Scott peterson verdict!!!!

[mygrain]

Scott peterson verdict is in... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041112/ap_on_re_us/laci_peterson

 

[oriecat]

I just saw that at cnn. I was gonna find the old thread about him to revive. But this works too!

 

[mygrain]

I just saw that at cnn. I was gonna find the old thread about him to revive. But this works too!

D'oh! sorry.... maybe the higher powers can arrange something.

 

[oriecat]

Nah it's cool, man. It was an old thread anyway.

 

[aggiezach]

Blah, I'm just glad its all coming to an end.... Well for now anyhow, the media will be all over the sentancing and then the appeals and blah blah blah.... Sorry I'm just not a fan of TV Trials.....

 

[treehuggerhikerboy]

interesting case, nonetheless (esp. with no weapon and no COD). I don't know about cheering for a man's death, but I guess that's california for ya.

 

[mygrain]

Yeah he got 1st degree on the wife and second degree on the baby...how did he intentionally axe his wife and not the baby? enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Canon Fan]

Wow I didn't think they would actually do it :shock: It's about time :roll:

PS- I'm not cheering, it's just that finally a little common sense has shown it's face in CA?

 

[treehuggerhikerboy]

Yeah he got 1st degree on the wife and second degree on the baby...how did he intentionally axe his wife and not the baby? enquiring minds want to know.

that's a good question...maybe it's very difficult to get 1st degree when killing an unborn child (carefully side-stepping the abortion issue).

 

[Shutterbug]

I, and several close friends believe Mr.Peterson is innocent. Even though we are just High School kids, we've been following his case from a totally non-biased view, and, looking at the given evidence, he is clearly innocent.

For example, the Prosecution said that Peterson killed Lacy the night before dumping her body in the Berkeley Marina. But, an old woman in the neighborhood saw Lacy walking her dog early the morning in question. The defence recorded her testimony, but the lady died before the trial began, and the judge (Who I heard was extremely conservative) decided to throw the tape out.

Also, one of the Jury's main reasons for convicting Mr. Peterson was that "He didn't react to Lacy's death like a grieving husband." Well, some people react to the world a little differently than so called "Normal" people. Just because he doesn't break down and cry he's guilty? Since when does trying to shut out emotions to avoid pain justify a life's sentance in prison or even death?

One more thing - All the experts that the Prosecution called during the trial - They used no real evidence, just consequential stuff and assumptions. The defence, however, was able to provide real proof, but the judge seemed keen on keeping that proof away from the Jury.

Meh, like I said, I've been following this since the beginning, but hey, I'm just a 16 year old, what do I know? :roll:

 

[mrsid99]

I, and several close friends believe Mr.Peterson is innocent. Even though we are just High School kids, we've been following his case from a totally non-biased view, and, looking at the given evidence, he is clearly innocent.

For example, the Prosecution said that Peterson killed Lacy the night before dumping her body in the Berkeley Marina. But, an old woman in the neighborhood saw Lacy walking her dog early the morning in question. The defence recorded her testimony, but the lady died before the trial began, and the judge (Who I heard was extremely conservative) decided to throw the tape out.

Also, one of the Jury's main reasons for convicting Mr. Peterson was that "He didn't react to Lacy's death like a grieving husband." Well, some people react to the world a little differently than so called "Normal" people. Just because he doesn't break down and cry he's guilty? Since when does trying to shut out emotions to avoid pain justify a life's sentance in prison or even death?

One more thing - All the experts that the Prosecution called during the trial - They used no real evidence, just consequential stuff and assumptions. The defence, however, was able to provide real proof, but the judge seemed keen on keeping that proof away from the Jury.

Meh, like I said, I've been following this since the beginning, but hey, I'm just a 16 year old, what do I know? :roll:

I guess you've not been following the case very well because you would have known that Scott's wife was named "Laci" and the prosecution covered and answered all your points.
The old woman who supposedly saw Laci walking her dog could only state for sure that she saw a woman walking a dog.
How do you know that that one of the juries main reason for conviction was that he didn't react to Laci's death like a normal husband? Have you seen some testimony from a jury member yet? I haven't, and for reference, a normal grieving husband would not be sweet talking a girlfriend at the time either.
Please tell what was the the "real proof" from the defence that the judge kept from the jury.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Yeah he got 1st degree on the wife and second degree on the baby...how did he intentionally axe his wife and not the baby? enquiring minds want to know.

that's a good question...maybe it's very difficult to get 1st degree when killing an unborn child (carefully side-stepping the abortion issue).

Yes it’s a bit odd. Could be the jury’s decision to go with the lesser charge.

Did the prosecution file first-degree charges in both cases or just on Lacy's?

 

[Shutterbug]

I guess you've not been following the case very well because you would have known that Scott's wife was named "Laci"

Oh, please forgive me for misspelling a name, even though they are pronounced the same way.

The old woman who supposedly saw Laci walking her dog could only state for sure that she saw a woman walking a dog.

She saw a pregnant woman walking a dog, a woman with the same hair color as Laci, and in an investigation into how many brown haired pregnant women lived within what would be called normal walking distance from that area turned up pretty much null, except for Laci.

