A Trial Of Theories
 

Oops, maybe I shouldn?t have said that, lest my name be added to the growing list of those whom a prominent attorney is threatening to sue! ?Ah truth, thy days are numbered!??

Well, boys and girls, another wrinkle (or is that doubt) has been set adrift in the ?Peterson Marina!? It would appear that with all of the brown vans, cult collusions, and utter guesswork and theorizing by both sides, another slight fact has entered the picture!

A dumpster, it was reported, containing human body parts (four corpses in all, at least one female, it was reported), has been discovered in Davis, California, not too far from the scene of the tragic Peterson drama! Couple this with the remains of that dismembered young lady, along with her child, found a while back in the geographical area, and this case is beginning to wreak of something far more ominous!

Of course (again), celebrity pathologists (Quincys one and all) are jetting to the area to perform their messy tasks, while opinion mongers continue to speculate infinitum! Several things, however, strikes me as quite odd! With the ?Serial Killer and Cult Theories? starting to look ever more possible, if not (?) probable (at least to me), and the police and prosecution?s case looking like it was made in a ?Swiss Cheese Factory?, at least to this point, you have to ask yourself what constitutes ?Reasonable Doubt!??

I have no idea who is guilty in this case, but it seems to me that for a guy that the media and prosecution have called a lousy actor (ref: tears), this Peterson fellow looks pretty convincing most of the time! And (again) ?IF? he is found innocent (?), the lawsuits that could emanate from all of that rushing to judgment by the media (and others) will be staggering!

Hell, it wouldn?t surprise me at all (?) if the next thing you know, Peterson too was offered a contract for a centerfold by some sleazy rag!

VERITAS :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd:

Trial of theories, likely, but trial by another Simpson-style extravaganza seems an odds-on bet as well. I thought the pursuit of justice was what this was supposedly about but that aspect seems to be going by the boards in favor of never ending analyzing of the analysts set about analyzing the already analyzed analysts. Could be as simple as the alleged perp Peterson came upon greener pastures, or blonder actually, and set about getting obstacles out of the way of his pending new life. But the jury will have to wade through all the evidence and try to sort the fly-shit from the pepper if and when they ever get empanelled. I?m sure they will get to the facts of the case but will have to get through a withering storm of distractions along the way. I trust them twelve pairs of tenies to see through smoke screens and get to reality, but goodness, this case is going to be a daunting challenge to say the least. I gave up on the great Modesto ?who done it? weeks ago just because of all the hyper-active media attention and side board get rich quick schemes going on.

Scamp

FRIEND SCAMP -

"You are (in my opinion), absolutely right!" If no other axiom exists, it is the smoke rings scenario!

Now (again), I have no idea about Peterson's absolute guilt or innocence, no more so (in fact) than either the Prosecution or the Defense! (opinion) "Guilty by Public and Media Decree", however, or "Innocent by Virtue of the Kid Next Door Syndrome" is a matter best left up to the COURTS, TRUTH and GOD ALMIGHTY!

As far as your "Blond Analogy" (is she blond this week by the way?), come on friend - the whole world knows that the man was a player! And contrary to any (so-called) sexy photos that may (or may not) have been for sale to the mags, this gal (in my own opinion), is hardly a head turner! "Divorces after-all, are a helluva lot cheaper and less painful than (alleged) murder!" And for that matter, where is the trail of domestic violence that usually exists in such cases?


As for any alleged suits, aimed at controlling media opinion (within limits of course), the lawyer that threatened this can kiss Uncle Sam's ass! this is, in my opinion, just an attempt to slant criticism in but a single direction, and thereby manipulate the outcome! (Again, this is my opinion alone!?)

Again, I will have to see what (in honesty) shakes lose! I will not join the lynch-mobs, nor will I be swayed by personalities! And most of all, "REASONABLE DOUBT AND SANITY MUST REMAIN THE ORDER OF THE DAY, AND NOT A FEEDING FRENZY MENTALITY!"

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinions alone, can still get one hung! Let the courts, and not the media or personal gut feelings, decide the outcome of this trial, I say!!

VERITAS

The Case
 

If all law enforcement could gather is what's in the media I can't see that they had probable cause to get an arrest warrant. If they aren't holding back a few cards then it's a sad state of affairs that one could be arrested on so little "fact". Please remember this is not about "reasonable doubt". Criminal cases revolve around "beyond a reasonable doubt", a much high standard.

I wonder if a person, who doesn't have millions, could sue all the major networks and newspapers? That would be a gas, imagine the crying you'd see on TV.

Yes, this is theory but let me throw a little at you. A serial killer get comfortable with a method of killing and doing what he will with the body. Sort of like deer hunting, some people get a stand in a tree, others like to sit down behind rocks, etc. With criminals, some always break in thru the back door, some prefer a side window, whatever. Laci didn't get killed by a serial killer or that harbor would have women floating all over it.

The cult theories, it could be, their just weird and you never know what their Guru had for lunch that day.

I'm not sure about another O.J. trial. Judges in high places usually think they have the same zip code as God and really hate to be dumped on. They are, on the whole, fairly smart. I doubt another California judge is going to let his court room turn into a circus and see other judges and lawyers on TV every night telling the world how he screwed up that day.

My only hope is that half way through the trial Peterson's lawyer doesn't say that his client has gone through "Michael Jackson" treatments and is really a black man.

Stay healthy,
Andy

"Imminently Logical, Friend Andy!"

And yes indeed, cults do exist! In the course of writing several column for local rags in the past, I have seen behavior that would turn our hair white! (Whiter than it is, that is!)

The most poignant words in your wise analogy, however, were (In My Opinion): "BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT!!!"

VERITAS

Hardcore
 

Wait my friend, that's not what I said! It's "Beyond A reasonable doubt". The word "any" isn't there. That would be an almost impossible standard.

I was involved in a few cases dealing with demon worship and witches. Hell, this is Massachusetts, you have to have a few witches around. One group, of 13 of course, was sacrificing animals that weren't their's. All had tattoos "666" on the back of their left hands. Had so much fun telling them where that came from and that Nero was gay. (The male witches - warlocks really had some "issues" with that one.)

By the way, only about 5% of my hair is white. Good gene pool.

Stay healthy,
Andy

HC.....
 

I?ll go with not being judgmental HC, you?re right. In my view about the only thing Peterson is suspect of is acting like a heel hound with a muzzle full of yoke, shells and feathers from the get-go then doing the predictable, ?hey man, I don?t know no nuthun bout no hen house?. I don?t think looking guilty as hell is a crime but will sure get the Cops undivided attention all of a sudden. So we?ll see where it all goes and I fully suspect that those defense Tasmanian devils and whirling dervishes are giving the prosecution a lot of sleepless nights. Or it could be that the prosecution has their case nailed down and are just going through the process, who knows. But the much-advertised ?Amber? testimony probably isn?t going to be as a Peterson character witness I?m thinking, and if not, I expect that the defense will rip her a new one. That?s too bad, as it appears she is just a hapless, ignorant and gullible play toy in the whole mess, at least that's what I percieve.

Scamp

Scamp & Andy

Good points, gents!!!

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

"AND THERE IT IS!"
 

For the umpteenth time, the only ones (alive) who know if Peterson is genuinely guilty or innocent is Peterson and God Himself! "At least to this point in time!"

Ya know, and I have said it before - "The media, the law and a few sundry others", also have a lot a stake here! Granted, Mark Garigos is not fighting this case the way that the prosecution would like him too (Aw Shucks), as a public defender he is not! But should Peterson prevail, massive legal actions against those who rushed to justice (and opinion) would not be a surprise! "As you sow, so shall you reap!!"

"Try him yes, but don't hang him, then try him!!"

"Guilty or not", Peterson was guilty in the eyes of many, even before the first juror was seated, and this is damned dangerous! Not only for him, mind you, but indeed, for our entire system!

VERITAS :r: