Scott Peterson vs. KC - Which case had/has more evidence?POLL ADDED

Searchfortruth · Mar 13, 2009

Everytime I think about the evidence in the SP case and his subsequent conviction, I feel a little more assured that Casey is going down. The evidence against Casey seems to be insurmountable compared to what they had in SP's case. When I try to recall all the evidence in this case, I can't do it, it's too much ! Unless something REALLY crazy happens, sorry I still remember OJ and that trial's outcome taught me to never take anything for granted, I believe she'll be convicted. Hopefully the outcome is LWOP.

Ripley007 · Mar 14, 2009

I voted without "cheating" and looking to see what others thought first. I voted more eviedence in the Caylee case. Wow. I didn't expect the results I see. Seems most favor the Caylee case having the most eviedence. And he (SP) got Death with no trouble. Let's hope this little poll is a reflection of what will REALLY happen in court....

Marina2 · Mar 14, 2009

Clock's Tickin said:
I fear that the state is actually scared of the "dream team". I hope that is not the reason for the DP currently not in play. KC's case has a lot more to offer than SP's did.

I dont think they're scared. The state was LOL at the so called "dream team" during the latest motion hearing. And the judge..."come visit me again when you can cite case law." paraphrased, of course.
Not to mention JB who called to the stand a witness that provided testimony to support the state. Sounds more like a nightmare than a dream.

Gma Kat · Mar 14, 2009

chefmom said:
ITA! The only thing that worries me is that with SS there was the boyfriend who didn't want kids, with SP there was the mistress he had been lying to for a while, but with KC we do not have that clincher for motive! I understand that she is a sociapathic, narcisistic, "spiteful b^tch" who wanted to party and chase every guy that looked her way, but it concerns me that the defense may be able to sway just one juror and get her off! I really hope that SA can prove that the infamous diary entry was from '08 and not '03. If they can, this would be as good as any motive that they could come up with as it would show a total lack of concern and complete disregard for that precious little girl. IMO, of course.

BOLD IS MINE: I was thinking along the same lines as you until I learned of the text messages between AL and KC where he is upset because he hasn't had sex in like 3 days and tells her she has to let him come over to have sex or there would be consequences, can't remember details but THAT was motive to me, he was pressing her to free herself up for him or he would bounce. At least motive is not a requirement for conviction.

Gma Kat · Mar 14, 2009

I am undecided at this point. I know in the Peterson case that some "evidence" wasn't really evidence afterall, but fit in perfectly with what happened to Laci - so wierd things like that make me question my memory of how much evidence the jury actually got to hear about and what evidence the public thought was there. My specific point in Peterson was the folded rug by the sliding door. That was significant to LE but I never agreed with their theory about the reason the rug was scrunched up. SP's explanation was more reasonable to me. In the KC case the diary is another example of "evidence" that may just coincidentally fit in perfect with the crime - but what if it really was from 2003? So for now I remain undecided on this question - but GREAT thread topic!

trixi491 · Mar 14, 2009

Gma Kat said:
BOLD IS MINE: I was thinking along the same lines as you until I learned of the text messages between AL and KC where he is upset because he hasn't had sex in like 3 days and tells her she has to let him come over to have sex or there would be consequences, can't remember details but THAT was motive to me, he was pressing her to free herself up for him or he would bounce. At least motive is not a requirement for conviction.

Do you mean their IM conversation or actual text messages? The only texts I remember seeing b/w him and KC were the ones on July 16th about Caylee being missing. And if there were others do you know where we can see them? Sounds interesting!

txsvicki · Mar 14, 2009

Scott and Casey's cases are the same in some ways. Both looked up things related to the murders online beforehand. Both are liars. Both were in the area where the bodies were dumped and were the last to see the victims. Casey has more evidence against her though because of the car trunk showing decomp and the duct tape evidence. Casey has more evidence and witnesses believing that she is nutty and Scott had noone claiming that about him.

sandcastles4me · Mar 14, 2009

magnolia said:
I agree~There was a direct link to Scott/the Bay/and the bodies.

