It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scott Peterson Trial; Do you Care?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:05 PM
The saturation on media coverage is interesting to me because of the short attention span we viewers seem to have. I'm still wondering what became of Gary Condit and did O.J. ever find Nicole's killer? (sarcasm). I bet as soon as Michael Jackson is convicted - Peterson drops a few notches on the radar...just an opinion.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:36 PM
I just want to know what makes the case any different than all the others out there were somebody (spouse or not) is accused of murder. I am sure on any given day there are tens, if not hundreds or thousands, of murder cases going on. What makes this one so special? Is it because he has a big shot lawyer who once represented Wacko Jacko?

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:05 PM
Who's Scott Petterson?

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:14 PM
I don't care one way or another about the trial. I could wait til the end when they say "GUILTY \ NOT GUILTY" and I'll be completely satisfied. However, all of this does bring up an interesting question that I have been wondering about.

Muckminer said in an earlier post "..and did O.J. ever find Nicole's killer?"... What ever comes of these types of cases?? Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson?? O.J. was found innocent, do they just stop persuing the case because everyone "knows O.J. did it, and just got off lucky". What about the little Ramsey girl?? The parents are just glad they didnt get indicted for her murder?? so now that they are off the hook its ok?? If Scott Peterson gets off the hook, My guess is that Lacey Peterson, and the baby's killer will go unaccounted for until the end of time...
Anyone else have any comments on why these cases go unsolved after the person thought to be the murder are found not guilty\not even tried??

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 11:22 PM
As I recall from memory OJ was acquitted of criminal charges, but then was found guilty in a civil court and had to pay a lot of money to the family of his ex-wife and the other guy. I think there is also some sort of lock on his financial assets as a result...But now, he lives off of $300,000/year from his NFL pension.
I wonder if there is still an investigation into the Ramsey case, sometimes charges aren't filed for many years, I'm sure it would be easy enough to find out.
Someone posted about how suspicious Peterson was after his wife's death and before it...I think there were some similar suspicions with OJ like when he went on that high-speed chase and blood in the car? so I think that there might be a lot of media coverage due to response from viewers or that we're getting set-up for an innocent conviction. In my opinion, all to gear people away from other events occuring in our world.
But, I think there are many more controversial trials that should be covered, if any...

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:06 AM
I am glad to see that I'm not the only one who's absolutely bored senseless with this trial. Ok, a little bit on the news would be fine. But, I can't stand the wall-to-wall if the fate of humanity depended upon the outcome of this particular trial.
Of course I feel sad about the victims, but I can't help but wonder why the media always seems to fixate on victims who are nice looking, caucasian, and middle class. There are many thousands of victims, who don't happen to fit the mold, that are buried on the back pages.
I will admit, however, to having been addicted to the OJ trial. Never again!

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:06 PM
A couple of old, unsolved murders were brought up here: Chandra Levy and Jon Benet Ramsey. Will they ever be solved? Chances get slimmer every day that goes by. There are some good detectives that specialize in cold cases, but they're usually in big cities. Sad, when the evidence points so strongly at the guilty, and they get off because of sloppy investigative work and slick lawyers, as in the Ramsey case.

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Tough standard to uphold. The Scots have a better system of grading guilt than we do..they add a level to guilty, not guilty, and ....I can't remember the third level. Not innocent?

Sometimes I think that the idea of professional juries is a good one.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:02 PM
In regard to two previous posts here, JonBenet's case may or may not be active, but her daddy is running for election in Michigan. Lucky us

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:34 PM
There are still some minor developments in the J.B. Ramsey case. Court TV's excellent article on Jon Benet

The media all but convicted the parents, which while there was lost of suspicion there was little hard evidence against them, other than the fact they were kinda creepy. Check out the article, it brings a lot of things to light. If the case had gone to trial, it would have exposed the horrendous work of the Denver PD, so I can see why the DA would be reluctant in prosecuting anyone. In December '03 it was found that the DNA found on Jon Benet's underwear could not have come from a member of her family, so who knows now?

These cases fade away because its not justice that the public is interested in, its spectacle. Most Americans are so desensitized to this sort of thing, they view it as a sort of mini-series/soap opera hybrid. They tune in to find out the "latest shocking details" but in reality care little that someone is actually dead.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 02:52 PM

Hang em already.

If he is guilty by the way.
Even if he is not he is still a creep for having an affair on his pregnant wife.
How long ago did all this happen anyway??
If the man is innocent he should be clamoring for a speedy trial not prolonging the process.

<< 1   >>

log in