It was half-joking. I do find it interesting how much of philosophy is
presented in relation or reaction to established religious thought.
Even Hobbes' Art of Rhetoric presents its examples as excerpts from
the bible (an English translation, mind you).
-Kevin
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:27:35 -0500, W
Because for a very long time the only people who had the leisure to
consider these questions were the members of religious houses. And if
you wanted to study at all the church was the way to go.
Dana
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:53:19 -0600, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was half-joking
Dana wrote:
> who wrote Fear and Trembling please? I have also heard that there was
> a whole American branch of existentialism, but I don't know who this
> would include, so if anyone knows that... remember, I came across this
> way of thinking as French literature.
>
> Dana
>
Soren Kiergaard.
Kevin Graeme wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:06:59 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Fear and trembling, while still an EX text, is first and foremost a
>>religious text. It is like a religious text, not because it argues to
>>existence of God or preaches a way to live. It is a relig
if I were actually on the jury...hmm. A) I would probably infuriate
every other juror going on the one hand this and on the other hand
that, and B) hmmm I guess I would really have to say, there is a
doubt. A *reasonable* doubt? Wow, I dunno. I am a Court TV junkie on
and off but this trial went on
who wrote Fear and Trembling please? I have also heard that there was
a whole American branch of existentialism, but I don't know who this
would include, so if anyone knows that... remember, I came across this
way of thinking as French literature.
Dana
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:06:59 -0500, Won Lee
BTW - those aren't my jokes - I don't remember where I first heard them,
but they're a couple
of my odd little favorites.
- Jim
Gruss Gott wrote:
>ROTFL!
>
>
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:58:34 -0600, Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking of existentialism, that went to the wrong r
Gehry-esque ladder. That makes you think.
(For those following along, here's Gehry's Guggenheim in Spain
http://us.images.tlcollect.com/598565439/large/3001020133124826.jpg)
-Kevin
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:47:10 -0600, Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're right - I've heard "po
> Dana wrote:
> Your theory though, does not
> explain why he kept calling her, up to a dozen times a day some days.
Well, I dunno. My guess would be he is someone who just liked making
up stories and stringing people along. Since he was under
investigation and pressure he probably wanted someo
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:06:59 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fear and trembling, while still an EX text, is first and foremost a
> religious text. It is like a religious text, not because it argues to
> existence of God or preaches a way to live. It is a religious text like
> Plato's
I read them all in French, either in France or for graduate work at
American University. Ah except I might have had a look at Being and
Nothingness in English around the time I encountered Kirkegaard.
If you have a particular passage in mind I could probably find the
French equivalent and tell you
Sounds to me like Peterson needed a better legal defence team and he'd be a
free man today.
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott
Was the body weighted down? I forgot whether it was proven to be the case or
if the prosecution was just making this claim to fit
in with the fishing/
Kevin Graeme wrote:
> EX doesn't even place any particular importance on
> humanity and any actions are simply futile but it can't hurt to do
> good (though it doesn't particularly help either).
>
I would disagree with this. And I think Camus would too. In classic
major-religion teachings, the
> Kevin wrote:
> Interesting. To me, the difference between EX and Humanism is
> thoughtful compassion. Humanism, as I have perceived it, is the EX
> understanding that this existence is all there is, but colored with
> the compassion that in order for life to be worth anything, we must
> choose to
I think you're right - I've heard "postmodernist" as well, but that just
makes me think of building a Gehry-esque ladder to the lightbulb.
- Jim
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>Yeah, I've generally heard them with "surrealist" instead of
>"existentialist" which makes more sense to me.
>
>-Kevin
>
>
>On We
Yeah, I've generally heard them with "surrealist" instead of
"existentialist" which makes more sense to me.
-Kevin
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:25:24 -0600, Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW - those aren't my jokes - I don't remember where I first heard them,
> but they're a couple
> of my
It's for sure what she wanted to hear. She was definitely looking for
a husband. And he for sure was a liar. Your theory though, does not
explain why he kept calling her, up to a dozen times a day some days.
