Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony trials ...

Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony trials had similarities except for the verdict

There are 12 comments on the Bellingham Herald story from Jul 9, 2011, titled Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony trials had similarities except for the verdict. In it, Bellingham Herald reports that:

Casey Anthony's trial was irresistible to some who lived and breathed Scott Peterson's eight years ago.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bellingham Herald.

Doggiemom

Hazlet, NJ

#1 Jul 12, 2011
The jurors in the Scott Peterson case were able to connect the dots correctly and draw the only possible conclusion based on the abundance of circumstantial evidence. In the case of Casey Anthony, the jurors apparently had their collective heads in the sand. It completely boggles my mind how they could declare this crazy woman not guilty. A sad day in the world of American justice.
Noob

Germany

#2 Jul 12, 2011
Doggiemom wrote:
The jurors in the Scott Peterson case were able to connect the dots correctly and draw the only possible conclusion based on the abundance of circumstantial evidence. In the case of Casey Anthony, the jurors apparently had their collective heads in the sand. It completely boggles my mind how they could declare this crazy woman not guilty. A sad day in the world of American justice.
The jurors in the Scott Peterson case weren't secluded and heavily influenced and pressured by exaggerated and/or false reporting of the media and the mob voting in pretrial polls for death penalty as if this was an election based on emotions rather than a trial which should be based on facts and evidence - circumstantial or not.
Strictly speaking, there isn't even ANY (circumstantial) evidence in the homicide of Laci and Conner but reports of Scott cheating on Laci and his facial expressions. Like Casey Anthony: if he would have cried, people would have said it's fake tears. Since he didn't cry, he is said to be cold-hearted and so on. Whatever he did was always interpreted in the meanest possible way by people like Nancy Grace and other media people only looking for the story to make money and gain popularity.
Unfortunately, the jurors in his case did not understand the difference between media reporting and evidence presented. They did not grasp the concept of reasonable doubt and couldn't follow the exonerating evidence presented by the defense such as Conner being a mature baby. Thus Conner could NOT have died on the day Laci was abducted. If they didn't die on that day, Scott had no opportunity anymore to kill them because he was under constant media/police/family surveillance from that night on.
I didn't follow the Casey Anthony trial very close, but as far as I know, I'm glad the jurors found her not guilty of murder. There simply wasn't enough (circumstantial) evidence which strictly pointed to murder (instead of an accident). I wouldn't want to live in a society where everybody can be convicted of any crime based on a media hype and stirred up emotions.

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Blackstone's principle of criminal law.
UCanLipThis

Irvine, CA

#3 Jul 27, 2011
Doggie Mom, you are correct. Regardless of Juror seclusion, Scott Peterson was largely convicted by his actions post findings in the case. He appeared to be fleeing by changing his hair color and carrying something like 50,000 in case. So Assey Anthony went off partying cause she was a loser who probably never made a living and yet she was proven innocent. I GUARANTEE she would have been running to if she could. Both cases have NOTHING but circumstantial evidence and yet honesly Noob you think she is innocent. You must have been a lost brain juror on the case. There is no other explanation for the loss of this child and her 'Mother's' behavior proves she could care less for the loss of life. She should be sitting exactly where Scott is.
Kathleen

Los Angeles, CA

#4 Jul 27, 2011
There was a lot more evidence against Casey Anthony than there was against Scott Peterson. Yet he is on death row, and this woman who killed her baby is free.
A Voice of Sanity

Kelowna, Canada

#5 Oct 11, 2011
Scott Peterson is innocent, as the trial record clearly shows.

It is extremely unlikely that Casey Anthony killed the only person on earth who loved her unquestionably.

Gilbert Cano definitely killed his pregnant girlfriend, Martha Moreno.

The results of these three trials raise troubling questions about the media influence in jurisprudence.
A Voice of Sanity

Kelowna, Canada

#6 Oct 11, 2011
Doggiemom wrote:
The jurors in the Scott Peterson case were able to connect the dots correctly and draw the only possible conclusion based on the abundance of circumstantial evidence. In the case of Casey Anthony, the jurors apparently had their collective heads in the sand. It completely boggles my mind how they could declare this crazy woman not guilty. A sad day in the world of American justice.
Not they weren't. Their 'verdict' was based on fear or prejudice, not on the evidence. At no time since the trial, not even in "their book", has even one of them been able to articulate any evidence of guilt - and neither has anyone else.

