PDA

View Full Version : Peterson verdict....



louped garouv
11-12-2004, 01:38 PM
how do y'all left coasters feel about the verdict?

I thnik his wife was hotter than Amber (not meant to be offensive to the dead or anything, just an observation).

:smthsail: him not going fishing for awhile now.....

boputnam
11-12-2004, 01:48 PM
how do y'all left coasters feel about the verdict? Dood...
I'm taking-up a collection to fund a new nuclear facility to wire that moron to. And, while he's waiting, I hear that his new roomate, "Bubba", has a penchant for reprimanding baby killers...

Mr. Widget
11-12-2004, 01:58 PM
how do y'all left coasters feel about the verdict?

I thnik his wife was hotter than Amber (not meant to be offensive to the dead or anything, just an observation).

:smthsail: him not going fishing for awhile now.....
It really pisses me off that people waste their time thinking about stuff like this. Hey murder is serious, but really this type of news story is sensational crap that has left us with a Media that is trite and pointless.

Well you asked.

Widget

louped garouv
11-12-2004, 02:06 PM
It really pisses me off that people waste their time thinking about stuff like this. Hey murder is serious, but really this type of news story is sensational crap that has left us with a Media that is trite and pointless.

Well you asked.

Widget
i hear ya -- not one murder that happened in NOLA when I was growing up got this kind of coverage, and new orleans did have a bunch of murders.....

Robh3606
11-12-2004, 02:21 PM
News is entertainment now. Just like the WWF. I watch BBC can't be bothered with the networks.

Rob:)

scott fitlin
11-12-2004, 02:39 PM
Turbulent trial
The verdict followed seven tumultuous days of deliberations in which two jurors were removed for unspecified reasons and the judge twice told the panel to start over.

On Wednesday, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed the foreman, a man in his mid-40s who has medical and law degrees. The judge did not disclose his reasoning. Juror No. 5 was replaced by an alternate whose future son-in-law now owns a restaurant that Scott and Laci Peterson once owned in San Luis Obispo, and the newly reconstituted jury began deliberating that day.

That action came a day after the removal of another juror who apparently did her own research on the case, violating the judge’s order to consider only evidence presented at trial. Each time a juror is dismissed, the panel must begin deliberations anew.

To me the state DID NOT have a solid case, and I question how they proved their case against Peterson! Im not saying he didnt do it, but I dont feel the state really proved its case!

But then, this is the same state the screwed up the O.J. Simpson case! :slink:

John
11-12-2004, 07:11 PM
I agree with widget and scott. I also would have liked to have seen a cleaner conviction without all the jury problems. I believe they did prove that scott was a sad excuse for a husband ,but i do not think they had any real hard evidence linking him to her death besides being her cheating husband. I just wonder how he left no evidence of the murder scene??? He sure does not look that smart to me???

boputnam
11-13-2004, 08:11 AM
On Wednesday, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed the foreman, a man in his mid-40s who has medical and law degrees. The judge did not disclose his reasoning. As I understand it, the Foreman asked that he be recused.


It really pisses me off that people waste their time thinking about stuff like this. Hell, Widget - I thought that's where Road Rage comes from... :rotfl:

scott fitlin
11-13-2004, 11:51 AM
Bo, they never produced hard evidence totally linking him to the murder either, and this is published fact, as well! Not to mention the lack of any evidence, whatever kind, DNA, fingerprints, hair, etc at the crime scene!

Our judicial system is based on the law being non prejudicial and the responsibilty of the state to prove " Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt "! They did NOT prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt, and to me this raises doubt in my mind!

Now they have to decide whether Scott Peterson gets life without parole, or the death penalty! Lets say they go with the DP, and even though its 12 yrs or so before he would actually be executed, and having to exhaust the process of appeals, before they would actually strap him to the gurney, what if they are wrong? They may be right, but what if they are wrong? Its happened before!

It is encumbent on the state to prove its case, TOTALLY, not kind of sort of, and this case was decided in the media, and public opinion!

