Kilmer17 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 HIs defense team is doing a BRILLIANT job casting reasonable doubt. Now this clusterfu(k with the house. How ignorant are her folks. That immediately sets up a defense position that possible evidence that would clear him has been tampered and/or removed. Add to it that it's HIS house and HIS property (CA law gives property to the spouse if no will exists). He would have a claim of burglary if he wanted to push it. Thaqt being said, I hope somebody plants an axe in his melon if he walks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 I realize I'm weakening my own argument by replying to this post, but why does anyone care? Hundreds of murders occur every year in the US - so why do we get so obsessed with one or two cases, and see them played out to death (no pun intended) on the TV? Why do more Americans know who Scott Peterson (or Jon Benet Ramsey) is than Eric Rudolph? I'm ecstatic we finally got Rudolph, and hope he gets the chair; yet I'd bet the stupid Peterson case gets more airplay tonight on the news than the Rudolph capture.:shootinth :shootinth :shootinth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 2, 2003 Author Share Posted June 2, 2003 Well the weekend cables were all rudolph all the time. So I wouldnt say it's being ignored. I agree that it's disturbing how much attention is being spent on it, but it is now a national story and isnt going away, so I dont feel bad commenting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Hey riggo, be thankful Laci Peterson wasn't a former Hill intern. Then we'd NEVER hear the end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Kilmer, what happened with the house and her family? I haven't heard and I don't see a story after a quick internet scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Hey riggo, be thankful Laci Peterson wasn't a former Hill intern. Then we'd NEVER hear the end of it. yeah, NO Kidding!!!!:high: :high: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Originally posted by riggo-toni I realize I'm weakening my own argument by replying to this post, but why does anyone care? Hundreds of murders occur every year in the US - so why do we get so obsessed with one or two cases, and see them played out to death (no pun intended) on the TV? Why do more Americans know who Scott Peterson (or Jon Benet Ramsey) is than Eric Rudolph? I'm ecstatic we finally got Rudolph, and hope he gets the chair; yet I'd bet the stupid Peterson case gets more airplay tonight on the news than the Rudolph capture.:shootinth :shootinth :shootinth I'm with you here.. no offense to Kilmer cause it's the media that's doing the hyping, but I could care less and am amazed that so many have such defined and strong feelings about this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 2, 2003 Author Share Posted June 2, 2003 Call it lack of football hysteria. redman. Her folks and friends broke into their house and took away 3 truckloads of stuff. Everything from her wedding dress and wedding ring to items that her family claims is theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 really? they broke in? Damn, they are stupid. He could turn around and charge them with robbery........how messed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 When did this break-in occur? And yeah, that was pretty short-sighted of them given the murder investigation. He's not going to bring charges or sue, I'll guarantee you. He's trying too hard to portray himself as a wrongfully accused, nice guy right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 2, 2003 Author Share Posted June 2, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88248,00.html Here's part of it. It doesnt give it justice that the video shows with them breaking open the gate to the property and screaching out with truckfulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 I meant he could press charges once his trial is over....if he's cleared because they blew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88248,00.html Here's part of it. It doesnt give it justice that the video shows with them breaking open the gate to the property and screaching out with truckfulls. Not defending the family - but I wonder if there was a concern that he was going to sell this stuff off for his legal bills? I know he comes from $$$'s...but trial lawyers are fricking costly. Anyways, he wont press charges. Unless he is a moron (which is debatable). I get the feeling that he isnt a great guy and could care less about Laci's death. But I bet you he personally didn't do it. Now, perhaps he hired someone(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 2, 2003 Author Share Posted June 2, 2003 TEG, even if he did sell it off, it's legally his stuff. Not deffending him either, just pointing out the legalities. He's a scumbag regardless. But I dont think he's smart enough to hire a hitman. Or rich enough. I think he did it, I also think he'll walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 It is California, we have seen them let OJ walk. So letting another murderer walk would not surprise me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 CA doesn't let a lot of murderers walk, just the celebs. :doh: Peterson is only a borderline celeb, and all of his celebrity is based upon his alleged and heinous crime. I agree with Kilmer's point, though. His defense team is doing a brilliant job of lobbying through the media . . . and our voyeuristically inclined media is of course eating it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Question to all of you guys, IF you were on OJ's jury, which way would you have ruled... NOT if you belive he's guilty or not, what I mean is, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty? Personally, I'm