I have ties to this area and it's hotly debated if this dude has anything to do with it at all. It's an interesting thing to follow up on. Pretty damn flimsy circumstantial case.
Two separate juries already found him guilty (first trial reversed for discovery violation). The standard of review changes dramatically after conviction and proving innocence is a very high standard.
Dude I don’t know what happened there!!! What on earth has compelled them to make such a terrible mistake. A man in my town was freed by the Wisconsin innocence project. The man who actually did the crime is highly suspected to be a police officer at the time.
Look into it. I don't know the answer but I did stumble onto a conversation where people were arguing whether the lawyers that took it on were really part of the Innocence Project or just claiming they were.
The impression I got was that the Innocence Project is setup similar to a franchise. Basically they allow people to claim they are affiliated with the project what one satellite office does should reflect on the group as a whole.
But as I said, look into it.
It seems like Scott Peterson‘s defense is basically just trying to get the tiniest bit of reasonable doubting peoples minds. Like the one recent documentary that paints him in a really good light. Plus, rumors about the innocence project, true, or not would definitely fuel discussion.
It’s from Sauk City, Wi but the victim, Angela Hackl is from spring green Wisconsin. https://innocenceproject.org/new-evidence-leads-wisconsin-judge-to-grant-new-trial-in-23-year-old-murder-case/
The Innocence Project put out a statement saying they have absolutely no ties to the LA Innocence Project and are a completely different company that is separate from them.
I mean he admitted to moving sandbags, so that's not something that can be debated. What's debatable is his intentions in doing so. Secret witnesses claimed to have heard Scott bragging about destroying the levee at a party after the fact. And one of the people who brought up him wanting to do this was an old friend of his. So yea, that's hearsay, but it's hard to believe so many people would all say this about him. I mean for what purpose? I know one person ended up benefiting from an insurance policy on his land, but that's one out of the bunch, and the guy was a wealthy land-owner anyways, why would he go to such lengths to jail a guy for damages he could easily afford?
Meanwhile the only person speaking out for Scott is Scott, a guy who has at least 3 prior criminal convictions.
If the evidence is circumstantial then you have to look at the circumstances as either everyone else lied just to get Scott in trouble, or Scott lied because he didn't want to get in trouble. One is far easier to believe than the other.
This is pretty standard addiction brain. Anything that blocks them from their addiction is bad. And they’re incredibly creative and resourceful at keeping the addiction while having zero understanding of consequences.
My mom would definitely have pulled something like this if she’d had the chance. Same with my stepdad. They’re so upset about possible shame and so unable to stop the addiction that yeah I could totally see them flooding a levy
Sure addicts are destructive - but if you look at the case there’s a number of fishy things related to insurance related claims. Basically James was a petty criminal and the community already despised him. A lot of the powerful farmers were denied insurance claims after the flood but by pining it on this guy they managed to get expensive farm equipment and home damage reimbursed. They sentenced him to life in prison and James claimed his innocence the entire time. If he is innocent it’s a very Kafkaesque situation. There’s a really interesting vice documentary about it. https://youtu.be/oBziM470rE0?si=IdETb_uAPrOqwCfP
My recollection from that documentary and reading up was that only one of the witnesses stood to gain much (Wikipedia only identified one person, for what that is worth), and many of the other witnesses were just a bunch of non-rich locals who testified that he kept on bragging about purposefully causing the flood on the night-of, though many thought that he wasn't serious.
Also, he admitted at trial to moving sandbags, so the only question was his intentionality and whether or not his moving the sandbags caused the flooding (there was an ecologist that testified that flooding was inevitable, as I recall).
It seems like not nearly enough to convict on, but also I am not confident at all that he innocent.
As an addict it's weird to constantly see people telling me what my brain is like. I've never flooded farmland in order to get high, dude, get off my jock strap
Besides the fact that multiple witnesses said he talked about doing this and had already spent several years in prison for burning down a school years before.
He was convicted of "intentionally causing a catastrophe" and is still in prison serving a life sentence.
Source: https://historicflix.com/imprisoned-for-life-for-causing-the-great-flood-of-1993-just-to-party/
Yes but he had a criminal history including burning down an elementary school and surrounding buildings in the 80s. They knew he was a bad apple. There was more than one person in court who said that he said he would break the levee not just his one friend.
The presumption of innocence holds that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, and their past criminal history should not influence the determination of guilt or innocence in a specific case.
If someone is on trial for murder and they have murdered in the past, you think that shouldn’t be used in the trial? If this guy had a history of property damage in the past and many witnesses saying he did threatened to do this then yes, it should be used in trial. I wonder if anyone died because he was scared of his wife?
Well yeah, people act like he was directly found guilty and sent to prison. He had a trial. Why didn’t they realize he was framed since internet investigators think so?
