Jerry wrote: > > From what I know so far about the hunting case, I wouldn't. I don't even know > if I'd vote to convict. (So far it seems he is just accused of being a better > shot) >
In Mr. Peterson's case there is no crime scene, no weapon, and no motive. He was convicted on odd behavior and coincidences on both sides of guilt and innocence. To me, coincidence is evidence of resonable doubt along with a lack of a weapon and motive. In the WI hunting murders, the defendant claims he shot the victims and gave a motive. The police have the murder weapon and there's witnesses that place him at the scene of the crime. That combined with unarmed bodies shot in the back says murder to me. Further a Sheriff on the scene said that the accused would've had to have "hunted" the unarmed victims by the way their bodies were spread around. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:139895 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