guessing he probably did it, but I would have said Not Guilty. The fact that the blood evidence wasn't checked into the police station for 24 hours was enough doubt for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Question to all of you guys, IF you were on OJ's jury, which way would you have ruled... NOT if you belive he's guilty or not, what I mean is, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty? Personally, I'm guessing he probably did it, but I would have said Not Guilty. The fact that the blood evidence wasn't checked into the police station for 24 hours was enough doubt for me. From what I could stomach of the trial, I would have been so pissed off by the defense team that I would have found him guilty. I guess that is a sad statement for my ability to serve on a jury but it is the truth. I did not buy the "rascist" Mark Fuhrman defense. The glove thing what a joke (pun intended). Sadly, I always find the SNL portrayal of the trial to be almost too accurrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Someone close to me and an attorney is convinced that OJ is innocent. I may have brought this up on the board before. But he thinks Marcus Allen did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter's Better Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Look - Here is my point. The Police were giving the guys alibi away during the investigation (a week into it). If she had been kidnapped and killed later of course she would have been dumped near where he said he was - everyone knew where Scott Peterson was on the 24th of December by December 30th. In America you are innocent until prove guilty beyond a resonable doubt by a jury of 12 of your peers . Remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Someone close to me and an attorney is convinced that OJ is innocent. I may have brought this up on the board before. But he thinks Marcus Allen did it. That's interesting Kilmer, I'd like to hear the whole Marcus theory ... I saw a BBC special where they proved the blood evidence was planted based on an enzime that is used to preserve blood being present at the crime scene. Their theory was that a blood sample is taken from a person and a chemical (they gave the specifics) is added to keep it "fresh" longer. That chemical was found in the blood in the bronco whick they concluded proved it was planted unless OJ naturally produced that chemical in his body.. which isn't likely.. amazing that the US media has never bothered to report that story. The BBC conclude that OJ's oldest son probably did it and that in England they could get a conviction. Personally, I don't really know what to believe, I'm no dective, but I do agree that there was reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Pure speculation Code. But here's the theory. Marcus and Nicole had an affair (this is apparently a known fact not that I can confirm it) while OJ and her were seperated. Marcus allen had those weird shoes (Bruno Magli?). There is a picture of him wearing the same style and color gloves doing sports reporting. He had dinner at the restaurant the guy worked in 3 days before the murders. too much for me to buy, but I also have a hard time believing that Furman was a racist and even if he was, that racism was enough motivation to frame a superceleb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Question to all of you guys, IF you were on OJ's jury, which way would you have ruled... NOT if you belive he's guilty or not, what I mean is, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty? Guilty. It seems so painfully obvious to me. I can't begin to think how anyone could believe otherwise. I had certainly wished he didn't do it, but like my Dad says, "Wish in one hand and $hit in the other. See which one fills up first". Oh, and I don't have a link, but I remember when the story about the "blood preserver" first came out. It was reported by the media. But it was shot down pretty quick by many experts. Of course experts report what they're paid to. On both sides of the fence. Just like lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Kilmer, I don't believe anyone tried to frame OJ clear out of the blue. I do believe the cops tried to "help the evidence" a bit - and truthfully I don't believe that's really an extremely rare occurrance. As I once heard someone say, this would hardly be the first time somebody framed a guilty man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Kilmer, Interesting to say the least... thanks. Ax, to say you don't understand how someone could have doubts is odd. The speculation that Kilmer just posted could cause some doubts. From what I saw of the case, the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. (that does not mean he didn't do it of course) but I would rather have 10 guilty guys go free than have 1 innocent guy go to jail. Jimbo.. good points. Here's a little interesting info too... When I was playing college baseball, I would work a job in the offseason catching shoplifters for a department store. One of the first parts of our training came from a dective from the police departmen. He was training us on testifying in court. To summarize his training he basically taught us " you don't testify what you saw happen, you testify what you know happened". What he meant was, If a person stole a shirt, I might not see them put it in their pants, but when I go to court, It's ok to testify that " the suspect put the shirt in his pants". I didn't see him do it (and notice I didn't say "I saw him put the shirt in his pants"), but that's where I found it when we searched him. The jury or judge doesn't need to know that. The police IN FACT practice this same technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.