Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/15/2003 1:53:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2003 2:41:52 PM EDT by Magic]
Why is it that damn near everyone that you stick a microphone in front of has an opinion about the guilt or innocence of Scott Peterson? How do people come to these conclusions? Why do talk show hosts endlessly [b]SPECULATE[/b] about this? Why haven't I [b]EVER[/b] heard anyone say, well, Scott Peterson is [s]guilty until proven innocent[/s] innocent until proven guilty and we will have to wait until the facts come out in his trial before coming to any conclusions? [edit: Yes I am a moron, I screwed up my rant. Guilty, innocent, whats the difference?]
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 2:03:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 2:31:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Magic: Why haven't I [b]EVER[/b] heard anyone say, well, Scott Peterson is guilty until proven innocent and we will have to wait until the facts come out in his trial before coming to any conclusions?
View Quote
Why would they say this? Anyway, i wish people would get the phrase right: It is supposed to go like this: A person is [b]presumed[/b] innocent until proven guilty. A person's true guilt or innocence is completely independent of any judicial finding, it is an [b]objective[/b] fact. Anyway, why hasn't anyone said it? They have, I have heard several. It's just that some people don't hear the things that don't fit in with their notions, sometimes. BTW, I think he's guilty, too. The old, "walks like a duck, sounds like a duck" thing. We are allowed to have opinions, right? Larry
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 2:54:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ohio:
Originally Posted By Magic: Why haven't I [b]EVER[/b] heard anyone say, well, Scott Peterson is guilty until proven innocent and we will have to wait until the facts come out in his trial before coming to any conclusions?
View Quote
Why would they say this? Anyway, i wish people would get the phrase right: It is supposed to go like this: A person is [b]presumed[/b] innocent until proven guilty. A person's true guilt or innocence is completely independent of any judicial finding, it is an [b]objective[/b] fact. Anyway, why hasn't anyone said it? They have, I have heard several. It's just that some people don't hear the things that don't fit in with their notions, sometimes. BTW, I think he's guilty, too. The old, "walks like a duck, sounds like a duck" thing. We are allowed to have opinions, right? Larry
View Quote
Ohio, we are completely in agreement on this. The old "Innocent till proven guilty" BS is one of my pet peeves. If he killed her, he's guilty the second he does it. And he's a quacker if I ever saw one.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 3:06:00 PM EDT
I am not media nor police so I can say he's guilty. He's guilty! Why does it bother you? And why the hell is his defense team so mad about the quick decision to go for the death penalty? Janet "burn em'" Reno announced the death penalty for whover bombed the OK fed building the same day it happened if I recall.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 3:26:21 PM EDT
It amazes me that some of you have such disregard and contempt for our way of life, rights and constitution!! You are so passionate when the second amendment comes up. Fuck the rest huh? Sig Heil!!!!
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 3:49:02 PM EDT
Innocent until proven guilty.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 3:55:51 PM EDT
yawnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 4:46:52 PM EDT
It should bother you because it could be you. Regardless of whether he did it or not, under our judicial system with all its flaws he deserves a fair trial. No other system is as good as ours.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 4:56:19 PM EDT
Sure someone else COULD have killed her but WHO would have thrown her body into the ocean (what would their motive have been? That's the one that leads me back to Scott).
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 5:10:27 PM EDT
OK then since the court said Not Guilty for OJ nobody has the right to say HE REALLY DID IT? Scott's already told at leasst one big lie " I wasn't having an affair" then when he was busted on it he said he had told his wife about it. He camps out next to the Mexican Border with ten grand, dyed hair, and a goatee. He either did it, or he went to the Gary Condit school of "how to look guilty when you are actually innocent."
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 6:24:29 PM EDT
RipMeyer and the rest, please read VERY CAREFULLY: Any private citizen saying that they think he did it is a VERY DIFFERENT THING than a court or other system PUNISHING HIM without a trial. All people have opinions. The 1st amendment says I can say it. I am NOT saying that he should be punished without a trial; why do you say that is what we are saying? You can take your Sieg heil and shove it; no-one made ANY comment AT ALL about violating or suspending anyone's rights, now did they? I also think that Cincinnati is going to finish the baseball season with a better record than Cleveland. I have no proof, and the matter has not been tried. What of it? Try t think a little before jumping all over someone, OK? DefMan; did you not understand the point I was making about his innocence or guilt being independent of any judicial finding or lack thereof? He is or isn't, no-one's decisions make any difference to the objective reality. Larry
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 6:30:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 6:36:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shotar: I can't fathom the fascination with this case.
View Quote
Honestly, I think the four months looking for her, and the time of the disappearance (holiday) made it more appealing emotionally. Larry
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 6:50:43 PM EDT
This is not a court of law, it is the court of public opinion. There is no jury, and I am the only judge. I find him guilty! YMMV
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:12:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VoodooChile: OK then since the court said Not Guilty for OJ nobody has the right to say HE REALLY DID IT? Scott's already told at leasst one big lie " I wasn't having an affair" then when he was busted on it he said he had told his wife about it. He camps out next to the Mexican Border with ten grand, dyed hair, and a goatee. He either did it, or he went to the Gary Condit school of "how to look guilty when you are actually innocent."
