On 18 Feb 2004 18:56:17 GMT ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:

In article 20040218083913.322b40c6@fstop, "R.Hubbell"
writes:


"If the FAA will not approve GPS for the landing of an aircraft, how can
a court of law approve its forensic use in a capital case?" he said.


The technique is known as "casting a shadow of doubt". It works
wonderfully well. Jurors eat it up. He's doing his job.


I would think he would be questioning what business the police had tracking
Peterson's whereabouts AFTER the crime was commited.

Not following the trial but....
What's wrong with that? It's common for them to watch someone. What they
do can speak volumes even if it is not admissable it might lead them to
something else.

The defense should just keep casting doubts. Those doubts will stick in the
jurors' craw.



It seems the prosecution is trying him with character assasination after the
fact rather than with evidence of the crime itself. He'll probably wind up
being the first person executed for having an affair.

The guy has been tried in the media and found guilty. A lot of what they have
sounds circumstantial. There are a few twists to the case that are unusual.

His name was on a list of suspects that the police talked to about a missing
co-ed while he was at college.

There have been other cases of pregnant women that were killed and have
not had much attention at all.



R. Hubbell


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG