Leftist Media Lynching of Scott Petersen May Backfire

[Jedi Knight]

The leftist matriarchal lynching of Scott Petersen in the leftist media may backfire (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32335), according to the attorney for Petersen who says he has evidence that can clear his client.

"I'm not gonna disclose what I have – before I have to do it – either to stroke my ego or kiss the media's ass." --Attorney Kirk McAllister, who says he's uncovered evidence to help clear Scott Peterson.

The only thing that attorney Kirk McAllister got wrong in that statement is that the media is the leftist media and the lynching of his client was motivated by matriarchal totalitarian cultural terror against men. It would have been nice for Mr. McAllister to mention that truth, but he did a good job nonetheless.

So did Scott murder his wife? The leftist media already said that he has. Thery do things like that because they do not understand America, and they certainly do not understand that men have a right to a trial. The Stalinist Red media wants to hang Scott Petersen because since his wife died they don't want him to continue with his life as a healthy heterosexual masculine male. They want him to be blamed for her death because she died and when chicks die that are married, it simply has to be the husband's fault, right?

JK

[Blue Monk]

So what.

The Matriarchal brat who terrorized the cruise line has not recieved a trial yet and yet you don't seem to have any problem with that reporting do you?

Or is she not entitled to a fair trial because she is a woman?

[Crossbow]

So what JK?

A Defense Attorney is supposed to zealously defend his client.

Granted, Petersen is more vocal than most about his job, but aside from that I really do not see any significance.

And just to reiterate, you were quite judgemental yourself when you discussed the woman on the cruise ship, so how can you blame others for doing the same sort of thing in this case?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
So what.

The Matriarchal brat who terrorized the cruise line has not recieved a trial yet and yet you don't seem to have any problem with that reporting do you?

Or is she not entitled to a fair trial because she is a woman?

The matriarchal brat confessed to writing those notes. Big difference.

JK

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The matriarchal brat confessed to writing those notes. Big difference.

JK

DOH!

That does make a difference.

I'll have to save this one for later :P

[shemp]

JK, is your planet anywhere near The Crazy World of Arthur Brown? (http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/ebony/546/arfurgallery.html)

[Dancing David]

JK, you are starting to make me laugh again.

The headline says something about the police botching the investigation.

Hey duude are Yoou saying that the police are part of the matriarchal terror movement.

Preace
dancing David

[subgenius]

And if it were proved beyond any doubt that he did it, guess who "caused" her own murder.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
And if it were proved beyond any doubt that he did it, guess who "caused" her own murder.

I have doubts it will be proven that Scott did it, although the media claims as fact that he did. That is the point of my post. There is a chance that Scott did it, but I want the guy to get a fair trial, something he will not get now because the leftist matriarchal totalitarian Stalinist Red media saw to it that he won't.

Scott will have to go to the north pole to get a fair trial now. He will not get a fair trial anywhere in the United States now because of leftist media lynching activity weighed against him. Until he is proven guilty, he is not guilty.

JK

[subgenius]

Ah, the usual evasion.
If he were guilty to the benighted one's satisfaction, it would be Laci's fault, right?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
Ah, the usual evasion.
If he were guilty to the benighted one's satisfaction, it would be Laci's fault, right?

Oh, so you are against the guy getting a fair trial? :eek:

JK

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Oh, so you are against the guy getting a fair trial? :eek:

JK

Sure everyone wants him to get a fair trial. I only want the guilty party to pay, not some sacrificial lamb.

And does the media make this difficult, you bet but let's be fair, it's not only this guy that gets tried in the media. How about the Ramsey's.

How about that lady that ran her husband over in the parking lot. Personally she might have walked but the victory lap did her in.

It's sensationalism. It's not fair. But it also is not unique to this case.

[DavidJames]

"the media claims as fact that he did"

Can you provide a source which claims as a fact that Petersen committed the crime?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Oh, so you are against the guy getting a fair trial? :eek:

JK
Of course I want a fair trial, and I haven't made up my mind on his guilt.
But, you're evading the question. And we know why, don't we?

[Advocate]

I saw the title of this thread and it made me think it was about the fetal homicide / death penalty issues and how the left is dividing against itself over this case. One way or the other, its going to be an interesting trial.

[schplurg]

What do you mean he can't receive a fair trial? O.J. got off the hook didn't he?

I have followed this case very closely and I personally think Peterson did it...just my opinion, of course, from day one. The statistics, his behavior, and some of the evidence point to this. I'm not providing details or links because it's only my opinion. I think the Modesto police did a good job in witholding evidence from the press. It's been frustrating because of this, but I think it was the right way to handle it.

Of course his lawyer is going to say "I have evidence to prove he's innocent". Sure you do. It took four months for the police to make the arrest. I hope that means they have solid evidence.

As for the unborn fetus being counted as a murder, I think it should be. Tricky subject...I'm pretty conservative, but pro-abortion. This 8 month old fetus was terminated against the mothers wishes, which I think is the deciding factor, as well as the advanced stages of her pregnancy. However, it'll be interesting to see how the laws are applied to this aspect of the case. Even my own above statements contradict themselves somewhat.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The leftist matriarchal lynching of Scott Petersen in the leftist media may backfire (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32335), according to the attorney for Petersen who says he has evidence that can clear his client.
JK

If you'd drop the "leftist" stuff more often I could agree with you more often.

All the press stuff is an outrage. What are we, TV addicts that must have some sort of g-damned drama going all the time? If you watch the news over the last few years (the 24-hour-news era) it's pathetic - there has to be something for us to wring our hands about all the time.

Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? This isn't Columbo, this is a man's life here!

:mad:

[Clancie]

Jedi Knight,

I'm new to this board. Do you label everything you disagree with "leftist" or "commie"?

Do those words have any clear meaning to you at all? Or is it just your term for whatever you personally don't like?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Clancy
Jedi Knight,

I'm new to this board. Do you label everything you disagree with "leftist" or "commie"?

Do those words have any clear meaning to you at all? Or is it just your term for whatever you personally don't like?

I talk about leftist topics regularly. That is what interests me--exposing leftist perversion in the nation-state and to enlighten unsuspecting Americans to its dangerousness.

JK

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The leftist matriarchal lynching of Scott Petersen in the leftist media may backfire (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32335), according to the attorney for Petersen who says he has evidence that can clear his client.

"I'm not gonna disclose what I have – before I have to do it – either to stroke my ego or kiss the media's ass." --Attorney Kirk McAllister, who says he's uncovered evidence to help clear Scott Peterson.

The only thing that attorney Kirk McAllister got wrong in that statement is that the media is the leftist media and the lynching of his client was motivated by matriarchal totalitarian cultural terror against men. It would have been nice for Mr. McAllister to mention that truth, but he did a good job nonetheless.

So did Scott murder his wife? The leftist media already said that he has. Thery do things like that because they do not understand America, and they certainly do not understand that men have a right to a trial. The Stalinist Red media wants to hang Scott Petersen because since his wife died they don't want him to continue with his life as a healthy heterosexual masculine male. They want him to be blamed for her death because she died and when chicks die that are married, it simply has to be the husband's fault, right?

JK

Of course.

It's because women are now allowed to be police officers as discussed here:



http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18661

Hail far, man, whut with all them wimmen tarnin inta the po-lice, whut do ye 'spect?

[Clancie]

Sundog,

Lol. That sounds about right.

Jedi Knight,

Your diatribe about men is great, but are you familiar with any of the evidence in this case, evidence that is leading people across the political spectrum to think Peterson is guilty?

Of course, he still--legally--has the presumption of innocence, but people who aren't part of a jury still have a perfect right to put all the information together and draw whatever conclusion comes up.

I'm curious how, looking at all the information we have so far about her murder, how you could possibly see it as not being, at least, very incriminating for Scott Peterson (red blooded male or not)?

[subgenius]

Clancy: "Of course, he still--legally--has the presumption of innocence, but people who aren't part of a jury still have a perfect right to put all the information together and draw whatever conclusion comes up."

People forget this.

Notice how JK won't answer my question about if he were proved to be the killer to JK's satisfaction, that he would have been driven to it by Matriarchal Totalitarianism.

[Clancie]

Sundog,

People have free will, free speech, and the right to judge.

Richard Jewell was convicted in the press by FBI reports that were false. That was very sad (although personally I never thought they had any evidence against him. Nothing like Peterson).

We have Peterson's own actions and words in several interviews. He has gone on record with numerous lies. That in itself doesn't look good. Also, in his own words, he placed himself and his boat less than two miles from the crime scene (90 miles from his home) at the time of Lacy's disappearance.

From big things (motive and opportunity) to little things (referring to her in past tense in the interview with Diane Sawyer), he acts like a guilty man.

*The tarp, the cement residue in the boat...and the way she was found, decapitated, as if tied at the feet and neck and weighted down...with a tarp found on the beach nearby

*the timing of his fishing trip on Christmas Eve

*the location of the fishing trip...two miles from the murder

*his lie to the family and police (and the girlfriend) about having an affair

*his lie about the concrete in the yard being left by the contractors

*admitting he moved a big object in a tarp the night before Lacy's disappearance was reported (but he said it was an umbrella)

*the (unconfirmed) life insurance policy(s?)

*his attempt to sell their house, even though she had not been declared dead, just missing

*his quick sale of his missing wife's car

*his inconsistencies in interviews (e.g. first saying she was "taken off the street" then saying he wanted to sell the house "so she wouldn't come home to the place she was taken from")

*playing golf rather than helping searches (and, the arguable intangible, of never acting like a grieving husband)

*going to LA to distribute flyers when everyone else was searching in the Modesto--San Francisco area 400 miles away

*a few days after Lacy was found, Scott being arrested with newly blonded hair and beard, his brother's ID and $10,000 cash--in San Diego, 90 miles from the Mexico border

Circumstantial? Yes. But hardly comparable to the case against Richard Jewell.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
So did Scott murder his wife? The leftist media already said that he has.

Where? Seriously. I haven't been following this story at all. Can you provide me with a link (direct, please -- I'm not interested in paraphrasings) where I can see for myself that they say Scott Petersen murdered his wife?

Jeremy

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Clancy
Sundog,

People have free will, free speech, and the right to judge.

Richard Jewell was convicted in the press by FBI reports that were false. That was very sad (although personally I never thought they had any evidence against him. Nothing like Peterson).

