Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peterson's defense lawyers based his case on the lack of direct evidence, and downplayed the significance of circumstantial evidence.[20] They suggested that the remains of the fetus were that of a full-term infant, and theorized that someone else had kidnapped Laci, held her until she gave birth, and then dumped both bodies in the bay. However, the prosecution's medical experts were able to prove that the baby had never grown to full term, and died at the same time as his mother.[21] Geragos suggested that a Satanic cult kidnapped the pregnant woman.[22] He also claimed that Peterson was "a cad"[20] for cheating on his pregnant wife, but not a murderer.
For Casey, the prosecution theory was reasonable, the defense theory was absurd and beyond reasonable belief.
I for one...if I had been on the Scott Peterson's jury -
would not have been able to come to a verdict of guilty,
from what I heard on TV. Peterson will be waiting a very long time for his appeal.
I actually thought the Anthony
case would have ended in a hung jury, with all the bias.
I'm actually "shocked" it was unanimous.
Who would have thought 12 folks in Florida looked at the evidence, the same way I did.
Last edited by pollyrobin; 07-07-2011 at 04:06 AM..
I for one...if I had been on the Scott Peterson's jury -
would not have been able to come to a verdict of guilty,
from what I heard on TV. Peterson will be waiting a very long time for his appeal.
I actually thought the Anthony
case would have ended in a hung jury, with all the bias.
I'm actually "shocked" it was unanimous.
Who would have thought 12 folks in Florida looked at the evidence, the same way I did.
We had 12 idiots on the jury panel, and one stupid Judge for allowing this. Anybody clearly saw the truth.
These 12 jurors should be ashamed of themselves. I heard on the TV non of them were giving interviews...ummm, I wonder why?
The judge DID NOT "allow" this - the verdict was handed down by a jury of 12 men and women who had reasonable doubt. This is the way our system works. We do not find someone guilty or innocent based on polls or media accounts.
As for jurors being interviewed - some are now stepping forward. But, with attitudes such as yours, why would they want to subject themselves to the abuse you would heap upon them?
The judge DID NOT "allow" this - the verdict was handed down by a jury of 12 men and women who had reasonable doubt. This is the way our system works. We do not find someone guilty or innocent based on polls or media accounts.
As for jurors being interviewed - some are now stepping forward. But, with attitudes such as yours, why would they want to subject themselves to the abuse you would heap upon them?
Sorry, I don't agree with you. A Judge can overturn a ruling is need be, what is he sitting there for, his good looks.
the jurors were all idiots not to see the truth.
Our system does not work well. yet we have drug addicts going to jail and murderers are set free. yes, our system is lovely, just lovley.
Sorry, I don't agree with you. A Judge can overturn a ruling is need be, what is he sitting there for, his good looks. the jurors were all idiots not to see the truth.
Our system does not work well. yet we have drug addicts going to jail and murderers are set free. yes, our system is lovely, just lovley.
you gotta be kidding me????
Yeah..YOUR truth huh ? Really..all the jurors were idiots..really ?
Sorry, I don't agree with you. A Judge can overturn a ruling is need be, what is he sitting there for, his good looks.
the jurors were all idiots not to see the truth.
Our system does not work well. yet we have drug addicts going to jail and murderers are set free. yes, our system is lovely, just lovley.
you gotta be kidding me????
You are right, the judge could have overturned a jury verdict - which is so rare (JNWTV) that you would have to search real hard to find one.
Our system is the best system in the world - hence why other countries seek to adopt ours.
BTW, in a case being heard before a jury, the judges primary job is one of management - and that includes the ruling of objections made and matters of law.
You are right, the judge could have overturned a jury verdict - which is so rare (JNWTV) that you would have to search real hard to find one.
Our system is the best system in the world - hence why other countries seek to adopt ours.
BTW, in a case being heard before a jury, the judges primary job is one of management - and that includes the ruling of objections made and matters of law.
Sorry - I don't agree with you.
I do not believe a judge can over turn a "not guilty verdict". A judge can only over turn a "guilty verdict" which the prosecution can appeal. But a not guilty verdict by a jury is final.
I do not believe a judge can over turn a "not guilty verdict". A judge can only over turn a "guilty verdict" which the prosecution can appeal. But a not guilty verdict by a jury is final.
Or you'd have double gippardy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
