Thread: From 'Why did he?' to 'Did he?' in 28 days

Originally posted by Widgetsx3
May you never be tried before a jury of your peers with preconceived judgements. Innocent until PROVEN guilty....

I'm sorry, who was that too? Coming in just after my last post I'm not sure if it's directed at me... and being what would appear a Peterson supporter, I'm kinda confused?

Nope....not you...I was in the middle of a post...and walked away to put DS in bed....submitted after you...sorry for the confusion

Originally posted by Widgetsx3
May you never be tried before a jury of your peers with preconceived judgements. Innocent until PROVEN guilty....

I assume this was meant for me or anyone that thinks Scott Peterson is guilty. I felt he was guilty after watching him(the man himself) in the press. I am not just going by just what the press is saying. He has shown a lack of emotions towards his wife and unborn child. He has lied about things on his interview with Diane Sawyers and called back to get them to change his story before it aired. He was fishing the same place that her body was taken. The worst thing that he had said was when he told Amber that he was a widow and that his wife died a year ago. That is just plain sick. I realize that this is just what the press is saying he said to her and that it is just hear say. But I think that it was her sister that told them or it was something that she told the cops. What about when he changed his hair color and had 10 thousand dollars in the car with him. I don't think that he just wanted a makeover. All of the evidence will come out in the trail. You have your opinion and I have mine. I will not be tried before a jury of any kind because I live on the right side of the law. I don't commit crimes.

He may be guilty but I'm not sure one way or the other, the problem with the way the media is handling this makes me think of the Jon Benet case where the media seemed to intentionally shoot scenes to make them look guilty, like the snow all over the yard scene when there were clearly plenty of places the perp could have went in without steppping in snow and leaving footprints. The police targeted them also and for years this family was treated badly when they were already suffering the loss of a child, recently the police admitted they were innocent and that there was someone elses DNA on that childs body other than family.

The Ramsey case was screwed up from the begining because of the the shoddy police work. It is very possible that it wasn't someone in the family but because the investigation was so poorly handled in the first 24 hours, much of what could have been used as evidence was mucked up.

As for the Peterson case, if he isn't guilty then there had better be some really good evidence besides all of this cult misinformation and now this mystery Donnie person. This is just his defense team trying to put doubt in people's minds about his guilt. It's a wonderful ploy and it may have some impact. However in the end if there isn't hard evidence pointing to either of these groups, his defense is going to fall apart very quickly.

Originally posted by mom4angels
I will not be tried before a jury of any kind because I live on the right side of the law. I don't commit crimes.

I find it particularly interesting in this day and age, that ppl still say this. I would say do a search on the internet of all the ppl who have been freed that were unjustly arrested, convicted, and later released due to someone finally having a conscience or some other form of evidence comes in to play, but that generally falls on deaf ears. To think that we are safe because we don't break the law is about as silly as believing whole heartedly that everyone in prison is there cause they should be and that the percentages of wrongly convicted individuals is low. It's not near as low as the law makers would have us believe, they just refuse appeal after appeal... allow unjust state sanctioned murders ... and more, all because prosecutors and police officials hate to admit making a mistake. I know it's hard to believe, it was hard for me to believe for a long time too... until I became passionate about opposing the death penalty and started doing my research... there is enough reasonable doubt and new evidence to (especially since DNA has become so easilly tested) get new trials for ALOT of ppl in jail... but the states keep refusing appeals.

Originally posted by justme23
I find it particularly interesting in this day and age, that ppl still say this. I would say do a search on the internet of all the ppl who have been freed that were unjustly arrested, convicted, and later released due to someone finally having a conscience or some other form of evidence comes in to play, but that generally falls on deaf ears. To think that we are safe because we don't break the law is about as silly as believing whole heartedly that everyone in prison is there cause they should be and that the percentages of wrongly convicted individuals is low. It's not near as low as the law makers would have us believe, they just refuse appeal after appeal... allow unjust state sanctioned murders ... and more, all because prosecutors and police officials hate to admit making a mistake. I know it's hard to believe, it was hard for me to believe for a long time too... until I became passionate about opposing the death penalty and started doing my research... there is enough reasonable doubt and new evidence to (especially since DNA has become so easilly tested) get new trials for ALOT of ppl in jail... but the states keep refusing appeals.

I never said that there wasn't innocent people that have been convicted of a crime they didn't commit. I believe the girl that has been talked about in this thread was wrongly accused of killing her children. I also know that the justice system sucks when these people try to get out of prison. But I bet there are more quilty then innocent people in the prison system. I am sorry that you feel that what I said is silly. I was just responding to someone passing judgement on what I said. I also was just voicing my opinion about Scott Peterson . I thought that you could say what you feel on here without someone always coming back with something negative, but I guess I was wrong. The whole time I have been on this board I have never put anyone views down or called what they said was silly. It is pretty bad that alot of that goes on around because there have been some nice people on here that have helped me. I appreciate that. I am just sorry that there are a few that feels that their opinions are right and everyone is wrong.

Originally posted by mom4angels
I never said that there wasn't innocent people that have been convicted of a crime they didn't commit. I believe the girl that has been talked about in this thread was wrongly accused of killing her children. I also know that the justice system sucks when these people try to get out of prison. But I bet there are more quilty then innocent people in the prison system. I am sorry that you feel that what I said is silly. I was just responding to someone passing judgement on what I said. I also was just voicing my opinion about Scott Peterson . I thought that you could say what you feel on here without someone always coming back with something negative, but I guess I was wrong. The whole time I have been on this board I have never put anyone views down or called what they said was silly. It is pretty bad that alot of that goes on around because there have been some nice people on here that have helped me. I appreciate that. I am just sorry that there are a few that feels that their opinions are right and everyone is wrong.

I don't believe I called you silly... I said the idea of believing no one in prison is wrongly convicted is silly... there's quite a difference in saying this and calling YOU silly. I have been known to name call, but I wouldn't do it over something like this... it wouldn't really get my point across very well doing so in such a manner... sorry you took it wrong.