I am a Republican who is pro-choice. I don't think CONSENTING to have an abortion is murder. But people cannot go around forcibly aborting pregnancies. I would call it a single murder and a forcible abortion of pregnancy. Things are not always black and white. Either way this guy is screwed.
Scott Peterson and Double Murder
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Well, here's my question then: what is the difference that you see between this and murder? I think most Americans would feel this is double murder (but maybe I'm wrong). In other words, what makes this a "forced abortion"? Surely you're not saying just because the baby is in the womb, it's not a murder? Are you saying the baby is just "tissue" when it's in the womb? I'm not trying to be combatitive - I just don't get it.
Circumstances?
Hardly. Show me some physical evidence that ties him to the murder.
Again, not to mention the fact that he shows up at the mexican border with 10k on his person, a false id and his hair dyed. I would also call that circumstantial evidence. What I don't know if they have is a motive. But this guy was (assuming he was guilty) a monster and probably would have killed her for brushing her teeth wrong.
Quote from hapaboy:
Oye Cubano, I thought you were against capital punishment amigo!
I don't think I was.....I was only arguing the cost of drugs and how they would run up by your so called "shoot and Kill every drug dealer in site" philosophy....and run down be legalizing it....Im an eye for and eye kind of guy......
You don't understand the legal process in America very well, do you.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Without any physical evidence tying him to murder, it is just innuendo.
Try reasonable doubt sometime, it is the basis of our freedom in this country.
My only hope is that some day you stand innocent before a jury of "your" level of peers who have prejudged you without a thorough examination and cross examination of the evidence.
I agree...no hard evidence yet but they should have some pretty solid stuff to have charged him. The circumstances against him are pretty extraordinary. It is certainly conceivable that he did not do it, and with what the public has now - I don't think it's enough to convict him.
That said, I would expect there to be some pretty incontrovertable physical evidence to be presented at trial, else the police would not have charged him at this point. It's not a crime to continue to act like an asshole after your wife goes missing, especially if he wanted her to go away.
He was sure acting squirrelly if he is innocent. I think I remember him being reported as "uncooperative" by the authorities early on in this. If I'm in his shoes, I'm thinking I'm suspect number one from word one of the investigation. My first duty is to lawyer up and get myself cleared so they can focus on the true suspects. He didn't seem to be very cooperative, which implies something to hide. His actions since have served to reinforce his guilt in the eyes of the public so far.
I find it a little disturbing that we assume someone is guilty of double homicide because he didn't demonstrate sufficient histrionics for the news cameras. Not everyone reacts that way. And yes, I think this guy gives the impression of being a cold, arrogant jerk who easily could have committed the crime. But this is not Opra. The fact that a husband broke down or not doesn't prove anything, but it may have plenty to do with the police's zoning in on him. As I recall, there was a case a few years ago where a couple had killed and disposed of their kids and they cried nonstop on camera, all the time pleading for their kid's return. It proves nothing, except how feminized our society has become.
If you are the judge and this case comes to trial with the evidence being (a) he had an affair, (b) he didn't demonstrate any emotion, and (c) he dyed his hair and carried cash, I really wonder if you can let it go to the jury. Don't forget in the OJ case, there was abundant physical evidence, plus an attempt to flee. Here they said he was "near" the border. His parents live in San Diego, how much nearer can you get?
If you are the judge and this case comes to trial with the evidence being (a) he had an affair, (b) he didn't demonstrate any emotion, and (c) he dyed his hair and carried cash, I really wonder if you can let it go to the jury. Don't forget in the OJ case, there was abundant physical evidence, plus an attempt to flee. Here they said he was "near" the border. His parents live in San Diego, how much nearer can you get?