Unless the State has something we don't know about, they don't have a direct link to Casey and Caylee's body. They have a link to the car and a link to the A house, but no link directly to KC.

I think the circumstantial evidence against KC is strong, but still - no direct link.

What about the fact KC's car had the smell of death and the decomposing hair? Even if they can't use the air sample they have the hair and all the people including her own father that smelled death in that trunk? Sorry to ask this question here but do we know for sure there were no fingerprints on the duct tape?

NancyT · Mar 14, 2009

FightTheOstrich said:
I disagree completely. Both cases essentially come down to a parent murdering his/her child. Nope, don't buy it.

While this is true, in Scott Peterson's defense, his child wasn't born for him to love Connor yet (doubt that would have ever happened though). Add in the motherly bond, and it just raises this case way above the other, for me.

Both are monsters though, there is no question about that.

NancyT · Mar 14, 2009

sarah7855 said:
Really? I get the impression that they are disgusted with them :wink:

They may be slightly intimidated by them, but fear now E1, they will probably have input from every prosecutor in the entire state of Florida and beyond.

NancyT · Mar 14, 2009

Dev said:
I agree with all the other posters who said that there is more evidence against KC than against Scott Peterson. To this day, I still don't know exactly how he killed Laci, and that drives me crazy. IMO, it is obvious that he is the one who killed her and the baby.

In this case, I think there are several reasons why the death penalty is not currently "on the table". Perhaps one is that the state feels that it wants direct evidence (an eyewitness to the actual murder) before it seeks to jump through all the many hoops required for it to get a capital conviction. I don't know that the state feels that way; I am just surmising.

But there is another reason why the state may be leaving the death penalty "off the table". I read Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112. It sets out the standards for attorney representation in capital cases. It says that in Florida, an attorney (whether retained, or appointed, or from the Public Defender's office) is to have 5 or more years of active criminal trial practice in order to be lead counsel on a capital case, and 3 or more years of same in order to be co-counsel on a capital case.

I keep hearing that JB has been practicing for less than 5 years. Anyone know exactly how long he's been a licensed attorney? If he is under 5 years--and I think he is--the state knows that he might become disqualified to represent KC in this case if it is a capital case. And, frankly, I think the state wants JB to be their opponent in this. So I think the state wants to keep this murder case at a level in which JB will stay on it and not be removed due to lack of years of experience.

I know many of us have followed many high profile trials, but I think Florida has different laws than we're used to as it compares to the death penalty. I'm just not sure that we (and even Nancy Grace for that matter), fully understand what the differences are.

It seems so clear cut as you follow a case in CA, but when I hear different pundits speaking who know Florida law, I just think there is so much we're not grasping. They talk about priors, how many special circumstances fit, etc... What we understand is, if you have a case where a special circumstance is met, the door is then wide open to seek it. It just doesn't seem this is as clear cut in FL. Technically, they have the circumstances to seek it, but it appears that alone just isn't enough in this case. I wish someone would come along who really understands the law there and breaks it all down for the rest of us.

In other states where I've followed trials (especially Texas), it's sought because they want the death qualified juror even if they don't want the sentence handed down. The theory being, it's easier to convince a more conservative jury of guilt than someone who is opposed to the death penalty altogether. Translation to me is, it should be easier to get a conviction (in theory anyway) for a death penalty case.

I just don't, "get" any of it where Florida is concerned. Why in the world do we keep hearing, it would be harder to get a conviction? Sure, it would take longer to try the case, but why would it be harder to garner a conviction?

Monkey* · Mar 14, 2009

Pink Panther said:
I have followed only two cases this closely...The SP case and this one. There is just as much overwhelming evidence here as there was with SP. Most importantly, in both cases, there WAS NO ALTERNATIVE to the obvious. In the SP case they actually, PATHETICALLY, tried to give blame to "homeless vagrants"...In this case, they haven't even tried that!

She's a revolting sociopath and her family is just as sick.

MOO

They're 'pathetically blaming' the ImagiNanny instead of InvisiBums.

NancyT · Mar 14, 2009

Where's Andre said:
I respectfully disagree. Double murder mother with child, v.s. single murder of child. I have similar difficulty with comparing these cases to Susan Smith. She murdered two children but confessed, and got life with a parole chance in 2024.

I don't know if she she received the possibility of parole, I'd have to recheck that, but if true I am appalled to no end.

I was angry with the jury because they rejected the death penalty because they said Susan confessed when she didn't have to. No, she didn't confess out of choice. Police lied to her and called her bluff on a lie she had told. She said she'd driven thru an intersection and LE said, we know you didn't drive thru there because we had a deputy on duty all night and he didn't see you go by (there was no one in reality at that intersection). That's when she broke down. So, she was spared? Gimmie a break! She killed those boys in cold blood and deserved nothing short of the same fate, IMO, AND the father's opinion. He asked those jurors to opt for the DP. IMO, they let him and those boys down big time.

NancyT · Mar 14, 2009

accordn2me said:
(some)Defense attorneys throw around the term CE like it's a dirty word....like the case is WEAK because the evidence is circumstantial.

Heck, with all the eyewitnesses that have recanted or been wrong over the years, it's a wonder that anyone is believed when they testify in court these days. However, I just read about a case where a man had friends who corroborated his aliby, yet a jury convicted him because of ONE eyewitness, who was later proved wrong. IMO, eyewitness should be in a class all by themselves.

I think the record speaks for itself. How many cases have been overturned because CE proved the person was wrongly convicted?

How many cases have been overturned because eyewitness testimony proved an innocent had been convicted?

It's just absurd that anyone; be it attorney, pundit, or whoever they are, has the nerve to go on TV and say, "it's only a circumstantial evidence case."

manatee · Mar 15, 2009

CPP said:
The one fact that immediately leaps to mind as different between Scott Peterson and KC is this:

The likelihood of a wife going jogging and not reported missing for a few hours is high... in fact LE would probably not act on it immediately.

The likelihood of a 3 year old child missing for a month and unreported is miniscule.

IMO.. When LE heard the words "a month" the case against KC began building from that moment, and after following up on her story / debunking her trail of lies, all efforts not focused on Kaylee's recovery were focused on gathering evidence against KC.

Yeap! this is it. IF SP had not reported Laci missing for 31 one days...that would have been the most incriminating piece of evidence. however, he reported it and called Laci's mom and "acted" the part of the worried, grieving husband as best he could. KC has failed to do that to this day. Even Susan Smith pretended made herself cry and asked the "perps" to return her babies. KC could not even bring herself to do that!

Where's Andre · Mar 15, 2009

NancyT said:
I don't know if she she received the possibility of parole, I'd have to recheck that, but if true I am appalled to no end.

My source was Wikipedia-- not the strongest one I know, but tops Google's hit parade more often than not.

NancyT said:
I was angry with the jury because they rejected the death penalty because they said Susan confessed when she didn't have to. No, she didn't confess out of choice. Police lied to her and called her bluff on a lie she had told. She said she'd driven thru an intersection and LE said, we know you didn't drive thru there because we had a deputy on duty all night and he didn't see you go by (there was no one in reality at that intersection). That's when she broke down. So, she was spared? Gimmie a break! She killed those boys in cold blood and deserved nothing short of the same fate, IMO, AND the father's opinion. He asked those jurors to opt for the DP. IMO, they let him and those boys down big time.

Casey was offered this same option more than once, and still sticks with her story.

Your previous posts and dax's on SS made me challenge myself that maybe I'm just an old-fashioned chromosomally-challenged MCP. This was part of my research, but I haven't come to any conclusion-- except maybe the chromosomally-challenged part.

