I always thought his atty did a horrid job, and now, Scott Peterson, convicted of killing wife, Laci, has case picked up by LA Innocence Project,

[snailspace]

Scott Peterson, convicted of killing wife, Laci, has case picked up by LA Innocence Project, report says​

https://www.aol.com/scott-peterson-convicted-killing-wife-002520382.html

It should be remembered that there was no forensic evidence that Laci actually killed. Seems that the case focused on his computer searches and his smirk. Im not saying he is innocent, but for the case to be picked up says smart people have a question.

 

[pocjet]

I was all over the case at that time. The Satanic Cult defense was stupid!

BTW, for the pro abortion crowd who say that abortion isnt murder, he was convicted of TWO KILLINGS, including that of his unborn son, how is that possible unless abortion is KILLING A HUMAN?

 

[HisArpy]

I wouldn't say that "smart people" are asking questions. Rather I'd say that passionate people have looked at the record in the case.

There's no guarantee that they'll come up with anything. Or that even if they do it will change anything.

 

[pocjet]

I wouldn't say that "smart people" are asking questions. Rather I'd say that passionate people have looked at the record in the case.

There's no guarantee that they'll come up with anything. Or that even if they do it will change anything.

true, but,

The LA Innocence Project attorneys told ABC News that Peterson's constitutional rights were violated, and he has newly discovered evidence to support his claim of actual innocence.

"New evidence now supports Mr. Peterson's longstanding claim of innocence and raises many questions into who abducted and killed Laci and Conner Peterson," filings obtained by ABC News state.

Strong words, dont you think?

 

[HisArpy]

true, but,


Strong words, dont you think?

Not really because every con says they're innocent.

OTOH I was of the opinion at the time he was pronounced guilty no so much on the evidence as on the media hype.

 

[pocjet]

reread what I quoted, the quote is re other then Peterson

yes, I agree, he was convicted before the trial......Mark G did a horrible job and the media and jury killed him cause of the SMIRK


he may be guilty...........But how is it possible to convict when there was no forensic proof she was even MURDERED?

 

[pocjet]

good read.....there is real reason to believe he may b innocent

https://www.courttv.com/news/revisiting-the-scott-peterson-case-20-years-later/

 

[HisArpy]

reread what I quoted, the quote is re other then Peterson

yes, I agree, he was convicted before the trial......Mark G did a horrible job and the media and jury killed him cause of the SMIRK


he may be guilty...........But how is it possible to convict when there was no forensic proof she was even MURDERED?

It used to be that in order to prove the corpus of the case for a murder, the State had to produce a dead body of the alleged victim. Somewhere along the line that requirement disappeared and the burden shifted to the defense to produce the alleged victim hale and hearty in the courtroom.

Peterson was convicted by the media before the grand jury was empaneled. Against that tide of media manufactured public sentiment his lawyer had no chance.

We see parallels of that today with another high profile defendant.

 

[SubzeroGirl]

Or they need more attention. What better way than to take on a sensationalized case?

 

[YDB95]

BTW, for the pro abortion crowd who say that abortion isnt murder, he was convicted of TWO KILLINGS, including that of his unborn son, how is that possible unless abortion is KILLING A HUMAN?

What's the difference between a Lit deplorable and Barney?

One is a dinosaur with simplistic answers. And the other is purple.