Scott Peterson Found Guilty

Submitted by Coyote on 11/12/04 at 4:52 PM. ( coyote@wideopenwest.com ) 69.14.89.168

Well they found Scott Peterson guilty of first and second degree Muder. First degree for Laci Peterson. And second degree muder for his son Connor Peterson.

Coyote

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu


I wonder.....

This response submitted by Joe on 11/12/04 at 5:15 PM. ( pirateman@adelphia.net ) 69.171.247.195

You think the prison system would release his body so that he could be mounted as a JACKASS? At least the electric chair won't leave holes in his carcass!


Terrible Jury

This response submitted by wetnwild on 11/12/04 at 5:38 PM. ( ) 24.128.109.191

While deep down i know he did it like OJ, I really think the jury system had a breakdown in this case, and the future will tell. How canm you find a person guilty of 1st dgree murder beyond a doubt, when the following were absent:
1. Crime scene
2. murder weapon, or caUSE OF DEATH
3. Reason for murder( motive)
4. Eye witness
5. Lack of forensic evidence
6 case based on total circumstancial( very weak)

They had a hung jury for three days, got rid of two of the jurists, and all of a sudden they are all in total agreement?
I think maybe the two stuborn jurors, were outed by complaining to the judge that they would not budge on their beliefs, and everybody wanted to go home for the weekend!


What really made me thing he was probably guilty

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/12/04 at 5:41 PM. ( ) 64.184.33.158

was his demenor. He just never seemed bothered by his wife's disappearance etc. And although it did not make him guilty of murder his cheating on his wife was disgusting.

Don't you guys find it more than just coincidental he bought a fishing boat just before he disappeared? And was that a boat you take out on the ocean on a regular basis? I don't think so.


Say What?

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/12/04 at 5:47 PM. ( ) 64.184.33.158

No motive?

He was cheating on his wife. He may have wanted her out of the way. It's as old a motive as they come. What's more likely is she found out and went into a rage, they had a struggle, he may have lost control and killed her. Then he had to get rid of the body.

No murder weapons?

Most of the time that is discarded by the murderer.

Lack of forensic evidence?

What about her hair in the bottom of this brand new boat that was bought just before she disappeared?


I agree wetnwild...

This response submitted by marty on 11/12/04 at 7:39 PM. ( ) 24.15.104.42

Although I too think he's guilty, I also agree that the case was based on all circumstantial evidence. Nowhere near the amount O.J. had!

I think what we've got here is first Scott is pretty stupid. And secondly you've got a horrendous crime on a young mother and her helpless baby. I think a lot of emotions may have come into play with the jury and this verdict.

I believe that our judges should have the power in cases like this to lesson the sentence. As they are much more level-headed and fair than an emotional jury. If they come back with the death penalty, I think that would be wrong. Death penalties should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. And/or should only be used in confessed killings or viscious crimes. In a case like this, I'm not even 100% sure he did it. "Reasonable doubt", probably not. "Some doubt/uncertainty" as to whether he did it or not? You betcha...


Marty I don't agree with the death penality whatsoever

This response submitted by Cecil on 11/12/04 at 8:12 PM. ( ) 64.184.33.158

why? Because in many cases you really don't know if someone is guilty 100 percent and rely on a jury. Sending an innocent man to his death is not something I would want on my conscience. Our justice system is the best we have but it makes mistakes on a regular basis. Have you seen the slew of people getting out on DNA evidence. How about the ones that were killed that were later found innocent?

That said, I have no problem with life sentences as would be appropriate in this case IMHO. To me it was an open and shut case. The circumstantial evidence was just too good.


I'm with you Cecil...

This response submitted by marty on 11/12/04 at 9:34 PM. ( ) 24.15.104.42

Personally I don't have a moral issue whatsoever with injecting confessed killers or when the evidence is overwhelming. But the way the system is set up, the death penalty simply is not effective as a detearant, nor is it effective from a cost standpoint. Even in clear cut cases, the costs of appeals and lawyers far exceed the costs the taxpayers would be paying with a life sentence.

Also, don't forget the cases where the police THINK they have the right guy and ignore other potential leads and manytimes "help" the evidence along...


My dear Cecil

This response submitted by wetnwild on 11/13/04 at 6:57 AM. ( ) 24.128.109.191

While there may have been hair in the bottom of the boat, it in no way proves a crime. She had been near the boat on occasion, and like most thigns men own, there are traces of their wifes hair on it. Look at the passenger seat in your car. Now if the hair had bloody roots to it as if it had been yanked out, that would ahev been different, but they did not. As for the OTHER WOMAn. motive, it was stated in the record he had sen a couple of other woman prior to lacy's dissapearance, why did he not kill her then? While I admit he was a scumbag, he could have easily just got a divorce rather than murder her. Like I stated, the evidence was very weak, and any juror who decided wiothout a shadow of a doubt he was guilty based on it, is as big a scum bag as him!


Maybe one of his girlfriends did it

This response submitted by Vicki Chritton-Myers on 11/13/04 at 9:25 AM. ( ) 64.91.28.193

Maybe one of his girlfriends did it to frame him....Maybe she committed suicide because she found out about his affairs...lot of 'maybes' out there. (Personally, I think he did it.)

One thing I can't quite understand is: When the person that killed her killed her unborn child at the same time. In this case, it's called a murder of the unborn child. But, up until recently, it was OK to let a mother deliver a child (a child that could conceivably live outside the womb), then poke a hole in its head and suck its brains out, thus killing it. (AKA late term abortion.) I know I'm probably going to be lamblasted for this, but I just can't comprehend how it is not murder in both cases. Our teenage son said, "It was murder because she wanted to keep the child." I answered, "So, it boils down to this, then? If the mother wants to keep the child and someone kills it, it's murder. But, if she doesn't want it and lets someone kill it, it's not murder?" I'm sooooo confused! (Go ahead, fire away. Won't change my opinion...)


clarification

This response submitted by Vicki on 11/13/04 at 9:31 AM. ( ) 64.91.28.193

Make that partially deliver a child. Seems if they were to let it come all the way out, then poke a hole, that could be construed as murder. Oh, I'm so confused even more.....


I've already heard an...

This response submitted by marty on 11/13/04 at 11:33 AM. ( ) 24.15.104.42

...analyst state on one of the network news stations that she "guarantees the conviction will be overturned in appeals"...


by avery cranor

This response submitted by avery cranor on 12/3/04 at 6:49 PM. ( playbratz.com ) 152.163.100.133

(503)846-0675 I'm only thirteen and i'm working on murder cases.


By Avery Cranor

This response submitted by Avery Cranor on 12/3/04 at 6:51 PM. ( playbratz.com ) 152.163.100.133

i'm only thirteen and i'm working on murder cases.


overturned

This response submitted by Dee on 12/3/04 at 9:48 PM. ( grnidee@aol.com ) 205.188.116.133

Someone explain to me how this conviction can or will be overturned? Something inside me makes me wonder if he really did it, i know i know don't all scream at me at once....I just can't help but wonder if he was soo smart to plan this "perfect murder" how could he be so stupid to produce that fishing receipt.....I feel like somebody somewhere knows what happened. Sure he's a jerk, liar, cheat but I feel that somebody somewhere would have come forward with some kind of story of his temper, craziness.....Sociopath would exhibit some sort of behavior in the past...and why didn't they have a psychiatrist interview him? I feel that the jury HAD to return a guilty verdict...public response..Feel free to comment to me.


Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu