California v. Peterson

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-08-13 12:53am

Who's been following the Scott Peterson murder trial, and what is the perspective on what's been going down so far in the proceedings?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-08-13 01:15am

The prosecution does not have any real evidence that he did anything.
Despite some very suspicious behavior on Scott's part the State of California
is unlikely to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered his wife. I bet you this guy walks.

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2004-08-13 01:29am

So far, the prosecution has been able to prove that Scott Peterson is a lying sac of adultering shit. And that even if he doesn't get "the chair" for murder, that he deserves to be beaten repeatedly for each day Lacy and her unborn child was missing. There is some evidence that suggested that he planned on being with Frey much more often, but this could have been through divorce, not murder. If he can conceal his affair from Frey, he can probably conceal a divorce as well.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-08-13 04:47pm

Although I haven't followed the case on a daily basis (I'm Swede, but watches CNN alot

), there are many things in Mr. Peterson's behaviour that strikes me as odd, both prior to his arrest (his claim that he had to change his appearance and borrow his brother's ID just so that he could play golf at something called Torrey Pines and IIRC he had no clubs in his car when he was arrested) and things that the prosecution has shown (his phone conversations with his mistress). Of course, these circumstances doesn't necessarily mean that he's guilty, but they show some really bad taste.
Regardless if the jury finds Mr. Peterson innocent or guilty, it's a horrible crime, and I hope the person responsible will be fairly punished.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-13 07:42pm

Scott Peterson lied and cheated, but from what i see he isnt a murderer. I have followed the case closely. The DA has NOTHING on him and has resorted to trying to smear him with embarissing tapes of his idiotic sexual exploits. Last week, they mentioned he watched a porno called Rape the Teacher and (gasp!) Laci was a Teacher!!! Oh my! Oh dear! Oh...such bullshit.

If he gets the chair, it's a fucking travesty of justice. He'll be convicted purely because he's unlikable not because he's guilty. Unless they have a shred of evidence i dont know about.

Oh and the one peice they did have, a single hair (or was it, some say it was two) on a pair of pliers on Scotts boat? I've read where they said he had his jacket in the boat too. A woman, i think she's some kind of expert, says the hairs might have come from the jacket and not originally been on the pliers.

There was also talk of a woman who was arrested who, along with her trailer trash family, had kidnapped and raped another woman around the time Laci disappeared. They told that woman, or someone, that they were going to kill a pregnant woman and that "everyone would hear about it". A while later, Laci vanishes. And guess what...the arrested woman...had a watch that was almost identical to Laci's, she was trying to pawn it. Anyone else thinking what i'm thinking?

And personally, if i may say so...if he was intending to leave his wife for Amber (which i think was teh case) that is no reason to hate the man. Yeah he cheated, and yeah he's a louse. So what? He should die because he's a cheater? Because he lied? Bullshit. I think, just a theory, that Laci either commited suicide or was kileld by someone else, since she had to get in the lake somehow and i've not seen a scrap of evidence pointing to Scott. Who knows, maybe Amber did it?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-08-13 10:21pm

As with O.J. Simpson, do I think he did it? Yes.

If I was on the jury, would I be able to convict? FUCK NO!

The previous posts are right. Peterson comes across as a total scumbag. But that doesn't mean he killed his wife.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-08-14 12:43am

How much press is this getting outside of California? It is big news here because Modesto is a few hours away and the trial is being held right in the Bay Area. I can't help but believe if Laci Peterson was'nt a beautiful women nobody would notice this case.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-14 01:10am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:How much press is this getting outside of California? It is big news here because Modesto is a few hours away and the trial is being held right in the Bay Area. I can't help but believe if Laci Peterson was'nt a beautiful women nobody would notice this case.

From what I have seen, the major US news networks (all of which except FOX are available in Canada) are giving it ample coverage...

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-14 02:04am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:How much press is this getting outside of California? It is big news here because Modesto is a few hours away and the trial is being held right in the Bay Area. I can't help but believe if Laci Peterson was'nt a beautiful women nobody would notice this case.

I don't even think she was that pretty, but she didn't deserve such a fate. On Scotty boy, every thing they have on him is circumstantial but just because its circumstantial doesn't mean its not valid. He'll have a hard time getting over the fact of his little fishing trip. If you'll excuse the pun, it is just too damn fishy to ignore.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-08-14 02:12am

Knife wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:How much press is this getting outside of California? It is big news here because Modesto is a few hours away and the trial is being held right in the Bay Area. I can't help but believe if Laci Peterson was'nt a beautiful women nobody would notice this case.
I don't even think she was that pretty, but she didn't deserve such a fate. On Scotty boy, every thing they have on him is circumstantial but just because its circumstantial doesn't mean its not valid. He'll have a hard time getting over the fact of his little fishing trip. If you'll excuse the pun, it is just too damn fishy to ignore.

I think this guy is involved somehow, but they don't have any evidence that is anything but circumsantial. Why anyone would want to hurt a pregnant women is beyond me.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-08-14 03:09am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:How much press is this getting outside of California? It is big news here because Modesto is a few hours away and the trial is being held right in the Bay Area. I can't help but believe if Laci Peterson was'nt a beautiful women nobody would notice this case.

