Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Booth

Scott Peterson was innocent

1,246 posts in this topic

Well, my guess would be that some might not have been found credible enough by the prosecution to upheld in court and some was thrown out because of a motion of dismissal by the defence.

(for example the testimony of of Detective Brocchini was thrown out of court).

And that doesn't surprise me. Frankly, I think Brocchini should have gone to jail for obstruction of justice. He deliberately excised exculpatory evidence from his report, and he admitted this in court. That's criminal.
Harris asked Dr. Brian Peterson if he observed any debris or anything associated with the body and Dr. Peterson mentions the plastic tape around the neck of Conner

which he found not suspicious because it had not caused damage to the neck.

And Dr. Peterson adds "And, in fact, my opinion was and is that it was simply debris that had become associated with the body"

Dr. Peterson also explains that the tape or twine did not cause strangulation or hanging, again because it did not cause any damage to the body and therefore he concluded it must have been debris.

You can find the original transcript here : http://pwc-sii.com/C...Brian-Trial.htm

Here's the relevant testimony on cross:

GERAGOS: Because you were afraid that that would do some damage to the baby, correct?

PETERSON: I suspect it would have, but I think, as much as anything else, it was habit.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then you ended up cutting it off; isn't that correct?

PETERSON: I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, the way that it, at, we just saw the picture, it appears that the, this tape or this twine was wrapped around, and then around the neck, and then it appeared, if I understand the way the picture is, to have been tied and there was a knot and a bow; is that correct?

PETERSON: Except you're gesturing towards your right, and I believe that bow was towards, towards the left.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so the same process, underneath the arm and then back around the neck. And there was a space, as you indicated, of two centimeters around the neck area; is that correct?

PETERSON: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you've indicated that the twine or this cord, that you didn't see any evidence that it was the cause of death, correct?

PETERSON: There was, there was no damage to the neck that I could associate with that tape.

GERAGOS: Okay. But there was also nothing eliminating the distinct possibility that that was placed on post-mortem and then tied, is there? Nothing eliminates that possibility that you saw?

PETERSON: I would just say that, as a forensic pathologist, that's outside of what I would normally determine or even think about.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you wouldn't, that's not in your area of expertise?

PETERSON: No.

Less than an inch of space between the neck and the twine. A knot and a bow were tied into it; the coroner(a State witness) testified to this. If Laci was dumped into the Bay pregnant, as the prosecution claimed, how did that happen?

Not sure what you mean with this but I'll take you up on that drink :)
I mean just what I said. Offer a reasonable explanation to the previous question("how did that happen?") and I'll buy you that drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that doesn't surprise me. Frankly, I think Brocchini should have gone to jail for obstruction of justice. He deliberately excised exculpatory evidence from his report, and he admitted this in court. That's criminal.

Here's the relevant testimony on cross:

GERAGOS: Because you were afraid that that would do some damage to the baby, correct?

PETERSON: I suspect it would have, but I think, as much as anything else, it was habit.

GERAGOS: Okay. Then you ended up cutting it off; isn't that correct?

PETERSON: I did.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, the way that it, at, we just saw the picture, it appears that the, this tape or this twine was wrapped around, and then around the neck, and then it appeared, if I understand the way the picture is, to have been tied and there was a knot and a bow; is that correct?

PETERSON: Except you're gesturing towards your right, and I believe that bow was towards, towards the left.

GERAGOS: Okay. And so the same process, underneath the arm and then back around the neck. And there was a space, as you indicated, of two centimeters around the neck area; is that correct?

PETERSON: Right.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you've indicated that the twine or this cord, that you didn't see any evidence that it was the cause of death, correct?

PETERSON: There was, there was no damage to the neck that I could associate with that tape.

GERAGOS: Okay. But there was also nothing eliminating the distinct possibility that that was placed on post-mortem and then tied, is there? Nothing eliminates that possibility that you saw?

PETERSON: I would just say that, as a forensic pathologist, that's outside of what I would normally determine or even think about.

GERAGOS: Okay. So you wouldn't, that's not in your area of expertise?

PETERSON: No.

Less than an inch of space between the neck and the twine. A knot and a bow were tied into it; the coroner(a State witness) testified to this. If Laci was dumped into the Bay pregnant, as the prosecution claimed, how did that happen? I mean just what I said. Offer a reasonable explanation to the previous question("how did that happen?") and I'll buy you that drink.

Well, Laci's upper torso had been emptied of internal organs and that allowed the fetus to pass through a perforation in the top of the decomposing uterus and the tape or twine became tangled around the fetus neck after the fetus came out of Laci's decomposing body ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Laci's upper torso had been emptied of internal organs and that allowed the fetus to pass through a perforation in the top of the decomposing uterus and the tape or twine became tangled around the fetus neck after the fetus came out of Laci's decomposing body ?

But it wasn't simply tangled. It was a clear knot, tied tightly within an inch of Conner's body and extended into a bow. This wasn't just a result of the tide. Surely we can agree that rolling water doesn't tie knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it wasn't simply tangled. It was a clear knot, tied tightly within an inch of Conner's body and extended into a bow. This wasn't just a result of the tide. Surely we can agree that rolling water doesn't tie knots.

Could it be that the knot and the bow were already tied into the tape or twine before it became entangled with Conner's body ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not so sure that's true. I think it's likely that the media polluted the minds of the jury pool as they did most of the public.

I didn't chastise anyone. I have no qualms with those who have opinions that differ from my own. But criminal trials should not be decided based on personal opinions of the defendant, they should be determined by the facts presented. Like many, my opinion is that Scott was a bad husband, but based on the evidence, he wasn't a killer.

This is precisely why they ask potential jurors if they have been following the news on the case and do they have any biases. Sometimes, they have to take these cases out of the jurisdiction in order to assure a fair trial. Lawyers are extremely adept at assessing potential jurors, who are thoroughly questioned before they are chosen in a situations such as this.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You gotten read this: http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/editorials/why.htm

Just keep an open mind.

Edited by Aftermath
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And yet, somehow they convinced the Jury to believe the Prosecution and not the Defense?

"Members of the Jury, I have no evidence, but you need to believe me when I say this man is guilty."

They didn't find evidence of Scott doing any wrongdoing, and they didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing at all? Obviously then Lacy killed herself and threw herself into the water, where Scott had coincidentally been boating in a boat no one knew he owned? If Scott didn't do it, then who did? Is there just Zero evidence at all?

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the knot and the bow were already tied into the tape or twine before it became entangled with Conner's body ?

Conner's head measured 28cm in circumference. His neck was 20cm in circumference, and the twine was tied tightly within 2cm of his neck. Therefore, the loop wasn't large enough to have simply drifted over his head. Dr. Peterson cut it rather than pull it off, as he feared that might cause damage to the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, somehow they convinced the Jury to believe the Prosecution and not the Defense?

"Members of the Jury, I have no evidence, but you need to believe me when I say this man is guilty."

They didn't find evidence of Scott doing any wrongdoing, and they didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing at all? Obviously then Lacy killed herself and threw herself into the water, where Scott had coincidentally been boating in a boat no one knew he owned? If Scott didn't do it, then who did? Is there just Zero evidence at all?

The testimony from Scott's neighbor at the warehouse reflects that Laci had in fact seen the boat. Scott made no attempt to hide the boat, or his purchase of it, from anyone.

What evidence do you have of Scott's wrongdoing? He admitted he had an affair and lied about it. What else is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is precisely why they ask potential jurors if they have been following the news on the case and do they have any biases. Sometimes, they have to take these cases out of the jurisdiction in order to assure a fair trial. Lawyers are extremely adept at assessing potential jurors, who are thoroughly questioned before they are chosen in a situations such as this.

I'm not sure why you believe this to be true. The attorneys from both sides are looking for jurors biased in their own favor, not those who are necessarily objective. Secondly, they have no particular skill at evaluating whether a juror is biased or not. The process is largely guesswork.

