Awaiting the Peterson verdict....

[greatdarkwing]

which will probably be a hung jury

That bastard will probably get away with it.

~Alex

[dissention]

There's not enough evidence to convict, therefore he should be acquitted. They have not proved their case.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

There's not enough evidence to convict, therefore he should be acquitted. They have not proved their case.

I dont think theres enough PHYSICAL evidence to convict. Circumstancial on the other puts him in deep trouble. But Like I said: hung jury.

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

I dont think theres enough PHYSICAL evidence to convict. Circumstancial on the other puts him in deep trouble. But Like I said: hung jury.

~Alex

I think he did it, but the circumstancial evidence is pretty weak, especially in a death penalty case.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think he did it, but the circumstancial evidence is pretty weak, especially in a death penalty case.

Not really, too many circumstances that put him with enough of a motive, and enough time to have killed her. For example: The whole umbrella thing is wierd. The whole reason he said he went to the warehouse was to put away the umbrellas. He said he forgot...How could he forget if he was able to put away the boat tarp WHICH WAS STORED UNDER THE UMBRELLAS. Then add the cement. Then add him fishing in the same spot she washed ashore, with expert testimoney saying the decay time matched her being in the water for as long as she was. Then add him being found at the Mexican border (something the Defense barely even touched upon cause they knew they couldn't explain it). All these circumstances point the finger DIRECTLY at Scott. And lets not mention the phone call between Scott and his mother in law where hes listening to a message from her saying they were investigating a lead in the case, and he laughs !!!!!!!!!

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

Not really, too many circumstances that put him with enough of a motive, and enough time to have killed her. For example: The whole umbrella thing is wierd. The whole reason he said he went to the warehouse was to put away the umbrellas. He said he forgot...How could he forget if he was able to put away the boat tarp WHICH WAS STORED UNDER THE UMBRELLAS. Then add the cement. Then add him fishing in the same spot she washed ashore, with expert testimoney saying the decay time matched her being in the water for as long as she was. Then add him being found at the Mexican border (something the Defense barely even touched upon cause they knew they couldn't explain it). All these circumstances point the finger DIRECTLY at Scott. And lets not mention the phone call between Scott and his mother in law where hes listening to a message from her saying they were investigating a lead in the case, and he laughs !!!!!!!!!

~Alex

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.

I think we agree for once! Dissention, this is a great step forward in our relationship

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

I think we agree for once! Dissention, this is a great step forward in our relationship

~Alex

But, c'mon, wouldn't it have been fun to see Geragos defend Peterson by saying a junk food binge made him do it? It worked once before, why not again, eh?

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

But, c'mon, wouldn't it have been fun to see Geragos defend Peterson by saying a junk food binge made him do it? It worked once before, why not again, eh?

Geragos should just dress up in a clown costume complete with the big red honking nose Isnt that an image you'd wanna shake from your head?

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

Geragos should just dress up in a clown costume complete with the big red honking nose Isnt that an image you'd wanna shake from your head?

~Alex

His schnozz is already big enough to honk.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by dissention

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.

I disagree. I believe that there isn't reasonable doubt here. Here is a legal def:

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

So the jurors do not have to be absolutely sure to convict. If they use logic they have to convict because there are no LOGICAL explanations to let Peterson off.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.

I agree - and that the jury has been out this long even with the replacement does not bode well for the prosecution. I think it will be a hung jury.

Note: this is different that actual culpability.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I disagree. I believe that there isn't reasonable doubt here. Here is a legal def:

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

So the jurors do not have to be absolutely sure to convict. If they use logic they have to convict because there are no LOGICAL explanations to let Peterson off.

But that is not the point. The point is it is the prosecution's burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. They have not shown that. They have not directly linked him with the crime with anything but circumstantial evidence. But, juries have convicted on circumstantial evidence, which IMO is essentially all that has been shown here.

Again, this is legal theory and procedure and not actual culpability

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But that is not the point. The point is it is the prosecution's burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. They have not shown that. They have not directly linked him with the crime with anything but circumstantial evidence. But, juries have convicted on circumstantial evidence, which IMO is essentially all that has been shown here.

Again, this is legal theory and procedure and not actual culpability

There is only circumstantial evidence, true. But it is extensive and all points to the same conclusion. So, there isn't a REASONable doubt here IMO. The prosecution has laid out the time line and given the jury plenty of information to convict. The problem is you have to be smart to convict this way, and most people aren't

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

There is only circumstantial evidence, true. But it is extensive and all points to the same conclusion. So, there isn't a REASONable doubt here IMO. The prosecution has laid out the time line and given the jury plenty of information to convict. The problem is you have to be smart to convict this way, and most people aren't

Not really, the judge is required to give instructions laying out exaclty what is expected of the jurors and that the prosecution must have demonstrated BARD that each element of the crime(s) were commited by the def. They have not shown that. They have not linked him with the crime. he should not be convicted. AND - convicting him on any other basis is just wrong and undermines the integrity of the legal system. It is tantamount to saying he had an affair so he is a sinner and he deserves the death penalty for that, so we will convict him for that even though that is not the issue in this trial. Granted that is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point

I gues it is just a pet peeve of mine when people think that someone should be convicted by something other than the law. The law is there to protect us and many of the alternatives to the reasonable doubt standard are babaric.