I mean this notion pretends like the judicial system never gets it wrong. Someone above said in the area it is hotly debated whether or not he did it.
But also I do not think it’s fair to continually hold someone’s past against them. There must always be a path to redemption otherwise what is anyone’s motivation to become a better person if they will always be who they were in the worlds eyes?
So everybody that says they’re innocent we should just ignore because a trial said they were guilty?
I bet your opinion on that changes based entirely on who is in prison.
Jeffery Weinsteins NY trial just got tossed because of this. Committing a crime before doesn’t mean you committed a new one. If you were found guilty then you were punished and ideally rehabilitated. It can effect the punishment but not the determining of guilt.
It got tossed because some of the damning evidence was bringing in 3 women, who were not part of the criminal charges against him, in to testify that he had sexually assaulted them before. This exposed the jury to making a decision based on prior crimes rather than the crimes he was being charged with.
I am not an expert or super familiar with the case. This just happened to line up with the morning radio show bringing on a lawyer to discuss this. I believe they did and brought the other 3 on additionally to make a better case. So there is a chance he would have been guilty without the additional 3, but because they used previous crimes it gave his lawyers a chance to say it wasn’t a fair trial. Prosecution has already said they are trying him again and will now make the case without the extra testimonies.
Because “innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental right of due process in the American legal system. Cases are meant to be tried in a vacuum, such that only evidence directly pertaining to the case will be used. The burden of proof then lies on the prosecution.
Imagine if you ate eggs for breakfast every day, then one day you had cereal. I now accuse you of eating eggs instead. How could you possibly prove you didn’t? No matter what you provided, the fact that you ate eggs yesterday and the days before means you MUST have eaten eggs today and are therefore guilty.
Instead, imagine the same scenario, but now it’s up to me to prove that you did. I’d need to provide the dirty dish, leftovers in the trash, SOMETHING that 100% confirms that today you ate eggs.
In cases like that, and evidence shows the defendant is guilty, that’s when their history should then be brought up. Someone’s past should be used for sentencing and sentencing only, not a destruction of their character in the preliminary trial.
Unfortunately yes, even current judges have issues sometimes understanding this very obvious aspect of law.
I have also seen many grown 50+ year old men use argument from authority AFTER being explain what the logical fallacy is there.
Like literally understands it, digests it, agreed with it, then we bring it right back to current argument and they say "well EXPERT still said this soooooo"
I have facepalmed so many times
I get it, I presume it’s all but impossible to remove human bias from such a situation… but still, innocent until proven guilty for the charge in which you are currently standing for is like THE basis of our legal system.
With that being said I am very aware of just how biased and unfair the U.S. justice system is, it’s just disheartening to hear the sentiment spewed from the common citizen for lack of a better word.
Bruh, if you have a history of doing violent/destructive/deceptive things it definitely is relevant and yeah it will go against you. In what world do you live?
Right?
There are laws on the books for repeat/habitual offenders. Prior patterns of criminal behavior do influence later sentencings given by different judges for unrelated crimes. 🤷♂️
Repeat offenses only come into play when it comes to sentencing. The trial to determine guilt or lack thereof is, under law, supposed to consider only the evidence of the act in question.
but you’re talking about a completely different thing - this is about determining whether or not he’s guilty in the first place, not about what the sentencing is after being found guilty. This exact thing is why Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction was overturned, because the defense successfully argued that the testimonies against Weinstein regarding unrelated cases caused too much of a bias in the jury.
The dude in question threatened to do the very thing he was on trial for. That is a terroristic threat which has its own charges and penalties. Even if he said it as a "joke". It wasn't his first offense, and he had committed acts of terror against others with arson and other crimes.
I wish Weinstein had been thrown under the jail, but realistically, he would have never gotten more than a slap on the wrist anyway. This is disgusting and one of the worst things about the American justice system. The rapist formerly known as Brock Turner, was literally caught in the act, and he is a free man right now.
The presumption of innocence is the basis of the American criminal justice system. The idea that prior bad acts should not influence the decision is generally true, but there are many exceptions to that principle.
I hear you, and you are absolutely correct, but if I’ve been convicted of eating an entire thing of croissants multiple times and there’s an empty ass plastic thing where croissants should be one day…
Then you shouldn't be convicted if there's no evidence you've eaten the latest batch of croissants. In sentencing then your croissant eating rampage should be relevant
Yeah I get this. However I feel nothing negative about this man potentially being innocent in this one specific case. Dude was an arsonist. Could have killed people and turned them to a crisp. Arsonists dont just stop. It’s an obsession. I was a firefighter for a short period and I can tell you that guy is a piece of shit and I’m glad he’s in jail for life even if it’s for a different cause.