View Quote
The OJ case is [b]COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!![/b] You have had a chance to see and hear [b]ALL[/b] the evidence against OJ. You people have not heard or seen one single shred of evidence against peterson and you find him guilty. That is unacceptable!! You do have the right to an opinion but it would seem to be slanderous at this point. The fisrt amendment will not protect you from slander.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:34:00 PM EDT
The news media is creating mass hysteria. The media has tried him in the court of public opinion and he is guilty as charged.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:39:13 PM EDT
I'll bet he was having an affair with Nichole, and then killed her, and also took a few swings at Rodney too. I swear I saw him in that video: The bastard. Jay
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 9:50:27 PM EDT
When I was called for jury duty the lawyers were questioning potential jurors. I guess one guy wanted out so he said "If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be sitting in front of me in handcuffs, now would he?" He was excused.. I wonder if he REALLY thought that way or was just trying to get out of jury duty... BTW, it was an Agg. Assault case and we found him guilty...Gangbanger is doing 20..
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 10:37:08 PM EDT
The Peterson case is sheer BS and of no consequence outside the Peterson family and those affected. I have absolutely no interest in this case. It does NOT deserve the amount of press it is getting. What about the guy that cut off his brothers head? What about the Hispanic pregnant woman who was murdered the month beofre and dumped in the bay. Where is their press coverage?
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 11:59:56 PM EDT
presumed innocent until proven guilty is the standard applied DURING court cases. It does not apply to anything else.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:06:38 AM EDT
Where and what is this proof I was hearing that would exonorate him?? Am I the only one that heard about that? Am I just loosing my mind? Or has someone else heard something about it? As far as I'm concearned, until I hear/see the evidence exonerating him, GUILTY!!! Swing him from the nearest tree. Same for all f***ers killing innocent women and children!
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:59:26 AM EDT
> I can't fathom the fascination with this > case. We had an area woman kidnapped, > murdred, the full term fetus cut from her > womb, and the murderer claiming the now live > child as her own and it didn't get this much > attention. Jesus christ, have you got any links for that truely horrific story? If nothing else I'd like to keep tabs on it so I can see the murderer get what they deserve. Makes you want to give up on the human race, doesnt it? Phil
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 1:11:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AZCOP: I'll bet he was having an affair with Nichole, and then killed her, and also took a few swings at Rodney too. I swear I saw him in that video: The bastard. Jay
View Quote
[rofl2]
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 1:17:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shotar: I can't fathom the fascination with this case. We had an area woman kidnapped, murdred, the full term fetus cut from her womb, and the murderer claiming the now live child as her own and it didn't get this much attention.
View Quote
That's one of the sickest things I'v ever heard! Why hasn't the media picked up on this?
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:13:02 AM EDT
The question I've been wanting answered is, [b]why the fuck is this news?[/b] The whole Peterson case, that is. If she had been murdered during GWII, or in the days after 9/11, would this be the trial of the century [i]of the year[/i]? The news media has become [b]too large[/b] for the amount of news worth covering. In slow news times these cases - Jon Bennett, Laci Petterson, Gary Condit, OJ - become spectacles.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:30:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Originally Posted By shotar: I can't fathom the fascination with this case. We had an area woman kidnapped, murdred, the full term fetus cut from her womb, and the murderer claiming the now live child as her own and it didn't get this much attention.
View Quote
That's one of the sickest things I'v ever heard! Why hasn't the media picked up on this?
View Quote
Probably because it didnt happen to a good looking white couple in California? The media reports all the crap that happens here in California. It isnt news, its entertainment. Media eats up all the pics of cute Lacy. Then we have to listen to "look at the chit happening in California now" like we are the only place that this stuff is happening. Freaks everywhere. Other than the intial report I havent heard much about the lady in Texas who beat her kids to death with a rock and I sure didnt hear nothing about the incident in Ohio.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:40:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/16/2003 3:41:08 AM EDT by snipley]
All I know is I have known 2 people who where murdered one walking his kid sister to school and had to read about it in the back paper with 7 lines. Fuk the news the news is worthless any more. Its access hollywood on speed.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:46:18 AM EDT
He's innocent until proven guilty.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 11:38:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By perry: He's innocent until proven guilty.
