THURSDAY STUFF MUSINGS - #6

The Death of our Legal System:

First off, I want you all to know that I am not defending Scott Peterson, the guy who is sitting on death row out in California, who was found guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child. Nor am I defending former police officer, Bobby Cutts Jr. who is serving 57 years in Ohio for the murder of his girlfriend and unborn child, and I am not defending Retired Police Sergeant Drew Peterson in Illinois who is suspected in the disappearance his fourth wife Stacy, as well as in the murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio. I am merely attempting to play devil’s advocate.

Personally, I believe that if someone commits any sort of heinous crime, they deserve what ever harsh punishment the law allows, and that includes the death penalty, if and when they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, I am also a very strong believer in just and fair trials by honest and unbiased jurors. It is due to these two strongly held beliefs that is the reason for this posting.

Is it just me or are there others out there who find these three cases very disturbing (in a legal sense) on so many levels?

First of all, we are all supposed to be equal under the law, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, and now even sexual orientation, RIGHT? So, how can it be legally justified under the law, that a pregnant woman has the legal right to “MURDER” her unborn child, even in the third trimester of her pregnancy and that is considered her freedom of choice and NOT murder, because, after all, the child isn’t a person because it hasn’t been born yet. But, if a man harms or murders a pregnant woman and it results in the death of her unborn child, he is charged with two-counts of murder. That is one count for the death of the woman and one count for the death of the unborn child. So, if the unborn child is not a person if the mother wants to kill it, then how can it be a person when a man inadvertently kills it? Now, while your minds are mulling over this, consider the following in the Scott Peterson case.

There was absolutely no direct evidence linking Scott Peterson to the death of his pregnant wife. As a matter of fact, the coroner couldn’t even determine a cause of death, therefore Scott Peterson has, not only been found guilty of two murders, but also sentenced to death on what the legal community refers to as “circumstantial evidence”, while in the O.J. Simpson case, where there was all sorts of physical evidence, including blood samples, directly linking O.J. to the deaths of his ex-wife and an innocent friend, O.J. was found NOT GUILTY. Can you say: “Something stinks in Denmark”?

Now here is what really STINKS about the two Peterson cases and the Bobby Cutts Jr. case. I am not a lawyer, but I do have common sense, and it is my sincere belief that neither Scott Peterson nor Bobby Cutts Jr. received fair trials and if Sgt. Drew Peterson is ever charged, I do not believe that he will receive a fair trial either. I base this belief on two very important reasons; the first being the Fox News Channel and Greta Van Susteren. I blame the Fox News Channel for hiring Van Susteren and allowing her show “On the Record” to continue airing, and I blame Greta, because she should know better.

Greta began her career on the Fox News Channel in January 2002 as the host of “On the Record” which runs Monday – Friday from 10:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.

Prior to joining Fox, she was host of CNN’s “The Point with Greta Van Susteren” and was co-host of CNN’s legal program “Burden of Proof”. Van Susteren is no dummy when it comes to law, which makes me wonder why she does what she does on Fox, five nights a week. She is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, where she received a bachelor’s degree with distinction in economics. She also earned a Juris Doctor from Georgetown Law in 1979 and a Master of Law from the same school in 1982. During her career as a trial attorney, she handled both civil and criminal cases.

So what is it that leads me to believe that those who have been or will be charged with murder, in high-profile murder cases, will not receive a fair trial? Well, for starters, “On the Record” is one of the most watched shows, and it is my belief that news networks such as the Fox News Channel have the obligation of presenting the FACTS in on-going cases that under investigation, but Greta and her panel of so-called “Legal Experts” regularly, night – after – night, overstep these bounds, by presenting the viewers with their own opinions of the suspect’s guilt.

Either Greta herself will camp outside a suspect’s home, or she will have one of Fox News’ reporters to do it so that they can report back “Live” on her show, as to what is going on with the suspect. If the suspect agrees to be interviewed, then Greta and her little group of “Legal Experts” sit around and tear the suspect apart by claiming that he/she is trying to put one over on the media or the public by speaking out publicly. But if the suspect refuses to talk to reporters, then he/she is accused of having something to hide because they won’t speak to reporters so they are therefore guilty. Then Greta comes out and states how she wants answers to certain questions she has about the case at hand and demands that the suspect or the suspect’s lawyer supply those answers, and when she does have “guests” on the show, such as the detectives who are investigating the case, or the corner who performed the autopsy on the victim(s), Greta doesn’t interview them, she grills them as if they were suspects being interrogated. Well, Greta, you are NOT the suspect’s lawyer, therefore you have no RIGHT, legal or otherwise, to know anything as regards the accused. Nor do I believe you have the right to be throwing all sorts of evidence out into the public venue. Also, please try to take some courses in how to interview guests on your show. Your public interrogation of your guests is getting a bit boring.

Don’t forget, all of this is going on long before the suspect has been legally and formally charged with a crime, so what is happening is that Van Susteren and her cohorts are contaminating the minds of those who may be potential jurors in the suspect’s future trial. I cannot help to believe that this amounts to nothing more than “jury tampering” What is worse is the fact that it would do the accused no good to seek a change of venue because “On the Record” doesn’t only air in the suspect’s area, but all over the U.S. and around the world.

The second reason I don’t believe that the accused can receive a fair trial is due to the fact that the Constitution says that we have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers. That means that we the right to have twelve men/women, that are our equals, decide our guilt or innocents after having seen and heard all of the evidence and testimony. So, where in the Constitution does it say that the lawyer representing the accuser (the State) should have the right to pick and choose the members of the jury?

Are there others out there who feel like I do or am I just plain nuts? Come on speak up, but bear in mind that I am placing you under oath so swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you G-D. There now let me have it.