This case reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case, but in reverse! To be honest, my true feelings is that he really isnt good enough to have cleaned up every single shred of physical evidence, and leave a 100% totally clean crime scene! Even professionals mess up, its next to impossible, and what with the technology they use today!

I dont know! :confused:

scott fitlin
11-13-2004, 11:59 AM
See when it comes to capital crimes, I really feel you gotta have em down 100%, and especially where the DP is on the table!

However, when you look at cases like Ted Bundy, or Timothy McVeigh where they confess, and admit they did the terrible things they did, then its a clear cut decision, and all one really has to ask, is OK, the Chair, Regular or Extra Crispy?

But the burden of proof still hangs on the state!

boputnam
11-13-2004, 12:31 PM
Bo, they never produced hard evidence totally linking him to the murder either Yea, Scotty, I know.

There was certainly some intense infidelity with a babelette (you can Google her yourself...) and liars-behavior (up-to, and immediately after his wife went fishing...) - even Amber herself thought his behavior and rhetoric suspicious enought that she taped their phone calls. The wandering around the border with bleached hair and $15,000 in his pocket when his wife was missing http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-items-in-car.html is sure an odd way to lament the loss of a pregnant wifey... But none of it is hard evidence.

scott fitlin
11-13-2004, 12:56 PM
Yea, Scotty, I know.

There was certainly some intense infidelity with a babelette (you can Google her yourself...) and liars-behavior (up-to, and immediately after his wife went fishing...), and wandering around the border with bleached hair and $15,000 in his pocket when his wife was missing http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-items-in-car.html - but none of it is hard evidence. Sure an odd way to lament the loss of a pregnant wifey...I agree it looks like he did do it! But still, they are supposed to have to PROVE he did!

For sure, he was a less than stellar husband, but being less than stellar, and being a murderer can be two different things!

As I said, I dont say he didnt do it, I just say that the state has not proven its case satisfactorily, and this is what bothers me more than anything, as where can this lead us to in the future? Sort of precedent setting actions, no?

My other question is still, how did he clean up after himself so well? Did he have special Govt training in matters such as this? Or he got very lucky? But you have to admit, usually there is always something incriminating and concrete left behind!

OTOH, If he did do it, and its entirely possible he did, he hasnt gotten away with it! But, somehow, I see this one winding up in the appeals court, with a good chance of success, because they dont, and didnt have hard evidence!

Zilch
11-13-2004, 01:30 PM
The standard is not "beyond a shadow of doubt," rather, beyond a "reasonable" doubt.

Ask this question, which the jurors themselves may have asked: "In the face of this abundant circumstantial evidence that he DID do it, did the defense posit any sufficiently 'reasonable' altenative(s) which would lead us to doubt his guilt?"

I agree. I am more than somewhat uneasy about how this shifts the burden to the defense, when it's supposed to lie with the state, "Innocent until proven guilty." I don't believe the state's burden was met, either.

Consider how each and any of us could be similarly accused and convicted. Alas, it' NOT a precedent. The incidence of miscarriage of justice in capital cases, in particular, is well documented.

I think the judge understands this. If the jury votes for the death penalty, he must agree for it to stand. I doubt he'll permit it under these circumstances.

I'm glad he didn't walk, because I, too, believe he did it. He's a sociopath, pure and simple. But, I'm not willing to kill him on the basis of what was presented at trial....

johnaec
11-13-2004, 02:58 PM
One difference we as the public didn't generally see was all the incredible detail the prosecution went into on all the evidence, which likely made a big difference. From the little we could see on TV it's easy to say it wasn't enough, but do we really know how much the jurors had their eyes opened to? Likewise, the tapes from his GF - how much did any of us hear of the 200 hours recorded, and would that have made a difference? We heard little snippets here and there, but what DIDN'T we hear that the jurors heard? Personally, I don't think any of us outside that jury are really qualified to state a truly educated opinion on whether he was guilty or not - there's just too much we didn't see or hear...

John