The FBI gets put under a lot of pressure to solve crimes when the leftist media harasses them to do it. That is what happened with Richard Jewel. It is dangerous for the people when the police and the leftist media become the judge, jury and executioner. I think the police do a good job, but they would be able to do a better job without leftist media adolescents putting them under pressure to solve cases which can cause innocent people to be ruined.

We have Peterson's own actions and words in several interviews. He has gone on record with numerous lies. That in itself doesn't look good. Also, in his own words, he placed himself and his boat less than two miles from the crime scene (90 miles from his home) at the time of Lacy's disappearance.

That is open to interpretation as I will describe below.

From big things (motive and opportunity) to little things (referring to her in past tense in the interview with Diane Sawyer), he acts like a guilty man.

Well Petersen already becomes a guy with motive because he was simply married to the chick. That would happen with any married guy, not just Petersen, given the same circumstances.

*The tarp, the cement residue in the boat...and the way she was found, decapitated, as if tied at the feet and neck and weighted down...with a tarp found on the beach nearby

That doesn't mean that Petersen did it. A serial killer could have gone into the neighborhood and got her and did her locally and then took her offshore to finish the job. There was another pregnant girl found in the same area six months nefore Lacy was found and in the same area. The police have not solved that murder.

*the timing of his fishing trip on Christmas Eve

So he went on a fishing trip on Christmas eve. Give me the Coast Guard logs and I bet there were thousands of people doing the same thing. If Scott went to the movies that night, people would say that was connected to it somehow.

*the location of the fishing trip...two miles from the murder

When people get murdered they usually are murdered and disposed of in the same communities they live. That is not unusual, but becomes a major hassle for the man who is the surviving spouse.

*his lie to the family and police (and the girlfriend) about having an affair

Well damn, you get a call that says: "Hey, your wife is missing."...I would find it natural for a guy or a girl to lie about extra-marital affairs in a situation like that. Women have dozens of sexual partners per week being married and no one bitches about that until a chick comes up missing and then her husband is a "bad guy" because he had an "affair"....whoop dee doo.

*his lie about the concrete in the yard being left by the contractors

He was having work done on his house some time before his wife went missing. It is not unusual to see bags of concrete being left around after construction work.

*admitting he moved a big object in a tarp the night before Lacy's disappearance was reported (but he said it was an umbrella)

The tarp found on the beach may have nothing to do with the case. Just because "boat debris" shows up on the beach doesn't mean it came from Scott's house or his boat. I bet there are thousands of boats that have tarps floating through that area and I also bet they fall off boats regularly.

*the (unconfirmed) life insurance policy(s?)

Purchased years ago....both his and her policies. Every married couple does that and it is nothing unusual. However, it becomes "unusual" when one of them dies....then it becomes "motive". So Scott became a victim simply for doing what all American families do....buying life insurance.

*his attempt to sell their house, even though she had not been declared dead, just missing

He never even attempted to sell the house; that was the leftist media propaganda talking. Scott made a comment during a "search for Lacy" gathering where he was approached by a realtor about selling his house but he never followed through with it. That misinformation by the leftist media was used against Scott.

*his quick sale of his missing wife's car

Scott's parents said that lacy hated that car and that is why he sold it. He and Lacy were planning on selling it anyway, a normal activity that all couples do in everyday life. I don't see anything abnormal about selling his wife's care after she was found dead. The poor bastard needs money to pay for his attorneys due to the lynching effect lol.

*his inconsistencies in interviews (e.g. first saying she was "taken off the street" then saying he wanted to sell the house "so she wouldn't come home to the place she was taken from")

Normal mistakes when a person is subjected to harrassment from the leftist matriarchal media.

*playing golf rather than helping searches (and, the arguable intangible, of never acting like a grieving husband)

Maybe he is a cold-hearted bastard. I know people like that. That doesn't mean they kill. But maybe he grieved in private. Ever think of that? Just because a guy doesn't "cry" in public doesn't mean he is not "grieving".

*going to LA to distribute flyers when everyone else was searching in the Modesto--San Francisco area 400 miles away

More people go to LA than San Fran and the crime rate there is much higher. Scott might have thought he would have a better chance of finding Lacy if the posters he had were exposed to the massive, lawless crack-head gangs in the area.

*a few days after Lacy was found, Scott being arrested with newly blonded hair and beard, his brother's ID and $10,000 cash--in San Diego, 90 miles from the Mexico border

That doesn't mean jack. He wasn't in Mexico. Hell, he wasn't even close to Mexico. In my state if I drive 90 miles in two directions I can hit 3 different states. Big deal. Plus his hair was blonde from swimming pool bleach, an event that has yet to be confirmed. As for his brother's ID, I have no idea, but it is not uncommon for brothers to leave their wallets and ID in cars and at homes of their siblings.

Here is the point that really troubles me too and I want to know what you think. Scott is 100 miles from the border, gets pulled over by the police and the leftist media says: "Golly, Scott Petersen is running to Mexico!". That is ********!

Here is why. If I was an FBI supervisor I would have kicked the asses of the agents who pulled Scott over then. Why pull him over? Why? I could call the border (they had ninety miles to do that) and alert the entire border patrol about it. Then when Scott shows up at the border--bam! He gets nailed and the cops look real good and the leftist media has a field day with it.

But they pull him over 90 miles from the border! You cannot conclusively say what his intentions were. If I am ninety miles from a border, I am still deep inside the US. I am not in another country, no matter how much the leftist media clammors about it.

I mean, the media has got to think people are really stupid to buy that garbage. I bet there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people living along the US borders within 5 miles of the border and never cross. So how on earth can we say Scott's "intentions" were to cross? Why the hell didn't they let him "approach" the border if Scott was "heading south"?

Also, if everyone in the community you live in watches TV (and you know they do) and the leftist media spams about you 24/7 for months, wouldn't you want to get away? Maybe he just went for a drive. We just don't know because he never got to his destination. A rookie mistake.

The $10 grand? People carry that cash with them all the time. I live near a casino and I bet people there carry tons of cash all the time. Having a few bucks on you is not a crime.

I don't buy it and that puts a big wrench into the case right there.

Circumstantial? Yes. But hardly comparable to the case against Richard Jewell.

Not really...both cases have the same leftist media spin. Plus the media harped on Jewel for carrying a "backpack" and volunteering to help the FBI make "security videos". That is pretty funny. You "help" the FBI and you are classified as a criminal by the leftist media.

Now, if I worked for the police and was investigating the case, the first thing I would do is a DNA test on the kid Lacy was carrying. Then I would do a DNA test on Scott. If the kid is his that will make things tougher. If it is not his, that will make it easier. I bet they were arguing about his extramarital affairs or perhaps even hers. Couples do not kill each other unless there is something really offensive ocurring.

I could solve the case probably in 48 hours if I had the resources.

JK

[subgenius]

I could rule the world, if I could only get the parts.
How hard could nuclear fusion be at home if you had the right equipment?

[The Fool]

Jedi.
seriously...that is one of the best demonstrations of true scepticism I have seen on this board. Your unwillingness to accept this guys guilt without firm evidence is impressive.

If you were to apply the same standards of proof to all of your leftist conspiracy theories 90% of them would vanish in a puff of sceptical reasoning.

Seriously now, why the double standard? You are sceptical in this case but you are an unquestioning true believer if there is a wiff of "commies" in the air.

[subgenius]

"Couples do not kill each other unless there is something really offensive ocurring."
They didn't kill each other. He's alive, remember?
There is also a thing called mental illness.

Oh, if he did he must have been driven to it by Matriarchal Totalitarianism, right?
You'd also be the greatest defense lawyer of all time.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
when chicks die that are married, it simply has to be the husband's fault, right?

JK
Talk to some policemen about this.....It nearly always is hubby or another family member....Murder by "a stranger" is much much less common than murder within families and close friends.....If my wife were murdered I woud be number one suspect until I could be cleared...thats life, I can accept that....

[Clancie]

Thank you for responding to the evidence, Jedi Knight. Unfortunately some things about your response are quite "up for grabs", to say the least.

Well Petersen already becomes a guy with motive because he was simply married to the chick.

As someone else said, statistics do show the spouse is more likely guilty than a stranger. However, being married in no way passes for a motive for murder.

There was another pregnant girl found in the same area six months nefore Lacy was found and in the same area. The police have not solved that murder

Quite different circumstances, though. The body of that woman was not decapitated. And her son was also killed outright; he was already five years old.

When people get murdered they usually are murdered and disposed of in the same communities they live.

The Berkeley Marina, where Scott "went fishing", is two miles from where Lacy's body was found. However, it is 90 miles from their home; hardly "in the same community".

Well damn, you get a call that says: "Hey, your wife is missing."...I would find it natural for a guy or a girl to lie about extra-marital affairs in a situation like that.

Maybe so. But his claim that he "told Lacy about the affair and it was no big deal" is pretty hard to square with the lie to the police and the family.

Women have dozens of sexual partners per week being married

Says who?

He was having work done on his house some time before his wife went missing. It is not unusual to see bags of concrete being left around after construction work.

The contractors said they didn't use any concrete on the job.

The tarp found on the beach may have nothing to do with the case

Maybe. But the neighbor reported seeing Scott putting a big tarp-wrapped thing into the truck the last night Lacy was seen alive. Then a tarp washes up with the body. If the tarp can be traced to a similar one Scott purchased, it will be very damning.

(Life insurance) purchased years ago....both his and her policies.

Actually, the time of the purchase and number of policies purchased hasn't been confirmed publicly one way or the other...yet.

Scott made a comment during a "search for Lacy" gathering where he was approached by a realtor about selling his house but he never followed through with it. That misinformation by the leftist media was used against Scott

"Leftist media" again? lol. I'll easily find a quote showing Scott approached the realtor, not the other way around. Can you find anything supporting your point other than Scott and his supportive parents? The realtor said otherwise.

Scott's parents said that lacy hated that car and that is why he sold it

Her friends say she loved the car and never talked about selling it. (Scott's parents, btw, seem in deep, deep denial. Understandable, but hardly makes them reliable as everything Scott tells them is taken at face value). There is no indication from family or friends that there was any plan to sell it (and a mini van would be a perfect car for a baby, btw).

(his inconsistencies in interviews are) normal mistakes when a person is subjected to harrassment from the leftist matriarchal media.

