GUILTY NC - Kathleen Peterson, 48, found dead in her Durham home, 9 Dec 2001

[Wudge]

Originally posted by Cypros
Wudge, the prosecution claims that there were two beatings. There is blood splatter on top of blood that had been wiped up. They argue that he beat her, attempted to clean up the blood, then he beat at her again -- perhaps she moaned or made an effort to get up and he made sure that she would never do anything again. Whatever you want to think of the initial beating, that second beating falls under premeditation.

Cypros, they never proved two beatings or even one. Those bozos could not even produce a murder weapon. The whole case and verdict was reasoned from a fantasyland dreamscape.

 

[Cypros]

Well, Wudge, they may not have proved it to you, but they proved it to many others, including the very important jury panel.

 

[Wudge]

Originally posted by Cypros
Well, Wudge, they may not have proved it to you, but they proved it to many others, including the very important jury panel.

Cypros, yes, sadly true. This verdict represents the reason why I want to give a defendant the choice of having a jury composed of professional jurors who have proven intellectual and reasoning skills or selecting their jury from a pool of lay people as in this trial.

 

[philamena]

Poco,
you siggy line is really something.

 

[boody]

I heard something from the lead detective today on CTV. He said M. Peterson continued to live in the house & NEVER did clean up all the blood. Now that's creepy.

 

[Cypros]

Well, the law states that Michael Peterson should be tried by a jury of his PEERS. There is nothing to indicate that a jury composed of people with "proven intellectual and reasoning skills" could be considered as PEERS to Michael Peterson -- nor to the majority of murderers out there.

 

[chicoliving]

I'm so thankful the jury used common sense. Fingers crossed that the jury for the next Peterson case can do the same!

Justice was done today for Kathleen. May we have justice for Laci sooner than later. IMO

 

[tthoman]

WUDGE: GIVE UP ON THIS ONE!

 

[Wudge]

Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE: GIVE UP ON THIS ONE!

No thanks, I like my position that this verdict represents obscene incompetence, because it does.

 

[philamena]

wudge,
why are you ignoring the evidence that was persented in court?

Do you really believe she died from a bleed? Peterson hit her in the head.The blood splatters on the wall were over 24".
Come on....

 

[Cypros]

Originally posted by Wudge
I like my position that this verdict represents obscene incompetence, because it does.

Thus Peterson had the perfect jury of his peers! The crime scene suggests the obscene incompetence of a man trying to pass his wife's murder off as an accident.

Wudge, did you really buy into that ridiculous defense story that Kathleen Peterson fatally injured herself -- with multiple lacerations to the back of her head, and her hair pulled out by her own hands, and blood splattered everywhere (including UP her husband's shorts), and his footprints on her back -- as an accidental fall down a few steps? Now THAT is incompetent thinking!

 

[Wudge]

Originally posted by Cypros
Thus Peterson had the perfect jury of his peers! The crime scene suggests the obscene incompetence of a man trying to pass his wife's murder off as an accident.

Wudge, did you really buy into that ridiculous defense story that Kathleen Peterson fatally injured herself -- with multiple lacerations to the back of her head, and her hair pulled out by her own hands, and blood splattered everywhere (including UP her husband's shorts), and his footprints on her back -- as an accidental fall down a few steps? Now THAT is incompetent thinking!

Cypros... you are begging the question, which in circumstantial evidence cases is the supreme flaw. Obviously. you do not understand the burden of proof that is required in circumstantial evidence cases. And, in my mind, this jury did not have the intellectual capacity necessary to apply those standards, which say that each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstances upon which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to he defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt.

Even worse, the mere fact the jury thought they might be able to use the prosecutor's opening statement as evidence proves the jury, in its entirety, did not even understand what constitutes evidence.

 

[Cypros]

I'm not begging the question, Wudge, just playing with you. The jury has spoken -- Michael Peterson was found guilty -- apparently in their minds there was only one reasonable explanation. I certainly didn't see any evidence of any other reasonable explanation for what happened to Kathleen Peterson. Did you?

 

[tthoman]

WUDGE:

You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em..........you are TOO SMART to stubbornly hang on like this when we all know he did it!!

 

[Wudge]

Originally posted by Cypros
I'm not begging the question, Wudge, just playing with you. The jury has spoken -- Michael Peterson was found guilty -- apparently in their minds there was only one reasonable explanation. I certainly didn't see any evidence of any other reasonable explanation for what happened to Kathleen Peterson. Did you?

The choices were murder or accident; it is that simple. And to convict him, the jury had to reason that it could not have been an accident. For if it could have been an accident, then reasonable doubt obviously applys. It is that basic.

 

[tthoman]

Dr. Lee USED to be above reproach concerning $$$$$$.....but things have changed....OR have become visible? I no longer value his opinion.

His "defenses" of MP were pathetic.

 

[Runningwild]

Originally posted by chicoliving
I'm so thankful the jury used common sense. Fingers crossed that the jury for the next Peterson case can do the same!

Justice was done today for Kathleen. May we have justice for Laci sooner than later. IMO

I couldn't agree more. I was a little worried that he would get off on a technicality of some sort. I'm glad he was found guilty:bigthumb:

 

[Wudge]

Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE:

You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em..........you are TOO SMART to stubbornly hang on like this when we all know he did it!!

That is what I heard for years about Sam Sheppard.

 

[Cypros]

Originally posted by Wudge
... to convict him, the jury had to reason that it could not have been an accident. For if it could have been an accident, then reasonable doubt obviously applys.

So, what's your point? The jury concluded that the injuries sustained by the victim and the other circumstances surrounding her death indicate that it could not have been an accident. Seems logical -- and simple -- to me.

 

[tthoman]

JUSTICE WAS DEFINITELY SERVED! What a relief!