Peterson Guilty

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-12 05:27pm

Scott Peterson, Guilty.

Fox's take

CNN's take

Damn skippy.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-12 05:34pm

Wow.....I mean wow.....if I could gather up enough motivation to actually give a shit then I would. I never understood the media's fascination with this story.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-12 05:45pm

Meh, shits ALL OVER the news.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2004-11-12 05:58pm

Bah. For one, about a million other murders happened in the time FOXFUCKERS used to cover the story, for two, I think he's innocent, and for three, I really don't even give a flying fuck.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-11-12 05:58pm

Funny how they never found a murder weapon, or any other solid evidence connecting him to the murder.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-11-12 06:00pm

Personally, I think he's guilty, but they don't have enough evidence to keep him.

I'm surprised that they found him guilty.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-12 06:05pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:Personally, I think he's guilty, but they don't have enough evidence to keep him.

I'm surprised that they found him guilty.

I'm not. Jurors are stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid.

And Garegos is fucked.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-12 06:14pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Bob the Gunslinger wrote:Personally, I think he's guilty, but they don't have enough evidence to keep him.

I'm surprised that they found him guilty.
I'm not. Jurors are stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid.

And Garegos is fucked.

Circumstancial evidence is still evidence. I'm glad they found him guilty. And I'm glad that arrogant prick, Garegos, is fucked.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-11-12 06:20pm

1) My limited understanding of the case is that there was a boatload of circumstantial evidence.

2) The media follows it for the ratings, just like OJ. These things a media manufactured events that won't go away until people stop watching.

3) My mother recently go called up for jury duty. She wasn't impressed (appalled might be a better word) by the intelligence of her fellow potential jurors.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2004-11-12 06:22pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:My mother recently go called up for jury duty. She wasn't impressed (appalled might be a better word) by the intelligence of her fellow potential jurors.

Oh, do tell. I so love stories like this.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-11-12 06:27pm

Can't tell you much yet. She hasn't been assigned to a trial, as of the last time I talked to her. But apparently following simple instructions from the sherrifs isn't some people's strong suit. I'll know more on Sunday (when I usually visit my parents).

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-11-12 06:41pm

From what little I know of the case, I'd probably would've found him guilty as well. His behavior after the murder was just too damning in my eyes. There's enough doubt that I wouldn't go for the death penalty (if it's applicable) though.

From the Fox report, it seems that his defence came up with a theory that Laci was killed by a satanic cult. You know it's all over for you when that's the best your lawyers can do. It's like the legal equivalent of jumping the shark.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2004-11-12 06:53pm

I'm not surprised at this verdict, but a tad disappointed that the Prosecutor seemed to focus on the defendant's extra-marital affair and not on said defendants murdered wife and unborn child. I'm thinking Peterson might get this verdict overturned, the lack of direct evidence against him as well as the media circus not helping matters.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-12 07:24pm

Vohu Manah wrote:but a tad disappointed that the Prosecutor seemed to focus on the defendant's extra-marital affair and not on said defendants murdered wife and unborn child

Motivation. There is only so much you can do with a body, but living people that can testify provide much more.

Post by **The Wookiee** » 2004-11-12 07:39pm

Yeah, it was a fucking circus over here when we got word the verdict was coming down. I think the reason why this story got so much media coverage is because it involved a woman, an unborn child, an extramarital affair and Mark Geragos, so it was pretty much guaranteed ratings.

Additionally, and I'm sure I'm invinting some flames here, Scott Peterson being a relatively wealthy white male probably contributed to the media saturation. I mean, to compare, Elizabeth Smart was in the news for months, but that one little black girl that escaped her captors and blew the whistle on them? That rated like a two-minute blurb. Jessica Lynch? Got her own TV movie. Shoshanna Johnson? Next to no media coverage.

By the by, for the lazy - he was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Laci Peterson (Life sentence, possible death penalty) and the second-degree murder of Conner Peterson (15 to life). The sentencing phase begins on Nov. 22.