NancyT · Mar 15, 2009

Where's Andre said:
My source was Wikipedia-- not the strongest one I know, but tops Google's hit parade more often than not.

Casey was offered this same option more than once, and still sticks with her story.

Your previous posts and dax's on SS made me challenge myself that maybe I'm just an old-fashioned chromosomally-challenged MCP. This was part of my research, but I haven't come to any conclusion-- except maybe the chromosomally-challenged part.

I had read this before, but I must have forgotten she would be up for parole. Thanks for the refresher. It makes me sick!

At 4:45 p.m., Judge Howard sentenced Susan Smith to thirty years to life in prison. Susan will be eligible for parole in 2025, after she has served 30 years in prison. At that time, Susan will be 53 years old.

skipped paragraph

David Smith felt that justice was not served because Susan was not sentenced to death. He said that he respected the jury's decision and the verdict, but did not agree with it. David also said that he would appear at Susan's parole hearings each time she might be considered for release to make sure that her life sentence means life.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/smith/phase_10.html

Ripley007 · Mar 16, 2009

NancyT said:
I had read this before, but I must have forgotten she would be up for parole. Thanks for the refresher. It makes me sick!

At 4:45 p.m., Judge Howard sentenced Susan Smith to thirty years to life in prison. Susan will be eligible for parole in 2025, after she has served 30 years in prison. At that time, Susan will be 53 years old.

skipped paragraph

David Smith felt that justice was not served because Susan was not sentenced to death. He said that he respected the jury's decision and the verdict, but did not agree with it. David also said that he would appear at Susan's parole hearings each time she might be considered for release to make sure that her life sentence means life.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/smith/phase_10.html

I don't know what to say other than "good for him". Who's to say that 30 years from now, if KC comes up for parole, that MANY of here on WS who have the ability, won't appear at a parole hearing for KC and speak up for Caylee? Rest assured, KC WILL be found guilty and her life WILL SUCK worse than most can even imagine. I am confident of this.

Ripley007 · Mar 16, 2009

IMHO-the worse thing KC did for herself, was to let the 30 days go by...During this 30 days, she was actually FILMED! Stealing from her "friend" Amy. Partying too....

*not SO clever was she...?*

NancyT · Mar 16, 2009

Ripley007 said:
I don't know what to say other than "good for him". Who's to say that 30 years from now, if KC comes up for parole, that MANY of here on WS who have the ability, won't appear at a parole hearing for KC and speak up for Caylee? Rest assured, KC WILL be found guilty and her life WILL SUCK worse than most can even imagine. I am confident of this.

I'm confident that Casey will be convicted, but it's my hope that she at minimal receives LWOP. Her family would be there begging for early release if it were up to them. No one in THAT family is representing the voice and justice of/for Caylee. I just hope that the jury finds her guilty of murder 1. The more we hear, the more likely it appears that will become reality. The duct tape on the mouth proves Caylee didn't accidentally drown in any swimming pool. Even if jurors think Caylee died of an accidental overdose of chloroform, they would still have to opt for murder 1. A death resulted while in the commission of committing a felony. That is murder 1!

I'm not suggesting this is what happened because I think it was 100% intentional. I'm just speculating that even if jurors want to believe it was accidental, if they believe death occurred due to chloroform, the law states it's murder 1.

Hopefully murder 1 will yield a LWOP sentence, or better yet, death, IMO.

Scott Peterson vs. KC - Which case had/has more evidence?*POLL ADDED*

Scott Peterson vs. KC - Which case has/had more evidence in favor of the prosecution?

Casey Anthony

Scott Peterson

New Member

New Member

New Member

Wantonly distributing my opinion........

Wantonly distributing my opinion........

New Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

There are no humble opinions

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Scott Peterson vs. KC - Which case had/has more evidence?POLL ADDED