Why *she* broke up with *him*. It seemed to me she did so because she
had concluded he was
> Dana wrote:
> The difference is that their wifes don't subsequently disappear.
That's the point though - that lie is so common that a disappearing
wife could easily be coincident with the lie.
> And I don't think Amber was a fling.
I heard the tapes too but came to the opposite conclusion. I
yeah, you mentioned that yesterday. The difference is that their wifes
don't subsequently disappear. And I don't think Amber was a fling.
Those tapes came out when I was home sick and I listened to them on
Court TV. It sounded pretty serious. And by the way, completely ruined
Nora Jone's very fine
> Dana wrote:
> um and he knew she would be missing before she was missing. That's the big
> one.
>
But how was this established? Because he told a prospective or
current mistress that he had "lost" his wife?
Unfortunately I've known many people (not just men) that have used
that exact line t
I thought evidence on the body proved it had been weighted down?
I could be mistaken though.
>> Brian wrote:
>> My question: If this is the case.why weigh down the body?
>>
>
> Was the body weighted down? I forgot whether it was proven to be the
> case or if the prosecution was just making
ROTFL!
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:58:34 -0600, Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of existentialism, that went to the wrong recipient entirely!
>
> And:
>
> Q: How many existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?
> A: Two. One to train the giraffe, and the other to fill the
um and he knew she would be missing before she was missing. That's the big one.
Dana
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:44:17 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Angel wrote:
> > Sounds to me like Peterson needed a better legal defence team
> > and he'd be a free man today.
>
> That's my thoug
Speaking of existentialism, that went to the wrong recipient entirely!
And:
Q: How many existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Two. One to train the giraffe, and the other to fill the bathtub
with brightly colored machine tools.
Alternately:
Q: How many existentialists does it
Probably spaces in the URL :)
Here you go.
- Jim
Dana wrote:
>I read them all in French, either in France or for graduate work at
>American University. Ah except I might have had a look at Being and
>Nothingness in English around the time I encountered Kirkegaard.
>
>If you have a particular pa
They are both existentialists. Sartre was the more intellectual of the
two. This much is generally accepted :) One thing I saw on the link I
posted that didn't know or had forgotten
was that Sartre, who wrote about Resistance fighters, participated
much less than Camus, who writes about community.
> Angel wrote:
> Sounds to me like Peterson needed a better legal defence team
> and he'd be a free man today.
That's my thought. If I understand here's the evidence against him:
1.) He was cheating on Mrs. Peterson.
2.) He didn't seem overly disturbed that she was missing.
3.) He went fishing i
the tapes were made after Laci went missing because Amber went to the
police. But the remark about having lost his wife was made *before*
she went missing. I think Scott said he was fishing because he did
not expect the bodies to wash ashore.
But yes, my reference to the lack of crime scene was a
> Maureen wrote:
> There certainly was a crime scene. The bay where Laci and Conor's
> bodies washed up, which just happened to be the same place Scott was
> "fishing" according to his own testimony.
That could easily be a coincidence; there's a lot of ocean and a lot of shore.
I would add that
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:51:59 -0600, Gruss Gott wrote:
> I'm way out of my depth with philosophy, but isn't what you described
> Camus existentialism and not humanism? That is, I thought Camus-type
> EX was exactly as you described above and that's basically what
> L'etranger was about.
Perhaps.
> Brian wrote:
> My question: If this is the case.why weigh down the body?
>
Was the body weighted down? I forgot whether it was proven to be the
case or if the prosecution was just making this claim to fit in with
the fishing/body dump theory.
I recall that they never found any weights an
Dana,
You've referenced the French titles a couple times. Have you read any
of the works in both French and then English? I've read some poorly
translated German work, but I was really impressed with the use of
English in some of the Camus translations I've read but I don't know
how they really co
One question I have with the defense's alibi that I haven't heard adequately
explained. I'm sure Gruss can explain it as a coincidence...but anyway:
The defense maintained that Laci was killed, probably while jogging that
morning, presumably by a stranger. This stranger then apparently held on t
Interesting. To me, the difference between EX and Humanism is
thoughtful compassion. Humanism, as I have perceived it, is the EX
understanding that this existence is all there is, but colored with
the compassion that in order for life to be worth anything, we must
choose to act to make it so. Only
> Dana wrote:
> Sartre on the other hand seemed to say in Nausea and in Being and
> Nothingness that a man might as well be a table leg until he acts, and
> that act defines him as a man.
