Friday, November 12, 2004


I would not have voted that way--I just never saw any EVIDENCE! Did I miss something? Let me know in the comment section below.


paul said...

I don't know. Seems to me as though the case was too circumstantial. The jury must have seen something solid to come back with a first degree conviction though.

But if the alleged independent research story is true, and the research reached the other jurors, I can't see how the verdict would be upheld.

The judge should get them to swear they would have come to the same conclusion without the research, which he hasn't done yet I don't think.

Anonymous said...

I don't know, I think he was a scumb bag and if he didn't kill her, it seems he didn't care that she was dead.

Ghost Dansing said...

One of my pet peeves... really saw a weak case. However, I don't really give a darn about Scott Peterson.. don't know why he is on television.

The media should stop using the Judicial System as some sort of cheap soap opera... the Judicial System should not be used as entertainment.

A report that a murder happened and somebody is being tried, and the results of that trial is quite enough news coverage. Instead, media exposure have become ingredients in the strategy of both defense and prosecution. The networks eat it up. They could be focused on some real investigative reporting. However real reporting is expensive. Carnival side-shows at taxpayers expense is cheap.

Bookmark Widget