Stacy Ann Peterson, Bolingbrook IL #12

[Taximom]

Slightly off-topic, but did you read the Peterson Family email I posted on the Scott P thread? Talk about wanting to :slap: someone.

 

[SuziQ]

Slightly off-topic, but did you read the Peterson Family email I posted on the Scott P thread? Talk about wanting to :slap: someone.

Do you have a link? I would love to read it. Interestingly, I was up late reading about the SP trial.

 

[SuziQ]

Thanks, Suz! They are talking about the children tonight on NG, too. It is probably a rerun not sure, but it is one I haven't seen.

I wish Nancy was here to put Brodsky in his place. She's been on leave a long time. I hope everything is ok.

 

[Wudge]

I wish Nancy was here to put Brodsky in his place. She's been on leave a long time. I hope everything is ok.

Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.

 

[Wudge]

Do you have a link? I would love to read it. Interestingly, I was up late reading about the SP trial.

The record in the Scott Peterson case shows he was convicted based on insufficient evidence (no inculpatory evidence), which is the same problem in the investigation against Drew.

 

[Taximom]

Hi Suzi, it's post 308 on this thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55398&page=8

Sorry to go off-topic.

 

[Taximom]

I wish Nancy was here to put Brodsky in his place. She's been on leave a long time. I hope everything is ok.

I said this too a few weeks ago! Even if she was wrong with the facts, which is sad but she is wrong quite often, it would be fun to watch her rip into JAB. I think he'd go running back to Greta, who is far more intelligent and fair.

According to the CNN site she's due back 1/7/08.

 

[SuziQ]

Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.

Yeah, but she's a b*tch and very intimidating.

 

[SuziQ]

The record in the Scott Peterson case shows he was convicted based on insufficient evidence (no inculpatory evidence), which is the same problem in the investigation against Drew.

And yet, SP is sitting on Death Row where he should be.

 

[SuziQ]

I said this too a few weeks ago! Even if she was wrong with the facts, which is sad but she is wrong quite often, it would be fun to watch her rip into JAB. I think he'd go running back to Greta, who is far more intelligent and fair.

According to the CNN site she's due back 1/7/08.

Thanks for the link! I remember you saying that and I have to agree, Nancy needs a better research staff. But she's very intertaining to watch.

 

[Taximom]

I heard one lawyer, brought on by FOX to discuss the Peterson case, talk about the truckers as if that were still something to be investigated. I guess these relative unknowns just want to be on tv? They are definitely misleading a lot of people that don't stay up-to-date on the case.

Nancy should get live chat or read email during her show. Can you imagine the emails she'd get when she messed something up?! lol

 

[Wudge]

And yet, SP is sitting on Death Row where he should be.

A defendant cannot be penalized because they chose to remain silent. A defendant cannot be found guilty of murder based only on collaborative evidence. A Judge cannot remove a juror without establishing good cause in the trial record.

These and ten or more other substantial appeal issues will either reduce Scott's sentence or result in a second trial or result in a finding that attaches jeopardy, which would free Scott forever.

It's wise that you are studying that case to assess the case against Drew. Continue to do so.

 

[SuziQ]

A defendant cannot be penalized because they chose to remain silent. A defendant cannot be found guilty of murder based only on collaborative evidence. A Judge cannot remove a juror without establishing good cause in the trial record.

Was I talking about any of that? Besides, the last time I checked, it's the decision of the defendant himself to remain silent or testify.

These and ten or more other substantial appeal issues will either reduce Scott's sentence or result in a second trial or result in a finding that attaches jeopardy, which would free Scott forever.

And they are standard appeal issues that happen in every DP case. I am not familiar with the California DP process. However, appeals are generally automatic and don't have anything do with whether anything improper happened during the trial. It's merely a process to make sure all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed before someone is put to death. It's a fair process that should happen. You are grasping at straws to make a point.

It's wise that you are studying that case to assess the case against Drew. Continue to do so.

I hope you don't intend to debate Scott Peterson's case here. I don't care to. Thanks.

 

[Wudge]

I hope you don't intend to debate Scott Peterson's case here. I don't care to. Thanks.

My point was and remains that there are substantial comparatives between the two cases.

 

[thesleuther]

Nancy Grace holds a doctorate in crimetainment screw-ups. You might as well wish Nifong could take on Brodsky too.

I thought your big concern was defamatory statements. What's this?

Your statement is obviously UNTRUE and can be proven as such.

 

[thesleuther]

The record in the Scott Peterson case shows he was convicted based on insufficient evidence (no inculpatory evidence), which is the same problem in the investigation against Drew.

I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.

 

[thesleuther]

My point was and remains that there are substantial comparatives between the two cases.

Yeah, both slimeballs think they are far smarter than anyone else; and both slimeballs murdered their wives because they posed problems for them, and divorce apparently was not an option because of presumed financial obligations.

 

[Wudge]

I thought your big concern was defamatory statements. What's this?

Your statement is obviously UNTRUE and can be proven as such.

How did Nancy do in the OLympic park bombing case (Richard Jewell)?

 

[Wudge]

I don't know what trial you followed, but Scott Peterson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is more reliable than eye-witness "I saw him do it" evidence. PERIOD.

Cite the inculpatory evidence?

I ask the same in this case.

In murder cases, please understand that corroborative evidence without inculpatory evidence is insufficient evidence.

 

[mysteriew]

It is my understanding that the appeals process only looks at the court procedure. They look at if any errors were made by the judge or DA, and whether the defense gave an adequate defense. They don't look at reviewing the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the jury decision is considered final unless there was a fault in the court procedure. IOW the appeals court doesn't retry the case or send it back for retrial unless they find grievous errors that could affect the outcome of the case.

No SP was not found with a weapon in his hand. But there was overwhelming evidence of his actions up to and following the death of Laci. People have been found guilty on less evidence than was found in that case. And a jury found him guilty. So he is considered guilty as charged unless the appeals court finds some indication that the court made a grievous error in procedure.