Only someone living under a rock could've escaped the constant media coverage of this case. Included in that coverage was all of the speculation, half-truths and outright lies told about Scott and the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is precisely why they ask potential jurors if they have been following the news on the case and do they have any biases. Sometimes, they have to take these cases out of the jurisdiction in order to assure a fair trial. Lawyers are extremely adept at assessing potential jurors, who are thoroughly questioned before they are chosen in a situations such as this.

I'm not sure why you believe this to be true. The attorneys from both sides are looking for jurors biased in their own favor, not those who are necessarily objective. Secondly, they have no particular skill at evaluating whether a juror is biased or not. The process is largely guesswork.

Only someone living under a rock could've escaped the constant media coverage of this case. Included in that coverage was all of the speculation, half-truths and outright lies told about Scott and the evidence.

In California, jurors can have knowledge of the case, they are only asked to be impartial, i.e., to keep an open mind. You can Google search that CA statue. Moreover, three jurors during the Peterson trial were dismissed for bad behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Read the information presented here: http://www.pwc-sii.c...

Again, just asking to have an open mind because obviously the web site is biased... however, the site does a good job at laying out the facts, evidence, and timeline of events.

A few of things to consider:

1. When Laci was out walking the dog, there are several witnesses who saw her at different times and locations, Scott was on his laptop. The police merely overlook this.

2. Scott told investigators that he was fishing and exactly where he was fishing; took them to see his boat, had a receipt for the boat landing. If Scott dumped his dead wife's body there where he was fishing, why would he tell the cops?

3. Scott immediately called all of their family and friends when he realized Laci was missing; he appeared distraught and concerned to neighbors.

Here's the money shot though: Conner lived beyond December 24. That alone should have exonerated him because after the police were called on Christmas Eve, Scott was under consistent surveillance and could not have had the opportunity to dump the bodies.

Edited by Aftermath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Conner's head measured 28cm in circumference. His neck was 20cm in circumference, and the twine was tied tightly within 2cm of his neck. Therefore, the loop wasn't large enough to have simply drifted over his head. Dr. Peterson cut it rather than pull it off, as he feared that might cause damage to the head.

I don't understand why Harris or Geragos did not question Dr. Brian Peterson about this during the examination.

Furthermore, who exactly determined the exact size of the loop ? Is there documentation about this ? There have to be you might think.

I also understood that Dr. Cyril Wecht argued that it was impossible that the twine slipped over Conners head but did he measured the twine ? And why did he not testify ?

Another expert Dr. Werner Spitz, who has examined numerous bodies found in water, said all sorts of debris can become attached to the body in strange ways.

He added: "The loop of the tape could have possibly floated onto the child's feet and worked its way up to the neck with tidal action."

Edited by thedutchiedutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why Harris or Geragos did not question Dr. Brian Peterson about this during the examination.

Well, it should be obvious why the prosecution(Harris) would prefer this information be kept from the jury. Geragos did address the matter, but weakly and ineffectually. This is most likely explained by laziness and/or his glaring incompetence. This single piece of evidence alone could've/would've exonerated his client, yet he failed, in so many ways, to emphasize its importance to the jury.
Furthermore, who exactly determined the exact size of the loop ? Is there documentation about this ? There have to be you might think.

I also understood that Dr. Cyril Wecht argued that it was impossible that the twine slipped over Conners head but did he measured the twine ? And why did he not testify ?

Another expert Dr. Werner Spitz, who has examined numerous bodies found in water, said all sorts of debris can become attached to the body in strange ways.

He added: "The loop of the tape could have possibly floated onto the child's feet and worked its way up to the neck with tidal action."

Dr. Peterson testified that the loop was within 2cm of Conner's neck. His neck measured 20cm. We can deduce from that alone that the loop was approximately 22cm. Whether it was ever actually measured, I don't think so. I don't recall any testimony to that fact.