The Anthony jury however followed the law and correctly rendered a verdict based on the lack of evidence of a charged crime.
Noob

Munich, Germany

#7 Oct 13, 2011
UCanLipThis wrote:
...yet honesly Noob you think she is innocent....
That's not what I wrote:
Noob wrote:
...as far as I know, I'm glad the jurors found her not guilty of murder. There simply wasn't enough (circumstantial) evidence which strictly pointed to murder (instead of an accident)....
I'm having REASONABLE DOUBTS about Casey Anthony's guilt. DA should have made it watertight but couldn't due to lack of evidence.
A Voice of Sanity

Kelowna, Canada

#8 Oct 14, 2011
Noob wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm having REASONABLE DOUBTS about Casey Anthony's guilt. DA should have made it watertight but couldn't due to lack of evidence.
It's much more likely than not that she is innocent. It's very possible someone else killed her child but she panicked, believing (correctly) that she would be blamed.

The lack of evidence was because she wasn't guilty.
pixi

Portland, OR

#9 Jan 5, 2013
I never understand why people don't consider "circumstantial" evidence to be of any real merit. There is a reason it's called "EVIDENCE". You hide the ice cream. The ice cream is gone in the morning. The only person in your home was your wife. Does she have to have choc on her face and the scoop under her pillow for you to satisfy your reasonable doubt. The obvious, human intelligent conclusion is your wife at the ice cream? Is that REALLY what kind evidence human beings need to draw an obvious conclusion? It's that freakin' simple. Further,forensic evidence has some potential to be sometimes more unreliable due to the many hands and procedures it goes through in the entire process. It's not infallible. All of our senses need to be working. Jury's can't go on auto pilot and expect the story to be handed to them with a bow. COMMON SENSE!
Krystal Roberts

Los Angeles, CA

#10 May 6, 2013
pixi wrote:
I never understand why people don't consider "circumstantial" evidence to be of any real merit. There is a reason it's called "EVIDENCE". You hide the ice cream. The ice cream is gone in the morning. The only person in your home was your wife. Does she have to have choc on her face and the scoop under her pillow for you to satisfy your reasonable doubt. The obvious, human intelligent conclusion is your wife at the ice cream? Is that REALLY what kind evidence human beings need to draw an obvious conclusion? It's that freakin' simple. Further,forensic evidence has some potential to be sometimes more unreliable due to the many hands and procedures it goes through in the entire process. It's not infallible. All of our senses need to be working. Jury's can't go on auto pilot and expect the story to be handed to them with a bow. COMMON SENSE!
Because, let's say your wife is taking a shower and your son comes home. He forgot his cell phone and came by to grab it real quick before leaving again. He scribbles a note on post it to let you know where he'll be and to tell you he was taking the ice cream. Just as he turns to go to the freezer, he has to catch himself from falling cause his shoe was untied. The commotion from this sends the post it note he left sailing to the floor where he steps on it as he's regaining his balance then he walks to the freezer, grabs the ice cream, and leaves.

You can't very well come home on auto pilot and jump to the first conclusion you come to because you didn't take the time to unwrap the evidence.
sickened

Fredericktown, MO

#11 May 9, 2013
i still can not believe casey anthony was aquitted. she is so guilty. poor excuse for a mother. ithink she was jealous of the bond between her parents and her daughter. she should be haunted that everytime she closes her eyes she sees caylee.
pixi

Portland, OR

#12 May 15, 2013
Krystal Roberts wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, let's say your wife is taking a shower and your son comes home. He forgot his cell phone and came by to grab it real quick before leaving again. He scribbles a note on post it to let you know where he'll be and to tell you he was taking the ice cream. Just as he turns to go to the freezer, he has to catch himself from falling cause his shoe was untied. The commotion from this sends the post it note he left sailing to the floor where he steps on it as he's regaining his balance then he walks to the freezer, grabs the ice cream, and leaves.
You can't very well come home on auto pilot and jump to the first conclusion you come to because you didn't take the time to unwrap the evidence.
You have a very good point. This is where we
have to put a little bit of trust in our investigators. Is there any evidence of a note? Does the kid have a valid story to back that up? Or, when questioned, did he say he wasn't anywhere near
the house and doesn't even like ice cream? I don't think investigation is perfect, but if you line up lies and coincidence to the point that it's suddenly not logical it does make for an argument towards guilty. This is how I feel in both cases.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scott Peterson Trial Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News David Temple 48 Hours Mystery (Dec '08) Aug 8 Teresa 103
I don't think Scott did this (May '09) Jun '15 dobby 7
News Scott Peterson family asking for donations (Jul '09) Apr '15 tom wingo 64
Scott Peterson's email address in prison (Oct '07) Apr '15 Tamara 97
News Jodi Arias (Jun '13) Mar '15 Jinx 6
News Laci's mom outraged over Scott Peterson's blog (Jul '08) Aug '14 Stedenko 3,068
News Sandusky Trial: TV Legal Analyst Beth Karas Say... (Jun '12) Jul '14 dutfan 2
More from around the web