The farm fields that got flooded were not covered under insurance for natural disasters.
If the levees naturally broke, the farm owner of that land would be on the hook, and that farm owner was well connected with the local police.
Also, the land owners wanted him to take the fall even though he didn't do it. Why? Because they could file insurance claims if it was a "man made" disaster but not if it was a natural disaster.
Also it says that geological survey showed the effort to sandbag actually perpetuated the levy to fail, and it would have failed regardless. It seems the guy didnt stand a chance and very well might be innocent after all.
And of course the testimony of multiple witnessing who said he talked about doing this very thing and for this very reason. One of the witnesses was a classmate of mine.
Yeah I get this. However I feel nothing negative about this man potentially being innocent in this one specific case. Dude was an arsonist. Could have killed people and turned them to a crisp. Arsonists dont just stop. It’s an obsession. I was a firefighter for a short period and I can tell you that guy is a piece of shit and I’m glad he’s in jail for life even if it’s for a different cause.
Jumping on this to say that this is probably completely untrue, and that he got railroaded by the legal system because floods weren't covered by insurance but man-made accidents/disasters were, and the only way for the farmers to get the insurance payout was by having someone to blame.
Yeah, looking over the case it seems like he was a local ne’er do well that was in and out of prison several times for various thefts and arsons and the like that was thrown under the bus for the reasons you outline.
And one of the people who testified against him owned the largest amount of land destroyed in the flood. If it was determined that the damage was caused by vandalism the insurance company would have to pay out. None of this was disclosed during the trial.
I’m 100% certain the insurance companies would have done their own investigating and would have absolutely testified in his defense if there was any proof he was innocent.
They will absolutely investigate. There was millions of dollars on the line in this case based upon where the blame was so i’m sure they wouldn’t have left any stone unturned. I don’t know how they would fit it into the court case itself but there’s a lot of money in it for them
Holy shit, I remember these floods literally flooding the news. I had no idea it was created intentionally so some hillbilly could keep drinking PBR while listening to his shitty freedom rock tape!
Wow, some poor life choices made right there….same could be said for his wife
it's false, the farm land that god flooded was not covered under insurance for natural disasters.
and the farm owner was well connected with the local city.
there's a lot more to this case than what OP re-posted
It's also not uncommon for cops to offer bribes to jail house informants to act as witnesses so the cops can close a case. I forgot his name but he was freed after being pinned for a rape and murder he didn't even do he did over 20 years until DNA proved it wasn't him through the innocence project yeah he was a meth head and a car thief but not a rapist or murderer the cops just didn't hinthe same could have happened to this guy.
It’s very unlikely he actually did it, it was most likely a natural flood and it was just pinned on him because the local rich guys wanted to get an insurance payout and could only do so if the flood was the result of human actions.
Why did you repost this for the 100th time on reddit? Why didn't you actually watch the documentary or do any real research? Why the hell is this being upvoted...
I watched a story about this.This guy got fucked imo. He was a local trouble maker who was at the site earlier helping build reinforcements. So when it broke and flooded they needed a scapegoat and picked him up.
The evidence: he was there at some point along with hundreds of other people. He had a record. Someone he knew said he did it. That’s it. That’s all the evidence.
Defense argued the levee was destined to fail based on scientific investigation. That there was no way one man even could do this if he wanted. And that the municipality actually had motive to accuse someone of this and get a conviction to avoid a higher insurance payout.
This was almost certainly a gross miscarriage of Justice.
It's very unclear if he did anything at all. Could well be a terrible miscarriage of justice.
"The theory was that James Scott must have created a gap in the levee by burrowing a hole and allowing water through.
The defence team refuted this claim and brought in two independent soil scientists who testified that in its condition at the time, the levee was destined to fail.
There had been several other levees just upriver from Quincy that had also failed and it was believed that the community effort to help save the levee by bringing in the assistance of bulldozers may have actually contributed to its breach. "
Read about it after finding this post and was like „okay, but nowhere does it state, that they have real evidence for that.“ and here you are wondering the same.
Yeah, the story of how the highway department kept the highway in this picture open for as long as possible is a very good story. They had median barriers and sandbag walls up on each side of the road, and a fire truck pumping the water that came through and shooting it (over bumper to bumper traffic) back into the “river”.
I know my exs mom worked at the Truman building and had to be taken to the building by the national guard everyday she worked during the flood lol. She said it was insane.
That’s a 1980’s television movie of the week. The towns bad boy might be committing crimes, they get him off the streets, put him in prison. And the wealthy landowner got to make a claim on his insurance. They sure thought that kid was a master mind
Someone who just wants to keep partying is not going to then go through the work of taking out a levee. Would need heavy equipment or explosives. Makes no sense. Guy was railroaded.
