I want to address your defense of Scott Peterson.
Saying that the Constitution means a person is innocent until proven guilty
is correct, but reality should be taken into consideration too.

I'm pro-reality.
I think lying to one's self is a great crime
.

When a woman is found dead, the most likely suspect is her husband or boyfriend.
This is a sad commentary on the beastiality of us men, but unfortunately it's the truth.
Yes, there are exceptions, but they are so few as to be statistically unimportant.

I agree 100 percent, that's where the cops should start.
But they shouldn't reverse-engineer "the husband did it" because of those stats.
 

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that even remotely suggests that Scott is innocent.
Are you privy to something no one else knows?

No.
All I have is a strong aversion to agreeing with anything Nancy Grace says.
She's Limbaugh's soul-sister.
 

I know you are trying to defend the Constitution, but this is not the issue to do it with.

Hmmmm, ...to me, that's almost like saying, "Can you forget the Constitution for a minute?"
 

Your continued defense of Scott is puzzling to me, and makes me uneasy.  I respect your opinion
and would have no objection to you just saying that a man is innocent until proven guilty, but your
continued championing of him and your devoting so much space to this troubles me.

You should not be troubled.  For me this is all politics.
The state of California announced their intention to lethally inject Scott Peterson without
a murder scene, with no murder weapon, with no forensics and no witnesses.
If California announced their intention to murder you without a case, should I speak up?
 

The writers of the Constitution wanted their document to defend the innocent, not shield
the guilty. It can be a fine line sometimes, and perhaps Scott is innocent. Maybe OJ was
innocent too. Maybe it was an accident when the gun went off while cleaning it just as it
was aimed at the wife. Do you know how many men got away with murder using that
excuse because it is impossible to prove otherwise? Quite a few.

I think if the evidence proves a person killed someone, they should be punished.
 

Women are paying with their lives for the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
I don't feel bad, nor do I fear for our Constitution when someone like Scott Peterson is
forced to prove his innocence. What makes me feel bad and makes me wonder if our
Constitution is flawed is when someone gets away with killing an innocent woman
simply by sitting there and smugly saying, "Prove it!"

I think you have stumbled into a conundrum.
You seem to be saying if a man can't prove a negative, he should be judged guilty.
Can you prove you didn't eat at McDonald's last Wednesday?
 

If women were killing their husbands and ex-boyfriends at the same rate women are
being killed, then the universality of the innocent until proven guilty axiom would get my
full support, and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you in defense of Scott Peterson,
but that's not the reality. When it comes down to it, I would rather defend the lives of
women than the Constitution.

YB
 

But Dude, those aren't your only two choices.
There's a movie called "Monster" starring a very uglied-up Charlise Theron.
She defied every FBI Profiler stereotype by being a female serial killer.
Wouldn't you hate to do life in prison because the cops stuck to their rigid theories?

I have two issues with their case against Scott Peterson.

Rumor has it, that Susan McDougal's lawyer took one look at the police report and said,
 "I'll take this case, Scott Peterson is innocent."  Neither you or I
   have seen what Geragos has seen, and I'm a betting man.

This is exactly like politics. Both sides exaggerate and pretend there's no elephant in the room.
   Nancy Grace says he MUST be guilty of murder because he lied to get sex.
   Gloria Allred says he MUST be guilty because The Shining is his favorite movie.

   Jesus, can the justice system get any stupider that that?

Nancy Grace guarantees he's guilty because he bought a boat and didn't tell his dad.
   And any man who would lie for sex would surely kill his wife, right?

The minute they come up with a shred of proof, I might jump on the "Hang Scott" bandwagon.
On a recent Larry King, Grace said he had the wrong bait to catch croppie, so he MUST have murdered his wife.

Dude, what if this was you?

What if you told friends you were going to play golf one day, and you went fishing instead, and Nancy Grace
convinced a nation you murdered your wife by offering "proof" like "He bought a boat and didn't tell his dad?"

All I want is some evidence besides, "Oh come on, everyone knows he's guilty."

  return to  bartcop.com