Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "COURT TV" channel.

  1.  @YIKESMF  No Chris Watts did not tell anyone in advance that his wife was missing. (and I very much doubt Scott peterson did). There is a chance that Peterson is NOT the murdere, but Chris Watts confessed, and they KNOW where he put the bodies. The truck of his company had GPS, and he told them in the first confession where to find the bodies. The friend of his wife had dropped her off in the night (they had flown toegether to an MLM event). and she called in the iinfantry only hours later, she expected to get texts and a phone call in the morning and got worried only hours after Shanann had been killed). Shanann was very active on social media and going silent for a morning was unusual for her. The friend (also called Nicole) called the police for a wellness check and more or less forced Chirs Watts to come home (she called him first) and to open the door. He did not like that, but could not dismiss her. It cost him time to blow up the site where he had hidden the children and his wife - you bet he planned to have an "accidental" blow up of the oil tanks, then the bodies would have been burned beyond recognition or DNA testing. And he did not have the time to get rid of things in the house. The phone and purse of his wife, medication the girls took, a few clothes - so it would look like she had left. His neighbour had excellent footage of a camera that showed how he loaded the truck at 5 am in the morning .... Chris did not expect that to have been filmed. Him driving to work yes, but not the loading. He got very nervous when the neighbour showed that footage on his TV. That was the moment the neighbour - he wanted to be of help - became suspicious of Chris Watts, his reaction was weird. And it established a timeline. The friend knew exactely when she saw Shanann alive for the last time, (I think it was 1 or 2 am) and 12 hours later the police and neighbours were in the house. he could not obfuscate the time of their disappearance. And Watts admitted soon to murdering her, even if he dressed up the motive (he claimed that she had killed the children and then he was so angry at her that he killed her in a rage. That was his FIrST confession). After his trial and sentencing the FBI inerrogated him in prison. Then he made the claim that HE had killed the children on site (on the premises of the oil company, where the oil tanks are). So he allegedly had killed his wife at home, then gotten her into the truck, put the children on top of that roll, drove 40 minutes and then killed them. And he said that Bella the 4 or 5 year old begged him not to do what he did to her little sister. Thatt's some other level of craven. Now - we can assume that this was an attention grabbing lie of a narcissist who does not want to lose the attention of the public. But whether he killed the children fast and in the house (a likely scenario is that they were dead already when she came home, and he finished her off soon. Her plane had a delay, so he was behind in time). he also admitted to details of how he killed her and how he buried her, and some of that is plausible or true.
    2
  2. Someone that has experience with having a boat AND handling loads might consider it. But he was not a fisher, and he had to get this right on the first try. A test with many different persons and scenarios would have bee helpful. let several men with the size of Scott dispose of a carpet or bag with some weight in it (the form and weight of Lacy) and see if they can get it right . And how many attempts they need. Water / wind conditions should be the same (how wavy it is).
    2
  3. I wondered how the jury could hand out the death penalty (doesn't that need an unanimous decision ?) on circumstantial evidence only (and there were some major flaws in the case. He allegedly loaded the boat during the middle of the day, at a place where people could see him (and did see him and noticed nothing unusual) and it is certainly not easy to dispose off a body in such a small boat w/o capsizing it. He had not grown up, using a boat like this, maybe there are fishermen that could pull it off. This comment section proves WHY "if in doubt .... " was not applied here. Scott Peterson is an unpleasing character and that "made him guilty" of murder, too - In the eyes of the jury and most people that comment here are as emotion driven and do not base their judgement on an abstract principle. (if in doubt for the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt). If they excluded people that are conflicted about the death penalty they select for right wingers. Painting with a broad brush - but as we have seen in the last 18 months the feels and their bias top facts and doing your research and thinking logically. They are not for following abstract principles. with them it is all feels, circumstantial and if it affects them personally (emotionally) it is all different than w/o any impact. Peterson may or may NOT have killed his wife (I am 60 % he did it and 40 % he didn't, or maybe 70 : 30 % - but that is not enough for a proper conviction, let alone the death penalty)., but he should not have been convicted with the little "evidence" they had. (it is not only technicalities. Several women had gone missing or were washed up in that area at that time, it is even possible there is or was a serial killer at work).
    2
  4. Yes he did all of that in the midedle of the day and under danger of being seen doing very unusual stuff or the bag falling apart when he pulled it into the water, dragging it behind. That wieight also would affect how the boat moves, and that can also be seen when he is already IN the water.
    1
  5. No - that is not how the LAW works. Having an opinion on the death penalty is normal. The "jury of peers" is supposed to be a representation of average people PROVIDED they can put their bias aside. And they were only asked if they had an opinion on the death penalty, not if they felt they were able to put it aside. That question is also an get out of jury duty card for people who do not want to serve.
    1
  6. The defense was also not able to exclude people that have a strong negative opinion on cheaters. He was not tried for that - but in practice him being an unsympathetic character had a lot to do with being convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. How they got to the death penalty is beyond me. The prosecution had a very flimsy case. Which goes to show how much the emotions of the jurors and the proxecution wanting the get a conviction (not justice served) matters. This comment sections proves it, people have all kind of logical fallacies. A man can be a cheater, liar (also to his mistress), not mourn his wife (or not do it in a way like other people), try to flee or appear in a disguise to evade reporters - and STILL be innocent.
    1
  7. Trying to flee is NOT admission of guilt IF he is innocent he would have been wise to run. He may have murdered his wife - but that could have been one of the if in doubt for the defendant cases.
    1
  8.  @reneenayfabnaynay5679  No he was NOT convicted on hard evidence, it was all circumstantial.
    1
  9. A man can be a liar and cheater (even make up dumb lies for his mistress like being in Paris) and NOT be a murderer. I that area a lot of woman disappeared, so there is a chance that she fell victim to someone else. The partner is always a "person of interest"
    1
  10. A man can also not mourn the disapppearance or death of his wife and STILL not be her murderer.
    1
  11. + Cynthia - that is the problem with the "jury of your peers" - nothing of that proves guilt. A man can NOT grieve for his wife (or get an ugly divorce) - and still not be here murderer. A man can panic and try to flee (if he is innocent which is possible, trying to flee would have been the wise thing in hindsight). and LOTS of persons cheat on their partner.
    1