Don't bogart that doobage - pass it on ...
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>>Let's not confuse humane with humanist.
>
>
> "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
> intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
> understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that,
> however, isn't the real point. Bu
There certainly was a crime scene. The bay where Laci and Conor's
bodies washed up, which just happened to be the same place Scott was
"fishing" according to his own testimony. As for motive, a married
man who is cheating always has motive to get rid of his wife.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:41:02 -
for anyone interested, here is a pretty literate discussion of Camus
as seem by Sartre. Matter of fact, the whole site looks interesting.
http://www.anotheramerica.org/new_page_6.htm
Dana
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:23:34 -0700, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, Won has made a distinction bet
Well, Won has made a distinction between humane and humanist that I
have to think about. I am not answering for him, but I think you are
in the passage I primarily used to make my point that Camus is a
humanist, in the sense that he really believes in the potential of
man.
(Eerie to see that comme
> Let's not confuse humane with humanist.
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that,
however, isn't the real point. But they are more or less ignorant,
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 a
I think he was being cynical.
If you only look at the facts you want to see, then the case can be
misrepresented into a totally different issue.
Ray
At 02:32 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:
>I fail to see the revelance of the first two lines.
>
>Are you implying that because he was white, that they
We need that truth serum that they used on Aaahnold in "True Lies" in our
court system. Sodium Pentathol or something like that.
Then, put 'em on the stand, and blammo! You've got a confession or a denial
that takes only 20 minutes of court time.
Imagine how much fat we could trim from the bud
Gruss, how much would it take for you to agree with the *ultimate penalty*?
Would he have to admit it? Smoking gun? Bloody seaweed in his sock drawer?
Just wondering if you are standing on the anti-DP side or are just irked by
this particular case.
Ray
I can't answer for Gruss, but I can giv
LOL
At 03:22 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> > Good thought, but that costs you and I more money than a 2 dollar
> > injection.
>
>I dunno about that - I have a bunch of dull steak knives I'm willing
>to donate to the cause and I'm sure another inmate's time is only
>worth about 5¢ per
I'd buy liar if she hadn't so conveniently died just afterwards.
I'd buy coincidence if it had sounded like that on the tapes. I mean,
I think the guy is a complete sleaze, but I am pretty sure that isn't
*why* I think he is guilty. I think that this particular lie coupled
with his particular beh
Wow, we completely disagree.
I would put Peterson to death in a heartbeat.
>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)
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Compan
> Ray wrote:
> Gruss, how much would it take for you to agree with the *ultimate penalty*?
>
> Brian wrote:
> I dunno Gruss, you seem to have quite a threshold for what constitutes
> "reasonable doubt"
Physical evidence like a crime scene with both of their blood and/or
witnesses or anything tha
> Ray wrote:
> Therefore, any penalty, even a fine for speeding, is a deterrent.
>
Ummm ... maybe not that.
> Why should that sicko be allowed
> back on the streets? Disagree? Now think if that was your wife or
> daughter or even a close friend. Do you still disagree?
I think a larger deterr
You are right, all of these could just be coincidences. OJ may of been
framed by a racist cop too.
I dunno Gruss, you seem to have quite a threshold for what constitutes
"reasonable doubt"
If I'm ever a defendant in court, I want you on my jury :)
>
> This could be a complete coincidence. I'
Oh psha. Hey, my excuse is that I was delerious from staying awake all
night while trapped in an airport. That's it. Yeah.
-Kevin
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:22:50 -0700, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> psst Kevin -- Camus wrote The Plague.
>
> Dana
~~~
Gruss, how much would it take for you to agree with the *ultimate penalty*?
Would he have to admit it? Smoking gun? Bloody seaweed in his sock drawer?