Well, even the Swedish television news and papers mentions the case occasionally. I don't know why this particular case have such an interest outside of the U.S.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-14 03:03pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote: I think this guy is involved somehow, but they don't have any evidence that is anything but circumsantial. Why anyone would want to hurt a pregnant women is beyond me.

People get convicted off of circumsantial evidence all the time, and in this case there is a big pile of it. Some of it, I'm sure, is BS but just because the evidence is cirumstantial doens't make it irrelevant.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-14 05:10pm

Knife wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote: I think this guy is involved somehow, but they don't have any evidence that is anything but circumsantial. Why anyone would want to hurt a pregnant women is beyond me.
People get convicted off of circumsantial evidence all the time, and in this case there is a big pile of it. Some of it, I'm sure, is BS but just because the evidence is cirumstantial doens't make it irrelevant.

Yeah it does!

There isnt a drop of real, hard, actual, bona-fide evidence in the whole thing. Zero. Nill. None. I havnt seen them place her body on the boat, or show any evidence he ever came into contact with the body, and all they've done is try to make the jury dislike him. With this shitty, bullshitery, so-called "evidence" anyone might've actually killed her, all they did was prove he didnt love her.

Everyone hates him because he wasnt interested in this woman. They'll convict because they hate him not because the DA has shown he was guilty, because he hasnt. Personally i find it freightening, that people would be so easily swayed by the most obviously bullshit "evidence" (i.e smear campaign) i have ever seen. Just because he wasnt interested in her, or his baby, doesnt mean he should go to die, or even that he's a bad person. It means he's a cheating adulturer, yeah, but i have seen not one scrap of evidence the whole time i've watched this case.

Circumstatial case my ass...no fingerprnts, no DNA, no credible hairs or fibers...and i'm willing to bet everyone on the jury will climb on their fifty foot high horse and say "Oh, he watched porn instead of have sex with Laci, lets hang him!"

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-14 05:49pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote: Yeah it does!

What ever.

There isnt a drop of real, hard, actual, bona-fide evidence in the whole thing. Zero. Nill. None. I havnt seen them place her body on the boat, or show any evidence he ever came into contact with the body, and all they've done is try to make the jury dislike him. With this shitty, bullshitery, so-called "evidence" anyone might've actually killed her, all they did was prove he didnt love her.

There isn't the 'smoking gun' as some would put it. And your right, there isn't even a body. There are, however, his fishing trip, his driving by the general area where the body was found (known by GPS on his car/truck, and the hair. These are circumstantial because in and of them selves they don't say he killed her, such as a bloody knife would, but enough of it exsists to cause a person to actually think about it.

Is it beyond the reasonable doubt? Don't know. But there certainly IS enough for him to be in a court room where he is.

Everyone hates him because he wasnt interested in this woman. They'll convict because they hate him not because the DA has shown he was guilty, because he hasnt. Personally i find it freightening, that people would be so easily swayed by the most obviously bullshit "evidence" (i.e smear campaign) i have ever seen. Just because he wasnt interested in her, or his baby, doesnt mean he should go to die, or even that he's a bad person. It means he's a cheating adulturer, yeah, but i have seen not one scrap of evidence the whole time i've watched this case.

That actaully cuts both ways, nowadays. Both the defense and the procecution can and do, in high profile cases, wage a media and public opinion battle. In which case, while he has the right to be presumed innocent in the court, no such right exsists in the court of public opinion.

Circumstatial case my ass...no fingerprnts, no DNA, no credible hairs or fibers...and i'm willing to bet everyone on the jury will climb on their fifty foot high horse and say "Oh, he watched porn instead of have sex with Laci, lets hang him!"

I doubt it, or else Garigose (sp?) wouldn't be worth the bucks he is worth if he let such ninnies on the jury. But like I said, it IS circumstatial, but that doesn't mean the 'evidence' is irrelevant. Wheather or not it reachs the point of 'reasonable doubt' is up to the jury but that doesn't automatically make it bull shit evidence.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-08-14 06:41pm

Knife wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote: I think this guy is involved somehow, but they don't have any evidence that is anything but circumsantial. Why anyone would want to hurt a pregnant women is beyond me.
People get convicted off of circumsantial evidence all the time, and in this case there is a big pile of it. Some of it, I'm sure, is BS but just because the evidence is cirumstantial doens't make it irrelevant.

Oh, I agree with you. But as a juror I would not be able to convict this guy since the evidence is supposed to be beyond a resonable doubt.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-08-14 07:16pm

I heard on Court TV that the hairs might not be any signifigance at all. As i understand it, the boat was 'contaminated' when they or he put his jacket in it and that the hairs might've fallen off that.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-14 07:30pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Oh, I agree with you. But as a juror I would not be able to convict this guy since the evidence is supposed to be beyond a resonable doubt.

I don't know if I'd be able to convict him either, though as I said, there is enough to say, WTF?