Unadulterated Arrogance

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Scott Peterson Verdict - Injustice?

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.. this principal law was flouted by one and sundry in the Scott Peterson Saga. He was charged with first degree murder of his wife and second degree murder of his unborn baby.

Scott Peterson was presumed guilty the day he was arraigned, it was the work of the media, the jurors went into the courtroom already bombarded with the medias verdict of guilt. The question here is not whether Scott is really innocent or guilty but whether the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was cocky and sans emotion throughout the trial, yes these are signs of a deranged criminal but then again what evidence is there of his guilt. He was a jerk, he had an affair (he should be shot for that as I believe infidelity to be the greatest sin) but that alone does not prove he killed his wife, he was caught near the mexico border with around 10,000 bucks in cash; so what? He had a map of the bay area where his wifes body was dumped; but then again he had a boat, the prosecution couldn't find any harcore evidence of his direct involvement like eye withnesses, the anchors that were used to dump the body, fingerprints or any other shred of evidence. The whole trial was of a chewbecca strategy, it was all confusing.Its a sad day for justice as such for a man whether innocent or guilty was charged with double homicide without a shred of hard evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the heinous acts; though all the circumstancial evidence pointed to him. And circumstancial evidence alone is not sufficient for conviction...My gut feeling says that the verdict will be overturned in the court of appeals.


  • Scott Peterson is a cold calculating murderer. He was smart enough to clear away a lot of evidence.

    By Blogger Phoenix, at 11/16/2004 10:15:00 AM  

  • Hello desi, his guilt is not in question here... the fundamentals of the department of justice is in question. As you say he might have cleared a lot of evidence and his conviction was not based on evidence per se but a lot of circumstancial evidence.

    By Blogger injinuity, at 11/16/2004 09:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home