If a person's not even accountable for the accuracy of his own statements, in your opinion, what can I say?

Maybe he is a cold-hearted bastard. I know people like that. That doesn't mean they kill.

True.

But maybe he grieved in private. Ever think of that?

Yes, except he tries to appear grieving in the interviews, it just doesn't work. Volunteers at the search center said he seemed jovial. Have you ever grieved, JK? Its not easy to turn it on and off--especially very tough to "turn it off", in public, when talking about the missing person you are grieving for. Dumping the house you shared? Dumping your loved one's car? (Remember, he says he loved Lacy so much). Unheard of.

I favor the cold hearted bastard idea, of the two you suggest.

More people go to LA than San Fran and the crime rate there is much higher. Scott might have thought he would have a better chance of finding Lacy if the posters he had were exposed to the massive, lawless crack-head gangs in the area

Guess he should have hit the gang-ridden areas of LA then, instead of just passing a little time in the white, middle class suburbs. Darn! Why didn't someone give him a clue where these criminal types hang out? ("You mean it's not at the country club golf course???")

Hell, he wasn't even close to Mexico

To Californians, San Diego is right across the border. Very very close.

Plus his hair was blonde from swimming pool bleach, an event that has yet to be confirmed

Indeed. Any brunette who's swum in heavily chlorinated pools was laughing hysterically when Scott said he got that hair color that way. You just won't get that color from untreated brown hair in a pool...I don't care how long he went swimming there.

As for his brother's ID, I have no idea, but it is not uncommon for brothers to leave their wallets and ID in cars and at homes of their siblings.

It was in his wallet.

Here is the point that really troubles me too and I want to know what you think. Scott is 100 miles from the border [actually 90 miles], gets pulled over by the police and the leftist media says: "Golly, Scott Petersen is running to Mexico!"

Did they? Really? Actually, all I heard was reporters repeating what the Modesto PD said, that Scott was under surveillance, knew it, and that they were worried he would cross the border. I haven't heard anyone say he definitely was making a run for it.

A link to this allegation???

Maybe he just went for a drive. We just don't know because he never got to his destination. A rookie mistake.

They had evidence and didn't want to risk waiting to arrest him in case he dodged them. A good call.

The $10 grand? People carry that cash with them all the time..Having a few bucks on you is not a crime

$10,000 is "a few bucks", cash that "people carry all the time"???? Wow. You and I definitely don't hang out in the same circles. I've never seen 10 grand in cash. And Scott's a fertilizer salesman, not a gambler.

Now, if I worked for the police and was investigating the case, the first thing I would do is a DNA test on the kid Lacy was carrying. Then I would do a DNA test on Scott. If the kid is his that will make things tougher.

Uh...they've done that. And....you won't like the results.

Couples do not kill each other unless there is something really offensive ocurring

Couples rarely kill "each other", lol. The innuendo about Lacy is pretty desperate, too--no evidence of any affair from her side, ever, ever, ever.

[RandFan]

To anyone new to the forum please understand that Jedi Knight does not necassarily represent the views of others who lean to the right.

I really squirm at some of the headlines. But he has his right to post and he is great fodder for my friends on the left.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
You'd also be the greatest defense lawyer of all time.

Well of course I would. I am a Jedi.

Here is another major point in that case that could help Scott in his defense.

If the "life insurance" was Scott's motive as the leftist media continuously tells us it is, then why did Scott supposedly weigh her down? If people know the person they kill, they will bury them or weigh them down. I recognize that.

However, Scott had $250 K riding on his wife. So why weigh her down? The insurance company won't pay unless there is a body and a death certificate free of foul play.

The leftist media missed all that.

If I was the prosecutor in this case, I would make sure some of the facts stand up. Here are the doozies:

1) Why was Scott Petersen stopped 90 miles from the border of Mexico? Why didn't the police let him go to the border and do a live helicopter-cam capture of him that the whole country could have seen? That would have been smoking-gun material.

2) If Scott used concrete on his wife to weigh her down, where is the concrete? Was it quick-crete or regular concrete? If it was regular concrete, what was the type of sand used? Why didn't it stay together and hold her to the bottom? Why would Scott want her to stay at the bottom of the channel?

3) If DNA tests confirm the child Lacy carried is Scott's, why would kill her? Is it possible the kid isn't his and when she found out about his "affair" she ran his nose in it?

4) If Scott was in it for the "250 k", why did he weigh her down? Why did he put her in the ocean where her body would have been eaten alive by organisms, thus relieving the insurance company from having to pay?

5) Did Scott Petersen's "lover" really not know that Scott was married?

6) Could Lacy have committed suicide?

etc etc etc etc etc....if I had the case information I could kick ass.

I should get paid big $$$$$ for my genius analysis of these cases.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by RandFan
To anyone new to the forum please understand that Jedi Knight does not necassarily represent the views of others who lean to the right.

I really squirm at some of the headlines. But he has his right to post and he is great fodder for my friends on the left.
Rubbish! Brother JK typifies the views of all of us who have right of centre political views....:rolleyes:

[Clancie]

Thanks for the insight, RandFan. Seriously, coming new to the Politics forum, it is a bit confusing to sort all the frequent posters out. My impression is that it skews more right-center, than I expected.

I may be totally wrong, but there seem far fewer liberals here than I would have expected, for whatever reason (Yes, JK, probably because of my own "leftist bias", lol).

But I do see JK as occupying his own "part of the spectrum", so to speak.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Clancy
Thank you for responding to the evidence, Jedi Knight. Unfortunately some things about your response are quite "up for grabs", to say the least.

Grab away. Fed-Ex me the casefile, Clancy. One of two things will happen after I review it. Scott will go to the gas chamber or he will go free.

As someone else said, statistics do show the spouse is more likely guilty than a stranger. However, being married in no way passes for a motive for murder.

Agreed.

Quite different circumstances, though. The body of that woman was not decapitated. And her son was also killed outright; he was already five years old.

The ocean could have decapitated Lacy. The profile of the case does match the two separate incidents, given the information available in open-source venues.

The Berkeley Marina, where Scott "went fishing", is two miles from where Lacy's body was found. However, it is 90 miles from their home; hardly "in the same community".

She washed up on the beach, right? She could have been dumped 30 miles, even up to 50 miles or so north of that location and floated downstream.

If Scott did make her walk the plank, why weigh her down? Why take her fishing, throw her overboard, and then when the police question him he tells the police he went fishing. He would have to be the stupidest murderer on the planet to do that. If Scott did murder her, he would take her to a place that could in no way connect him to the crime. The handling of the body suggests to me that Scott possibly wasn't involved because the body was never supposed to surface and there was nothing in it for Scott.

Maybe so. But his claim that he "told Lacy about the affair and it was no big deal" is pretty hard to square with the lie to the police and the family.

Well if it did matter to Lacy, why didn't she tell her family and friends about it? Why didn't she leave Scott? People have affairs all the time and stay together. That is common and I don't think will have any bearing on the case to any degree.

Says who?

That was just some Jedi humor.

The contractors said they didn't use any concrete on the job.

Can they prove they didn't? Can Scott match the receipts with the work-period? Some contractors that do home repairs are pretty marginal when it comes to thinking about things. Maybe Scott told one of the employees to pick him up some concrete for him and then Scott did some work on his own at the house. The concrete thing is very thin.

Maybe. But the neighbor reported seeing Scott putting a big tarp-wrapped thing into the truck the last night Lacy was seen alive. Then a tarp washes up with the body. If the tarp can be traced to a similar one Scott purchased, it will be very damning.

When I take my trash out to the garbage can it can be mistaken for a suitcase or even a spare tire lol. Come on, the lady next door is what, 74? I am thinking an eye exam and a few photographs of the windows she was looking through if I was the defense. Does that witness wear glasses on her driver's license? If that 74 year old lady wears glasses, she knows it is the law to ensure she is wearing the same glasses on her driver's license photo, right? I would hate to see that trip the prosecution up.

Actually, the time of the purchase and number of policies purchased hasn't been confirmed publicly one way or the other...yet.

Yeah, that is because that could be the fact that gets Scott freed by a jury trial. All the leftist media said was "motive this" and "motive that". Well gosh, if Scott buried Lacy, he doesn't get jack in life insurance money, so where is the motive? Did he kill her just to "kill her"? That would be a hard sell, especially now that everyone in America knows that he had $250 k on her and she had $250 k on him and she "disappeared". Show me evidence that Scott was anticipating in any way, shape or desire capitalizing on Lacy's death.

So my question to the leftist media that hammered the entire US with talk of motive is this: "What motive?"

"Leftist media" again? lol. I'll easily find a quote showing Scott approached the realtor, not the other way around. Can you find anything supporting your point other than Scott and his supportive parents? The realtor said otherwise.

The quotes I read all said that the realtor approached him. If the realtor retracts her statement it just pulls the media into the case and all that testimony will probably be struck from the record as not being credible anyway.

Her friends say she loved the car and never talked about selling it. (Scott's parents, btw, seem in deep, deep denial. Understandable, but hardly makes them reliable as everything Scott tells them is taken at face value). There is no indication from family or friends that there was any plan to sell it (and a mini van would be a perfect car for a baby, btw).

Another case of "hearsay". I hate to say it, but if Lacy's parents say she loved the car and Scott's say she didn't, that is hearsay. Got it on videotape or cassette?

If a person's not even accountable for the accuracy of his own statements, in your opinion, what can I say?

Not much can be said. The guy was obviously under a lot of stress. When people are under stress they may mix and match small details. I would like for there to be a smoking-gun in that regard but I just don't see it. Scott has said nothing, in my opinion, to implicate himself or anything that would weigh against him in court.

Yes, except he tries to appear grieving in the interviews, it just doesn't work. Volunteers at the search center said he seemed jovial. Have you ever grieved, JK? Its not easy to turn it on and off--especially very tough to "turn it off", in public, when talking about the missing person you are grieving for. Dumping the house you shared? Dumping your loved one's car? (Remember, he says he loved Lacy so much). Unheard of.

I favor the cold hearted bastard idea, of the two you suggest.

I have grieved. But I don't know if I would ever grieve in front of camera held by an agent for the leftist media. Plus, it is pretty hard to grieve when you are scared ******** thinking the entire country thinks that you chopped your wife's head off and dumped her into the ocean.