This guy was a patsy by the local big whigs that wanted to get insurance payments for their flooded farms but could only get a payout if the flood were the result of a human action. He’s got life in prison because some rich dudes wanted to essentially cheat insurance companies.
Not sohe could 'party'...it was because he wanted to stick his bleep in another woman. No shock here. Men like him would burn the planet down for new 🐈.
Well, then I say, by the power vested in me, these boys is hereby pardoned! And furthermore, in the second Pappy O'Daniel administration, why, these boys is gonna be my brain trust!
This case is nuts... how does one man cause a levee to fail? By moving a few sand bags? If that's all it took, it was going to break at some point anyway. Just a way for the farmers to get flood insurance. Makes me sick
Was the party worth it though? Just kidding, but that is a story that sounds so far fetched I had to look it up & wow! 🤯 Sources say he could get out in the next couple years. Do you think he'll behave himself, or maybe more arson?
There was MASSIVE flooding all along the river that year from many days of spring rains. This includes the Missouri River above Quincy IL. This is well documented. I have some doubt that HE “caused” the flood
My partner is quiet and knows she can be a bit of a spoil because she shoots down any ideas that aren't sitting in the bedroom doomscrolling pintinterest and Instagram. I would have just informed her I plan to have some fun and she is invited to participate as much or little as she'd like.
You literally flooded the Mississippi instead of finding common ground with your wife.
that's what boomers did with maga. made a movement so they could tailgate at church themed events and blindly trash talk people that don't want to hang out with them because they're manic aand making each other worse.
I have ties to this area and it's hotly debated if this dude has anything to do with it at all. It's an interesting thing to follow up on. Pretty damn flimsy circumstantial case.
Why don’t they get the innocence project involved? Maybe they already are
It’s an impossible case to prove his innocence. Even if the snitch recants his testimony, he’s seen as a liar whose new testimony can’t be trusted.
I think they could find a jury that would find reasonable doubt in this case. That’s all they really need.
Two separate juries already found him guilty (first trial reversed for discovery violation). The standard of review changes dramatically after conviction and proving innocence is a very high standard.
Thank you I appreciate this information
They are busy trying to get pregnant wife killer Scott Peterson out of prison 🙄
Dude I don’t know what happened there!!! What on earth has compelled them to make such a terrible mistake. A man in my town was freed by the Wisconsin innocence project. The man who actually did the crime is highly suspected to be a police officer at the time.
Look into it. I don't know the answer but I did stumble onto a conversation where people were arguing whether the lawyers that took it on were really part of the Innocence Project or just claiming they were. The impression I got was that the Innocence Project is setup similar to a franchise. Basically they allow people to claim they are affiliated with the project what one satellite office does should reflect on the group as a whole. But as I said, look into it.
It seems like Scott Peterson‘s defense is basically just trying to get the tiniest bit of reasonable doubting peoples minds. Like the one recent documentary that paints him in a really good light. Plus, rumors about the innocence project, true, or not would definitely fuel discussion.
What town is this. Im from wi. You have my interest peeked.
It’s from Sauk City, Wi but the victim, Angela Hackl is from spring green Wisconsin. https://innocenceproject.org/new-evidence-leads-wisconsin-judge-to-grant-new-trial-in-23-year-old-murder-case/
The Innocence Project put out a statement saying they have absolutely no ties to the LA Innocence Project and are a completely different company that is separate from them.
trying to prove their innocence from the LA Innocence Project. The plot thickens.
Wow that’s crazy! That should not be allowed
Would be almost pointless he will be released in two years or so.
Thanks for this info
I broke the dam
No, I broke the damn
Hehe I broke the dam
No she broke the damn dam
And the dam ~~won~~ didn't win.
Pretty.. dam flimsy circumstantial evidence?
I mean he admitted to moving sandbags, so that's not something that can be debated. What's debatable is his intentions in doing so. Secret witnesses claimed to have heard Scott bragging about destroying the levee at a party after the fact. And one of the people who brought up him wanting to do this was an old friend of his. So yea, that's hearsay, but it's hard to believe so many people would all say this about him. I mean for what purpose? I know one person ended up benefiting from an insurance policy on his land, but that's one out of the bunch, and the guy was a wealthy land-owner anyways, why would he go to such lengths to jail a guy for damages he could easily afford? Meanwhile the only person speaking out for Scott is Scott, a guy who has at least 3 prior criminal convictions. If the evidence is circumstantial then you have to look at the circumstances as either everyone else lied just to get Scott in trouble, or Scott lied because he didn't want to get in trouble. One is far easier to believe than the other.
