wow - it seems i've opened up such a flood of vitriole by suggesting that maybe this guy didn't murder his wife that i'd better take a minute or two to rebut the cogent (and not so cogent) responses.
valuist - you make some interesting points and i will try to respond to each. you take issue out of your percception that the man has not been grieving enough, but what you mean is the guy hasn't been grieving publicly enough to suit you. i mean, do you really know what the guy has been doing when the tv cameras are not on him? maybe that has something to do with the fact that, as you said, he disappears for long periods of time. as for money, hey, i have memberships in three different exclusive golf clubs and i can tell you that if i went several months without any income i would feel the pinch. and no, there isn't anyone in my family that could take over financial responsibilty for my monthly bills. besides, if my pregnant wife showed up missing and was presumed dead, i don't think i'd want to go home to the same house and sleep in the same bed either. and blood in his car? geez, the lady was pregnant, so you know they have her blood type and other factors. if the blood in his car matched up in any conceivable way i guarantee this guy would be in jail with no bond.
as far as the police taking their time to build a case - it ain't happening in my opinion. the only way now this case gets solved is either they find the body and it produces forensic evidence, or someone with firsthand knowledge gives the killer up. and besides, if the killer actually turns out to be someone else, they'd better hope they turn up a stone cold lock against the person because they have already compromised any prosecution against anyone else with all the publicity they've generated accusing peterson. and therein lies my problem with the way the police have handled this case. understand that, dispite accusations to the contrary, i have never suggested this guy is actually innocent, only that ther is no evidence at this point that would stand up in a court of law to suggest that he is guilty. the husband is always the number one suspect when his wife is murdered or disappears, but that doesn't mean that he should be the only focus of the investigation. if the cops were smart, they would have laid low and done everything they could to keep the accusations against peterson out of the media, and maybe, if he is guilty, he would have gotten a false sense of security after awhile and done something stupid to give himself up. at this point you can pretty much forget about that tact.
this is merely a case that appeals to the media. the woman is white and pretty, the family well to do and lives some kind of californian middle class utopia. cruise over to l.a. and you'll find a thousand open files like this that involve black, hispanic, or just plain poor families. they just aren't making the six o'clock news.
man, you really want to diss me with the oj comparison? i mean - please. oj was linked to the death of his wife by a boatload of forensic and other evidence (not all of it presented at trial btw). the story from that case is the utter and completely incompetent job done by the prosecution. i promise you i could have prosecuted that case while working crossword puzzles during the trial and had a guilty verdict in less than a month. vincent bugliosi, the charlie manson lead prosecutor, wrote an excellent book on the sublject, well worth the read.
scott-atlanta - i went back to reread your post in order to respond to the points you made, and then i realized that you didn't make any points, but instead just called me stupid for suggesting there might be a chance the guy is innocent. you say you know all about the criminal justice system. and just how is that? been spending all your free time watching matlock reruns? i've spent twenty five years as a prosecutor, public defender and defense attorney. i've tried over 350 jury trials and represented literally thousands of defendants. trust me i can tell from your posts that you wouldn't know about the criminal justice system if it bit you in the ass.
you know, i've been posting at madjack's since the inception of this forum, i would think credibly most of the time. i have assiduosly avoided making derrogatory personal remarks in most cases, but scott, i'll make an exception for you. you are clearly the village idiot of the madjack forum. you're good for a few laughs from time to time, but when the laughing's done, you're still an idiot.
valuist - you make some interesting points and i will try to respond to each. you take issue out of your percception that the man has not been grieving enough, but what you mean is the guy hasn't been grieving publicly enough to suit you. i mean, do you really know what the guy has been doing when the tv cameras are not on him? maybe that has something to do with the fact that, as you said, he disappears for long periods of time. as for money, hey, i have memberships in three different exclusive golf clubs and i can tell you that if i went several months without any income i would feel the pinch. and no, there isn't anyone in my family that could take over financial responsibilty for my monthly bills. besides, if my pregnant wife showed up missing and was presumed dead, i don't think i'd want to go home to the same house and sleep in the same bed either. and blood in his car? geez, the lady was pregnant, so you know they have her blood type and other factors. if the blood in his car matched up in any conceivable way i guarantee this guy would be in jail with no bond.
as far as the police taking their time to build a case - it ain't happening in my opinion. the only way now this case gets solved is either they find the body and it produces forensic evidence, or someone with firsthand knowledge gives the killer up. and besides, if the killer actually turns out to be someone else, they'd better hope they turn up a stone cold lock against the person because they have already compromised any prosecution against anyone else with all the publicity they've generated accusing peterson. and therein lies my problem with the way the police have handled this case. understand that, dispite accusations to the contrary, i have never suggested this guy is actually innocent, only that ther is no evidence at this point that would stand up in a court of law to suggest that he is guilty. the husband is always the number one suspect when his wife is murdered or disappears, but that doesn't mean that he should be the only focus of the investigation. if the cops were smart, they would have laid low and done everything they could to keep the accusations against peterson out of the media, and maybe, if he is guilty, he would have gotten a false sense of security after awhile and done something stupid to give himself up. at this point you can pretty much forget about that tact.
this is merely a case that appeals to the media. the woman is white and pretty, the family well to do and lives some kind of californian middle class utopia. cruise over to l.a. and you'll find a thousand open files like this that involve black, hispanic, or just plain poor families. they just aren't making the six o'clock news.
man, you really want to diss me with the oj comparison? i mean - please. oj was linked to the death of his wife by a boatload of forensic and other evidence (not all of it presented at trial btw). the story from that case is the utter and completely incompetent job done by the prosecution. i promise you i could have prosecuted that case while working crossword puzzles during the trial and had a guilty verdict in less than a month. vincent bugliosi, the charlie manson lead prosecutor, wrote an excellent book on the sublject, well worth the read.
scott-atlanta - i went back to reread your post in order to respond to the points you made, and then i realized that you didn't make any points, but instead just called me stupid for suggesting there might be a chance the guy is innocent. you say you know all about the criminal justice system. and just how is that? been spending all your free time watching matlock reruns? i've spent twenty five years as a prosecutor, public defender and defense attorney. i've tried over 350 jury trials and represented literally thousands of defendants. trust me i can tell from your posts that you wouldn't know about the criminal justice system if it bit you in the ass.
you know, i've been posting at madjack's since the inception of this forum, i would think credibly most of the time. i have assiduosly avoided making derrogatory personal remarks in most cases, but scott, i'll make an exception for you. you are clearly the village idiot of the madjack forum. you're good for a few laughs from time to time, but when the laughing's done, you're still an idiot.