Guess he should have hit the gang-ridden areas of LA then, instead of just passing a little time in the white, middle class suburbs. Darn! Why didn't someone give him a clue where these criminal types hang out? ("You mean it's not at the country club golf course???")

Maybe he knew serial killers generally hunt within their own ethnic groups, or perhaps he felt there was a reason Lacy would go to that area--an old love, for example.

To Californians, San Diego is right across the border. Very very close.

To a guy on the east coast it is accessing three different states. It is far away.

Indeed. Any brunette who's swum in heavily chlorinated pools was laughing hysterically when Scott said he got that hair color that way. You just won't get that color from untreated brown hair in a pool...I don't care how long he went swimming there.

Maybe he was afraid for his safety. Every nutcase across the country knew what he looked like. Maybe he was afraid some vigilante was going to kill him or harm him and that is why he changed his hair color. It still does nothing to prove he did it for reasons other than personal safety, and I know many men that use that hair-crap all the time.

It was in his wallet.

So what? He found it in his car or in his house, slipped it in his wallet with the intentions to give it back to his brother. With his new hair color did he look like his brother? If not, that tidbit doesn't do anything for the prosecution either. You have to be able to prove he desired a total identity change, not just a small overt change to protect himself from the general public due to national media exposure.

Did they? Really? Actually, all I heard was reporters repeating what the Modesto PD said, that Scott was under surveillance, knew it, and that they were worried he would cross the border. I haven't heard anyone say he definitely was making a run for it.

How could he "run" with a global-positioning tracking system gadget strapped to the bottom of his car? He wasn't able to "run" anywhere, unless his car could "outrun" a satellite. I have never heard of a car being able to do that.

They had evidence and didn't want to risk waiting to arrest him in case he dodged them. A good call.

Again, they always knew where he was. Scott did not know that they knew. Why not let him approach the border and then let the 500,000 police and 350 police helicopters there capture him trying to cross? Why throw away such an "open and shut case" factoid?

$10,000 is "a few bucks", cash that "people carry all the time"???? Wow. You and I definitely don't hang out in the same circles. I've never seen 10 grand in cash. And Scott's a fertilizer salesman, not a gambler.

I am not a rich person either, but $10 grand isn't much money. Even if he went to Mexico with that he wouldn't have been able to hold up long on 10k.

Uh...they've done that. And....you won't like the results.

If the kid is his it works in his favor. Statistically men do not kill their wives when those wives are carrying babies created by them. That is a hard-sell. Men nurture pregnant women, not kill them.

Couples rarely kill "each other", lol. The innuendo about Lacy is pretty desperate, too--no evidence of any affair from her side, ever, ever, ever.

None that we know of...yet.

Jedi Knight

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Clancy
But I do see JK as occupying his own "part of the spectrum", so to speak.

I only occupy The Force.

JK

[Tricky]

This one just kinda lept out at me.
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Women have dozens of sexual partners per week...
Okay, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that "dozens" means the minimum of two dozen. That's twenty-four partners a week, or more than three a day.

Jedi I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. The women you have been involved with do have "dozens" of partners a week. Those women are prostitutes. Perhaps you were wondering why they kept asking you for money.

So, ladies out there, have any of you ever had 24 sexual partners in a week? Do you even know any women who have?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I should get paid big $$$$$ for my genius analysis of these cases.

JK
ahhh, but there is the Catch!!! income is rarely based on your own opinion of your skills. It is based on what other people's opinions of your skills are.......How much you say your worth again???

[Cain]

Was JK banned from FreeRepublic.com/ for being too crazy and too right-wing even for them?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
Was JK banned from FreeRepublic.com/ for being too crazy and too right-wing even for them?

Is everyone that disagrees with you "crazy"?

[DavidJames]

"I thinks it funny that the same morons demanding that we find weapons now, are the same morons that were demanding more time for the inspectors to find the weapons."

Is everyone who disagrees with you a "moron" :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tricky
This one just kinda lept out at me.

Okay, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that "dozens" means the minimum of two dozen. That's twenty-four partners a week, or more than three a day.

Jedi I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. The women you have been involved with do have "dozens" of partners a week. Those women are prostitutes. Perhaps you were wondering why they kept asking you for money.

So, ladies out there, have any of you ever had 24 sexual partners in a week? Do you even know any women who have?
And presumably most are men.
The whole theory shows a highly disordered mind. He's completely justified any violence he may do against women. It's not his fault. They're whores. They are matriarchal terrorists.
The pressure is building.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Cain
Was JK banned from FreeRepublic.com/ for being too crazy and too right-wing even for them?
Wouldn't doubt it, I don't know why people put up with his delusional hate mongering. I can see why the forum might, but all it takes is for good people to do nothing. Not enough are calling him on his sh*t.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Is everyone who disagrees with you a "moron" :D

Yes, yes they are. :cool: :D

[subgenius]

JK is obviously delighted that Laci was murdered. She had dozens of sex partners a week before she married poor Scott.

[schplurg]

2) If Scott used concrete on his wife to weigh her down, where is the concrete? Was it quick-crete or regular concrete? If it was regular concrete, what was the type of sand used? Why didn't it stay together and hold her to the bottom? Why would Scott want her to stay at the bottom of the channel?
Well ya see, the corpse had no legs, and no head. Perhaps some helpful sea creatures chewed on her and her legs are still in the concrete (assuming it was used). Sorry for the gross details folks.

As for him fishing on Christmas eve, that's not unusual for hunters and fishermen, although leaving your preggy wife alone on X-mas is kinda screwed up. Anyways, the guy working the small parking lot and marina where Peterson says he launched his boat claims he never saw him there. He says about 3 people showed up the entire day, and that he would have remembered a nice brand new truck like Petersons'. Plus, it would have been memorable for him to see a very small boat like his being launched into the bay that day...so he says. He would have recalled someone crazy enough to put a tiny boat in the bay that day, as the water was pretty rough.

I'm not going to dig up a link for that, but if you want to research the case try:

Modesto Bee (http://www.modbee.com)

Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com)

There are entire sections devoted to this case. Hey, everyone deserves a fair trial, but man I think someone hit a nerve here with you JK. Or is it...SP? Sorry just kiddin ;) I admire your skepticism, as I admit that I have very little in regards to this case.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hell, he wasn't even close to Mexico. In my state if I drive 90 miles in two directions I can hit 3 different states
Sorry. My mistake.

Peterson was arrested 30 miles from Mexico.

originally posted by schupurg
Well ya see, the corpse had no legs, and no head. Perhaps some helpful sea creatures chewed on her and her legs are still in the concrete (assuming it was used)
Forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee has said that if a body is wrapped in a tarp, tied at the feet and neck, and anchored to concrete at the extremities, over time the combination of sea water and rope/wire will sever the neck and feet from the rest of the body, leaving them still anchored to the ocean floor.

(Grisly, but he says it is much more likely than sea creatures--even sharks--decapitating a corpse). He explained the baby as a "coffin birth", basically the infant is expelled from the body when the gas from decomposition builds up inside the deceased.

The police theory seems to be Scott bludgeoned his wife at home, wrapped her body in a tarp, placed it in his truck and drove, with his boat, to the Berkeley Marina. There, he took concrete he had already mixed and set, anchored it to her legs and head, and pushed her overboard into the ocean.

Several months later, the process Dr. Lee described, resulted in the infant, tarp, and decapitated body being washed up on the shore after a storm. (Presumably the rest of the "evidence" is still anchored in the ocean).

The motive would be either he wanted his freedom to pursue another relationship--no wife, no baby--or that he did it for the money.

As for the insurance...I think if someone has been declared a homicide (as Lacy was long before Peterson was arrested) the life insurance would still pay off, even without a body.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony


Is everyone that disagrees with you "crazy"?

Ah, yes, the unsupported accusation bandied about as uncontested fact fallacy! Please, please, summon the necessary and proper textual evidence to back this up.

I won't hold my breath.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


Ah, yes, the unsupported accusation bandied about as uncontested fact fallacy! Please, please, summon the necessary and proper textual evidence to back this up.

I won't hold my breath.

What accusation? YOU implied the people @ freerepublic were crazy. I was asking a simple question.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony


What accusation? YOU implied the people @ freerepublic were crazy. I was asking a simple question.

Ah, so by "everybody" you just meant the folks over at the FreeRepublic. You do realize the impetus for that comment was sarcasm, right? The only trouble is that JK is soooo right-wing and soooo crazy that it "wouldn't surprise" many people.

Besides, the average visit to FreeRepublic lasts five hours and fourteen minutes, so I'd stick by the generalization.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The leftist matriarchal lynching of Scott Petersen in the leftist media may backfire (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32335), according to the attorney for Petersen who says he has evidence that can clear his client.

"I'm not gonna disclose what I have – before I have to do it – either to stroke my ego or kiss the media's ass." --Attorney Kirk McAllister, who says he's uncovered evidence to help clear Scott Peterson.

The only thing that attorney Kirk McAllister got wrong in that statement is that the media is the leftist media and the lynching of his client was motivated by matriarchal totalitarian cultural terror against men. It would have been nice for Mr. McAllister to mention that truth, but he did a good job nonetheless.

So did Scott murder his wife? The leftist media already said that he has. Thery do things like that because they do not understand America, and they certainly do not understand that men have a right to a trial. The Stalinist Red media wants to hang Scott Petersen because since his wife died they don't want him to continue with his life as a healthy heterosexual masculine male. They want him to be blamed for her death because she died and when chicks die that are married, it simply has to be the husband's fault, right?

JK

Don't worry - someday you might actually get a date!!! With a girl.

[peptoabysmal]

In the midst of the tragedy, however, a leader of the National Organization for Women offered an unsolicited comment: "There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," said Marva Stark, president of the Morris Country, New Jersey chapter of NOW. Opining that Scott Peterson should not be tried for the murder of his unborn son, she added, "Was [the baby] born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging [Peterson] with a double-murder.

full story: http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1194

Looks like Marva's hatred of men was overcome by her love of abortion.

[subgenius]

Can we get an answer from JK? Since every other murder of women in his opinion was caused by matriarchal terrorism, so to Laci got what she deserved and Scott was forced to do it?

[dmarker]

She didn't just die, she was murdered. And spouses are the usual suspects when a person is murdered, doesn't matter which gender the spouse is either.

I might ask JK, why do you hate women so much?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dmarker
She didn't just die, she was murdered. And spouses are the usual suspects when a person is murdered, doesn't matter which gender the spouse is either.

I might ask JK, why do you hate women so much?

You'd need Dr. Freud for that one.
(Don't ask about his mommy and daddy.)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dmarker
She didn't just die, she was murdered. And spouses are the usual suspects when a person is murdered, doesn't matter which gender the spouse is either.

I might ask JK, why do you hate women so much?
While what you state is a fact, JK thinks that most women have dozens of sexual partners a week before they get married.
Feel like you're going to have a sane discussion with someone like that?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by subgenius

While what you state is a fact, JK thinks that most women have dozens of sexual partners a week before they get married.
Feel like you're going to have a sane discussion with someone like that?

Not really, he seems stuck in a rut, doesn't he?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by dmarker


Not really, he seems stuck in a rut, doesn't he?
A septic tank of his own making.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

Jedi I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. The women you have been involved with do have "dozens" of partners a week. Those women are prostitutes. Perhaps you were wondering why they kept asking you for money.Tricky, that would imply that he's getting some and he's way to uptight to have actually been getting anything at all. I think it more likely that his only frame of reference with women is porn. That accounts for the warped world view AND the hostility.

[Clancie]

JK thinks that most women have dozens of sexual partners a week before they get married.
Well, in fairness, in his post to me he said that part was attempted humor. (?)

As for "rush to judgment", if there's any information in Scott's favor (which, other than his crime-free record, I personally haven't heard so far), I'm sure most people would listen to it with an open mind.

After all, he's a good looking guy, very personable. Even though, to me, the evidence all points to his guilt, it still is pretty hard to picture the reason someone like that would kill. (I don't buy the "in love with the Amber Frey" motive so far).

"The All American Boy Commits Murder"? Pretty hard to believe. I think the defense will easily be able to find a jury with the presumption of innocence--and they're the only opinions that matter.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
And no, people will not listen to it with an open mind because now they have heard the press telling them over and over that the guy is guilty.

JK declined to answer this question, but maybe you will: Can you provide me with a direct link to a news source which will "tell me that the guy is guilty?"

I've heard that kind of language many times in this debate, but I'm still not exactly sure what it refers to.

Jeremy

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
To anyone new to the forum please understand that Jedi Knight does not necassarily represent the views of others who lean to the right.

I really squirm at some of the headlines. But he has his right to post and he is great fodder for my friends on the left.

But it is interesting to see the divisions on the Right over the Petersen issue. :p

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
Do you disagree that there is a media storm surrounding him at this moment? That alone is prejudicial.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of my question. My intention is to find out what you (and/or JK) think qualifies as the media declaring someone guilty, and also whether anything counterfactual has been reported.

If people are unable to detach themselves from what the media reports, I think that's evidence of a sociological problem with the general population more than a problem with the press. But that's what JREF is for, right? :)

Jeremy

[DavidJames]

"Do you disagree that there is a media storm surrounding him at this moment? That alone is prejudicial"

I can't speak for others, but I agree with you and I would guess that others agree as well. The point, however, I'm think those bugging JK is that agreeing with your comment is not the same as JK's assertion that:

"the media claims as fact that he did"

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


I think you misunderstand the purpose of my question. My intention is to find out what you (and/or JK) think qualifies as the media declaring someone guilty, and also whether anything counterfactual has been reported.

If people are unable to detach themselves from what the media reports, I think that's evidence of a sociological problem with the general population more than a problem with the press. But that's what JREF is for, right? :)

Jeremy

You meant "leftist media" instead of media.

Beyond that, when the leftist media talks about Lacy missing her head, etc, for example, and then at the same time showing a picture of her husband walking in front of their house talking on a cellphone in the background of that verbal description, are you honestly trying to say that that propaganda isn't affecting Scott's future trial for his defense?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Do you disagree that there is a media storm surrounding him at this moment? That alone is prejudicial"

I can't speak for others, but I agree with you and I would guess that others agree as well. The point, however, I'm think those bugging JK is that agreeing with your comment is not the same as JK's assertion that:

"the media claims as fact that he did"

The leftist media isn't being skeptical are they? That means they have taken a side. It isn't Scott's side, is it? :eek:

Some fair trial opportunities there, huh.

JK

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
The press should stay out of trials. It is absolutely inconsistent with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". I predict that if you are ever arrested yourself, or if you serve on a jury deciding something like this, your opinion will change.

I agree with you about the problems created by the situation, but you and I part company when you suggest that censorship of the press is an acceptable solution.

If it were up to me, I would attempt to solve this problem by giving the defense more leeway in jury selection.

Jeremy

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius

While what you state is a fact, JK thinks that most women have dozens of sexual partners a week before they get married.
Feel like you're going to have a sane discussion with someone like that?

You are just jealous of my superior intellect.

JK

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Beyond that, when the leftist media talks about Lacy missing her head, etc, for example, and then at the same time showing a picture of her husband walking in front of their house talking on a cellphone in the background of that verbal description, are you honestly trying to say that that propaganda isn't affecting Scott's future trial for his defense?

No, but you and sundog have both made statements to the effect that the media are "saying that Peterson did it," which, as far as I can tell, is untrue when taken at face value. So, obviously, you both are being somewhat hyperbolic, and so I am simply trying to gauge what level of media bias you think qualifies as "saying that Peterson did it."

Jeremy

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


I agree with you about the problems created by the situation, but you and I part company when you suggest that censorship of the press is an acceptable solution.

If it were up to me, I would attempt to solve this problem by giving the defense more leeway in jury selection.

Jeremy

I am not calling for censorship of the press, just for massive tort reform. If Scott wins his case and proves he did not kill Lacy, he should be entitled to $billions in damages from the leftist media for them taking his name internationally and running it through the collective muck.

JK

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Clancy

Well, in fairness, in his post to me he said that part was attempted humor. (?)

As for "rush to judgment", if there's any information in Scott's favor (which, other than his crime-free record, I personally haven't heard so far), I'm sure most people would listen to it with an open mind.

After all, he's a good looking guy, very personable. Even though, to me, the evidence all points to his guilt, it still is pretty hard to picture the reason someone like that would kill. (I don't buy the "in love with the Amber Frey" motive so far).

"The All American Boy Commits Murder"? Pretty hard to believe. I think the defense will easily be able to find a jury with the presumption of innocence--and they're the only opinions that matter.

They called Ted Bundy the "All American Boy Killer". Paul Bernard and Karla Holmolka were called the "Ken and Barbie Killers" because they were both blonde, young, and attractive. So don't let that sway you either way.

Speculation aside, we can wait for the trial on Court TV to see how this turns out. We can see the evidence for ourselves.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
In my case at least, have I made my poosition clear? I apologize if you were thrown off by the way I worded something.

Well, I understand that you think the current media coverage is excessively biased. Since I haven't followed this story at all, I don't really know what the current media coverage is, but that's my problem, not yours.

Maybe I should be on the jury? :)

Jeremy

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Sundog


You have just defined "rush to judgement". You haven't heard the defense's case yet! We never do until the trials. You "personally haven't heard it yet" because the defense generally does NOT lay its case out to the media.

And no, people will not listen to it with an open mind because now they have heard the press telling them over and over that the guy is guilty.

Put yourself in the guy's place! Would you want the Peepul of America to decide your fate based on TV reports?

Perhaps the reason I feel so strongly is that I have served on a jury that sentenced a man to life in prison. It's not something to treat like the latest episode of Oprah, it's a man's life at stake.

True, the more heinous the crime, the more passions must be suppressed to judge the case.

Tell us about the case you served on, Sundog.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If Scott wins his case and proves he did not kill Lacy, he should be entitled to $billions in damages from the leftist media for them taking his name internationally and running it through the collective muck.

Well, then that gets back to my original question to you: however selectively they print it, are the press actually reporting anything untrue? If the answer is yes, give me a direct link, please. If the answer is no, then that's not libel after all, is it?

Jeremy

[subgenius]

Originally posted by subgenius
Can we get an answer from JK? Since every other murder of women in his opinion was caused by matriarchal terrorism, so to Laci got what she deserved and Scott was forced to do it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Thanks for the insight, RandFan. Seriously, coming new to the Politics forum, it is a bit confusing to sort all the frequent posters out. My impression is that it skews more right-center, than I expected.

I may be totally wrong, but there seem far fewer liberals here than I would have expected, for whatever reason (Yes, JK, probably because of my own "leftist bias", lol).

But I do see JK as occupying his own "part of the spectrum", so to speak. It's funny but I truly thought that most leaned to the left. Maybe that says more about us than the makeup of the forum. There have been some polls anyone remember how they turned out?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
...

Well damn, you get a call that says: "Hey, your wife is missing."...I would find it natural for a guy or a girl to lie about extra-marital affairs in a situation like that. Women have dozens of sexual partners per week being married and no one bitches about that until a chick comes up missing and then her husband is a "bad guy" because he had an "affair"....whoop dee doo.

...

I could solve the case probably in 48 hours if I had the resources.

JK

Great googly moogly!

These two statements say more about Jedi fruitKake than I ever could.

[DavidJames]

"My impression is that it skews more right-center, than I expected. "

"It's funny but I truly thought that most leaned to the left"

:D

Not surprising at all. Basic human nature.

[renata]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"My impression is that it skews more right-center, than I expected. "

"It's funny but I truly thought that most leaned to the left"

:D

Not surprising at all. Basic human nature.

I think we have several very vocal right wing and left wing posters, hence the different impressions. I think we are pretty evenly split.

[renata]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You meant "leftist media" instead of media.

Beyond that, when the leftist media talks about Lacy missing her head, etc, for example, and then at the same time showing a picture of her husband walking in front of their house talking on a cellphone in the background of that verbal description, are you honestly trying to say that that propaganda isn't affecting Scott's future trial for his defense?

JK

It is a good thing Fox News did the right thing and stayed away from the Scott Peterson issue entirely.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


Well, then that gets back to my original question to you: however selectively they print it, are the press actually reporting anything untrue? If the answer is yes, give me a direct link, please. If the answer is no, then that's not libel after all, is it?

Jeremy

It is untrue when they describe how Lacy was killed while showing Scott Petersen's picture at the same time. That is obvious bias. I already explained that to you but I guess it sailed over your head.

How can you describe a person that was murdered on international TV by the leftist biased media and show an enlarged innocent man's face at the same time? That is the same as saying Scott is guilty and he "did it".

