Hey Kenny, I have a painting of thr Last Supper that is better then DeVinci and is being researeched by Sothebys In NY.
I never said I didn't care what happened to Scott as a human( monster). I just said CE is important. Tired of arguing the same thing have been thru for over two years. YOu know that.
D
aka deltacent aka deltater
Life may not be the party I had hoped for.......
But while I'm here I might just as well listen to the music and dance..
I guess it is a matter of perspective... from the outside people are content to say .. hey these circumstances are suspicious enough for me.. go ahead fry him .. better safe than sorry.
From the perspective of someone accused and their family it must be scary... but what does being a bad husband have to do with being a murderer, there is no proof... etc. etc.
Whom do we reserve our sympathy for? Solely for the victims of murder, or de we reserve any for those that may be wrongfully accused? It is the very act of being accused create the impression in the public minds that this person must deserve it?
Decide if the path to a better future lies in building a better war machine or in building the relationships that will make the war machine obsolete!
This isnt about ME...there isnt one person in this world that shouldnt be concerned with something like this.
You pass it off as it means nothing...when in actuality, it means so very much.
Absolutely. Count me in here.
It has been famously said that it would be better to let the occasional guilty person go free than to wrongly convict the innocent. Our legal system is supposed to be set up so that you have to prove guilt. That was simply not done here.
People entered this case with an unshakeable presumption of guilt, followed up by complete disinterest in any evidence that might have questioned that presumption. Our friend Delta "knows" that Scott killed Laci. Really? Did she see him do it? If so, she'd have been a better witness than anything that the prosecution actually presented. Of course, she "knows" this not because she was an accomplice, a witness or privy to any actual evidence, but basically because he failed to behave in a manner that held up her stereotype of "innocent husband of murdered 8-month-pregnant wife."
Sure, the fact that he was sleazing around and not terribly emotive would be good enough to put him on top of the list of suspects, but it just isn't sufficient grounds in the United States to convict someone of murder. Not all slimy and cold people are murderers. Not all murderers are slimy and cold.
Not all guilty people look and act guilty and not all innocent people present themselves as being as white as the driven snow.
Convicting people because of their questionable, but noncriminal, behavior is a total violation of legal principles as we understand them in this country. You could be the coldest, meanest, sleaziest, crummiest, lousiest excuse for a human being and most worthless pile of crud that ever drew in air, but if you didn't commit the crime you're charged with, you shouldn't be found guilty of it. In this case, we don't know who committed the crime. There was no tangible evidence, either linking Scott to it or showing that he had anything to gain from it, presented. He was convicted basically because he was sleeping around and didn't cry well enough in front of the cameras.
This conviction opens a door that should frighten anyone who respects that appearance is not always reality.
Can't wait to hear it. I would be amazed to hear of any CE that would "nail someone"... you speak of it as a proverbial smoking gun... of course that is impossible.... a smoking gun would constitute tangible hard evidence
Decide if the path to a better future lies in building a better war machine or in building the relationships that will make the war machine obsolete!
Phalaris said this in post #64 : Convicting people because of their questionable, but noncriminal, behavior is a total violation of legal principles as we understand them in this country. You could be the coldest, meanest, sleaziest, crummiest, lousiest excuse for a human being and most worthless pile of crud that ever drew in air, but if you didn't commit the crime you're charged with, you shouldn't be found guilty of it. In this case, we don't know who committed the crime. There was no tangible evidence, either linking Scott to it or showing that he had anything to gain from it, presented. He was convicted basically because he was sleeping around and didn't cry well enough in front of the cameras.
This conviction opens a door that should frighten anyone who respects that appearance is not always reality.
Exactly!!
Interestingly enough (and I had this on this forum one other time)..but it rings as true as this case did...(and oddly...another Scott). This man was also having an affair...but his girlfriend came up dead...not his wife...thats the only difference here.
Hornoff, a married father with an infant son, had been having an affair with Cushman. The relationship of Barry, a self-employed carpenter and contractor, with the victim remained unclear Monday. "He knew her and I don't care to get into the details of his statement at this point," Whitehouse said.
In June of 1996, Jeffrey Scott Hornoff was convicted of First Degree Murder for the 1989 death of Victoria Cushman. Scott's conviction came seven years after Ms. Cushman's death. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, innuendoes and speculation. There were no fingerprints, no blood evidence, no DNA matches, no witnesses, and no evidence.
In 1999, Scott's motion for a new trial was denied, leaving Scott to look forward to spending the rest of his life in prison.
Hornoff, a married father with an infant son, did not testify at trial but maintained his innocence at his sentencing before Superior Court Robert Krause, Wednesday, Krause will rule on a petition by the attorney general's office on release terms for Hornoff.
Hornoff appealed but his life sentence was affirmed in 1999. He has continued to profess his innocence and in pushing for DNA testing interested the group truthinjustice.org on his behalf.
"The case," the group asserts on its Web site, "was based on circumstantial evidence, innuendoes and speculation. There were no fingerprints, no blood evidence, no DNA matches, no witnesses, and no evidence."
Jeffrey Scott Hornoff was released from prison in January after Todd Barry, a Cranston carpenter, pleaded guilty to the 1989 murder of Victoria Cushman. Hornoff was exonerated after serving six years in prison.
If it werent for Tood Barry eventually admitting that he did it...Hornoff would still be in prison based on a theory...
This is what our justice system is supposed to stand for? Im appaulled that people on juries can be so terribly naive!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I am so tired of the scott Peterson case. I spent two years of y life covering every move on it.
If you all want to go and read it go to Breaking news 12:39 there are close to 5000 posts. If that is not enough go to Prosecution rests but some people have questions. Between these two threads my POV is outlined as are the many reasons for finding him guilty.
As far as I am concerned its time to move on, Ihavehad enough.
YOuhave a special question pm me.
Thanx.
Delta
aka deltacent aka deltater
Life may not be the party I had hoped for.......
But while I'm here I might just as well listen to the music and dance..
HECK said this in post #2 : Circumstantial, yes. Now before I go on, let's not start with the O.J. case. I don't want to get started on that.
But there are some glaring points in this case. The dude was cheating on his pregnant wife, he was fishing the day she went missing downstream from where the bodies were found, he was trying to sell her car and their house about a week into the search... you get the idea. I don't think it's that much of a leap to see that this guy probably did it.
Notice I said *probably*. Albeit I am not a member of the jury or that well-versed in this case as others might be. But from I have read, I could not say he is guiltly *beyond a resonable doubt*.
-HECK!
Here's an easy test. If Scott Peterson could be absolutely eliminated - say he was in hospital with a broken pelvis - should the police investigate? If you say yes, he is not guilty, because that is reasonable doubt. In other words, if you can allow for the possibility that someone else did it, what evidence is there that only Scott could have done it?
Go look at any other case. Look at BTK. What possibility is there that anyone else did it? See the difference?
rowdyrjp said this in post #66 : Can't wait to hear it. I would be amazed to hear of any CE that would "nail someone"... you speak of it as a proverbial smoking gun... of course that is impossible.... a smoking gun would constitute tangible hard evidence
Only if a credible witness saw it being used! Otherwise it is CE.
Scott having Da Vinci's Last Supper
03-22-2005 02:30 AM