View Quote
No, he is either guilty or innocent; which one is solely dependent on his past actions. No one can do anything to make him either guilty or innocent, this is soley dependent on whether or not he killed her. Language has meaning, people. His guilt or innocence is a matter of objective fact, not judicial finding. He is legally presumed innocent by the justice system until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however. Sheesh.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:03:00 PM EDT
There is one place and one place only where the Constitution requires that a person be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that's in court. The media is not required to give someone that presumption, and neither are the cops or the public at large. After all, if we all were required to presume that, how could we justify pre-trial detention? You're locking up a man who is presumed innocent! I got so sick during O.J., and every media trial fiasco since, of hearing the talking heads asking each other "But what about the presumption of innocence" every time someone opined that the defendant is guilty. The trier of fact - judge or jury - is required to presume that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the rest of us. BTW, hell yeah, he did it.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:07:03 PM EDT
Of course, the SOB is guilty as Hell! But not in the eyes of the Law, and that, my dear friends, is all we should be concerned about at the present time. Eric The(BuckleUp,Scott,It'sTheLaw!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:26:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARDOC: It should bother you because it could be you. Regardless of whether he did it or not, under our judicial system with all its flaws he deserves a fair trial.
View Quote
Agreed!
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:35:42 PM EDT
I don't really like putting myself in the position of defending Scott Peterson, well here I am. We don't know the [b]facts[/b] yet. Most of the "evidence" against him in the court of public opinion has to do with his stupid actions after her disappearance. Nobody here knows the results of the autopsy. Nobody here knows the results of the search of his home. Nobody here really knows JACK SHIT, yet most people are proclaiming his guilt. WTF? I don't know if he is guilty or not, but I am going to wait to see the [b]facts[/b].
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:39:21 PM EDT
Magic; Would it make you feel better if we said: "He sure as hell acts guilty, doesn't he? I can't imagine why a person who had a wife disappear would act like that unless he had something to do with it." This only speaks to the actions that we do know about, so it's all good, right?
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 12:48:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Magic: I don't really like putting myself in the position of defending Scott Peterson, well here I am. We don't know the [b]facts[/b] yet. Most of the "evidence" against him in the court of public opinion has to do with his stupid actions after her disappearance. Nobody here knows the results of the autopsy. Nobody here knows the results of the search of his home. Nobody here really knows JACK SHIT, yet most people are proclaiming his guilt. WTF? I don't know if he is guilty or not, but I am going to wait to see the [b]facts[/b].
View Quote
It's called an opinion. And none of our opinions on the case have one single thing to do with whether he's actually, objectively guilty, or whether he's ever convicted. They're opinions. We are not required to presume him innocent - last I checked, the Constitution doesn't say what I can and cannot presume.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 1:15:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RipMeyer:
Originally Posted By VoodooChile: OK then since the court said Not Guilty for OJ nobody has the right to say HE REALLY DID IT? Scott's already told at leasst one big lie " I wasn't having an affair" then when he was busted on it he said he had told his wife about it. He camps out next to the Mexican Border with ten grand, dyed hair, and a goatee. He either did it, or he went to the Gary Condit school of "how to look guilty when you are actually innocent."
View Quote
The OJ case is [b]COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!![/b] You have had a chance to see and hear [b]ALL[/b] the evidence against OJ. You people have not heard or seen one single shred of evidence against peterson and you find him guilty. That is unacceptable!! You do have the right to an opinion but it would seem to be slanderous at this point. The fisrt amendment will not protect you from slander.
View Quote
Actually OJ and Scott are both considered Not guilty/innocent according to our legal system. doesn't really matter if you have reviewed the CNN/MSNBC/Fox pre-digested interpretation of the evidence or not. It would be slander to declare either one guilty. If you notice my first post I never called anyone guilty outright. Hell, the OJ case was a farce anyway..They never caught him in the lie about the Bruno Mahli shoes until the civil case.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:52:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Of course, the SOB is guilty as Hell! But not in the eyes of the Law, and that, my dear friends, is all we should be concerned about at the present time. Eric The(BuckleUp,Scott,It'sTheLaw!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Apparently the HUN is privy to [b]ALL THE DETAILS[/b] in this case. You cannot possibly make an accurate decision based on the publicly available statements by the media. To do so would be foolish.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:05:54 PM EDT
Yes of course you are 100% right,and what we will really find out from the OJ Simpson ,and Robert Blake,and Scott Peterson trial is are defense lawyers cheaper than divorce lawyers! Bob [:D]
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:55:59 PM EDT
[b]Now[/b] you tell me....
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 5:29:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ohio: Magic; Would it make you feel better if we said: "He sure as hell acts guilty, doesn't he? I can't imagine why a person who had a wife disappear would act like that unless he had something to do with it." This only speaks to the actions that we do know about, so it's all good, right?
View Quote
hmmm How should one act when your wife and unborn child come up missing and the whole country starts looking at you as a double murder suspect facing the death penalty? They just don't teach that now do they?
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 1:01:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2003 1:02:53 PM EDT by polarisfan]
The National Enquierer has already published the full story with all the details of how he did it! BUT GO_DAMN IT....If people want a good murder to get crazy over,go with the "little old lady who was "stunned,clubbed,cuffed,and WHOOPS killed" by some group of people whose job it is to do this type of thing!(NO it was'nt Shannon Dohwhority)
Top Top