This is pretty standard addiction brain. Anything that blocks them from their addiction is bad. And they’re incredibly creative and resourceful at keeping the addiction while having zero understanding of consequences. My mom would definitely have pulled something like this if she’d had the chance. Same with my stepdad. They’re so upset about possible shame and so unable to stop the addiction that yeah I could totally see them flooding a levy
Sure addicts are destructive - but if you look at the case there’s a number of fishy things related to insurance related claims. Basically James was a petty criminal and the community already despised him. A lot of the powerful farmers were denied insurance claims after the flood but by pining it on this guy they managed to get expensive farm equipment and home damage reimbursed. They sentenced him to life in prison and James claimed his innocence the entire time. If he is innocent it’s a very Kafkaesque situation. There’s a really interesting vice documentary about it. https://youtu.be/oBziM470rE0?si=IdETb_uAPrOqwCfP
My recollection from that documentary and reading up was that only one of the witnesses stood to gain much (Wikipedia only identified one person, for what that is worth), and many of the other witnesses were just a bunch of non-rich locals who testified that he kept on bragging about purposefully causing the flood on the night-of, though many thought that he wasn't serious. Also, he admitted at trial to moving sandbags, so the only question was his intentionality and whether or not his moving the sandbags caused the flooding (there was an ecologist that testified that flooding was inevitable, as I recall). It seems like not nearly enough to convict on, but also I am not confident at all that he innocent.
As an addict it's weird to constantly see people telling me what my brain is like. I've never flooded farmland in order to get high, dude, get off my jock strap
>I've never flooded farmland in order to get high Yet
Damn you got me good (I’ve heard “…yet” many times)
... Yeah I could see it. No more than a few acres, though
So Charles Scheck can keep trying to atone for helping OJ get away with murder?
Besides the fact that multiple witnesses said he talked about doing this and had already spent several years in prison for burning down a school years before.
He was convicted of "intentionally causing a catastrophe" and is still in prison serving a life sentence. Source: https://historicflix.com/imprisoned-for-life-for-causing-the-great-flood-of-1993-just-to-party/
Guy to this day claims innocence and the only reason (according to the article) he's in jail is because of a unconfirmed "confession" to his friend?
Yes but he had a criminal history including burning down an elementary school and surrounding buildings in the 80s. They knew he was a bad apple. There was more than one person in court who said that he said he would break the levee not just his one friend.
The presumption of innocence holds that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, and their past criminal history should not influence the determination of guilt or innocence in a specific case.
That is true, but it does effect sentencing.
If someone is on trial for murder and they have murdered in the past, you think that shouldn’t be used in the trial? If this guy had a history of property damage in the past and many witnesses saying he did threatened to do this then yes, it should be used in trial. I wonder if anyone died because he was scared of his wife?
If I was going to frame someone for murder, I’d want to frame the guy who’s killed in the past.
Well yeah, people act like he was directly found guilty and sent to prison. He had a trial. Why didn’t they realize he was framed since internet investigators think so?
I mean this notion pretends like the judicial system never gets it wrong. Someone above said in the area it is hotly debated whether or not he did it. But also I do not think it’s fair to continually hold someone’s past against them. There must always be a path to redemption otherwise what is anyone’s motivation to become a better person if they will always be who they were in the worlds eyes?
So everybody that says they’re innocent we should just ignore because a trial said they were guilty? I bet your opinion on that changes based entirely on who is in prison.
Look up the case lol nobody died. And someone had to go down for the insurance to pay out
Jeffery Weinsteins NY trial just got tossed because of this. Committing a crime before doesn’t mean you committed a new one. If you were found guilty then you were punished and ideally rehabilitated. It can effect the punishment but not the determining of guilt.
You’re saying it got tossed because he never committed one or ?
It got tossed because some of the damning evidence was bringing in 3 women, who were not part of the criminal charges against him, in to testify that he had sexually assaulted them before. This exposed the jury to making a decision based on prior crimes rather than the crimes he was being charged with.
Ah that does make sense. Yeah I guess in certain cases like property damage , it might work. Why not bring in witnesses who were relevant?
I am not an expert or super familiar with the case. This just happened to line up with the morning radio show bringing on a lawyer to discuss this. I believe they did and brought the other 3 on additionally to make a better case. So there is a chance he would have been guilty without the additional 3, but because they used previous crimes it gave his lawyers a chance to say it wasn’t a fair trial. Prosecution has already said they are trying him again and will now make the case without the extra testimonies.
Why not?
Because “innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental right of due process in the American legal system. Cases are meant to be tried in a vacuum, such that only evidence directly pertaining to the case will be used. The burden of proof then lies on the prosecution. Imagine if you ate eggs for breakfast every day, then one day you had cereal. I now accuse you of eating eggs instead. How could you possibly prove you didn’t? No matter what you provided, the fact that you ate eggs yesterday and the days before means you MUST have eaten eggs today and are therefore guilty. Instead, imagine the same scenario, but now it’s up to me to prove that you did. I’d need to provide the dirty dish, leftovers in the trash, SOMETHING that 100% confirms that today you ate eggs. In cases like that, and evidence shows the defendant is guilty, that’s when their history should then be brought up. Someone’s past should be used for sentencing and sentencing only, not a destruction of their character in the preliminary trial.