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2004-11-12 07:48pm

The Wookiee wrote:By the by, for the lazy - he was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Laci Peterson (Life sentence, possible death penalty) and the second-degree murder of Conner Peterson (15 to life). The sentencing phase begins on Nov. 22.

How does that happen?

The baby hadn't been born yet. If you surely intend to kill the mother, dont you then by default, also intend to kill the baby?

Post by **The Wookiee** » 2004-11-12 07:50pm

Macross wrote:How does that happen?

The baby hadn't been born yet. If you surely intend to kill the mother, dont you then by default, also intend to kill the baby?

You know, the same thing was discussed here as well. I'm not sure how the hell that even tracks. It's very odd.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-12 08:01pm

The Wookiee wrote:
Macross wrote:How does that happen?

The baby hadn't been born yet. If you surely intend to kill the mother, dont you then by default, also intend to kill the baby?
You know, the same thing was discussed here as well. I'm not sure how the hell that even tracks. It's very odd.

Especially since the mother could kill it with no legal repercussions at all.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-11-12 08:18pm

I haven't been following it much, and all I really know is that the media spent too much time reporting it. Regardless of whether or not he really did it, it's not going to stop OJ Simpson from going up to him and saying "Na-na-na-na-na-na! I got away with murder, and you didn't! Na-na-na-na-na-na!", followed by him sticking out his tongue.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-11-12 08:27pm

I felt the dismissal of the MD/JD to be interesting, to be replaced with the disinterested fireman.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-12 09:11pm

Macross wrote:
The Wookiee wrote:By the by, for the lazy - he was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Laci Peterson (Life sentence, possible death penalty) and the second-degree murder of Conner Peterson (15 to life). The sentencing phase begins on Nov. 22.
How does that happen?

The baby hadn't been born yet. If you surely intend to kill the mother, dont you then by default, also intend to kill the baby?

A live child can still be brought forth even when the mother is killed if the baby is far enough along in term. Connor's death would fall under the definition of "depraved indifference to human life" and therefore murder-two. If Petersen had struck directly at the child in the womb i.e. stabbed it or struck with a blunt instrument after killing Laci, then it would have been premeditation and therefore murder-one.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-12 09:29pm

I heard one person on CNN saying that they believed the jury voted the way they did because they felt "while the prosecution theories were weak, so were the defense theories."

Gotta love "Innocent until proven guilty."

This sorta reminds me of the case in Britain a few years ago where the couple was found guilty of murdering a few young children. Even if they are guilty, the massive media attention and the influence of the court of public opinion is not good for the justice system.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-12 09:34pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I heard one person on CNN saying that they believed the jury voted the way they did because they felt "while the prosecution theories were weak, so were the defense theories."

Gotta love "Innocent until proven guilty."

This sorta reminds me of the case in Britain a few years ago where the couple was found guilty of murdering a few young children. Even if they are guilty, the massive media attention and the influence of the court of public opinion is not good for the justice system.

The defense's job is to discredit the prosecutors theory. If the defense fails to do so, then no matter how weak the prosecutors theory is, then the jury has to accept the prosecutors theory.

He was innocent until proven guilty, unfortuneately for him the prosecution delievered enough info for the jury to find him guilty and the defense didn't give an alternative for reasonable doubt.

Unless you think the satanic sacrifice would put up a reasonable doubt?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-12 10:00pm

Knife wrote:Circumstancial evidence is still evidence. I'm glad they found him guilty. And I'm glad that arrogant prick, Garegos, is fucked.

I'm not too familiar with the case, but circumstantial evidence on its own is not (or should not be) enough to convict someone. It can buttress a case if there is physical evidence, but it cannot stand on its own.

The defense's job is to discredit the prosecutors theory. If the defense fails to do so, then no matter how weak the prosecutors theory is, then the jury has to accept the prosecutors theory.

No, the jury has to decide if the prosecutor's theory is likely to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the defense cannot conclusively discredit the prosecution's theory, the jury must still vote "not guilty" if the prosecutor's theory is weak. That's the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty."

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-11-13 12:59am

Two jurors were dismissed. Tests were done that shouldn't have. There was <no> direct physical evidence. This thing is so open for appeals it isn't even funny.