Just wondering if you are standing on the anti-DP side or are just irked by
this particular case.
Ray
At 04:33 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:
> >
For most of us, a structured penalty system keeps us in check. The death
penalty is an extreme case, but it still is a deterrent nonetheless.
Exactly, any penalty deters most of us. There are a lot of social penalties
that go with killing somebody. I really think, if you are a person who wo
> Brian wrote:
>
> In none of these instances do I see death penalty vs. life in prison
> mattering one iota.
I agree with this for the same reason I think that illegal drugs don't
deter anyone from using them. In both cases the individual is
committed to the action - my guess is they don't reall
psst Kevin -- Camus wrote The Plague.
Dana
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:17:20 -0600, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh. I read The Plague while stranded overnight in an airport because
> of a storm grounding all planes. There was an odd symmetry to it.
> Obviously people weren't dying in
> Dana wrote:
> ya, the only problem is that he told his girlfriend that Laci was dead
> when she was still alive and well. And *then* she disappeared, and
> Scott tellls Amber that things will settle down and they will be able
> to be together in a few months.
This could be a complete coincidence
interesting distinction between humane and humanism. But I don't think
that Camus was any less humanist just because he talked about
community. Look at Les mains sales. (Sorry to keep throwing in titles
in French but the titles don't always translate directly and these are
the ones whose translatio
ya, the only problem is that he told his girlfriend that Laci was dead
when she was still alive and well. And *then* she disappeared, and
Scott tellls Amber that things will settle down and they will be able
to be together in a few months. If he had done a better job of
disposing of the body, it pr
Good thought, but that costs you and I more money than a 2 dollar
injection. Or, send him to Canada to get it done!
At 02:48 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> > Therefore, any penalty, even a fine for speeding, is a deterrent.
> >
>
>Ummm ... maybe not that.
>
> > Why should that sick
Well, i agree with you to a point. To those people that fit any or all of
the three criteria you presented, the penalty, whatever it is, is not a
deterrent. IMO, those people don't deserve a place in a civilized
society. BUT - for the rest of us, we think about the results of our
actions. T
>Also it's a pop-psych misnomer that people who end up in prison do so
>because of low self-esteem. I recall a study of inmates that found
>they actually had a higher sense of self-esteem than most people.
>Makes sense once you think about it.
Well, sure, that does make sense.
"I am above the law
> Ray wrote:
> Good thought, but that costs you and I more money than a 2 dollar
> injection.
I dunno about that - I have a bunch of dull steak knives I'm willing
to donate to the cause and I'm sure another inmate's time is only
worth about 5¢ per hour these days.
Wait - how can it NOT be a deterrent? There are people that cut me off at
the traffic circle on my way home every day, I have some enemies, but I
certainly won't kill them. Why? Cause I don't want to spend my life in a
cell or die from Lethal Injection.
Side note: I probably couldn't kill an
Again, your argument is against the conviction for murder, NOT the sentence
of death. When in the penalty phase, you can't say "well, i'm not sure I
want to kill him because well, the case was only circumstantial"
If the case was circumstantial, and you aren't sure about it, you never
should of
Or that the system is biased, and black men get off where white men are
convicted.
I was being a bit ridiculous. I was trying to show that taking only a few facts
can lead to bad conclusions.
Jerry
Jerry Johnson
Web Developer
Dolan Media Company
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/04 02:32PM >>>
I fa
And "respecting the law" is a deterrent, no?
Ray
At 02:34 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> >
> > In none of these instances do I see death penalty vs. life in prison
> > mattering one iota.
>
>I agree with this for the same reason I think that illegal drugs don't
>deter anyone from us
I fail to see the revelance of the first two lines.
Are you implying that because he was white, that they must have really had
solid evidence that he was guilty in order to convict
him?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson
Scott Peterson, a white man, was convicted of killing
Wait - how can it NOT be a deterrent? There are people that cut me off at
the traffic circle on my way home every day, I have some enemies, but I
certainly won't kill them. Why? Cause I don't want to spend my life in a
cell or die from Lethal Injection.
Side note: I probably couldn't kill a
I completely disagree.
Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one offense in the US that is punishable
by death, murder in the first degree. First degree murder requires
pre-meditation.
Now, you are telling me that someone who has pre-meditated on a murder,
knowing full well that if he's caught, h
Tue Dec 14 19:15:41 2004
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-Date: Tue Dec 14 11:15:41 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: archive@jab.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:15:41 -0800
Received: from exprod5mx32.postini.com ([64.18.0.187] helo=psmtp.com)
by toko.jab.org
Great point. In this case, I think that they did the right thing. They
determined that he was guilty of murder, then they sentenced accordingly.
How could you separate the two? If the person was found guilty of crime A,
then how could you sentence for a lesser crime? I don't think that the t
I'm pretty blase on the whole death penalty dispute. I think it's painfully
obvious that its NOT a deterrant, so that argument is ridiculous. Eye for an
eye? Yeah, I have no problem with people getting what they have coming to
them.
So without weighing in at all on whether the death penality is
> Ray wrote:
> What about the concrete that was supposedly used to 'fix his driveway', yet
> none of that brand of concrete was found in his driveway? That, the phone
> conversations, has me convinced.
As to the concrete - let's say I decide to fix my driveway and go to
Home Despot and buy a few
Kevin Graeme wrote:
> Heh. I read The Plague while stranded overnight in an airport because
> of a storm grounding all planes. There was an odd symmetry to it.
> Obviously people weren't dying in the airport, but the idea of people
> being unexpectedly trapped together.
>
> There was a foreign cou
I haven't been following this trial as closely as some on this list, but
isn't there an *awful* lot of circumstantial evidence?
What about the concrete that was supposedly used to 'fix his driveway', yet
none of that brand of concrete was found in his driveway? That, the phone
conversations, h
But they are separate, aren't they???
The evidence of the case will serve to decide guilt or innocence. Once guilt
is determined, an entirely different set of factors is then put into play to
determine penalty. So to say "convict a guy to death with only
circumstantial evidence", wouldn't be ac
Dana wrote:
> He was convicted of murdering a man because he didn't cry at his
> mother's funeral.
> (Did some master's thesis work on Satre and Camus,)
>
> The fact that I do think Peterson was guilty doesn't change the fact
> that I can see the parallel here in the thought process.
>
Dana,
W
Yeah. Imagine if he is really innocent. But again, I don't think he
is. Court TV was playing these tapes back in the early fall when I was
all sick at home. Amber asked him how he could know he was going to
"lose" his wife before it happened, and he had no good answer for her.
Dana
On Tue, 14 De
Ahso he never actually said he killed his wife, or used any colloquial
language to indicate he had done so. Never said he
whacked her, had her taken care of...nothing of the sort.
So the jury convicted him based on the prosecution's interpretation of those
tape recordings, the Jury's interpr
> Brian Wrote:
> But they are separate, aren't they???
>
I think you're right about that. Which convinces more that the death
penalty isn't warranted in this case. Although I think that's just
the jury's recommendation and now it's up to the judge.
Still, if the system effectively forces you i
He was convicted of murdering a man because he didn't cry at his
mother's funeral.
(Did some master's thesis work on Satre and Camus,)
The fact that I do think Peterson was guilty doesn't change the fact
that I can see the parallel here in the thought process.
Dana
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:55:27 -
Interesting. I got into that particular theme because my professor
said that Sartre was a humanist while Camus was not. I came to see
that she was looking at La chute (The Fall?) and The Flies whereas I
was looking at Nausea and The Plague. But still. Sartre strikes me as
being very coldly intellec
> Brian wrote:
> Well, to clarify, the two jurors who agreed to talk with the media indicated
> that his lack of emotion may have played a part in their decision during the
> PENALTY phase of the trial.
To me the death penalty should only be applied when there is
overwhelming physical evidence tha
Heh. I read The Plague while stranded overnight in an airport because
of a storm grounding all planes. There was an odd symmetry to it.
Obviously people weren't dying in the airport, but the idea of people
being unexpectedly trapped together.