I've not seen this quote from Spitz before, but if the loop was too small to go around Conner's head(28cm), I would ask/expect Spitz to explain how it could possibly 'work it's way up' around his chest/arms/shoulders on tidal action alone. Surely they measured larger than 28cm in circumference. It would defy everything we know about physics. The only reasonable explanation for the twine is that it was placed there by human hands.

As to why Wecht did not testify, I don't know the answer to that, and I don't want to speculate. As I'm aware, all of the opinions/findings that he expressed publicly supported Scott's innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I look into this case, the more I ask myself: "what did the jury know that we are missing?"

The more I read over the "evidence", the more I answer myself: "nothing."

During 2003 - 2004, I was caught up in my own life that another husband who killed their wife story didn't matter. I didn't pay any attention. Now, reading through the period articles, testimony, and evidence available to us - that jury really f'd up. Reading through a few articles from that time period is key, as there were some reporters who believed Scott was innocent based on the evidence presented during the trial... these are not articles in hindsight.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1291267/posts

“The defense brought a financial expert witness to testify that, ‘from a financial standpoint, Scott would've been better off it they were alive.’ He said the murders of defendant's wife, and her unborn son meant Peterson would not share in an estimated $160,000 inheritance his 27-year-old spouse was poised to receive on her 30th birthday; instead, that the money will go to her relatives.”

http://www.123helpme.com/stages-of-the-criminal-trial-scott-peterson-view.asp?id=160540

I understand that isn't a lot of money, but still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The more I look into this case, the more I ask myself: "what did the jury know that we are missing?"

The more I read over the "evidence", the more I answer myself: "nothing."

During 2003 - 2004, I was caught up in my own life that another husband who killed their wife story didn't matter. I didn't pay any attention. Now, reading through the period articles, testimony, and evidence available to us - that jury really f'd up. Reading through a few articles from that time period is key, as there were some reporters who believed Scott was innocent based on the evidence presented during the trial... these are not articles in hindsight.

http://www.freerepub...s/1291267/posts

“The defense brought a financial expert witness to testify that, ‘from a financial standpoint, Scott would've been better off it they were alive.’ He said the murders of defendant's wife, and her unborn son meant Peterson would not share in an estimated $160,000 inheritance his 27-year-old spouse was poised to receive on her 30th birthday; instead, that the money will go to her relatives.”

http://www.123helpme...w.asp?id=160540

I understand that isn't a lot of money, but still...

Well, without vouching for the credibility of the site or its author, the first link you noted brings up a very important point. We don't even know that a homicide took place in this case. Let me repeat: There is no evidence that a homicide even occurred!

As to a financial motive; there was none, period. Laci was worth more to Scott alive than dead. As to any other motive? The prosecution could never demonstrate one. All of the testimony indicated that Scott was content to be with Laci; He was always attentive to her; he doted on her. He was an involved father-to-be and excited about the pregnancy, etc.

He was a guy(with a very pregnant wife) who wanted more sex and was taking advantage of an easily available short-term fling. If he didn't want his lifestyle hampered by a child, why would he be seriously pursuing a single mother like Amber? Of course he wouldn't be, and it's clear he wasn't. It doesn't make sense, and even the prosecution saw that. He was looking for easy sex, and as anyone can see, Amber was pretty easy.

So what indication do we have that he didn't want to be with Laci? None.

Edited by Booth
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where there might be doubts. Since some of the evidence is spotty. But I also remember when this happened and my gut also tells me he is guilty.

He was a real piece of crap overall. And I can't say that I'm sorry if he has been falsely accused.

So you consider death an appropriate punishment for adultery?

This comment is a shining example of why he was convicted. Truth doesn't matter. People didn't like him and that was enough. That's about the coldest, sickest thing Ive ever seen posted on these boards. I can only hope you never know what its like to be condemned, regardless of the truth, simply cause people didn't like you. Or anyone you love for that matter.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me repeat: There is no evidence that a homicide even occurred!

/ Ding ding ding /

"Chuck, what has Booth won?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you consider death an appropriate punishment for adultery?