I mean, screw the trial, the leftist media is already deciding it. :eek:

JK

[RandFan]

Hey Sundog,

I think you make some valid points. I would just like to make a few comments for some additional perspective. First let me say and I should have made clear in my first post that the guilt or innocence of Scott Paterson has nothing to do with ideology. And that liberals are often the first to come out in support of the rights of the accused while conservatives are very pro-law enforcement and are often less likely to support those accused of a crime. I don't think this is a Democrats/Liberals are bad and Republicans/Conservatives are good issue.

Having argue at length that the mainstream media suffers from bias I don't think that what is happening to Scott in the press is due to left wing ideology. On the contrary to the extent that ideology plays a part then I would say that right leaning ideology plays a bigger part.

Originally posted by Sundog
You have just defined "rush to judgement". You haven't heard the defense's case yet! We never do until the trials. You "personally haven't heard it yet" because the defense generally does NOT lay its case out to the media. But I have seen lawyers on A&E, Court Channel, MSNBC and others who have argued on behalf of Scott and attacking the leaks and accusations. Some have made a case for why the information is not as it seems.

And no, people will not listen to it with an open mind because now they have heard the press telling them over and over that the guy is guilty.

Put yourself in the guy's place! Would you want the Peepul of America to decide your fate based on TV reports? This was said of the OJ case but there were jurors who were not familiar with the case and he did get a fair trial. In fact he got off. Some have argued that the media attention can play into either side and to be sure Mark Geragos (if he takes the case) will exploit all the false rumors and leaks in the favor of Scott.

Not everyone thinks Scott is guilty. There are a significant number of people, people like yourself Sundog who feel that Scott deserves a presumption of innocence and are willing to wait to hear all of the evidence before they render judgement.

It should be noted that it has been shown that even people who have decided the guilt of someone before trial have changed their minds once they have heard the evidence and deliberate in the jury room.

While I believe pretrial publicity can make it difficult to defend Scott Paterson I do think he can get a fair trial.

I would have to say that I think that the evidence presented thus far tends to indicate that he is guilty. That being said I would bring up another infamous case. The McMartin preschool case. I was absolutely convinced as was most everyone was that they were guilty.

McMartin preschool case (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_mcmar.htm)

A 1986 survey of residents in Los Angeles County was taken before the first trial. It showed that 90% of the potential jurors believed that Raymond and Peggy were guilty. In spite of strong bias by the townsfolk, the judge refused the defense's request for a change of venue. The outcome? Of 208 charges there was not a single conviction.

I have changed my mind and don't think that anyone was guilty of any of the charges in that case. It's a testament to the fact that one can get a fair trial in the face of such overwhelming opposition.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by renata


It is a good thing Fox News did the right thing and stayed away from the Scott Peterson issue entirely.

Indeed, I suspect we can all also be greatful that the NY Post and Daily News do not engage in any leftist media tactics that might otherwise imply guilt in this case or any other before it has been presented to a jury. They, clearly, are the "conservative" media standards that all should aspire to....:p

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
It is untrue when they describe how Lacy was killed while showing Scott Petersen's picture at the same time. That is obvious bias.

Except there's no law against bias. In fact, the first amendment -- you do support it, don't you? -- guarantees them that right.

I'm not concerned with appearances, or how they choose to arrange their pictures. I'm concerned with them printing statements that are factually incorrect.

How can you describe a person that was murdered on international TV by the leftist biased media and show an enlarged innocent man's face at the same time?

First, you shouldn't assume he is innocent any more than anyone else should assume he is guilty. There is a difference between presumption and assumption.

Second, you don't give people enough credit. I am, according to you, a "leftist," and yet I don't have any strong feelings regarding Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence, either way. I think I would be fine as a juror in his case. If people are really so stupid that they are swayed by things they see on TV, then hell, the media bias will be the least of the justice system's worries when they land on a jury.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
I daresay if it was YOUR picture on the screen, you'd feel differently.

Maybe, maybe not. In any case, why is that relevant? My bias in that situation would overwhelm any attempt I made to view the situation dispassionately. Shouldn't these decisions be made by people who have no vested interest in the outcome?

Edited to add: What mechanism do you propose to solve this situation, anyway? Censorship of the press? No broadcasting or printing unless Big Brother says the layout and pictures are okay?

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Sundog
I'm honestly confused by you. You're obviously intelligent, and yet you refuse to see that pretrial publicity about the accused is a patently bad thing. To me this is stunningly self-evident.

I don't deny that it's a bad thing; I simply think the alternatives are even worse. Seriously, how do you propose to solve this problem? Railing against it is useless if there's no solution in sight.

How can you argue for a totally unbiased approach and simultaneously argue that it's OK for the press to clearly imply the man's guilt?

Maybe I have an unwarranted amount of faith in the justice system's ability to find 12 people who can find it within themselves to look past what they've seen on TV. I dunno.

Jeremy

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan

It should be noted that it has been shown that even people who have decided the guilt of someone before trial have changed their minds once they have heard the evidence and deliberate in the jury room.


It should be noted that a juror who goes into a trial thinking the defendent is guilty, such that their mind can be changed, is violating the guidelines of "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

Recall one of the questions on the infamous OJ questionaire:

Do you think that he is

a) guilty
b) innocent
c) I cannot decide until I hear the evidence

The only acceptable answer for a juror is (b).

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


Except there's no law against bias. In fact, the first amendment -- you do support it, don't you? -- guarantees them that right.

I'm not concerned with appearances, or how they choose to arrange their pictures. I'm concerned with them printing statements that are factually incorrect.



First, you shouldn't assume he is innocent any more than anyone else should assume he is guilty. There is a difference between presumption and assumption.

Second, you don't give people enough credit. I am, according to you, a "leftist," and yet I don't have any strong feelings regarding Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence, either way. I think I would be fine as a juror in his case. If people are really so stupid that they are swayed by things they see on TV, then hell, the media bias will be the least of the justice system's worries when they land on a jury.

Jeremy

It isn't just bias, it is slander and libel. If some media outlet plastered my face on TV while describing a death of some chick, I would get a high-powered lawyer pal of mine to restore my reputation and sue for $millions.

Until Scott Petersen is found guilty by a jury of his peers, he is innocent. Yes, we know his wife is dead. Yes we know he was married to her.

Beyond that, it is slander to put a guy's face on TV using "gut instinct" while describing a murder. You can say the guy is a suspect, but if you air out things to try and hang the guy before his trial you are Richard Jewell'ing him. Jewell won the slander case against him for $millions from a variety of media outlets.

I wonder how much Scott will win?

The problem with the "media" now is that they have strayed from doing their jobs. Their job is to report facts, not try to convince me, John Q. Public, of a guy's guilt or innocence. We have a system in place to do that job. It is called the courts. The last thing I want is the moronic leftist media trying the guilt or innocence of any American citizen.

JK

[toddjh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Recall one of the questions on the infamous OJ questionaire:

Do you think that he is

a) guilty
b) innocent
c) I cannot decide until I hear the evidence

The only acceptable answer for a juror is (b).

I don't know about the legal interpretation, but I disagree completely. Presuming is entirely different from thinking! I can presume that someone is innocent even if I have absolutely no idea what to think about him.

Anyway, it was my impression that the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" clause is referring to the way the government, not individuals, should treat the defendant.

Jeremy

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Sundog


I daresay if it was YOUR picture on the screen, you'd feel differently.

Damn right.

I did more thinking about this last night. Scott had never been arrested for anything in his life. Ever.

I am thinking more that he dyed his hair because he was ashamed about what the media did to him.

If he is guilty I will be the first to say he deserves to be shot for killing that pregnant chick. But if he is innocent, the leftist media may have permanently psychologically damaged him.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


I don't know about the legal interpretation, but I disagree completely. Presuming is entirely different from thinking! I can presume that someone is innocent even if I have absolutely no idea what to think about him.

Anyway, it was my impression that the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" clause is referring to the way the government, not individuals, should treat the defendant.

Jeremy

Scott never told the media he was guilty. He didn't confess. How can the media preach otherwise and destroy his reputation? Does the media have psychic powers or is it slander? The media thought it had psychic powers about Richard Jewell.

JK

[Smalso]

Leftist media, rightest media--they're all out to sell stories and make money. Now comes it a barrage of press conferences and releases--not to mention "leaks--by both sides. If these were not covered, the press would be accused of a cover-up. If they are, the press is accused of bias.

The presumption of innocence is a legal ogligation on the judge and jury. Any one in the public, unless he or she is on the jury, may presume what he or she wants. Surely, the prosecutor has the option of presuming the guilt of the defendant.


edited to remove an incoherent statement

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
It isn't just bias, it is slander and libel.

Slander is spoken, libel is written. I don't know that either of those apply to the way pictures are arranged in a newspaper or TV broadcast.

If some media outlet plastered my face on TV while describing a death of some chick, I would get a high-powered lawyer pal of mine to restore my reputation and sue for $millions.

Then who needs tort reform? Go ahead and do it.

Until Scott Petersen is found guilty by a jury of his peers, he is innocent.

Presumed innocent. Juries don't find someone innocent, they find them not guilty -- that is, they can only rule on whether the evidence of guilt is convincing. That is not necessarily related to whether they actually committed the crime. Maybe they just committed the crime very well.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Scott never told the media he was guilty. He didn't confess. How can the media preach otherwise and destroy his reputation? Does the media have psychic powers or is it slander? The media thought it had psychic powers about Richard Jewell.

In the post you are replying to, I was not referring to the Peterson case specifically.

Jeremy

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


Slander is spoken, libel is written. I don't know that either of those apply to the way pictures are arranged in a newspaper or TV broadcast.



Then who needs tort reform? Go ahead and do it.



Presumed innocent. Juries don't find someone innocent, they find them not guilty -- that is, they can only rule on whether the evidence of guilt is convincing. That is not necessarily related to whether they actually committed the crime. Maybe they just committed the crime very well.

Jeremy

Yeah, that is right--slander and libel--print media and broadcast. I thought you would understand it.

See, the media profits by slandering guys like Richard Jewell and Scott Petersen. They make big $$$$$ dragging a guy's rep through the trash nationally and internationally on TV.

If one person in your town calls a moron and you pick your nose and eat your snots, that is not slander. The guy is just running his mouth about you but he is not profiting from it. And you would probably punch him in the nose when you caught up with him anyway.