There was a foreign couple, from Switzerland I believe,
Dana wrote:
> Interesting. I got into that particular theme because my professor
> said that Sartre was a humanist while Camus was not. I came to see
> that she was looking at La chute (The Fall?) and The Flies whereas I
> was looking at Nausea and The Plague. But still. Sartre strikes me as
> bein
Which is why this conviction will be challenged several times before his
punishment is confirmed. When people start talking about reforms to reduce or
eliminate appeals, I worry that the solution is not so simple. Yes, it is
costly, yes it is abused. But would we really be better off without
Camus' Stranger?
Read it in high school, remember liking it a lot (i'm a fan of
existentialism)but I don't remember much else about the book. I do
remember the lead character being rather apathetic at the death of a family
member...his Dad I think.
Does it have some relevance to the Peters
No Exit is one of his most famous plays (hell is other people) but not
in my opinion his best. The Flies. Go see or read The Flies.
Dana
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:27:44 -0600, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:18:20 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We
Well, to clarify, the two jurors who agreed to talk with the media indicated
that his lack of emotion may have played a part in their decision during the
PENALTY phase of the trial.
In all my readings since the verdict, none have indicated that his emotion
played a part in their decision during
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:18:20 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have to have a talk. I'm a huge Kierkegaard fan. As such I'm a huge
> Sartre and Camus fan. I've been meaning to read more Kobo Abe books but
> I've only managed to read Women in the Dunes. Personally, I find
> Satre's
Scott Peterson, a white man, was convicted of killing his wife.
OJ Simpson, a black man, was not convicted of killing his wife.
Those are the facts as I know them.
You need to look a little closer at all of the facts presented in the case if
you believe these few stiches of information contain t
Dec 2004 07:44:16 -0800
Received: from exprod5mx120.postini.com ([64.18.0.34] helo=psmtp.com)
by toko.jab.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1CeEqW-0004LJ-00
for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:44:16 -0800
Received: from source ([64.118.64.245]) by exprod5mx120.postini.com
([64.18.4.10]) with S
WOW then you get this.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/14/peterson.case/index.html
Jurors who decided that Scott Peterson deserves to die say his lack of
emotion played a large role in their decision.
Maybe he was sitting stone faced because standing up and screaming i
didnt do it wouldn't help hi
yeah i must agree, if thats what they based
their decision on, or any part of their decision, then
they did it on a gut feeling, and fuck, i wouldnt want
to be convicted of ANYTHING based on someones
GUT FEELING?
-- tony
Tony Weeg
macromedia certified coldfusion mx developer
email: tonyweeg [at
And Vice Versa.
Hmm..that's strange though don't you think?
A case with this much media coverage,
and we don't really know WHAT they convicted him on do we?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: G
And you didn't see 1% of what the jury saw.
Your vindication of him is based on media reports
And you didn't see 1% of what the jury saw.
Your vindication of him is based on media reports, while their indicment of
him is based on arduous deliberation of the facts. I simply don't see how
you can be so sure that you are right, and they are wrong.
>I don't see they proved anything beyond
I don't see they proved anything beyond the reasonable doubt that he was
responsible.
They removed the last juror because he would not go along with the guilty
verdict, and replaced him with someone who was sitting
there never paying attention or even taking notes. The previous juror they
remov
BTW, I had to look that word up. Very nice vocab word. I may try to wedge
it into conversation with my wife tonight to seem smarter.
Of course, she knows better, but I can try. :)
Ray
At 04:55 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote:
>If he is guilty it was a horrible crime.
>
>Dana
>
>
>On Mon, 13 Dec 200
If he is guilty it was a horrible crime.
Dana
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:52:45 -0500, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sweet. He should burn in hell, if there were such a place.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> At 04:51 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote:
> >Not surprising if you think he is guilty. I was not
Sweet. He should burn in hell, if there were such a place.
Ray
At 04:51 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote:
>Not surprising if you think he is guilty. I was not sure which way the
>penalty would go since there was after all a paucity of physical
>evidence linking him to the crime.
>
>--
>...they did not s
100 matches
Mail list logo
