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.
Which felons should not be believed? Todd and Pearce who say they robbed the Medina home on the 26th? Adam Tenbrink who said Todd approached him on Christmas Eve about participating in a burglary?
I'd like a new trial, too. I think the Prosecution would still prevail but with more clarity.
Yes, Todd and Pearce who said the burglary took place on the 26th. By the 26th, media was swarming the street. How could they not be noticed removing a safe from a house?
I don't know but if the Graybill and Servas timelines are to be deemed credible, so are all the other sightings. And Diane Jackson. That's another potentially credible witness. Ed Steele (the now retired police officer who spoke to her) now says that her sighting of the burglary suspects & a woman matching Laci's description should have been important but at the time he took the report, didn't bother to investigate it.
If all the information coming out in that episode of the A&E documentary are factual, Peterson deserves a new trial, imo. Not sure it will change the outcome but at the very least prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Especially when the sentence is death.
Steve Avery sat in jail for 17 years for a rape he didn't commit, he was there because he's poor, things like that shouldn't happen to anyone.
If you've ever taken a look at the Innocence Project website, there are 350 cases of people being released for crimes they didn't commit. Of that, 20 were murder cases. I don't even want to count how many people have already been executed for a crime they didn't commit but were convicted on circumstantial evidence. This is why I don't believe in the DP for those types of convictions.
Yes, Todd and Pearce who said the burglary took place on the 26th. By the 26th, media was swarming the street. How could they not be noticed removing a safe from a house?
I don't know but if the Graybill and Servas timelines are to be deemed credible, so are all the other sightings. And Diane Jackson. That's another potentially credible witness. Ed Steele (the now retired police officer who spoke to her) now says that her sighting of the burglary suspects & a woman matching Laci's description should have been important but at the time he took the report, didn't bother to investigate it.
If all the information coming out in that episode of the A&E documentary are factual, Peterson deserves a new trial, imo. Not sure it will change the outcome but at the very least prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Especially when the sentence is death.
Graybills timelines are probably the most accurate due to time stamps on some mailboxes, that doesn't mean anything concerning the gate or the dog not barking, just his time.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50678
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
If you've ever taken a look at the Innocence Project website, there are 350 cases of people being released for crimes they didn't commit. Of that, 20 were murder cases. I don't even want to count how many people have already been executed for a crime they didn't commit but were convicted on circumstantial evidence. This is why I don't believe in the DP for those types of convictions.
I agree. I'm really sick and tired of people being convicted of horrific crimes and sentenced to long prison terms/even death, when it's obvious to anyone even reading the media accounts of the story that it doesn't add up and there isn't evidence they are guilty.
In Central Texas, Greg Kelley, Michael Morton, Lacresha Murray, Rodney Reed, the Yogurt Shop Murder 4, I'm kind of getting tired of typing people who are clearly innocent, or anyway not clearly guilty (whether they're now in the process and will likely get off, or whether they've been absolved) being sentenced by brain dead juries or malicious prosecution.
I agree. I'm really sick and tired of people being convicted of horrific crimes and sentenced to long prison terms/even death, when it's obvious to anyone even reading the media accounts of the story that it doesn't add up and there isn't evidence they are guilty.
In Central Texas, Greg Kelley, Michael Morton, Lacresha Murray, Rodney Reed, the Yogurt Shop Murder 4, I'm kind of getting tired of typing people who are clearly innocent, or anyway not clearly guilty (whether they're now in the process and will likely get off, or whether they've been absolved) being sentenced by brain dead juries or malicious prosecution.
Not living in Texas, I don't hear much about many cases but are you saying that all those people you named were convicted but may actually be innocent? That's just crazy! That sort of thing shouldn't be happening.
You know, I wish I could have faith in the whole concept of "jury of your peers" but since 24/7 cable news and shows like Nancy Grace have been on the air, people are convicted by the public through these media personalities long before their cases ever get to trial. It's shameful.
I'm not a lawbreaker by nature but if I was ever accused of a crime and had to stand trial, I'd opt for the judge to hear my case and forego a jury trial. People are lunatics nowadays. I wouldn't trust them to hear all the evidence and make a rational and informed decision. Sad commentary for our country.
Graybills timelines are probably the most accurate due to time stamps on some mailboxes, that doesn't mean anything concerning the gate or the dog not barking, just his time.
I've never met a dog that didn't bark at the mailman. If Graybill was walking by and the gate was open yet heard no barking? .... that dog was not in the backyard.
Question about Ted Rawlins and the time that he said he was at the Peterson house the day after Christmas. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I set it in my head that he stated that he was at the house at 5:30AM during one of the early parts of the documentary. In the latest one, he states that he was there at 5:00AM. Did anyone else notice this or remember these two different times?
I may take the time to go back and review this point, because it my memory is correct, this entire scenario that hinges on Ted Rawlins claim that the robbers were near the Peterson home the same day that she was reported missing falls completely apart. If he changed the times, then nothing he says about when he was there can be believed. If I'm mistaken, okay.
I believe that part of the trial was grossly unfair because the judge didn't allow the jury to hang.
That was a hung jury.
And instead, they made them deliberate and deliberate and deliberate until the one holdout was threatened and made to feel afraid, and he backed out and begged to be released.
You don't replace a dissenting juror if the jury is hung. You declare a mistrial.
After problems with the jury were sorted out, wasn't the jury verdict clear?
The original foreman was dismissed not because he had decided not guilty, but because he had stacks of notebooks and wanted to debate each detail that was presented over six months. The jury was going to need another six months to deliberate if he remained in charge, so he was removed from the jury on the basis that he was unable to process the information in such a way that he could arrive at a decision. He was elected foreman because he had law and medical degrees, but when it came to decision making skills he had serious problems.
If one of those witnesses actually saw Laci after 10:30, Scott didn't do it. No matter what color pants she had on. We need to do better then pants color.
It seems that you are believing the story presented in the documentary. From my perspective, it is a story built on false premises.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,636 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
After problems with the jury were sorted out, wasn't the jury verdict clear?
The original foreman was dismissed not because he had decided not guilty, but because he had stacks of notebooks and wanted to debate each detail that was presented over six months. The jury was going to need another six months to deliberate if he remained in charge, so he was removed from the jury on the basis that he was unable to process the information in such a way that he could arrive at a decision. He was elected foreman because he had law and medical degrees, but when it came to decision making skills he had serious problems.
I would like to go back and review the history. There were days after the trial rested, and it was in the hands of the jury. Several times they came out and asked for a few bits of information (as I recall) and were denied or granted that information. Then there was a long lag when they appeared hung. (as I recall).
A jury isn't "hung" officially until the judge allows them to declare that they were hung, and this judge did not allow that. (Although in reality, imho, they were hung). The judge kept making them deliberate even though they were at a complete impasse and the jury foreman was accused of "refusing to deliberate", although your memory is that he still wanted to deliberate. He refused to budge, as I recall, which made all the other jurors basically want to harm him. As I recall.
At any rate, in my opinion, after days of deliberating they were at a complete impasse and he was removed and replaced by another juror who quickly voted for guilty which was her whole intent the entire time after lying to get on this jury.
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.
