Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

djberg96 (2603)

djberg96
  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of djberg96 (2603)

Thursday April 24, 2003
12:45 PM

Skip the trial - guilty!

[ #11829 ]
Mr. Peterson, throw yourself on the mercy of the court. The best you can hope for is that you're buried in secret so you're grave isn't desecrated.

Completely ignoring any forensic evidence, let's look at the circumstantial evidence in this case, shall we?

  • Mr Peterson went on a fishing trip the day before Christmas.
  • Mrs. Peterson disappeared the same day Mr. Peterson went on a fishing trip, 90 miles away.
  • Mrs. Peterson's body appears to have been dumped in the same body of water Mr. Peterson went fishing on.
  • Mr. Peterson was having an affair.
  • Mr. Peterson claimed his wife knew of the affair but said it wouldn't be something that would break them up.
  • Mr. Peterson took out a $250,000 life insurance policy on his wife only months before her disappearance.
  • Mr. Peterson attempted to sell his home within a month of Laci's disappearance.
  • When Mr. Peterson was arrested, he was found with his hair dyed, $10,000 cash and his brother's ID.

Having watched numerous true crime stories on both A&E and Discovery for the past couple of years, I can tell you that it is always, always, ALWAYS the husband. Well, ok - in those shows there's about a 1% chance the wife ran into a random killer or fell off a cliff. However, given the other circumstances in this case, I'd say there's little doubt what the outcome will be. Quite frankly, I'm amazed this idiot is pleading not guilty, and that's probably what led to the falling out with Mr. Peterson and his private attorney.

Give it up buddy.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • murder by a significant male is the leading cause [ 50% or more ] among pregnant white middle-class women and even higher in some other demographics. I guess it's the new alternative birth control method. He's innocent until proven guilty as the media are a bunch of sensationalistic scumbags who feed on your desire for dirt and scandal.

  • First off, I agree, it's hard to believe at this point that the guy didn't do it.

    I do however, think that the whole life insurance thing is a red herring. I seem to remember taking out an additional life insurance policy out on my wife right before our son was born, just in case.

    It's not uncommon for people to do that around times of significant change in their life.

    Lastly, I agree, I think he did it. Who in the hell would go fishing the day before Christmas in bad weather?
    • Re:Life Insurance (Score:3, Interesting)

      Life can be a really unpredictable thing and there are a lot of people who have been found innocent on death row after DNA or some other evidence turned up on an airtight case. I remember the case in Boston where the husband claimed a black guy jumped into the back of the car and shot his pregnant wife but only wounded him. I knew the first time I heard the news that he did it as, having lived in some poor black slums [ and Boston has /very/ few black people ] I'm pretty certain that while a black male may

  • First, presuming guilt is way wrong here. While there is a preponderous of circumstantial evidence that isn't quite enought to say outright he is guilty. Heck, where's the physical evidence?

    It's bad enough when the media forgets the idea that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why have a judicial system? Why not skip the middle man and let the police shoot down where they stand. Obviously if they are wanted by the police the individual is guilty. Beside if you truly are innocent why are the policy arresting you?

    Just doing my part to throw out some straw men and stir the pot.
    • First, presuming guilt is way wrong here.

      For someone on the jury, for the judge, for the law, yes. For anyone else ... eh. Freedom of presumption is in the Constitution, I think. Or something.
      • True, but if one gets in the habit thinking someone's guilty before you know more of the facts wouldn't that make one less effective of a juror in general?

        Odds are that if one did become a juror you wouldn't know about the case to begin with since not every crime is spread across every media outlet.

        I guess I view it as sort of a prejudice in thinking. No real harm in forming a presumption as an individual but how many cases are tried in the media with what happens in the court room almost an afterthought?
        • Murder in suburbia is simple, because the motivations are simple: sex and money, and he's got both as potential motives. Couple that with his other actions and lies (including lies told in his Diane Sawyer interview), and it becomes abundantly clear to me that this guy is guilty.

          I've also seen many real murder cases documented on television after the fact. With rare exception, it is always the spouse.

          Having seen several interviews with jurors, I can tell you that circumstantial evidence weighs much he