Dan Gould Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 The jury's deliberating, so you better vote quick! I know its a circumstantial case, but his behavior while his wife was "missing"-selling her car, talking to a realtor about selling the house, altering the baby's room to a storage room-is just too much. Added to the lies he told, the extramarital affair, I can't help but believe he did it. Quote
ghost of miles Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 To quote a favorite old Doonesbury strip: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote
ghost of miles Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 Somebody may be able to offer compelling legal reasons not to do so, and I know that you can't presume someone's guilt based on this, but really, if you were accused of murder and you were innocent, wouldn't you be getting your keister up there on the witness stand? Quote
Dan Gould Posted November 4, 2004 Author Report Posted November 4, 2004 Somebody may be able to offer compelling legal reasons not to do so, and I know that you can't presume someone's guilt based on this, but really, if you were accused of murder and you were innocent, wouldn't you be getting your keister up there on the witness stand? Well, the legal/strategery reasons are obvious: all the lies he told that would be used to impeach him. His only chance then would have been to have an emotional breakdown on the stand, pledging his undying love for his wife and that he could never have killed her or the baby. I think a man accused of such a crime without all of the baggage would probably jump at the chance to testify. Like, say, ...... Dr. Richard Kimble Quote
Jazzmoose Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 Somebody may be able to offer compelling legal reasons not to do so, and I know that you can't presume someone's guilt based on this, but really, if you were accused of murder and you were innocent, wouldn't you be getting your keister up there on the witness stand? Not necessarily. If your lawyer thinks you're an incredibly lousy witness who would annoy the jury, no. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but I don't think the prosecution has come close to proving their case. If the lesser charge is "scum", then I'll go with guilty. Otherwise, forget it. Quote
Big Wheel Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 I'm going to depart from my usual no-pissing-on thread rule and say who fucking cares? I'm even sicker of hearing about this than I was with OJ. People kill each other every damn day. If they don't do it in some spectacular or innovative way, they don't deserve my goddamn attention. Quote
Dan Gould Posted November 4, 2004 Author Report Posted November 4, 2004 Well, it might not be spectacular or innovative, but the events surrounding the murder make this a very interesting case. Not to mention the fact that the case is entirely circumstantial, and I think the interest level jumps even more. But to each his own. Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 I refuse to watch coverage of, or follow court-cases like this in the media. (Same goes for celebrity court cases too.) I haven't the foggiest idea if Scott Peterson is guilty, and my opinion on the matter means nothing. I thank the lard that NPR and The News Hour on PBS rarely cover these kinds of cases very much, or at least they understand their relative importance (or lack thereof), and only devote a minimum of coverage to them. Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 I'm going to depart from my usual no-pissing-on thread rule and say who fucking cares? I'm even sicker of hearing about this than I was with OJ. People kill each other every damn day. If they don't do it in some spectacular or innovative way, they don't deserve my goddamn attention. Amen. Who the fuck cares. I also rarely piss on threads, so my apologies for doing so here. It's just that I feel very strongly about the near total lack of importance of events like this. People die every day. And to devote this much media attention to one such case, is pure insanity. Again, sorry to be pissing in the cheerios here, but that's the way I feel. Quote
Dan Gould Posted November 4, 2004 Author Report Posted November 4, 2004 Look, Court TV has covered it exhaustively, and why not? Its there purpose. Otherwise, CNN.com has posted an article on each day's doings, and that's about the extent of the media coverage from where I stand. And considering the facts of the case and the fact that the case is entirely circumstantial, it seems to me the people on the jury have an extremely difficult challenge, one that few juries ever get. On that basis alone, getting the opinions of board members seems like a reasonable thing to do. And like they say, not interested, then don't open the thread. Quote
RDK Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 Yeah, he probably did it. But I fear any punishment will have to be meted out by the Lord. Oh who am I kidding. He's gonna walk... B-) Quote
Jazzmoose Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 Court TV is just there to give the unemployable something to do... Quote
Jazzmoose Posted November 4, 2004 Report Posted November 4, 2004 On that basis alone, getting the opinions of board members seems like a reasonable thing to do. If you really want the opinion of board members, why not ask, instead of putting up some silly poll in which each option reflects your opinion of certain guilt? Just curious... Quote
Dan Gould Posted November 5, 2004 Author Report Posted November 5, 2004 If you really want the opinion of board members, why not ask, instead of putting up some silly poll in which each option reflects your opinion of certain guilt? Just curious... Sorry Mark, but its impossible to hold all four of those opinions simultaneously. The only option I failed to account for was not guilty on second degree murder. But I figured anyone believing that can go for #2 anyway. And speaking of which, no one yet believes he's innocent, a handful think the state has not met its burden of proof. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted November 5, 2004 Report Posted November 5, 2004 Oops; missed the "not guilty" option-sorry bout that... Quote
Jim Alfredson Posted November 5, 2004 Report Posted November 5, 2004 I was really hoping this topic would not reach this board. Quote
Dan Gould Posted November 5, 2004 Author Report Posted November 5, 2004 Sorry Jim, you can always delete it if you want. Quote
sheldonm Posted November 6, 2004 Report Posted November 6, 2004 My opinion is that he is a scumbag and that he will be found guilty. That said, I know nothing of the facts presented in the courtroom and he may walk! If he is guilty, he'll get what commin'. Quote
Dan Gould Posted November 12, 2004 Author Report Posted November 12, 2004 GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY! What will be interesting is whether it will stand up on appeal-they've got a couple of appellate issues, I think. I have to admit when I first heard they came to a verdict so quickly after the last juror dumping made me think he was going to be found not guilty. But I'd have to imagine that the deposed jurors, especially the lawyer-doctor, were holding out against the majority. I do think justice was done. Quote
BERIGAN Posted November 13, 2004 Report Posted November 13, 2004 The jury's deliberating, so you better vote quick! it was quick!!!!!!! Glad for this verdict...Wanna know what's really sick??? A fair number of women were lining up to be the next murdered woman in his life...I know, nothing really new in cases like this, but still sick... Quote
DTMX Posted November 13, 2004 Report Posted November 13, 2004 GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY! If they acquitted him, I was going to go out and riot. I need a new television. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.