This comment is a shining example of why he was convicted. Truth doesn't matter. People didn't like him and that was enough. That's about the coldest, sickest thing Ive ever seen posted on these boards. I can only hope you never know what its like to be condemned, regardless of the truth, simply cause people didn't like you. Or anyone you love for that matter.

Did I say, "Kill 'em anyway!! The bummm...." No, I said that I can see where there is doubts and that would reasonably lead to a decreased sentence if a judge can be convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, somehow they convinced the Jury to believe the Prosecution and not the Defense?

"Members of the Jury, I have no evidence, but you need to believe me when I say this man is guilty."

They didn't find evidence of Scott doing any wrongdoing, and they didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing at all? Obviously then Lacy killed herself and threw herself into the water, where Scott had coincidentally been boating in a boat no one knew he owned? If Scott didn't do it, then who did? Is there just Zero evidence at all?

So just because you know in your heart of hearts that a person is guilty, you feel comfortable enough with sending him to his death? Without proof? Without evidence? Would you feel the same way if it was your son/daughter/wife/husband/self on the chopping block? Let's just kill all suspected murderers on sight then, because we know. . .in our heart of hearts. . .that they be guilty men and women. . .who deserve to rot in heck for all their supposed transgression. . .cause after all. . .the state. . .NEVER gets anything wrong. . .NEVER EVER!

The prosecution presented their case without a real smoking gun and when questioned, the jury basically stated that they basically put the puzzle together themselves and figured he had to be guilty. They stated that they found his behavior deplorable and in my opinion basically convicted him on that matter and not on any single piece of evidence. In other words, they conjectured their own theory of why he was guilty, and stuck with that, instead of doing what they were supposed to do, (i.e. look at the evidence and ascertain an outcome). Just recently, the jurors spoke out again with such malevolence against Mr. Peterson, that one wonders if they held such an opinion from the get go. . .

Regarding Laci killing herself and then throwing herself in the water. . .believe it or not. . .that is a possible explanation. . .not a good one. . .but an equally plausible theory. . .the question will be whether or not the evidence supports it. . .

Well, without vouching for the credibility of the site or its author, the first link you noted brings up a very important point. We don't even know that a homicide took place in this case. Let me repeat: There is no evidence that a homicide even occurred!

As to a financial motive; there was none, period. Laci was worth more to Scott alive than dead. As to any other motive? The prosecution could never demonstrate one. All of the testimony indicated that Scott was content to be with Laci; He was always attentive to her; he doted on her. He was an involved father-to-be and excited about the pregnancy, etc.

He was a guy(with a very pregnant wife) who wanted more sex and was taking advantage of an easily available short-term fling. If he didn't want his lifestyle hampered by a child, why would he be seriously pursuing a single mother like Amber? Of course he wouldn't be, and it's clear he wasn't. It doesn't make sense, and even the prosecution saw that. He was looking for easy sex, and as anyone can see, Amber was pretty easy.

So what indication do we have that he didn't want to be with Laci? None.

That's what I've been saying! Little miss Amber plays the big victim cause she was easy and had been had. No proof of crime or benefit. . .but darn it. . .he cheated. . .let's fry him. . .

So you consider death an appropriate punishment for adultery?

This comment is a shining example of why he was convicted. Truth doesn't matter. People didn't like him and that was enough. That's about the coldest, sickest thing Ive ever seen posted on these boards. I can only hope you never know what its like to be condemned, regardless of the truth, simply cause people didn't like you. Or anyone you love for that matter.

Did I say, "Kill 'em anyway!! The bummm...." No, I said that I can see where there is doubts and that would reasonably lead to a decreased sentence if a judge can be convinced.

No but you implied it. . .and your implicative behavior convicts you of the terrible crime of being cruel on the internet. It's not a capital crime. . .yet. . .we are working on it. . .just like the glorious code of medieval law, we shall reinstate the death penalty for every offense. Adultery. . .death. . .robbery. . .death. . rape. . .death. . .sneezing in public. . .death. . .jaywalking. . .death. . .

