fenix03
|
posted on November 12, 2004 01:22:10 PM new
Guilty - First Degree Murder for Laci
Guilty - Second Degree Murder for Connor
Yes on the Special Circumstances
Penalty phase starts a week from Monday.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on November 12, 2004 01:31:06 PM new
OMG! Yippie! I hope he doesn't get the death penalty but yippie!!! 
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 12, 2004 02:06:18 PM new
I haven't watched this case very carefully. Does anyone know the motive?
|
dadofstickboy
|
posted on November 12, 2004 02:11:23 PM new
Wife didn't approve of girlfriend!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 12, 2004 02:21:03 PM new
Seriously - There is no motive?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on November 12, 2004 02:25:42 PM new
Helen, imo he is a narcissist who didn't want to be tied down to a wife and baby for the rest of his life. I think he killed them because they represented everything he was against at the time.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 12, 2004 02:43:26 PM new
Thanks, KD.
|
parklane64
|
posted on November 12, 2004 02:50:44 PM new
The prosecutorial premise was that he wanted the swinging bachelor lifestyle and a wife and child were going to be too much of a hindrance.
The local grapevine pretty consistently comes up with retaliation over drugs by meth producers. She, allegedly, was snatched and, in some versions, sold to a black market organ ring.
The truth is probably somewhere between the two versions.
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 12, 2004 03:00:43 PM new
The truth is probably somewhere between the two versions.
Obviously.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on November 12, 2004 06:13:41 PM new
Just goes to prove that evidence means nothing...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on November 12, 2004 07:01:49 PM new
So twelve, you don't think there was enough evidence that proved him quilty?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
bunnicula
|
posted on November 12, 2004 07:08:05 PM new
Basically, there wasn't any real physical evidence that he did it.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on November 12, 2004 07:39:43 PM new
In a circumstantial case, if the evidence goes both ways - doesn't prove he did or didn't do it, I thought legally you have to acquit. Although there's no doubt in my mind he killed them, if I was a juror, I don't think I could convict on the evidence I've read so far. On the other hand, I don't see how anyone else could have done it.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on November 12, 2004 07:55:10 PM new
There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of cases that have gone to trial where all they had was circumstantial evidence. People have been tried and found guilty without the dead body ever being found too.
For me, and only from what I've read, I think I too would have found him quilty...but would not seek the death penalty for Peterson. I've never been big on giving the death penalty to anyone when it's been based on circumstantial evidence only. But if there's a ton of proof...death penalty is my choice.
I just wonder how twelve felt...and I believe, if I remember correctly, bear sounded like he didn't think Scott was guilty either...at the point he last posted about it.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on November 13, 2004 05:23:54 AM new
In this case as the OJ trial, people voted with emotion and judgements of the accused...
They didn't like the idea of a mistress and his lying...
The prosecution offered no evidence that Peterson was guilty... I do think he did it but this also so the great ineptness of our judicial system.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 13, 2004 06:08:18 AM new
Based only on circumstantial evidence I could not convict Peterson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. BTW, linda, life in prison is considered by some to be worse than death.
And, I still can't see a motive. A fling with a bimbo is not a motive for murder.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on November 13, 2004 07:06:56 AM new
So, does anyone think that either the judge will overturn the jury decision or that the whole case may be overturned on appeal, especially with the problems with the last minute dismissal of the two jurors?
|
wgm
|
posted on November 13, 2004 07:29:43 AM new
I agree with both 12 and helen on this.
Especially with the lack of solid evidence, I find it hard to believe the "new" jury only deliberated less than 8 hours to reach the verdict. Sounds to me like some minds were made up beforehand, as well as acting on emotion rather than facts.
Honestly, I do think he committed the crimes; but sorry to say I could not have convicted on the evidence provided.
I most definitely feel that this is not the end of the case.
__________________________________
"The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work." - Richard Bach
|
fenix03
|
posted on November 13, 2004 08:17:55 AM new
Helen - trying to apply logic to murder? Silly girl! 
