Comments on: Fugitive Marine's Truck Found In N.C.

Search Tightens For Marine Sought In Death Of Pregnant Marine

[oscarj3]

jehovah-- what kind of language did you find offensive? If so, you better not read any of the other posts I see on here.

[jehovahwtnss]

You don''''t get blood on the ceiling having a baby. No wonder you''''re an ex coach, what''''s your IQ 40? She was raped jerko.
Posted By OscarJ3

Dear OscarJ3, I don''t think there''s any need for that kind of language

[iceman_1960]

"I am routinely excused from jury duty."
- Posted by tuckerndfw at 08:14 PM : Jan 15, 2008

If you speak then the way you post here, I"m not surprised.

"MALE = NOT GUILTY... Now lets cherry pick the evidence to arrive there..."

That is your modus operandi.

As I say, you and I would have no business in the Cesar Laurean jury room.



Case closed.

[iceman_1960]

tuckerndfw is the type of person who knows the verdict in advance, and then tortures the evidence until it breaks down and agrees with him.

People like this have every right to do that, as long as they aren"t allowed within shouting distance of a jury room.

[formrusmcsgt]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 08:11 PM : Jan 15, 2008

When one has $20 million to spend on a defense, they can afford to pick apart each facet of the prosecution''s case, so it better be air-tight or it won''t fly.

Marcia Clark was eat up with Chris Darden at the time and made error after error which, unfortunately, allowed a guilty man to go free.

[Krazcarl]

Tuck your a rambling I hope drunk fool this case has 0 connection to the OJ case your reaching everyone see''s you for what you are but keep digging your hole were all laughing at you not with you you have to be one lonely man/boy....

[iceman_1960]

RE: Post by tuckerndfw at 08:01 PM : Jan 15, 2008

No sir.

In my opinion you cherry picked the evidence until it seemed to acquit a man you believed to be innocent before the trial even began.

That is what you would do in the Laurean case as well.

For an unbiased jury to be possible in this case, both you and I would need to be excluded from it.

[formrusmcsgt]

The prosecution did not prove it.

Posted by tuckerndfw at 08:01 PM : Jan 15, 2008

Mainly because a moron named Marcia Clark was the head of the prosecution and was more interested in Chris Darden than she was OJ.......

[iceman_1960]

tuckerndfw reminds me of the Henry Fonda character in "12 Angry Men."

Fonda got an obviously guilty man acquitted by introducing one speculative doubt after another, no matter how implausible.

He practically got down to asking his fellow jury members, "How do any of us really know for certain that the accused doesn"t have a long lost identical twin that nobody knew about, and this twin wasn"t the one who killed the victim ? Do any of us know that for certain ?"

It never occurred to anyone to point out that the standard is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," not "guilty beyond the possibility of any doubt at all."

That is why tuckerndfw acquitted OJ Simpson.

[Krazcarl]

Why does Tucker bring std''s to mind?? There has to be medication avalible to help his PROBLEM????

[iceman_1960]

"You have repeatedly stated that the accused is guilty. And "guilty as hell."
- Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:52 PM : Jan 15, 2008

So I did.

And I would say so, candidly, during the jury selection process, and I would then be excluded.

As you should be excluded as well, because you clearly seem not to know the difference between a reasonable doubt and any doubt at all, as I stated.

We both should be kept off that jury.

The jury must be unbiased and competent.

[oscarj3]

I''ll put my education & knowledge about the law up against yours any day, you moron. Your IQ couldn''t be as high as the 40 I said yesterday. The 40 was way overrated.

[iceman_1960]

tuckerndfw,

You acquitted OJ Simpson because (this is my opinion now) you don"t know the difference between a reasonable doubt, and any doubt at all.

[iceman_1960]

Iceman_1960 at 07:37 PM : Jan 15, 2008

"...So, it comes down to personal attacks, same as it always does when people attempt to argue their emotions over facts."
- Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:43 PM : Jan 15, 2008

My 07:37 post was satirical.

Not a serious personal attack.

I have NO (repeat, NO) desire to lynch anyone. I have already stated that Laurean should have a fair trial with a competent attorney and an unbiased jury.

That"s the polar opposite of a lynching.

[iceman_1960]

RE: Post by OscarJ3 at 07:38 PM : Jan 15, 2008

Kind of strange that tucker on the one hand urges everybody not to act on rumors and innuendo...

...while doing everything possible to make the wife look guilty.

[oscarj3]

Tucker, did you say that there was no credible evidence in th oj trial? You must be drunk or on drugs again tonight.

[oscarj3]

Iceman you have tuckers number. He is the biggest moron on this board. We''re not in court so we don''t have to have evidence, just common sense, which that tucker moron doesn''t have.

[iceman_1960]

tuckerndfw,

If you ARE Cesar Laurean posting on a laptop or cell phone, I have some serious advice for you.

GIVE YOURSELF UP.

If you really are innocent, give yourself up and get yourself a competent attorney.

If you don"t stop running now, you"ll be running for the rest of your life.

You"re a Marine. Act like one.

GIVE YOURSELF UP.

[iceman_1960]

You don"t suppose Cesar Laurean has a laptop and is posting comments here, do you ?

Hmmmmm.....

[iceman_1960]

"Laurean, 21, is believed to have fled Jacksonville early Friday morning, after leaving a note in which he admitted burying Lauterbach''s body. But Tuesday, officials said they think he has gone into hiding and is no longer on the run."

Not even Perry Mason could save this guy now.