What the leftist media does is make a business venture out of ruining people. That is a completely different legal standard.

JK

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
What the leftist media does is make a business venture out of ruining people. That is a completely different legal standard.

Why? If someone tells lies to disparage my character, why does it make any difference to me whether they're making money off of it? It might make some difference in their ability to pay when I sue, and therefore it could affect the amount of the award, but apart from that, why is it relevant?

Jeremy

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh


I don't know about the legal interpretation, but I disagree completely. Presuming is entirely different from thinking! I can presume that someone is innocent even if I have absolutely no idea what to think about him.



The best I can find in a mirriam-webster is for presumption:

"an attitude or belief dictated by probability"

presume has things like

"to take for granted: ASSUME"

So yeah, presuming is basically what you assume or believe.

You cannot say that you think he is guilty but you do not believe he is guilty at the same time.


Anyway, it was my impression that the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" clause is referring to the way the government, not individuals, should treat the defendant.
[/B]

It is how the entire judicial system treats the accused, and that includes the jury.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
You cannot say that you think he is guilty but you do not believe he is guilty at the same time.

No, but you can say that you have no idea what to believe, but you will presume that he is innocent until you are convinced otherwise, because that is your legal duty.

It is how the entire judicial system treats the accused, and that includes the jury.

It includes the jurors in their capacity as members of the jury. As individuals, they are free to believe whatever the hell they want. It's all sort of a "for the sake of argument," "suppose you didn't know anything about it" kind of deal -- and that's the only way it can work.

Jeremy

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
It should be noted that a juror who goes into a trial thinking the defendent is guilty, such that their mind can be changed, is violating the guidelines of "presumed innocent until proven guilty."
I was not referencing individuals who believed in guilt such that their mind could not be changed. Only that they believed in guilt and then changed their mind.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by toddjh


Why? If someone tells lies to disparage my character, why does it make any difference to me whether they're making money off of it? It might make some difference in their ability to pay when I sue, and therefore it could affect the amount of the award, but apart from that, why is it relevant?

Jeremy

It is all based on the value of your reputation. If the media makes $millions off your name while spouting lies that you killed a pregnant chick when you really didn't, the value of your reputation increased exponentially and when you sue the media to get the money they made off going after you, that is how that is figured out.

That is what happened to Richard Jewell with the infamous "backpack" situation at the Atlanta Olympic Park. The leftist media made Jewell's name a household brand and he recouped the $millions they made off him.

Now you can sue the guy in your hometown who said you pick your nose and eat your snots, but when you get to court you will have a much harder time proving the value of your reputation and it may only be $1 or .50 cents.

The only slander and libel cases I have seen that were of any worth were those where an outside corporation directly profited from your name in combination with other time-sensitive compelling interests that were either designed to work for you or deliberately against you.

Most media cases work against people and their reputations and the damage standard is much, much higher.

JK

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
I was not referencing individuals who believed in guilt such that their mind could not be changed. Only that they believed in guilt and then changed their mind.

The guidelines for jurors do not allow one to presume guilt but willing to change your mind. It must be the presumption of innocence. Not presumption of guilt but willing to change your mind in the face of evidence. You can't think he is guilty and claim you presume him to be innocent.

Anyone who changed their mind from guilt to innocence did not have a presumption of innocence, pretty much by definition.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh


No, but you can say that you have no idea what to believe,

You cannot "have no idea" what to believe. Going in, you must believe "innocent."

Read the definitions I gave above. Presumption most certainly involves belief.

Option (c) on the questionairre question I listed above is not an an acceptable answer for a juror. That is why all those who answered that in the OJ case were immediately dismissed.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Option (c) on the questionairre question I listed above is not an an acceptable answer for a juror. That is why all those who answered that in the OJ case were immediately dismissed.

Well, I am discussing ideals, not reality. Our legal system does idiotic things all the time, so I prefer to talk about how things should work, rather than how they currently do.

Jeremy

[Clancie]

Media coverage or not, they'll have no trouble finding an unbiased jury. Geragos will hire the best jury consultant around and both sides can refuse to empanel anyone they think will go against them.

Just a question for Jedi Knight...I actually agree with you that there is media bias...or prejudice...in repeating negative stories about Scott so much.

Like with Elizabeth Smart, they'll keep the story going as long as people are interested. For SP, they work with what they have (and most of it is negative).

My question is...why is it liberal bias? I see it as titillating and about $$$$, but, at this point, what does it have to do with liberalism?????

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Anyone who changed their mind from guilt to innocence did not have a presumption of innocence, pretty much by definition. No argument, but bear in mind that we are talking about Human Beings. When one comes to a stop sign one is supposed to come to a complete stop. Do you always come to a complete stop? Do all people come to a complete stop?

Jurors are not allowed to make deals during deliberations but they do. The jurors in the Hiedi Fliess case admitted to it. By my recollection there has been testimony of jurors who had gone into a trial with preconceived notions and had changed their mind.

If you believe that rules of the court would absolutely preclude the possibility of such an event then I can't change your mind because I don't have any documented examples.

Let me just say that because humans aren't supposed to do something doesn't mean that they don't. That should be self-evident by the very fact that we have trials in the first place.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
Let me just say that because humans aren't supposed to do something doesn't mean that they don't.


Um, I never said they didn't. I just said that if they do, then they are violating the juror guidelines.

And just because "they all do it" it is NOT a reason why we should condone it.



That should be self-evident by the very fact that we have trials in the first place.

Um, we have trials because we recognize it is _wrong_ when people do what they aren't supposed to do. We don't condone it just because hey, humans are fallible.

[Thumper]

Well, if my wife was murdered in a dramatic matter, and the press started flashing my picture across the nation because I was a 'suspect,' then my reputation would be ruined as would my life. If I were innocent, who is going to put my life back together after the media destroyed it?

While we are on the subject, why do I have any interest in who killed Laci? I do not, and I should not. It is none of my ****** business. I do not have the need to know. :mad:

Forget whether Scott is guilty or innocent, what logical reason do the media have for plastering this across the nation?

[JAR]

I feel that if that guy did kill his wife, which I am almost certainly sure he did, he deserves a really bad punishment. I don't understand what his problem with her was. She seemed like a nice attractive woman.

If he did kill her, he is one evil, self-centered, cold-blooded killer. When I die, I don't want it to be forced upon me by another human being or animal for that matter.

The idea of being murdered seems like a horrifying way to go.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR
I feel that if that guy did kill his wife, which I am almost certainly sure he did, he deserves a really bad punishment. I don't understand what his problem with her was. She seemed like a nice attractive woman.

If he did kill her, he is one evil, self-centered, cold-blooded killer. When I die, I don't want it to be forced upon me by another human being or animal for that matter.

The idea of being murdered seems like a horrifying way to go.


I hear that JAR. Lacy was a pretty sexy looking woman.

I also agree with you that every person on this earth has a right to live without anyone killing them, that is unless they are in an army or something and the US has to go over there and take them out.

But other than that, I agree with you. I think the worst way to go would be to get eaten by a grizzly bear or something mean like that. Ever see that movie with Anthony Hopkins where that black guy gets eaten by that grizzly bear in alaska? That bear lifted him right off the ground by his wounded leg and then bit right into his ribcage in one sickening snap.

I have been hunted before by other humans in war. That is pretty intense. I think being eaten alive by a hungry grizzly bear would be worse than getting shot through the chest with an assault rifle.

JK

[Troll]

Those "leftists" at Fox News seem to think Peterson is guilty and the freaking trial hasn't started yet. I can no longer watch FOX or MSNBC as they have shown themselves to be leftists in the eyes of JK, even if he failed to mention them. Who would now be the right media?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll
Those "leftists" at Fox News seem to think Peterson is guilty and the freaking trial hasn't started yet. I can no longer watch FOX or MSNBC as they have shown themselves to be leftists in the eyes of JK, even if he failed to mention them. Who would now be the right media?

I don't get Fox News where I live. I really wish I did, but I don't. Can you call my cable company and bitch them out for not carrying them?

JK

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Ever see that movie with Anthony Hopkins where that black guy gets eaten by that grizzly bear in alaska? That bear lifted him right off the ground by his wounded leg and then bit right into his ribcage in one sickening snap.

I've seen that movie but can't remember the name of it. I do remember that a friend at school told me that it was based on a screenplay called "The Bookworm." That, of course, was because the main character reads lots of books.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I don't get Fox News where I live. I really wish I did, but I don't. Can you call my cable company and bitch them out for not carrying them?

JK

Hey I got plenty of minutes on my phone cards. Gimme their info and I'll call. But be realistic. You surely have the ability to get to their web site.

Yeah you were definitely army. Learn to fake an attack and then how to duck and dodge when called on it. Get back to the real point of the post. Fox isn't leftist and they've prety much convicted the guy already. So explain yourself. If you can.;)

[Troll]

Originally posted by JAR


I've seen that movie but can't remember the name of it. I do remember that a friend at school told me that it was based on a screenplay called "The Bookworm." That, of course, was because the main character reads lots of books.

The Edge

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119051

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


Hey I got plenty of minutes on my phone cards. Gimme their info and I'll call. But be realistic. You surely have the ability to get to their web site.

Yeah you were definitely army. Learn to fake an attack and then how to duck and dodge when called on it. Get back to the real point of the post. Fox isn't leftist and they've prety much convicted the guy already. So explain yourself. If you can.;)

Here you can email them at: leftistcablecompany@commiemediacable.com

JK

[Troll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Here you can email them at: leftistcablecompany@commiemediacable.com

JK

Nah. I said call them. So come on JK gimme the name of your real cable company and I'll be glad to call them and fight for your right to view Fox News

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Troll


Nah. I said call them. So come on JK gimme the name of your real cable company and I'll be glad to call them and fight for your right to view Fox News

I have already called them dozens of times...they are commies and won't put Fox News on. You calling them won't make a difference because Stalinist Red cable companies don't give a rats ass about their customers, just leftist propaganda.

JK

[Troll]

Well that's your problem. You called them. surely they have no choice but to think "There goes the lunatic fringe again"

Gimme their number. See how quickly you can see Fox News.

;)

[davefoc]

Let me see if I have the story right:

The leftist media outlets in the US have libeled Scott Peterson because they believe in a society headed by women and in order to bring this about they have decided to convict Scott whether he is guilty or not.

