Marc Klass on CTV

[Nuisanceposter]

I quit going there a long time ago (I think it was during the Scott Peterson trial). I am amazed that Court TV allowed their boards to get as out of control as they are.

<snip>

You're brave to go over to Court TV!

Or very foolish, lol. I just don't like the idea that those people would sit there and spout their Ramsey adoration "info" uncontested, and I'm always up for a good debate. I'm also surprised that the CTV boards degrade into the mud-slinging they turn into. I first started hanging out at CTV during the Michael Jackson trial, and there were times when things that people said to each other scared me. You'll find none of that here, even when people disagree - here people value politeness and maturity.

I wouldn't be able to keep up if I didn't have access to such extremely knowledgeable people as the good folks here and at FFJ, to name a few. I'm very impressed that the amount of complied information about JBR is set up so well and easy to find. Much thanks to everyone!

 

[luvbeaches]

Or very foolish, lol. I just don't like the idea that those people would sit there and spout their Ramsey adoration "info" uncontested, and I'm always up for a good debate. I'm also surprised that the CTV boards degrade into the mud-slinging they turn into.

It's somewhat like watching a trainwreck. You know you shouldn't look, but you do. I never post there (well, I haven't in a long time), but I have read there, and it is interesting. For some reason I thought Court TV would try and keep a handle on what goes on there...because what goes on there, reflects poorly on them.

 

[Honibugs]

(salute)

Hi Pepper, LTNS. I don't want an innocent person sent to prison for any reason. If Karr doesn't clear the reasonable doubt hurdle, he should not be found guilty, and I have no doubt but that John Ramsey would agree with me.

Shouldn't the same foundation of the judicial system, i.e., reasonable doubt have been applied to the Scott Peterson case? Funny how it wasn't.

 

[tybee204]

Wrong forum Honibugs. We are not going to argue Peterson here. BTW he was convicted and sentenced to death.

 

[BBB167893]

"In my estimation, given all that is know about the case, at best, your circumstantial evidence case is horribly weak."

I disagree, Wudge. I didn't even list ALL of the evidence. I was answering your specific questions.

"I don't see your case coming anywhere close to breaching the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I have a hard time believing that, as you expressed your case, you truly believe you could run a trial's gauntlet and make the sale."

You better believe I believe it! You're forgetting one important thing: the human element. A jury will do what it thinks, not necessarily what it's instructed. Besides, I would DESTROY John and Patsy on the witness stand.

Incidentally, how did we go from me on a jury to me as prosecutor?

"I am on the fence of if it was a parent or intruder but there is no way you could take this to court based on what Super Dave said which is based on evidence/stuff shared to the public. I'd think if it could be it would have already happened."

I don't, because you had a weak DA who really couldn't decide who did what.

"Based on the certainty some have here of their guilt, I do wonder if they do have a good match of the DNA to Karr if some will accept that or try and pass it off and say that karr was the guy working in the underwear plant or maybe he sold them to the Patsy from the store and got his dna on them there."

Not me. No evidence exists he worked in the plant, that I know of.

 

[Wudge]

Shouldn't the same foundation of the judicial system, i.e., reasonable doubt have been applied to the Scott Peterson case? Funny how it wasn't.

I agree. As charged, the evidence did not support the verdict. I do expect the verdict will be reversed. Though I do not expect the reversal will be based on jury error, because too many other weighty issues are likely to serve as the basis for reversal.

In assessing weak circumstantial evidence, juries often fail miserably. Clear evidence to this truth is the history of manifold wrongful convictions relating to the satanic/ritual abuse, child-care trials in the 80's and early 90's.

 

[BBB167893]

Wudge, I'm honestly not looking for trouble with you or anyone else.

I will say this: just because I believe in my abilities and this case evidence, I don't know that a jury would convict. I've said for a while that if a jury NEEDED to believe that a parent couldn't do this, it would be the end.

But I wouldn't mind trying it in a civil case where the burden if far lower.

 

[Nocgirl]

This is slightly off topic but I saw Marc Klaas's name mentioned and I have to ask. Does anyone else think this man is gorgeous or is it just me? I have seen him on TV numerous times and either the man is extremely photogenic or just really hot.

 

[Ivy2]

This is slightly off topic but I saw Marc Klaas's name mentioned and I have to ask. Does anyone else think this man is gorgeous or is it just me? I have seen him on TV numerous times and either the man is extremely photogenic or just really hot.

Hey NocGirl,

You weren't by chance having a little toddy last night while you were catching up on posts were you? Ha Ha

He is a handsome man and I greatly admire him for cutting through the crap that some of these TV panels throw out. However, sometimes I think they put too much makeup on him. I have seen him a couple of times where he looks like he has lipstick on.

John Walsch is handsome also but he sort of knows it.

 

[Nocgirl]

John Walsh is also handsome , I agree. I admire both of these men so much for what they have done to help protect our nations children.

Do Mr. Walsh or Mr. Klaas do any sort of public speaking? I would love to attend a lecture by one of them.

Is Mr Klaas still affiliated with Klaaskids.org or is he solely doing Beyong Missing?