Scott Peterson should be set free because of Casey Anthony

If I was Scott Peterson, I would be outraged today. There wasn't any direct evidence against Peterson and there was less evidence against him then they had against Casey.

At least with Casey you had hairs from the crime scene connected to her car trunk, the smell of a dead body and Casey's lawyer admitting that Casey knows how she died. Even though they said she lied and covered up everything to conceal an accidental drowning. Why was Casey the only one partying and making up stories? Who would lie to cover up an accidental drowning?

Of course I think Scott Peterson belongs in jail because jurors don't need Gil Grissom or Horatio Caine to weigh the evidence. They're allowed to weigh the evidence and it's sad because the jurors are saying they believed Casey caused her daughters death but there wasn't enough to convict. This is what Aggravated Manslaughter is. It's when someone causes the death of another.

People have been convicted without a body so the excuse they didn't know the cause of death is silly. This just means it's not first degree murder but aggravated manslaughter. So far, the jurors that have spoken have said they believe Casey Anthony killed her daughter. They believe this because of the evidence.

This means aggravated manslaughter instead of first degree murder. The Prosecution overcharged and this confused the Jury . First Degree murder was too hard a hill to climb.

I suspect a Scott Peterson appeal any day now after this verdict.

They are totally different cases with different evidence or do you think that the Casey Anthony case used the same evidence as the Peterson trial.

Do they just circulate this evidence around whenever a circumstantial case comes up?

reply to post by kro32


There wasn't any direct evidence against Scott Peterson. There was more evidence against Casey. At least with Casey you had forensic evidence tied to Casey's car and her lawyer admitting that Casey knows how Caylee died.

You didn't have any of this with Peterson.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You had different circumstances, different evidence, different lawyers how can you say because one got off that the other should.

How about the thousands of cases where people have been convicted just on circumstantial evidence. According to that then Scott Peterson was rightfully convicted.

reply to post by kro32


It should be obvious that my post is facetious in parts.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Completely different states and circumstances.

Either or as the saying goes I would rather see 10 criminals go free rather than have 1 innocent person convicted.

The PA did not do a good enough job in terms of cinvincing the jury. There were to many issues that could not be pinned back directly to Casey Anthony.

Questions + lack of detail in answers = reasonable doubt which is all that is need for the jury.

You seem to want to blame someone for Peterson being in prison and Anthony being free. Different crimes, different circumstances, different people on the juries. Each jury based their decision on the evidence put forth by each side. One jury saw guilt for Peterson, one saw no guilt for Anthony. I guess you can blame the jury if you absolutely have to blame someone, ridiculous as it would be to do so.

/TOA

Of course I blame the Jury because their statements are not making sense. They said they believe Casey caused Caylee's death but there wasn't enough evidence to prove this. Well how did they come to this conclusion? It was based on the evidence.

Even when you see people trying to defend the verdict, they say I think Casey probably caused the death of Caylee but...

They never explain the reasonable doubt. Casey's lawyer admitted that Casey killed Caylee. You don't lie and try to cover up an accidental drowning. Casey was the only one lying, making up stories and partying.

What's sad is that the Jurors basically used a theory about accidental drowning that Biaz never mentioned again because there was ZERO EVIDENCE, and the Jurors used speculation that a drowning might have occurred to reach their verdict. Who lies to cover up an accidental drowning? It's the dumbest thing I have heard so far and the Jurors bought it and used it to find Casey not guilty. That's just stupid. Listen to this video and ask if this Juror makes any sense. Her whole interviews was just frightening and lacked any coherent dialogue.

www.hollywoodreporter.com...

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Even when you see people trying to defend the verdict, they say I think Casey probably caused the death of Caylee but...

You answered your own question as to how the jury can say one thing and give a verict in the other direction. Burden for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, the jurors who say "probably caused" are saying the info presented was good, but not good enough to convince them that she killed her child.

Most juries convict on emotions not evidence. You are right Scott Peterson should not have been convicted based on the lack of evidence even though he is likely guilty. However the Casey Anthony trial is no grounds for appeal. It is up to the jury pure and simple. The Anthony jury got it right based on the lack of evidence despite her guilt. The Peterson Jury went on emotion and ignored the lack of evidence. I'd rather see a murderer go free then convicted on emotion because many innocent people are convicted on emotion also with lack of evidence.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Different states. Different jury. Different case. Different reading of the law of that state by the judge to the jury.

One is not indicative of the other.

reply to post by hawkiye


Nope, the Peterson Jury went on the facts.

What Jurors don't understand is everything isn't C.S.I. They are allowed to use reason. This is why you can convict on circumstantial evidence.

This is the jury using reason and the Casey Anthony jury lacked reason. They thought if the Prosecuter didn't prove premeditated murder then Casey was not guilty. This is not the case, Aggravated Manslaughter doesn't have to be premeditated.

The jury came back so fast because they didn't use any reason. A jury is supposed to weigh the evidence within reason.

Casey Anthony's lawyer admitted Casey knew about Caylee's death. Who lies about an accidental drowning? Why was Casey the only one lying , making up stories and partying when she knew her daughter was dead? Why was hair from a decomposed body found in her trunk?

This jury lacked common sense and one of the jurors even talked about an accidental drowning. You mean to tell me that there was more evidence for an accidental drowning than there was that Casey killed her daughter? There was ZERO evidence to support an accidental drowning and that's why Biaz avoided this but the silly jury actually bought Caylee died of an accidental drowning.

There's ZERO evidence that anyone else knew about Caylee's death accept Casey. For 31 days she lied, told cover up stories, got a tattoo and partied and she knew her daughter was dead and she's the only one that knew this.

The defense admitted Casey knew when they said it was an accidental drowning. Nobody lies to cover up an accidental drowning and Casey was the only one lying and telling stories.

When Cindy overheard Casey say Caylee was missing for 31 days and she lied and said some Nanny took Caylee, Cindy confronted Casey and then called the police.

Casey is guilty of Aggravated Murder because she's the only one that knew Caylee was dead for 31 days and there was forensic evidence tying a dead body to her car.

The Jurors are idiots because they took into a fantasy story from the defense and another lie made up by Casey that this was an accidental drowning and there wasn't a shred of vidence to support this claim and Biaz barely mentioned it anymore.

A female that killed her daughter will be walking out of jail and Casey has to believe that the jury, her lawyers and everyone that bought the accidental drowning lie are big idiots.