I mean, just looking at the actual evidence, the case against him was flimsy as hell. So what if he's innocent, and the media convicted him?
I know he's a scumbag, but that doesn't mean he's a killer.
2006-07-07 05:13:53 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The evidence was not flimsy -- it was circumstantial -- and SUBSTANTIAL all at the same time. And that evidence, used at trial, does not include those items successfully suppressed by Mark Geragos.
Also keep in mind -- what was reported are only bits and pieces of the entire picture. Unless you were there day in and day out, you know only a fraction of what the jury heard and deliberated over.
2006-07-11 09:23:42 · answer #1 · answered by Surfer_Girl_59 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
About 20% of people in prison are innocent. Another 15% are guilty of A crime, but not the crime they were convicted of. Evidence is good to have, but ultimatley it comes down to the jury. Juries convict people like Scott Peterson and let people like OJ Simpson off. The media were just reporting what they were fed by the procecutors, thats how a lot of cases are won.
2006-07-07 05:19:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's see... the actual evidence... an affair, concrete dust/outline for anchor, the mop, the clothes in the washing machine, the fact that he sold her vehicle right after she went "missing", the fact that he told his mistress that it would be his first Christmas without his wife, the parking pass for a boat landing 90 miles from home -- not far from where the bodies were found... how much more proof do you need?
What if he didn't do it? Then at least he is someplace where he should be relatively safe and he is not able to screw up the lives of other women and their families!
2006-07-07 05:23:05 · answer #3 · answered by mnstlgirl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, either way it goes -- he did something wrong. Weither he killed his wife and child or he cheated on his pregnant wife! He should have given some better evidence to why he didn't kill them. And it only made it worse that he had an affair . . . I don't think that the media would have hit him as hard if he wasn't cheating on his wife!
2006-07-07 05:19:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The case was flimsy?...somewhat I guess..
but he was caught about on the run..with 10 K and had
dyed his hair. Lied numerous times and just
happend to go fishing at the same spot in DECEMBER
where his murdered child ended up washing on shore.
Pretty damn sure he got what he deserved.
2006-07-07 05:19:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh Pleasssseeeeee!
Where were you hiding when all of the evidence was coming forth. Was his bed buddy lying as well, and the BS telephone calls.
Go spend a night with him and then ask the question again.
2006-07-07 05:15:56 · answer #6 · answered by Ron K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he didn't do it, he wouldn't have been with his girlfriend.
Are you kidding? The guy shows no remorse or guilt whatsoever.
Not even sad that his wife and child died.
What do you call that? I call him GUILTY!
Besides, there were too many other lies he told and too much suspicious behavior.
What evidence shows he's innocent?
2006-07-07 10:03:52 · answer #7 · answered by reignydey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course he did it. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. He murdered his wife and unborn child, and he is exactly where he should be. I just wish California had an express lane to the death chamber.
2006-07-07 05:31:35 · answer #8 · answered by Mama Pastafarian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he isn't guilty then an innocent man is sitting in jail, happens all the time but he wasn't able to sufficiently prove his innocence.
2006-07-07 05:15:41 · answer #9 · answered by Jill S 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
God will weed out the wicked. Man just has to set a date
2006-07-07 05:15:43 · answer #10 · answered by Darthritus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