How do you know that that one of the juries main reason for conviction was that he didn't react to Laci's death like a normal husband? Have you seen some testimony from a jury member yet? I haven't.

Just because you haven't does not mean it didn't happen, and given that A) The prosecutions main case was that Scott wasn't remorseful, and B) He was found guilty after hearing the prosecutions argument, it goes to assume that is one of the reasons they convicted him.

and for reference, a normal grieving husband would not be sweet talking a girlfriend at the time either.

Yeah, because ALL people are normal. Think about it.

Please tell what was the the "real proof" from the defence that the judge kept from the jury.

Mainly the testimony from the old woman, and the fact that analysis of the boat in question revealed that if a body of Laci's size at the time were do have been dumped overboard, the boat would have simply capsized, being only a mere 14 feet. BOTH of those points, were denied to be used in the courtroom, along with the fact that there was NO sign of a struggle in the house, AND that the forensics report on Connor, the fetus, revealed that it died a week or two after Laci disapeared.

Please stop buying into a media hype about how he deserves it. Everything you've argued is what is being showed on the 6 o'clock news.[/i]

 

[mrsid99]

I guess you've not been following the case very well because you would have known that Scott's wife was named "Laci"

Oh, please forgive me for misspelling a name, even though they are pronounced the same way.

Just shows how much attention you were paying.

The old woman who supposedly saw Laci walking her dog could only state for sure that she saw a woman walking a dog.

She saw a pregnant woman walking a dog, a woman with the same hair color as Laci, and in an investigation into how many brown haired pregnant women lived within what would be called normal walking distance from that area turned up pretty much null, except for Laci.

Not correct, check it out and the rest is your extrapolation from incorrect data.

How do you know that that one of the juries main reason for conviction was that he didn't react to Laci's death like a normal husband? Have you seen some testimony from a jury member yet? I haven't.

Just because you haven't does not mean it didn't happen, and given that A) The prosecutions main case was that Scott wasn't remorseful, and B) He was found guilty after hearing the prosecutions argument, it goes to assume that is one of the reasons they convicted him.

Exactly! You ASSUMED, maybe because it fits your point of view?

and for reference, a normal grieving husband would not be sweet talking a girlfriend at the time either.

Yeah, because ALL people are normal. Think about it.

I have thought about it and with an open mind, looks like a motive to me.

Please tell what was the the "real proof" from the defence that the judge kept from the jury.

Mainly the testimony from the old woman, and the fact that analysis of the boat in question revealed that if a body of Laci's size at the time were do have been dumped overboard, the boat would have simply capsized, being only a mere 14 feet.

You obviously know nothing about fishing boats, from personal experience I feel it was quite possible and the boat length has little to do with stability, it's mainly the hull shape.
One other point, do you really think that Garegos would not have been allowed to enter evidence on the boat stability? The truth of the matter is that the defense did not conduct a stability test or if they did they kept it quiet.

BOTH of those points, were denied to be used in the courtroom,

Working up a good conspiracy theory are we?

along with the fact that there was NO sign of a struggle in the house, AND that the forensics report on Connor, the fetus, revealed that it died a week or two after Laci disapeared.

The forensics report stated no such thing, the "expert" defense witness that implied that was shredded on the witness stand.

Please stop buying into a media hype about how he deserves it.

Please stop implying that I'm not thinking for myself.

Everything you've argued is what is being showed on the 6 o'clock news.[/i]

So where did you obtain your superior information?

 

[Shutterbug]

Exactly! You ASSUMED, maybe because it fits your point of view?

No, maybe because it's a fact that EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. Who has ever been asked about the case has commented on THAT FACT, as well as the DISMISSED JUROR telling people that was the case. Sometimes you're allowed to assume when something is common sense.

I have thought about it and with an open mind, looks like a motive to me.

Wow, I didn't know every person who has feelings for another person is a murderer... Damn, I better report my dad right now!!!

You obviously know nothing about fishing boats, from personal experience I feel it was quite possible and the boat length has little to do with stability, it's mainly the hull shape.
One other point, do you really think that Garegos would not have been allowed to enter evidence on the boat stability? The truth of the matter is that the defense did not conduct a stability test or if they did they kept it quiet...

...Working up a good conspiracy theory are we?

Heh.

Sources close to the case told CNN the boat is the same one used by the defense in a videotaped demonstration that the defense claims proves the boat would have capsized if a body were dumped overboard, as prosecutors contend happened. The judge denied the defense request to have the video shown in the trial.

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/10/peterson.trial/

Now, unless the defense was purposly trying to screw Scott over, I would see no reason why they would try and introduce a tape supposedly proving a very big point of the case and have it be false.

Also, I've seen the boat used in the so called "Test". (Having taken the train to Modesto from Martinez to pick up a car in Merced) It's roughly 14 to 14 and a half feet long, and MAYBE 5 to 6 feet wide. It has a very shallow body, and according to the water lines on the side of the boat, it sits pretty deep into the water for it's size. You could probably flip it over with your foot.

Please stop implying that I'm not thinking for myself.

Why? You aren't. You're just demonizing him like the rest of America.

So where did you obtain your superior information?

Local Newspapers, CNN, Time Magazine, Court TV, and Logs of the Investigation.[/quote]