I just want to know what everyone's take on it was. Personally, I didn't see any clear evidence that he murdered his late wife, Kathleen Atwater. He was mainly tried for having an affair outside of his marriage. So, tell me what you think please.
I want actual answers that show some thought went into them. If I see any answers that are insulting to ME, then you just might be reported. Don't be stupid.
2006-09-19 15:54:33 · 7 answers · asked by iwannarevolt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If any of you actually read other papers online besides tuning into something like the faux news channel or CNN,or listening to that contemptible shrew Nancy Grace, then you'd know that I was talking about a North Carolina case where a columnist named Michael Peterson was accused of murdering Kathleen Atwater, his wife. Where in my question did I mention Scott Peterson or Laci? NO WHERE!
2006-09-19 16:04:14 · update #1
Sorry about that blow up, I just can't believe that there some people don't know about this case. The last names are the same, so I can understand why one would confuse the two. But I just want to see if anybody (specifically from the NC area, but anyone can answer if they choose)had an opinion.
2006-09-19 16:07:12 · update #2
Joey Bagadonuts, are you referring to Scott Peterson or Michael Peterson?
2006-09-19 16:09:03 · update #3
rense, you will not be reported because your the main part of your answer was NOT offensive. I meant by offensive as in something racist, ethnic, religious(slurs), etc. You said nothing of the sort.
2006-09-19 16:36:01 · update #4
enlightenment, yes I have actually seen the staircase when it was shown on the sundance channel. Personally, had he been tried in New Jersey(up there prosecutors are appointed by the governor...no one is elected as prosecutor), he probably would've stood a better chance of being proven innocent.
2006-09-19 16:39:13 · update #5
I think his attorney David Rudolf is the reason he was convicted. Have you seen the documentary film "The Staircase"? Based on watching that and the trial on Court TV, my opinion is that Rudolf misread the jury, he John Kerry'd it! He talked in too intelligent language for those people, he was too ego-centric, too relaxed and too much of an outsider seeming character. The Prosecution on the other hand, looke stright out of some 50's show Rocky and Bullwinkle meets Dragnet and for this reason they were trusted and won.
The whole gay lover "Brad" was it? That was a passing prosecutorial drive that by the end of the trial, I thought, hurt the prosecution more than helped.
Peterson is a man in prison, in my opinion, wrongly convicted. A weird guy, but all the same, innocent, largely in part due to his attorney who was shocked to his ego that he lost and that is basically why he lost.
Rudolf contemplated leaving law after that trial. I think it did him good to lose. Unfortunately Michael Peterson's life is over because of shabby ethics on the part of his attorney.
2006-09-19 16:10:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well my take is "it was for murdering his wife"and I think he was guilty, I didn't see anything in his defense to make me feel other wise, he wouldn't even stand up and speak for himself. I feel he showed that he thought he was so smart , but really he was so dumb, to just sit there like a bump on a log, when think back about him that's what I see "a bump on a log." I sure hope I haven't offended you, or if I have , oh please don't report me, I'm sure that if I get one more flag, I'll be done, god no please don't take my Yahoo Answers, I'm sorry, I'll be good ......oh Pleaseeeee! Oh my I'm guilty, that was pretty cute, of course it was Scott Pererson, not Mike Peterson, damn I fuc* up again, OK, now what, back to 100 points!
2006-09-19 23:10:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The funny thing is, there was no physical evidence that Peterson did anything illegal, but he's going to die regardless... OJ had a mountain of evidence stacked against him, but he's going to be playing golf tomorrow morning.
2006-09-19 22:59:36 · answer #3 · answered by salaamrashaad 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you asking about SCOTT PETERSON ?? The charges against him were murder, not adultery. A murder conviction was brought in, and adultery conviction was not.
2006-09-19 22:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by me 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I thought he was guilty as sin but I thought he was gonna get away with it.
I'm glad they found him guilty on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
2006-09-19 23:06:41 · answer #5 · answered by Joey Bagadonuts 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He was charged with 2nd degree murderof his wife. For all you abortion lovers, he was also charged with the death of his unborn son.
2006-09-19 22:59:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SCOTT PETERSON?
2006-09-19 22:58:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