Not only, have the leftist media outlets done this to poor Scott Peterson who may be an innocent victim of circumstances, but somehow they have infiltrated Fox News and gotten them to go along with this witchhunt thus subverting the normally right leaning Fox News department to assist them in their evil plot.

And we know that Scott Peterson is probably innocent because his defense attorney says that he has proof that Scott is innocent. And we know that a defense attorney would never lie or mislead because defense attorneys are always trustworthy.

And somehow we know that Laci had lot's of sexual partners so her husband didn't kill her.

And furthermore the facts that have been made public about the case which suggest to most people that the guy is guilty, guilty, guilty are just a bunch of unfortunate coincidences with innocent explanations which JK has the unique ability to find because he has not been taken in by the leftist media's conspiracy to convict this poor innocent man.

It's that about right JK?

[Thumper]

At the risk of repeating myself,

What business is it of ours whether he killed her or not?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Um, I never said they didn't. I just said that if they do, then they are violating the juror guidelines. [/B] We are talking past each other. I'm sorry. Yes, you are right

And just because "they all do it" it is NOT a reason why we should condone it. I never have, never will. That was not the point of my original post. I realize now that you were not questioning whether or not such an event happens. You were only noting that it is wrong if they do.

I think that we are on the same page now.

[shuize]

Guilty or not, it was not a bright move to sell the missing wife's car. Is that where the $10,000 in cash he was found carrying came from? JK is right about one thing, the news coverage has led me to believe he's guilty.

[subgenius]

Facts led you to that conclusion.
Despite opinion to the contrary, unless you're on the jury you can decide or not decide based on anything or nothing, and measured by whatever standard you want.
The media and everyone in the system is challenged by the "public's right to know" versus a fair trial. England, I understand has much stricter controls, but it's a judgement call.
No one wants to see a murderer set free because he didn't get a fair trial.
The interesting thing is why the thread starter is only interested in protecting the rights of murderers of women.
Could be because he feels they were justified in the first place.
Still waiting for the answer to my previous question, and any slight expression of sympathy for the victims and their loved ones. Long time coming. Anyone reasonable concerned with a fair trial would nonetheless express outrage at the murder of a young mother-to-be. We hear silence from the great rights protector.
Nothing rings as true as silence.---Dave Wakeling

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Thumper
At the risk of repeating myself,

What business is it of ours whether he killed her or not?
Am I my sister's keeper?
You can only answer that for yourself.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
The interesting thing is why the thread starter is only interested in protecting the rights of murderers of women.
Could be because he feels they were justified in the first place.
Still waiting for the answer to my previous question, and any slight expression of sympathy for the victims and their loved ones. Long time coming. Anyone reasonable concerned with a fair trial would nonetheless express outrage at the murder of a young mother-to-be. We hear silence from the great rights protector.
Nothing rings as true as silence.---Dave Wakeling "Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence

--Paul Simon

Todays forecast calls for increased silence. In other news there is no indication that hell is in any danger of freezing over.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shuize
Guilty or not, it was not a bright move to sell the missing wife's car. Is that where the $10,000 in cash he was found carrying came from? JK is right about one thing, the news coverage has led me to believe he's guilty.

Maybe he was going to buy a new car. The police impounded his truck.

I guess you thought Scott was "guilty" when the authorities from Modesto got on leftist cable TV and said over and over and over "it is an open and shut case."

Gosh, considering how brainwashed the American public is by that little box Americans stare at all day and the leftist venom flowing out of those boxes, I can see how Scott is now "guilty" to the leftist-induced American populations.

Why don't we scrap the judicial system in this country and let the leftist media prosecute criminal cases?

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I have already called them dozens of times...they are commies and won't put Fox News on. You calling them won't make a difference because Stalinist Red cable companies don't give a rats ass about their customers, just leftist propaganda.

JK
Did you ever hear of satellite dishes?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I guess you thought Scott was "guilty" when the authorities from Modesto got on leftist cable TV and said over and over and over "it is an open and shut case." I suspected Scott when I found out that he was having an affair. The fact that he lied point blank to investigators and Laci's family made me wonder what else he lies about. Of course we learned from the Clinton scandals that lying about sex is to be expected so maybe that fact is not relevent. What do you think JK?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by RandFan
I suspected Scott when I found out that he was having an affair. The fact that he lied point blank to investigators and Laci's family made me wonder what else he lies about. Of course we learned from the Clinton scandals that lying about sex is to be expected so maybe that fact is not relevent. What do you think JK?

I think Scott is the typical American public school educated male who had an affair because "it felt good". (the 90's message).

When his wife went missing, it was politically incorrect for Scott to "feel good" because the only time men in this country can "feel good" is when chicks are safe. (no matter what chicks do).

Since Scott's chick was killed, it was only natural that his "affair" became a sin worse than anti-feminism. Now, if Lacy killed Scott and she was having an affair, it would have been expressed as an "abuse" thingy in the leftist media and Lacy's pursuit to "feel good" would have been demanded by the leftist media as an incident of "diversity" and something to be "celebrated" and used in her defense.

Since it was Scott, it was "hate", "rage", "hiding" and "evading".

JK

[Clancie]

"leftist media" "leftist cable"

Asking again, Jedi Knight...please define "leftist" so that your definition makes sense in the context you keep using it in.

Yes, many in the media (print press, too) do repeatedly report the (largely) incriminating stories about SP.

But how is this "leftist" reporting?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I think Scott is the typical American public school educated male who had an affair because "it felt good". (the 90's message).

When his wife went missing, it was politically incorrect for Scott to "feel good" because the only time men in this country can "feel good" is when chicks are safe. (no matter what chicks do).

Since Scott's chick was killed, it was only natural that his "affair" became a sin worse than anti-feminism. Now, if Lacy killed Scott and she was having an affair, it would have been expressed as an "abuse" thingy in the leftist media and Lacy's pursuit to "feel good" would have been demanded by the leftist media as an incident of "diversity" and something to be "celebrated" and used in her defense.

Since it was Scott, it was "hate", "rage", "hiding" and "evading".

JK You never fail to disapoint.

Your answer of course fails to address the fact that he lied. But that is ok. I didn't really expect an answer.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by RandFan
You never fail to disapoint.

Your answer of course fails to address the fact that he lied. But that is ok. I didn't really expect an answer.

I already explained why he probably lied about his affair. Since when is having an "affair" a big deal? His high-powered lawyer will annihilate that leftist spin.

JK

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I already explained why he probably lied about his affair. Since when is having an "affair" a big deal? His high-powered lawyer will annihilate that leftist spin. I never said having an affair was a big deal. I said I suspected Scott after learning that he lied about having an affair. The fact that he lied about the afair makes me wonder what else the guy lies about.

So, when asked about "sex" by investigators is it expected for people like Clinton and Scott to lie?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by RandFan
I never said having an affair was a big deal. I said I suspected Scott after learning that he lied about having an affair. The fact that he lied about the afair makes me wonder what else the guy lies about.

So, when asked about "sex" by investigators is it expected for people like Clinton and Scott to lie?

That was the 90's message. If the president himself can lie about "sex", why can't the average citizen lie about it?

It is as I said. I think Scott was thinking he would hang himself if he was innocent and said he had an affair. People lie about "affairs" everyday. Affairs only matter when a chick dies.

JK

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That was the 90's message. If the president himself can lie about "sex", why can't the average citizen lie about it? Was it ok in your mind for Clinton to lie about "sex"? Did you come to the defense of Bill Clinton at the time?

It is as I said. I think Scott was thinking he would hang himself if he was innocent and said he had an affair. I have no ideas what this means. Could you clarify?

People lie about "affairs" everyday. Affairs only matter when a chick dies. Wasn't that the message that those on the left were saying during the Clinton affair? Aren't you now agreeing with the leftist media?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by RandFan
Was it ok in your mind for Clinton to lie about "sex"? Did you come to the defense of Bill Clinton at the time?

Hell no. I don't think is is a good idea to lie at all. The point I was making is that Scott's "lie" about his affair with that chick is not as much of a big deal as the leftist media is making it out to be.

What did investigators get from their "affair"--that he had an "affair"? Did the chick he was having an affair with talk about some plan to murder Lacy? If not, it doesn't mean "jack" in a court of law. You can thank no-fault divorce for that too. I wish people were held accountable for adultry, but lawyers and radical feminist groups saw to it that "adulty" is "whatever makes ya feel good" and unenforceable.

I have no ideas what this means. Could you clarify?

Sure. If the cops showed up at your house saying your wife was missing or dead, are you going to tell them you had a two week affair with some chick across town? Hell no. That is the point I was making. Even if Scott is innocent he isn't going to talk about having affairs with strange women, nor should we expect him to. Was lying to the cops about that wrong? You bet it was. Does that make Scott a murderer? No.

Wasn't that the message that those on the left were saying during the Clinton affair? Aren't you now agreeing with the leftist media?

Well it is true. You can be married to someone for twenty years, have a spouse commit adultry and the courts won't do jack about it because of no-fault divorce. Adultry is a scofflaw. A guy on MSNBC said it best when he described that at least 50% of all marriages had people in them committing adultry.

The point, again, that I am making is that the leftist media is making a big deal out of this because Lacy is dead. Show me one instance in the leftist media where they talked about an average guy or gal committing adultry and it mattered. No way. Never. Never, ever been on TV in the media. But since a pregnant woman dies, the husband commits "adultry" and the leftist media turns born again Christian about it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Even though I am skeptical about the Petersen case, if he is proven guilty I will be the first one to want him to get the death penalty.

JK

[schplurg]

Interesting Quotes From Scotts Lawyer (http://www.modbee.com/local/story/6660011p-7601107c.html)

His lawyer was all over Peterson...right up until he got hired by Peterson. Amazing how money and fame can make one leap back over the fence...

Geragos, who has appeared regularly on television as a commentator on the case, downplayed any impact from his earlier statement that there was enough evidence to convict Peterson.

"I didn't read my name on the witness list," he said.

Two days before Peterson's April 18 arrest, Geragos talked about the case on Fox News' "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren."

"You'd be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor who couldn't put together an indictment, let alone a conviction," he said then.
Just thought it was interesting. This too:

A second hearing is set for Monday to address a motion by The San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Newspapers to unseal the search warrants and documents detailing the Police Department's justification for Peterson's arrest warrant.