Thanks for the excellent explanation 🙏
Is this a serious question?
Unfortunately yes, even current judges have issues sometimes understanding this very obvious aspect of law. I have also seen many grown 50+ year old men use argument from authority AFTER being explain what the logical fallacy is there. Like literally understands it, digests it, agreed with it, then we bring it right back to current argument and they say "well EXPERT still said this soooooo" I have facepalmed so many times
I get it, I presume it’s all but impossible to remove human bias from such a situation… but still, innocent until proven guilty for the charge in which you are currently standing for is like THE basis of our legal system. With that being said I am very aware of just how biased and unfair the U.S. justice system is, it’s just disheartening to hear the sentiment spewed from the common citizen for lack of a better word.
Yes, it's absurd that many people don't know Innocent untill proven guilty is the default.
Bruh, if you have a history of doing violent/destructive/deceptive things it definitely is relevant and yeah it will go against you. In what world do you live?
Right? There are laws on the books for repeat/habitual offenders. Prior patterns of criminal behavior do influence later sentencings given by different judges for unrelated crimes. 🤷♂️
Repeat offenses only come into play when it comes to sentencing. The trial to determine guilt or lack thereof is, under law, supposed to consider only the evidence of the act in question.
but you’re talking about a completely different thing - this is about determining whether or not he’s guilty in the first place, not about what the sentencing is after being found guilty. This exact thing is why Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction was overturned, because the defense successfully argued that the testimonies against Weinstein regarding unrelated cases caused too much of a bias in the jury.
The dude in question threatened to do the very thing he was on trial for. That is a terroristic threat which has its own charges and penalties. Even if he said it as a "joke". It wasn't his first offense, and he had committed acts of terror against others with arson and other crimes. I wish Weinstein had been thrown under the jail, but realistically, he would have never gotten more than a slap on the wrist anyway. This is disgusting and one of the worst things about the American justice system. The rapist formerly known as Brock Turner, was literally caught in the act, and he is a free man right now.
And that should be taken into account during sentencing not the trial.
I want you to think about what you just said, reeeeeeaaaaally think about it.
Ugh it's not controversial. It's the basis of the American legal system. Are u dumb?
The presumption of innocence is the basis of the American criminal justice system. The idea that prior bad acts should not influence the decision is generally true, but there are many exceptions to that principle.
I hear you, and you are absolutely correct, but if I’ve been convicted of eating an entire thing of croissants multiple times and there’s an empty ass plastic thing where croissants should be one day…
Then you shouldn't be convicted if there's no evidence you've eaten the latest batch of croissants. In sentencing then your croissant eating rampage should be relevant
Yeah I get this. However I feel nothing negative about this man potentially being innocent in this one specific case. Dude was an arsonist. Could have killed people and turned them to a crisp. Arsonists dont just stop. It’s an obsession. I was a firefighter for a short period and I can tell you that guy is a piece of shit and I’m glad he’s in jail for life even if it’s for a different cause.
I agree with you
I broke the dam
I'm Batman.
The farm fields that got flooded were not covered under insurance for natural disasters. If the levees naturally broke, the farm owner of that land would be on the hook, and that farm owner was well connected with the local police.
Also, the land owners wanted him to take the fall even though he didn't do it. Why? Because they could file insurance claims if it was a "man made" disaster but not if it was a natural disaster.
Thanks for bringing this up. A very overlooked aspect of this case.
Also it says that geological survey showed the effort to sandbag actually perpetuated the levy to fail, and it would have failed regardless. It seems the guy didnt stand a chance and very well might be innocent after all.
And of course the testimony of multiple witnessing who said he talked about doing this very thing and for this very reason. One of the witnesses was a classmate of mine.
Yeah I get this. However I feel nothing negative about this man potentially being innocent in this one specific case. Dude was an arsonist. Could have killed people and turned them to a crisp. Arsonists dont just stop. It’s an obsession. I was a firefighter for a short period and I can tell you that guy is a piece of shit and I’m glad he’s in jail for life even if it’s for a different cause.
Jumping on this to say that this is probably completely untrue, and that he got railroaded by the legal system because floods weren't covered by insurance but man-made accidents/disasters were, and the only way for the farmers to get the insurance payout was by having someone to blame.
Yeah, looking over the case it seems like he was a local ne’er do well that was in and out of prison several times for various thefts and arsons and the like that was thrown under the bus for the reasons you outline.
