[Previous entry: "She kicks butt"] [Next entry: "Tom Hanks?"]
11/12/2004: "Dead man"
My day is complete now that Scott Peterson has been found guilty.
The most incriminating piece of evidence in my mind is one that I haven't heard the media point out. HE'S TOO FRIGGIN STOIC. How could someone go through the disappearance of his wife and unborn child and his subsequent accusal without a shred of emotion if he wasn't guilty?
The results at least restore my faith in a criminal justice system that lets people walk too easily sometimes. I'm glad that the jury was convinced by the mountains of circumstantial evidence, and that the lack of a cause of death didn't stop them. How fair would it be to let someone walk simply because the prosecution can't tell you HOW they murdered someone, when it was obvious that the victim was murdered SOMEHOW?
The defense is going to say that Peterson was convicted simply because he's a jerk and a liar. That's not the whole picture, though. HE WAS JUST TOO WEIRD. The circimstances were too weird. His behavior after Laci's disappearance (ie -- buying a porn channel, heading to Mexico with $15,000 and blonde hair) was just too weird. I can't believe it took the jury as long as they did (paraphrasing Leno: "Even the OJ jurors are saying 'This one is simple, guys!'"), but I'm glad they finally came to the right conclusion.
And to make the day even better, I got an 87 on my second legal writing memo, which gives me a B+ and puts me in the top 3rd of the class. Wheeee!
Replies: 2 Comments
YAY!!!!!!! I KNEW IT COULDN'T BE BAD! and you were worried. :Dmelantha, Saturday, November 13th
Honestly, I'm surprised though...for all the comments about how my analysis isn't as strong as she'd like in some places, she only took 4.5 points off for it...which means other people must have sucked a lot more.Brooke, Saturday, November 13th