Now this isn't a witch hunt, but anyone who doesn't tow the party line on this shall be burnt at the stake!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say, "Kill 'em anyway!! The bummm...." No, I said that I can see where there is doubts and that would reasonably lead to a decreased sentence if a judge can be convinced.

Not caring or being sorry if he was actually innocent is like saying "So what if they kill him". This case reminds me of the Susan Powell case, the ending there was just as sad. Nobody screamed for Josh's death or shrugged it off either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this won't be popular, but...

Laci could have been hiding out (e.g., Gone Girl) and when Amber surfaced Laci realized Scott never loved her in the first place (perhaps puzzle pieces began to fall into place for her) and she decided to kill herself. Along with that, she didn't want to bring a his child into a loveless marriage, messy divorce, or wanted to get back at him - so she ended it and made it look like murder (at least suspicious enough to the police who would investigate). The ME couldn't establish how she died, nor how long she had been in the water. It appeared Connor was never in the water and may have been alive into January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this won't be popular, but...

Laci could have been hiding out (e.g., Gone Girl) and when Amber surfaced Laci realized Scott never loved her in the first place (perhaps puzzle pieces began to fall into place for her) and she decided to kill herself. Along with that, she didn't want to bring a his child into a loveless marriage, messy divorce, or wanted to get back at him - so she ended it and made it look like murder (at least suspicious enough to the police who would investigate). The ME couldn't establish how she died, nor how long she had been in the water. It appeared Connor was never in the water and may have been alive into January.

This is just ridiculous. Your theory is a total fabrication created from whole cloth. Nothing but a figment of your imagination. You haven't a shred of evidence to support it.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. Forgive me, I got you confused with the prosecution in this case...

In all seriousness, popular or not, your theory is equally valid and supported as the one presented at trial.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not caring or being sorry if he was actually innocent is like saying "So what if they kill him". This case reminds me of the Susan Powell case, the ending there was just as sad. Nobody screamed for Josh's death or shrugged it off either way.

So then the answer is... If you plan on killing your wife, have a good alibi and be sure you clean up professionally? The less evidence there is, the more people will feel sorry for you and want to let you walk free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just because you know in your heart of hearts that a person is guilty, you feel comfortable enough with sending him to his death? Without proof? Without evidence? Would you feel the same way if it was your son/daughter/wife/husband/self on the chopping block? Let's just kill all suspected murderers on sight then, because we know. . .in our heart of hearts. . .that they be guilty men and women. . .who deserve to rot in heck for all their supposed transgression. . .cause after all. . .the state. . .NEVER gets anything wrong. . .NEVER EVER!

The prosecution presented their case without a real smoking gun and when questioned, the jury basically stated that they basically put the puzzle together themselves and figured he had to be guilty. They stated that they found his behavior deplorable and in my opinion basically convicted him on that matter and not on any single piece of evidence. In other words, they conjectured their own theory of why he was guilty, and stuck with that, instead of doing what they were supposed to do, (i.e. look at the evidence and ascertain an outcome). Just recently, the jurors spoke out again with such malevolence against Mr. Peterson, that one wonders if they held such an opinion from the get go. . .

Regarding Laci killing herself and then throwing herself in the water. . .believe it or not. . .that is a possible explanation. . .not a good one. . .but an equally plausible theory. . .the question will be whether or not the evidence supports it. . .

....

No but you implied it. . .and your implicative behavior convicts you of the terrible crime of being cruel on the internet. It's not a capital crime. . .yet. . .we are working on it. . .just like the glorious code of medieval law, we shall reinstate the death penalty for every offense. Adultery. . .death. . .robbery. . .death. . rape. . .death. . .sneezing in public. . .death. . .jaywalking. . .death. . .

Now this isn't a witch hunt, but anyone who doesn't tow the party line on this shall be burnt at the stake!

Maybe we should just let online Apologists run the courts. Apparently they are all knowing and their Mercy is never wrong. Perhaps being an online apologist should require a license or something so you can prove you Really Care ™.

I said earlier that I saw there was reasonable doubt, but NO... You guys keep coming at me like I have a branding iron to Scott's face. Jeez.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.