Sunday - November 14, 2004

Scott Peterson Redux

Damn! I just finished reading all the comments about the Scott Peterson trial from our “Sound Off Saturday” feature. You folks are really a thinking group of people and even with varied opinions managed to have quite an informed and informative set of opinions. By God, that’s America! Not some lock-step, go-with-the-flow, politically-correct, conspiracy-theory-expounding maggots like I have read at Leftist blog sites. I’ve picked out my three favorite comments from the discussion. Well done, people!

With all due deference to BobF, that is not a valid argument.  Before I get to my main point, let’s dispense with this whole “circumstantial evidence” baloney.  By definition, any evidence which is not eyewitness testimony is circumstantial evidence.  For some reason, the term “circumstantial evidence” has taken on a completely different meaning in the general public from what it actually is.  “Circumstantial evidence” does not mean, “not as good evidence.” Anybody with any law enforcement experience knows that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.  He had blue eyes, he had brown eyes, he was six-two, he was five-nine, it was a Ford, it was a Chevy.  99 percent of convictions are obtained with circumstantial evidence. 

Granted, some evidence is better than others, i.e. fingerprints, DNA, etc., but one of the things that separates us from lower animals is that we can reason.  We can take a series of discrete facts and put them together to come up with a reasonable interpretation of what happened.  To use a totally exaggerated example, if you’re standing on a street corner, and you hear a gunshot, and you turn around to see a man with a gun standing over the body of another man, is there much doubt in your mind what happened?  Guess what, that’s circumstantial evidence.  You didn’t actually see what happened.  Anyone who has followed the Peterson trial at all knows from the evidence that he’s guilty as sin. 

Which brings me to my actual point.  How can one argue that because he was convicted based on circumstantial evidence, the jury can’t give him the death penalty?  The jury doesn’t get to say, “Well, we think he’s guilty, but we’re a little unsure, because, you know, it was just circumstantial evidence.  They vote guilty or not guilty, and if they’re unsure enough that they have misgivings about giving him the death penalty, then they should have voted to acquit.  It’s that simple.

-- Craig

This subject fascinates me, and I’m impressed with the courtesy & respect shown for others’ views.

The legal rules of evidence have developed over centuries and deserve respect. Like the infield fly rule in baseball, (or the ‘balk’ which mystified me for years) some sound bizarre, but usually have a good reason for being. This is not the treatment they’ve received by liberals since the 60’s—discovering new & exciting interpretations based on what they read last month in THE NATION.

My favorite circumstantial evidence story, and why lawyers need to learn to shut up.

SHORT VERSION: the defense lawyer keeps hammering at the witness, “Did you actually SEE my client bite off the man’s ear?” “well, no...” “SO you did NOT actually SEE my client bite off the man’s ear, did you?” “No, but...” “SO, what makes you so sure he did the act?” “Well, I saw him spit it out.”

-- Guy

Unlike the Westerfield trial here in San Diego a few years back, which I followed very closely, this trial I only payed mild attention.  Seems to me from what I heard and read, all evidence points to this Scott Peterson; no devil-cult boogeyman nonsense.  I think he should get the death penalty.

Guy, I respect your opinion, but I have one dispute in your logic.  You stated:  “I do not like killing people who are not able to fight back.” To which I say, Amen.  However, apply that standard to Lacey and their unborn child.  Were they able to fight back?  Connor certainly was not.  My question to you is, then, why give Scott Peterson the consideration he did not give his victims, his wife and unborn son?

As far as concern over those who carry out the task of “flipping the switch” or whatever other methods are used, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over their mental health.  I am quite certain they are of a proper mindset for carrying out such tasks to begin with, and the after-effects are probably minimal.  In either case, they make choices, just like Scott Peterson made choices...and isn’t that what life, and, sadly, sometimes, death are all about?

-- Illegitimi Non Carborundum

DAMN GOOD THOUGHTS, PEOPLE! We’ll have to do this more often!

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/14/2004 at 03:02 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner