»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Scott Peterson Case
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Scott Peterson Case |
|
|
NavySEAL Junior Member
since 2003-03-21
Posts 17 |
Just curious to see what everyone's thoughts are about this case? The trial just recently got a change of venue. Do you think that will help Mark Geragos' client at all by giving Scott a more "fair" trial? Or do you think it is simply a stalling mechanism for the defense? I think the change of venue is needed, but I am not sure how much it is going to help Mark Geragos' client considering all the information that has been released to the public as well as the fact that Scott Peterson seems to be, at this point, the only suspect in these murders. I believe an hour and half away could be slightly helpful where the public may not have been so well informed about the facts that have been released...but either way, I think it's going to be hard to find a jury that, as a whole, has no knowledge of this case at all... |
||
| © Copyright 2004 NavySEAL - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
If it is possible at all to find 12 people who have never heard of the case, they would probably be so generally uninformed that they would not make reasonable jurors anyway. It would seem unreasonable to trust any life to decisions made by such a jury. Actually, what they can all hope for is to find a jury that has not already reached an opinion on the case or, in the very least, can set aside their predetermined opinions and reach unbiased conclusions based solely on the evidence presented. That should be a reasonable goal. Pete |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
It's sometimes a "fairly given fact" that smaller communities, as a whole, will view things a little differently than having a jury sit on a matter which is not really "in their own back yard". It is the defense counsel's hope that another venue will provide a more "objective" look at the facts. Modesto is still a "small community", if you ask the townfolk. [I know this, I was a resident there for six years.] But I agree in that there is too much publicity for a truly "fair trial" to be had. I would not want to sit on this jury, as I know I have already been given [as have most who read a paper or watch the news] to much information. I would almos expect defense counsel to play up on that and muddy the waters even more. In cases like this, oftentimes facts get strewn amid the conjecture. The "trial" has, for the most part, been played out over the media. If we were to hold a mock trial here, how would you vote, based on the information you have to date? |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Excellent question, Sunshine. From what I know of the case, it appears that he probably commited the acts of murder, but I would have to analyze all of the facts to come to a final conclusion. So, as of now, I would abstain from rendering a verdict. |
||
|
NavySEAL Junior Member
since 2003-03-21
Posts 17 |
In this case it seems that he is guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty based solely on the evidence that I know. Also, there isn't another suspect in the case...so I'm going with guilty. The fact that Lacy and her unborn child turned up in the marina where Scott said he was fishing that night she "disapeared" (note: he said he was fishing there well before they turned up, and I am assuming he never in his right mind thought the bodies would ever surface, to bad he didn't realize that bodies decompose in water, and tying a body to a cinder block with rope will not keep a body tied down forever). |
||
KristieSue
since 2003-01-31
Posts 1460PA, US |
ugh...I had quite a post...and it erased *sigh* will repost tomorrow. nite all! LOL "Painting is poetry which is seen and not heard, and poetry is a painting which is heard but not seen." ~Leonardo da Vinci |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
