Comments on: San Francisco zoo tiger mauling victims sue

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:18:07 +0000

I appreciate that the Scott Peterson angle is of interest to some visitors. That having been said, both sides have now weighed in on it, and interested newcomers can find a vast amount about the case on Google as well as by following the suggested links. So unless someone has something truly new to add to the above, both sides should consider themselves on notice that further comments unrelated to the zoo dispute are subject to being moderated/removed.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:13:08 +0000

Don’t hold your breath on the “later proven innocent” part.

By: A Voice of Sanity

A Voice of Sanity — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:05:38 +0000

Peterson was convicted by the media, not by any facts. The police spent 20,000 hours – and found one hair and some cement mess, nothing else. No evidence of murder was ever found.
Most who believe Scott is guilty don’t know what the evidence actually is and so misstate it. To save arguing it here, go look at
Guilty?
to see what the prosecution had – which was nonsense.
Then look at
Innocent!
to see what the real circumstantial evidence in this case actually proved.
18 items of evidence for fetal abduction.
Zero for uxoricide.
Just another of the hundreds convicted but later proven innocent. Not the first. Not the last.

By: Alice Auch

Alice Auch — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:54:32 +0000

Scott is innocent those bodies were placed at the bay and did not wash up.

By: Jau

Jau — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:04:19 +0000

for shame ! what a poor state of affairs in our courtrooms that allows bigoted statements against the defendants lawyer to color the jury’s finding. that the laweyer has defended guilty people, does not make this person guilty.

By: tanj

tanj — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:46:16 +0000

“And Scott Peterson still IS innocent.”

I can think of 12 people who disagree.

By: SPQR

SPQR — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:57:03 +0000

E-Bell, the height of the walls was found to be below specifications for a tiger enclosure.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:46:29 +0000

To what standard of care should zoos be held? Was there some kind of deficiency in the tiger enclosure that they should have been aware of?

Also, could I sue the city for a violation of my civil rights if they boot my car?

By: SPQR

SPQR — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:50:55 +0000

Just what case has Mark Geragos ever actually won? Look how much good he did Susan MacDougall…

By: Jeff Nolan

Jeff Nolan — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:25:56 +0000

And recall as well the Geragos is the lawyer who claimed Winona Ryder was not a shoplifter. Don’t count Geragos out on the whole wife killer theme, he is currently defending a Japanese man accused of murdering his wife.

@A Voice of Sanity, you might consider taking your the theme of your pseudonym seriously, to suggest that Scott Peterson is innocent when he is sitting on death row is ludicrous. You may believe he is innocent but he has been proven guilty where it matters, in court.