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.
Please cite the highly reliable inculpatory evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott murdered Laci.
(I have never found anyone, anywhere, who could do this.)
Scott Peterson was found guilty after a trial. His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction.
I have no idea what you are asking for, unless you're requesting that I summarize the facts of the trial and list them here ... which is obviously a bit absurd.
Circumstantial evidence can be just as probative or even more probative than direct evidence (99% of the time direct evidence means an eyewitness). Moreover, either direct evidence (no direct evidence was presented at Scott's trial) or circumstantial evidence can be inculpatory evidence.
Still, what is of utmost importance is for inculpatory evidence to be established as highly reliable (a very, very high degree of certainty). For proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents an extremely high hurdle (say 99% certain), and you cannot hurdle that very high level of certainty with evidence that is of lesser certainty.
HTH
I've followed enough criminal trials to know that when someone wants to argue that a guilty person is innocent, the first game plan is to parse the facts. Referencing Aristotle: "the whole is greater than the sum of its part". That is, although it is fairly easy to view each piece of evidence in isolation and argue that it is irrelevant, it is the whole of the evidence that must be relied on when considering circumstantial evidence.
For example, in the circumstantial evidence explanation referenced above:
If John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room, it means nothing.
If he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, it means nothing.
If he heard a shot, again, in itself it is meaningless.
If he saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, perhaps Tom shot a snake.
Nothing can be understood from the facts if they are viewed in isolation.
Scott Peterson was found guilty after a trial. His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction.
I have no idea what you are asking for, unless you're requesting that I summarize the facts of the trial and list them here ... which is obviously a bit absurd.
I'll rephrase my original request: please cite the highly reliable evidence that you maintain proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would note the source of the following statement that you made in your post: "His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction."
I'll rephrase my original request: please cite the highly reliable evidence that you maintain proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would note the source of the following statement that you made in your post: "His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction."
I rely on the evidence presented at trial to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson is guilty of murder. I have no intention of listing the trial evidence here - which should not be interpreted as an absence of evidence. It's one thing to discuss a case, it's something entirely different to demand that all valid trial evidence be provided on a forum in the same way that it was presented in the courtroom. I doubt that anyone is going to provide that service for you.
The source for my understanding of Scott's objection to his conviction is the contents of his appeal, where he argues that his 8 month fetus was not alive, therefore he, Connor, could not be murdered.
There isn't a theory. Police decided to arrest him. According to police, that led to a high speed, dangerous game of cat and mouse with the police. Scott could live off grid for several months using everything that he had packed in his car. Does that imply guilt? No. Does it raise serious questions about his plans? Yes.
Again I'm going to urge you to read the court transcripts. Show me the testimony of one officer who testified that Scott evaded them after they decided to effect the traffic stop. It didn't happen.
I could likely live months off-grid with the items in my vehicle right now; it means nothing. He's an avid outdoorsman with camping equipment in his car. That's really all there was to it. Again, only when you presume Scott guilty would those items raise any questions.
Again I'm going to urge you to read the court transcripts. Show me the testimony of one officer who testified that Scott evaded them after they decided to effect the traffic stop. It didn't happen.
I could likely live months off-grid with the items in my vehicle right now; it means nothing. He's an avid outdoorsman with camping equipment in his car. That's really all there was to it. Again, only when you presume Scott guilty would those items raise any questions.
The fact that Scott evaded police at the time of the arrest is not evidence of murder. Why would that information be in the trial transcripts? Why would anyone assume that facts unrelated to the act of committing murder, and therefore not in trial testimony, are no longer facts?
Regarding the fifteen thousand dollars that Scott Peterson had in his car, I see no reason to assume that the money has something to do with being an "avid outdoorsman". I also don't assume that $15,000 in cash is meaningless when the man with the money is evading police who intend to arrest him for murder.
I rely on the evidence presented at trial to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson is guilty of murder. I have no intention of listing the trial evidence here - which should not be interpreted as an absence of evidence. It's one thing to discuss a case, it's something entirely different to demand that all valid trial evidence be provided on a forum in the same way that it was presented in the courtroom. I doubt that anyone is going to provide that service for you.
The source for my understanding of Scott's objection to his conviction is the contents of his appeal, where he argues that his 8 month fetus was not alive, therefore he, Connor, could not be murdered.
It appears that you wish to discuss the case, but not the inculpatory evidence in the case and/or the inculpatory evidence that was presented at trial. And if I held Scott to be guilty, as you do, I would not want to discuss the case/trial inculpatory evidence that I based my "guilty" position on either.
Moreover, I never requested of you, much less demanded, to have "all valid trial evidence be provided on a forum in the same way that it was presented in the courtroom." Instead of creating strawmen or otherwise simply making things up, please quote me from now on.
As regards Scott's objections to his conviction, they can be found in his 470 page appeal document that was filed on his behalf by the attorney handling his appeal, Cliff Gardner. This may well surprise you, but the concerns/issue/objections contained therein are far more numerous and serious than was represented in your post that stated: "His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction."
It appears that you wish to discuss the case, but not the inculpatory evidence in the case and/or the inculpatory evidence that was presented at trial. And if I held Scott to be guilty, as you do, I would not want to discuss the case/trial inculpatory evidence that I based my "guilty" position on either.
Moreover, I never requested of you, much less demanded, to have "all valid trial evidence be provided on a forum in the same way that it was presented in the courtroom." Instead of creating strawmen or otherwise simply making things up, please quote me from now on.
As regards Scott's objections to his conviction, they can be found in his 470 page appeal document that was filed on his behalf by the attorney handling his appeal, Cliff Gardner. This may well surprise you, but the concerns/issue/objections contained therein are far more numerous and serious than was represented in your post that stated: "His only objection to the conviction seems to be that he doesn't view his 8 month fetus as a viable person, so he doesn't agree with that conviction."
I can discuss the case, but I'm not interested in typing the trial evidence into a forum.
What is the explanation for Laci's hair entwined in the plyers in Scott's boat?
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.
