is reached immediately.
But I guess this shit happens every day, and in retrospect it's foolish that I took any interest in this trial at all.
It's a sad day when, again, they're putting adulterers to death.
User Reviews
Submitted by Chronicles_of_College_Guy (user info) at 2004-12-29 11:02:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I decided to check out one of your posts because you're always badmouthing mine. All I can say is, "Those in glass houses..."
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-12-14 14:46:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Totally_useless, Judoka, MickGinny
I can't tell you how much I'd agree with you in a different situation. Yet, I've learned that the world of coincidence is so huge. And in this case we're talking about putting someone to death.
I remember an incident when I was 19. The cops were out on a Sunday afternoon by my house, looking for two men in a late 80s grey Olds who had just robbed a convenient store down the street. I was out at a water reclamation district - paintballing with a friend in an 88 grey Buick, and dark clothes. When we finished, we walked back to the car with our masks/guns/clothes/gear and were SWARMED by police at gunpoint. We're lucky we weren't fucking killed.
I don't mean to break it down to that level - but I've been a huge victim of so much coincidence. Every time my girlfriend and I have a serious fight, an ex of mine decides to "stop by" out of the blue (same day/night). My car is on one side of the garage - a shovel falls on it - so I move it to the other side away from equipment - the roof falls on it. The list goes on and on.
Call it coincidence, or black luck. I can't help but think of it (as ludicrous and far fetched as it sounds) also applying with Scott Peterson. I respect your opinions though.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2004-12-14 13:01:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck him.
Then, fuck you.
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2004-12-14 12:48:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-12-14 08:42:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ummmm. Sorry to rain on the parade here, but circumstantial evidence has always been acceptible proof of a person's guilt or innocence. Sounds like some of the people here would never convict unless there was fucking video-tape of Scott actually sliting her throat.
Shit like that just doesn't happen people. Reasonable minds CAN make logical conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean you have to give up common sense.
Sorry. But could you take your bleeding hearts elsewhere, they are making a mess on the carpet.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2004-12-14 12:33:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WHORES! ALL OF EM!
Submitted by Totally_useless (user info) at 2004-12-14 12:23:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Guilt must be proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt."
Not "all traces of doubt"
There is no mention about hard evidence vs. circumstantial.
As long as the actions taken by Scott Peterson before and after his wife's death show that he had the motive and the facility to kill his wife, (cement pails, dyed hair at the border with $10,000 in the truck, new boat, girlfriend, widowed, etc.), then a jury can find him guilty.
I wish he wasn't getting the death penalty. That's too quick. I'd rather see him take the same route Jeffrey Dahmer did.
Submitted by Joemama (user info) at 2004-12-14 12:14:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
+2 for Mick G who "gets-it"
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2004-12-14 10:27:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Lesse...
First, he says he went fishing, after telling family members something different.
He buys a boat... Cash... Doesn't tell ANYONE.
He goes fishing... CHRISTMAS EVE...
His wife disappears CHRISTMAS EVE...
Concrete and a pail are fiund, and sell as other small items indicating he created an anchor. But wait, there is enough concrete missing from the bag for TWO anchors.
He has a girlfriend, and he tells her, weeks before anything happens, HE WIDOWED. Not single, not divorced, WIDOWED.
Two days after the disappearance, he WANTS TO FUCK HIS GIRLFRIEND.
The body of his missing wife is found on the beach of the BAY HE WAS FISHING IN.
Murder weapon? Propably thrown in the concrete he used to anchor his wife with. That's how I'd do it...
Know where he went wrong? He probably used regular rope. Got destroyed by the seawater.
Best way to sink a body?
Concrete around the waist. Very hard to have a body slip out of that.
NOt that I've given it any thought...
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-12-14 10:20:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shit happens. Right.
Look at the levity on that woman's face - that's the problem with the justice system.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2004-12-14 09:40:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
We have a system of justice in this country that allows the fate of defendants to be decided by juries made up of people that do not have the wherewithal to get out of jury duty. Shit happens.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-14 09:19:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
is killing one innocent person worth "revenge" on one sick twisted individual? yes, we need to remove them from society forever, but i think illing is killing, regardless of motive. and thats all the justice system is to the death pentalty - motive.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-12-14 09:18:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"why we even havin' a trial?"
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-12-14 08:42:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ummmm. Sorry to rain on the parade here, but circumstantial evidence has always been acceptible proof of a person's guilt or innocence. Sounds like some of the people here would never convict unless there was fucking video-tape of Scott actually sliting her throat.
Shit like that just doesn't happen people. Reasonable minds CAN make logical conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean you have to give up common sense.
Sorry. But could you take your bleeding hearts elsewhere, they are making a mess on the carpet.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2004-12-14 08:20:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by tinactin (user info) at 2004-12-14 06:03:38 (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with you 100%
I also agree with you completely. I don't think people's opinions should judge the outcome in this. No hard evidence = innocence, in my mind. I also haven't seen so many people happy over one person's death sentence. I can't believe the media and people of the US are so happy to see someone put to death over such inconclusive garbage.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-12-14 08:11:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That trial never should have gotten all of the publicity that it did. It just goes to show that the American public loves a murder mystery...especially when the victim is a cute female. Do you think that if Nicole Simpson would be a household name if she lived in a trailer park some place? How about Chandra Levy?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-12-14 06:27:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How do you know who jury members are anyway? Normally such things are kept secret, at least that's how it's done here.
Submitted by tinactin (user info) at 2004-12-14 06:03:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with you 100%
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-12-14 05:52:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"It's a sad day when, again, they're putting adulterers to death."
Not really familiar with the case, but hasn't he been convicted of murder?
You're right about the proof situation...but I'm against the death penalty in any case.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2004-12-14 03:56:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
http://www.saturday-night-live.com/snl/miscellaneousstuff/documents/thesnlcurse.html
Hartman, Belushi, Farley. It's just a theory out there, hasn't been lievely lately since hartman died.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2004-12-14 03:43:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We need people who feel like you do; hard indisputable evidence should be the only way that a citizen is convicted of a crime.
Then we also need people like me who rely on a silly thing called common sense.
if it looks like a piece of shit, smells like a piece of shit, is floating in the toilet like a piece of shit, I don't need to pick it up and take a bite to know that it will taste like a piece of shit> I don t need to see it drop out of someones ass to know that it is a piece of shit> I don't need to take it to a lab and conduct experiments to know that it is a piece of shit I am just confident that it is indeed a piece of shit.
Submitted by Beer_bong (user info) at 2004-12-14 03:11:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Darko, what's the SNL curse?
I agree with this, there was no evidence to convict him. While I personally think he did do it, there is no proof of it.
Submitted by CoreaPeekay (user info) at 2004-12-14 03:03:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're right. But adulturers are wrong.
Yeah, he shouldn't be put away, thats bullshit. even if he did it, there is no way he should be dying. Bull-fucking-shit. I hate America now more than ever.
Submitted by dwr_budr (user info) at 2004-12-14 03:03:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Of course it wans't him, it was the one armed man.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2004-12-14 01:36:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
They sentenced superman to death!!!!!
IS there a new superman curse like there was a SNL curse?
Submitted by TheMidnight12AM (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:31:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hmmm...good points, but I don't agree with you...
so 0 for neutrality.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:29:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"they're putting adulterers to death"
good riddance.
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:27:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:09:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well said.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:16:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
don't squeeze the juice!
Submitted by CookieLass (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:14:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That whole case left too many questions unanswered. And I felt bad for him when they started immediately railroading him. It was almost instantaneous. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2004-12-14 00:09:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well said.