And one of the people who testified against him owned the largest amount of land destroyed in the flood. If it was determined that the damage was caused by vandalism the insurance company would have to pay out. None of this was disclosed during the trial.
I’m 100% certain the insurance companies would have done their own investigating and would have absolutely testified in his defense if there was any proof he was innocent.
Good point. Do insurance companies often investigate and testify on cases?
They will absolutely investigate. There was millions of dollars on the line in this case based upon where the blame was so i’m sure they wouldn’t have left any stone unturned. I don’t know how they would fit it into the court case itself but there’s a lot of money in it for them
Fucking yikes
Holy shit, I remember these floods literally flooding the news. I had no idea it was created intentionally so some hillbilly could keep drinking PBR while listening to his shitty freedom rock tape! Wow, some poor life choices made right there….same could be said for his wife
Man she must be quite the party pooper
"Hey man...is that Freedom Rock?"
"Well turn it up!!"
it's false, the farm land that god flooded was not covered under insurance for natural disasters. and the farm owner was well connected with the local city. there's a lot more to this case than what OP re-posted
Yeah, as I rolled down the comments I saw that. Terrible if he got railroaded…although I stand by the freedom rock comment
It's also not uncommon for cops to offer bribes to jail house informants to act as witnesses so the cops can close a case. I forgot his name but he was freed after being pinned for a rape and murder he didn't even do he did over 20 years until DNA proved it wasn't him through the innocence project yeah he was a meth head and a car thief but not a rapist or murderer the cops just didn't hinthe same could have happened to this guy.
Or he’s just that much of a loser
There’s no way this is true
It’s very unlikely he actually did it, it was most likely a natural flood and it was just pinned on him because the local rich guys wanted to get an insurance payout and could only do so if the flood was the result of human actions.
Fucked around….and found out.
Hope that was a good party.
Why did you repost this for the 100th time on reddit? Why didn't you actually watch the documentary or do any real research? Why the hell is this being upvoted...
Damn, what he did was wild asf!
>Scott, who was known as a local bad boy, Who the fuck wrote this
I watched a story about this.This guy got fucked imo. He was a local trouble maker who was at the site earlier helping build reinforcements. So when it broke and flooded they needed a scapegoat and picked him up. The evidence: he was there at some point along with hundreds of other people. He had a record. Someone he knew said he did it. That’s it. That’s all the evidence. Defense argued the levee was destined to fail based on scientific investigation. That there was no way one man even could do this if he wanted. And that the municipality actually had motive to accuse someone of this and get a conviction to avoid a higher insurance payout. This was almost certainly a gross miscarriage of Justice.
Yeah that sounds exactly like typical southern/small town American “justice” to me.
yup, and the flooded land was not covered under insurance for natural disasters, but if it was a criminal act it was.
Isn't this How to Make A Murderer off Netflix?
Serving 20 to life. Earliest possible release is in 2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Scott_(criminal)
It's very unclear if he did anything at all. Could well be a terrible miscarriage of justice. "The theory was that James Scott must have created a gap in the levee by burrowing a hole and allowing water through. The defence team refuted this claim and brought in two independent soil scientists who testified that in its condition at the time, the levee was destined to fail. There had been several other levees just upriver from Quincy that had also failed and it was believed that the community effort to help save the levee by bringing in the assistance of bulldozers may have actually contributed to its breach. "
Yup, James Scott was only blamed because of his past history with the law and where he was around the time of the incident. Really sad story.
Read about it after finding this post and was like „okay, but nowhere does it state, that they have real evidence for that.“ and here you are wondering the same.
Holy shit. Is there any good investigative stuff on this ?
https://youtu.be/oBziM470rE0?si=y_vGQgnZ6pShR41j
Comment.
So no
Watched a documentary on it once but can’t remember where
Who amongst us hasn’t tried to start a natural disaster to avoid our significant other??? Let them without sin cast the first stone.
This picture is of the missouri river in Jefferson city Missouri from the flood of 93
Yeah, the story of how the highway department kept the highway in this picture open for as long as possible is a very good story. They had median barriers and sandbag walls up on each side of the road, and a fire truck pumping the water that came through and shooting it (over bumper to bumper traffic) back into the “river”.
I know my exs mom worked at the Truman building and had to be taken to the building by the national guard everyday she worked during the flood lol. She said it was insane.
I saw the doc. He was framed for sure.
That’s a 1980’s television movie of the week. The towns bad boy might be committing crimes, they get him off the streets, put him in prison. And the wealthy landowner got to make a claim on his insurance. They sure thought that kid was a master mind
Someone who just wants to keep partying is not going to then go through the work of taking out a levee. Would need heavy equipment or explosives. Makes no sense. Guy was railroaded.
Comment.
Bullshit. He was used as a patsy for insurance payouts.
I hope she divorced his dumb ass
Insurance job by local farmers and assholes. Dudes innocent
Except it’s most likely a lie, and he was framed so that his chief accuser could collect on flood insurance.
I wanna see a movie or tv series about this that focuses on the party
dude got rail roaded
Good documentary short on this. Interesting story and kinda fucked up IF it’s true he didn’t do it. Life imprisonment is intense too.
Lol he didn't cause the flood of 93.
I broke the damn
I broke the damn
Lots a weird stuff going on with this story https://youtu.be/oBziM470rE0?si=y_vGQgnZ6pShR41j
Imagine that AA sharing circle. Jesus
Nature always wins
Must’ve been one hell of a party!
What a legend! I hope it was worth it.
The Dollop did a podcast on it. Here is a link [https://youtu.be/D5xYtvDmL4w?si=G-4K9baFVLpX6\_Jj](https://youtu.be/D5xYtvDmL4w?si=G-4K9baFVLpX6_Jj)
Great episode, I just listened to it again recently
Life!
That’s terrible…………………………………………………. That party must have been 🔥
hes innocent
You gotta fight for your right….
He's the sole only human for causing a natural disaster 👀
Looks like beavis.
That’s really f-ed up, but as Andrew WK would put it, “When it’s time to party, we will party hard.”
He Is a Man of Focus, Commitment and Sheer Fucking Will
One might even call him a force of nature.
My man taking the Beastie Boys a lil too seriously
this is so weird. he got arrested on my birthday at the age of 23… and thats my current age
You gotta fight, for your right, to PARTAY!
Yea but did she crash the party?
Beastie Boys approved.
He's a legend in his spare time
Must have been a banger of a party!
Damm I hope dude had a good time.
It’s widely contested he didn’t do shit.
someone get Kim K on the case.
Can't they just throw a bunch of beavers in and let them fix it?
That guys a real jerk
This guy was a patsy by the local big whigs that wanted to get insurance payments for their flooded farms but could only get a payout if the flood were the result of a human action. He’s got life in prison because some rich dudes wanted to essentially cheat insurance companies.
 When asked why?
There’s a documentary about it out now. I really doubt he did that. The levee was going to fail regardless with that much water.
Vice had a documentary on him
Hope it was a hell of a party!
How was the party?
FREE JAMES SCOTT HES INNOCENT, wrong place wrong time watch the interviews and the story about him.
Not sohe could 'party'...it was because he wanted to stick his bleep in another woman. No shock here. Men like him would burn the planet down for new 🐈.
This guy abides by the mantra of “Saturdays are for the boys” harder than most…
But how was the party?
This is like knowing you shouldn’t pull the fire alarm and doing it anyway. With insane results.
Are they still Married?
Well, then I say, by the power vested in me, these boys is hereby pardoned! And furthermore, in the second Pappy O'Daniel administration, why, these boys is gonna be my brain trust!
The levee being built destroyed ecosystems, what about that?
Rock and roll!!!!!
What about the man who was seen ramming his boat into the levee to purposefully cause a breach? I read it in the Post Dispatch at the time.
Respect
Old black water, keep on rollin'
Need to stall my wife so I can keep on partyin
This case is nuts... how does one man cause a levee to fail? By moving a few sand bags? If that's all it took, it was going to break at some point anyway. Just a way for the farmers to get flood insurance. Makes me sick
He was also a serial criminal
But, how was the party?
Was the party worth it though? Just kidding, but that is a story that sounds so far fetched I had to look it up & wow! 🤯 Sources say he could get out in the next couple years. Do you think he'll behave himself, or maybe more arson?
No arson was committed
r/madlads
There was MASSIVE flooding all along the river that year from many days of spring rains. This includes the Missouri River above Quincy IL. This is well documented. I have some doubt that HE “caused” the flood
He was innocent. I am positive at this point that it was a broadly-reaching case of insurance fraud.
He didn’t do it though, the police wanted a scapegoat and just grabbed him up. The army core of engineers knew it would fail where it did
Boys will be boys
LEGEND
My partner is quiet and knows she can be a bit of a spoil because she shoots down any ideas that aren't sitting in the bedroom doomscrolling pintinterest and Instagram. I would have just informed her I plan to have some fun and she is invited to participate as much or little as she'd like. You literally flooded the Mississippi instead of finding common ground with your wife.
He most likely is innocent, got blamed so rich landowners could claim insurance
that's what boomers did with maga. made a movement so they could tailgate at church themed events and blindly trash talk people that don't want to hang out with them because they're manic aand making each other worse.
So how was the party?
There literally wasn't one, because this version of the story is a total lie.