How about just pure old fashioned narcissism? Who's to say that Laci did not find out that night what was going on and confront him. Scott wouldn't be the first guy to snap at the thought of losing everything. This is a guy who seems to think he could do and have whatever he wanted with no consideration with the other players in his games. I have no doubt that faced with the possibility of his little house of card falling in on him he snapped.
I could have found him guilty. Yes, there was no smoking gun, no irrefutable blood evidence etc but at the same time there was no credible alternative theory.
Actually, the thing that really convinced my was something small. During the tapes of conversations with Amber when Laci had only been missing for days, there were times other calls came in that he did not click over to take. Now, if your pregnant wife is missing and you truly don't know what's going on, are you reallly going to not pick up every call that comes in in hopes that it is some kind of word on her? Then he sells her truck and tries to sell their house?
Basically, the defense never presented anything that gave me a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
BTW - Twelve - I believe with every ounce of my being that OJ is guilty but I think I would have had to aquit him based on three pieces of physical evidence that put everythiing else presented into question.
It's kind of like Bill Maher said...
The LAPD is so incompetent, they were unable to frame a guilty man.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 13, 2004 09:54:54 AM new
Motives for murder are seldom logical, fenix. Usually though, motive is an important consideration that most juries use in forming a decision for conviction of first degree murder. In this case, I see nothing, including the bimbo, that would motivate a sane individual to deliberately murder his pregnant wife.
|
GeneralFunds
|
posted on November 13, 2004 12:35:53 PM new
"that would motivate a sane individual to deliberately murder his pregnant wife."
And therein is the truth! Scott Peterson is not "sane". He is a pathological liar.
I admit to bias as we live very near to Modesto and know some of the parties involved. Personally, I am very pleased with the verdict. The death penalty or life in prison....doesn't matter to me as long as he pays the price of his actions.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 13, 2004 01:09:33 PM new
A pathological liar is not by that trait alone considered insane. And it doesn't necessarily follow that because he is a liar that he murdered his wife.
If I had to guess though, I would say that he is guilty of manslaughter...not premeditated murder. Is that possible?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on November 13, 2004 03:42:49 PM new
Fenix, the thing that bothered me most, was how Scott avoided Laci's family within days of her disappearance. An innocent person wouldn't do that, imo.
Helen, I think he could only be found not guilty, or guilty of first or second degree murder - those were the only options available to the jury.
GeneralFunds, Scott is a sociopath which still doesn't qualify for an insane plea. He claims he had nothing to do with it at all.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on November 13, 2004 03:55:47 PM new
In that case, I believe that if he is guilty, second degree murder would be more appropriate. I suspect that he may have killed her without premeditation, in the heat of a battle and then tried to cover the murder. I say that only because I can't see a viable motive for premeditated murder. I haven't read everything about this case but it's probably just opinion that he is a sociopath. He may, in fact, be innocent.
|
calamity49
|
posted on November 14, 2004 05:19:52 PM new
Scot Peterson is a spoiled brat creep, a sociopath and guilty as Hades but since there was no concrete (pardon the pun) evidence I don't think he should get the death penalty. I expect he will decide that he would rather be dead when the other incarcerates get finished with him. I hope any appeals are denied.
):
calamity
|
etexbill
|
posted on November 15, 2004 02:09:27 PM new
Quote: "Basically, the defense never presented anything that gave me a reasonable doubt of his guilt."
They didn't have to. In this country you are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecution's job to prove you guilty, not the defense' job to prove you not guilty.
Only in Napoleonic law is it the other way around.
|
fenix03
|
posted on November 15, 2004 03:48:05 PM new
Tex - for me they did. Actually - Peterson himself did. As I said - the fact that in the mdist of this huge search for his wife, vigils and everything else, he didn't bother to click over when other calls came in while he was talking to Amber told me that he knew she was gone. Selling the truck, trying to sell the house. His actions spoke to that of a guilty man.
With that in my mind, the defense never gave me a explaination of those actions that made me doubt my initial conclusion.
Does that explain it better?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
