2004-08-03 - 8:13 p.m.Hello and good evening! OK, my passions are aroused to the point of writing a new entry tonight. The Wife and I have just concluded a tiff over our distinct outlooks on life and motives. Neither of us are mad or anything, but I sometimes wonder how she can possibly think like she does and how she can ascribe motives to people or actions so arbitrarily and concretely. She is universally known as a very nice, understanding and friendly person. Everyone, bar none, likes her. Yet on another level, Amy can make value judgements that I can't reconcile with her "real life" wonderfull personality.
Case in point: Tonight on the news it was stated that in Scott Peterson's trial "evidence" OR testimony was allowed in that he ordered the Playboy channel and then a "hardcore" channel on his cable TV 2 weeks after Lacy was missing. It was universally agreed that he is a totally insensitive guy, but the implication the prosecutors are establishing is that this indicates Scott killed her. I can see no possible Evidential Proof connection between ,"Scott killed her", and Scott ordered Porno on his TV.
Amy thinks that ordering the Porno is very wierd and indicates some guilt on his part! This is exactly the inflammatory testimony that prosecutors want to admit.
It's the Win the case gameplaying that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. Obviously the best strategy if you are ever suspected of a crime is to stick your head in the sand and play osterich.... If you read a true crime novel you must have been researching criminal techniques. If you order "Porn" on the TV you must be guilty of some criminal conduct. If you were to order some special religious channel on the TV, you must be trying to absolve your guilt of the crime. Having an interest in "too much sports" on TV or in person must mean you are trying to escape your guilty criminal past by immersing yourself in Sports. Ditto for any other overriding interest or, God Forbid, travel, You are trying to run from your crimes. Who wouldn't want to get away from life for a weekend in such a terrible situation?
Amy and I just don't look on these type situations the same way. I can't ascribe motivations to actions without some external indications that aren't similar motivational suppositions. I.E. Scott was bonking Amber so he must of wanted to kill Laci. Then he ordered "Porn" on his TV which ie further "proof" he killed Laci because Laci didn't go for that type of entertainment and He "knew" she wouldn't be around to protest.
So that brings up the comments about the fact the police always go after the husband first, regardless. Amy states that's because the husbands always do it! You know O.J., Scott Peterson and the latest big murder frenzy in Salt Lake City. Touche, Tommy boy, she gets a point, just like they tried hounding Mark Klass (the divorced) father of the missing and murdered Polly Klass, in Petaluma, Ca. a few years ago. They discovered an Ex-con pervert did it, but I don't remember too many public apologies to Mark. To his credit He became very active with missing kids and doesn't seem too perturbed about it any more. If He'd have been arrested prior to the discovery of the true killer, his feelings may have been different. We just don't hear about the cases where the husband didn't do it, and how many husbands in prison claim innoccence? You can't believe them, they are now Cons, besides the husbands ALWAYS do it.(except when the butler does it!)
Just call me the Ostrich, cause I don't really care, Except it's dangerous thinking, especially if you become an "automatic" suspect, and the "Game" changes to establishing guilt rather than finding out the "truth" or the "reality" of what really happened.
Let's put our heads in the sand together, Curiouoso*|
Nigerian spams again - 2010-09-11
Nigerian spams again - 2010-09-11
update for march - 2010-03-20
party time - 2010-02-07
back again - 2009-12-05Who Links Here Consumer Disclaimer!