I've been reading through thread after thread after thread and honestly some of the opinions and speculations are reaching and irrelevant IMOO. Could someone please just try and give me concrete evidence that JD is dead? not hearsay, not DNA on a bag? I think we forget that our emotions get the better of us and we are forgetting that the client/suspect/ FD is presumed innocent. They haven't found a body yet, and as far as I know, from the evidence they collected there isn't evidence of enough blood being lost belonging to JD to concretely say she should be presumed dead. Do I think she's dead? Yes. Does that matter? No. Do I think FD probably did it? Yes. Does that matter? NO!... It doesn't matter if they were going through a divorce, it doesn't matter if they got into arguments( millions upon millions of people go through the same and worse), and unfortunately any suspicious behavior and behaviors in the past are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that JD was murdered let alone is deceased. I think all of the brilliant minds here, we would be more helpful to the investigation by using our skills to find out where she is, dead or alive, and then you work outward from there. I think if JD is a victim, than we owe it to her to find her and find out what actually happened. JUST A THOUGHT....also FD isn't on trial for murder, correct? Sorry to come off this way, just it gets a little frustrating to hear over and over again that someone is a lying ******* and murdered his wife when that is a big accusation that there is no concrete proof of... I would keep in mind that THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION HAS A GANG MENTALITY-STAY OBJECTIVE!
BBM
Scroll and roll is always an option.
For sure I think the case is very compelling, and I'm sure anyone bringing a capital NO BODY murder case, had better be damn sure they know and are convinced of what they are doing. though I am advocating for the presumption of innocence and our 2nd constitutional right in general, I am human and I absolutely weigh in the circumstances and I can believe that it's probable he was involved in her disappearance, but I do not lean towards beyond a reasonable doubt. This reminds me of the Scott Peterson case. I was in school for forensic psychology at the time and I was advocating that they should have never charged him with murder, that the evidence was circumstantial and he shouldn't have been convicted, and I actually at the time believed he did it ( I had the entire class against me, screaming, yelling, that he was a monster etc etc etc, but I just didn't feel they proved that)...well looks like now he might not have done it, and this is exactly the point i'm trying to make. I think it reminds me of it, because the possibility that something else could have happened is there, that for me is reasonable doubt, and I think to charge or convict someone when there is even an inkling of doubt is a dangerous game we play with peoples lives all the time. The system is beautiful when it works, unfortunately it doesn't work that often. I would hate, for him to be aquitted of murder and then the body is found later on, and there is no way to charge him if he did do it again. Where is JD's Justice in that?
BBM
What?!? ETA We have a Scott Peterson thread here on WS. I can't wait to hear this new evidence
Would you mind expressing your thoughts on how FD would be acquitted of murder?