I was thinking about Scott Peterson's case last night, and you know what - I don't think he can be found guilty in the end. Sure he might be called guilty at first but on appeal he will most likely win. Why? Glad you asked. The prosecution is trying him on a double charge for killing two people - his wife, and his unborn son. This is where I think they've shot themselves in the foot. To nail him for the son they have to prove that life begins before birth. So they have to argue that he has denied an American citizen the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But seeing as abortion is perfectly legal in California, surely that definition isn't going to come thru right? Right....yeah? Am I going nowhere here?! lol So won't he get off on a technicality because the prosecution has framed their case in a certain way?
Am I way off here?
Mrbungle you are on the money, those 3 special words are the stomper here "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".
They, the prosecution have not done that. And I do not think you should suddenly say "oh you can now try to go for second degree murder, if that makes you feel better". Either you have a case, or you do not.
Circumstantial evidence and plea arrangements are used to easily, instead of proper good old fashioned police work etc.
Not enough evidence to pin it on him. Not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They can't convict IMO. (Although that doesn't stop me thinking he did it)
But he must be guilty. The media tells me so.
Who cares about some silly American guy with crap hair and his dopey wife from California.
Don't they know America and its puppy have occupied a foreign country?
They should all found guilty of wasting our time and being wankers.
I ve been following this case closely have read the court transcripts and the legal experts opinions . seems like the prosecution have handled this in a clumsy manor from the start.
They have,nt got any evidence (blood ,signs of stuggle ) etc from the house and no clue as to how and when he killed her *if he did* but they are putting up a case that he killed he on 23 dec in the bedroom . the boat didnt have any DNA in it either and the cavadar dogs took the police to another site .a lot of folks want him to be quilty cus of his character (screwing around lying cheating ) and such but the law dont work like that .
As much as the religious right may like it we dont have (moral laws ) here and we should not JUDGE anothers action and comdem him or her because of them
Problem as i see it wether he is quilty or not under the law the prosecution has to PROVE he did it NOT the defensedoes,nt have to prove he didnt and any doubt must go to the defendant .
There can be no supposition .thoeries , or conjecture on the juries part either, there is either enought evidence to prove he did it *beyond a reasonble doubt * or there isnt , im my mind we are heading for another OJ .
Who cares about some silly American guy with crap hair and his dopey wife from California.
Don't they know America and its puppy have occupied a foreign country?
They should all found guilty of wasting our time and being wankers.
I'm really going to have to come up there and sort you out.
I really dont think Mrs P and Connor deserved what they got, from their murderers or you really for that matter. Wanker!
Yeah Moo, don't you realize - these people were white and middle class. If it could happen to them it could happen to anyone! roll
I really dont think Mrs P and Connor deserved what they got, from their murderers or you really for that matter. Wanker!
Of course they didn't deserve it, but that's not the point.
These sensational trials are just another form of reality TV, and reality TV calls reality into question.
We don't simply watch the trial, we consume it. Its a delicious seductive spectacle created for us, and we then feel, but its an alienated emotion, but an emotion nevertheless.
We care about these people because are forced to care, we don't choose anymore, its rent an opinion. CNN simply has two opposing view points, you take one or the other, they never agree or find common ground they don't need to, thats not their job. Its production and consumption. What's meaningful in culture is consumption, not the product, its the sensational (i.e. a husband killing his pretty pregnant wife, whose child has a name and identity), it could be a puppy in a microwave or a Paris Hilton porno tape, its just 'the spectacle', we are both repulsed and seduced.
You don't care about an Iraqi being killed in a remote precision bomb strike, the remoteness won't allow us to consume it, it needs to be packaged, needs to be wrapped up in signs. It would only have meaning if, if there was a story wrapped around it. If we were told that, he'd just come back from university to look after his dying sister, and his grandfather who paid for his education had to sell all his camels and now the family is destitute. The story is sad but heroic.
Moo you really do stand up to you name, full of bull crap.
I don't think the sensationalism was any thing to do with your offensive post of "his dopey wife ". God forbid that you should have something so terribly shocking happen to your family. Do you have any compassion in that tiny tiny p***s shaped head of yours evil
I really dont think Mrs P and Connor deserved what they got, from their murderers or you really for that matter. Wanker!
Of course they didn't deserve it, but that's not the point.
These sensational trials are just another form of reality TV, and reality TV calls reality into question.
We don't simply watch the trial, we consume it. Its a delicious seductive spectacle created for us, and we then feel, but its an alienated emotion, but an emotion nevertheless.
We care about these people because are forced to care, we don't choose anymore, its rent an opinion. CNN simply has two opposing view points, you take one or the other, they never agree or find common ground they don't need to, thats not their job. Its production and consumption. What's meaningful in culture is consumption, not the product, its the sensational (i.e. a husband killing his pretty pregnant wife, whose child has a name and identity), it could be a puppy in a microwave or a Paris Hilton porno tape, its just 'the spectacle', we are both repulsed and seduced.
You don't care about an Iraqi being killed in a remote precision bomb strike, the remoteness won't allow us to consume it, it needs to be packaged, needs to be wrapped up in signs. It would only have meaning if, if there was a story wrapped around it. If we were told that, he'd just come back from university to look after his dying sister, and his grandfather who paid for his education had to sell all his camels and now the family is destitute. The story is sad but heroic.
Bravo Sir. Someone on my commuter train this morning commented on how awful it was of the free paper to publish a picture of a dying marine on a stretcher, not it was awful he was dying, that it was awful it was published, it might make people upset you know...
Moo you really do stand up to you name, full of bull crap.
I don't think the sensationalism was any thing to do with your offensive post of "his dopey wife ". God forbid that you should have something so terribly shocking happen to your family. Do you have any compassion in that tiny tiny p***s shaped head of yours :evil:
If you weren't such a babe I'd take that personally. :wink:
I hope you get the verdict you were hoping.
Moo you really do stand up to you name, full of bull crap.
I don't think the sensationalism was any thing to do with your offensive post of "his dopey wife ". God forbid that you should have something so terribly shocking happen to your family. Do you have any compassion in that tiny tiny p***s shaped head of yours :evil:
If you weren't such a babe I'd take that personally. :wink:
I hope you get the verdict you were hoping.
I was not commenting on the hype that this cases produce, but just your lack of respect to a woman who has been murdered. Would you have the nerve to tell her parents that she 'was just a dopey wife'.Do you really think that they deserve to have their daughter spoken about by someone who has never met her. You really could have phrased it better.
As for the babe comment, well don't get me started on that one :roll:
I'm not sure whose lack of respect is worse - Moo's for his loose comment or the media and those that it panders to, with their blanket coverage of her murder trial.
The irony is that with their in-depth coverage, they seem to bugger up the trials and the "accused" get off far more lightly than they would if cameras and the whole reality TV bollocks were left outside the courthouse.
I certainly retract the 'dopey' comment, it came out wrong, it was meant as an symbol of her as being dehumanized. Because of the TV coverage, she is not human with all of her intricacies and qualities, she has just become a series of images and codes.
Sort of like when we think we understand or know a celebrity, if we ever meet them in person they are usually totally different to our expectations, we never know them as human beings.