Scott Peterson Trial

[Adam's Apple]

Now that the Scott Peterson trial is winding down, does anyone want to guess what the jury's verdict will be? If he is found guilty, will he be given the death penalty or will he go to prison? Both Fox News and CNN have frequently aired really good panel shows on this topic.

 

[dmp]

I believe there exists at least a reasonable doubt to his innocence...however, I would not be surprised if he were aquitted, but then later confessed and sold the movie rights.

 

[janeeng]

I find it hard to think there is one bit of innocence in that man. Selling her car, trying to sell hous, the list goes on. I don't know many people that would do such a thing with a spouse so-called missing. I would like to believe he will get guilty, but should he get off, then here we have another OJ Simpson!!! Murder and walk away.

 

[TopUSMC]

All they have is circumstancal evidenece, but it points directly to him. That and his actions after she came up missing lead me to vote GUILTY as charged-Life in prison times two. If he gets aqquitted, I bet someone will put a cap or two in him.

Semper fi,
THE TOP

 

[DKSuddeth]

If he's acquitted you can certainly expect to see the civil suit soon after. reminiscent of OJ, ya think?

 

[dmp]

If he's acquitted you can certainly expect to see the civil suit soon after. reminiscent of OJ, ya think?

...except what would Scott be able to pay? He's not the multi-millionaire OJ was.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Based on the circumstancial evidence presented thus far, I think he is guilty; but I would not vote for the death penalty. If I could be certain that he killed her, then I would vote for the death penalty. The evidence that came out this week about what Scott had in his car at the time he was arrested is a matter of concern. Makes you wonder if he was going after Amber Frey.

 

[dmp]

Based on the circumstancial evidence presented thus far, I think he is guilty; but I would not vote for the death penalty. If I could be certain that he killed her, then I would vote for the death penalty. The evidence that came out this week about what Scott had in his car at the time he was arrested is a matter of concern. Makes you wonder if he was going after Amber Frey.

Acting guilty doesn't mean one IS guilty. It could be argued the stress of the investigation - the pressure from inspectors drove scott to weird behaviour. Being an adulterer doesn't mean he's a killer...Leaving for Mexico doesn't mean he's a killer.

There has to exist at least one reasonable doubt. No Crime Scene. It's reasonbable to think there would be a crime scene in his truck, boat, or house if he had done it. (which I think he did, btw)...

 

[DKSuddeth]

...except what would Scott be able to pay? He's not the multi-millionaire OJ was.

what has OJ paid out? declared bankruptcy to keep his home I believe. the civil judgement would still stand. Scott would only be able to keep enough to live on. no more.

 

[janeeng]

Acting guilty doesn't mean one IS guilty. It could be argued the stress of the investigation - the pressure from inspectors drove scott to weird behaviour. Being an adulterer doesn't mean he's a killer...Leaving for Mexico doesn't mean he's a killer.

There has to exist at least one reasonable doubt. No Crime Scene. It's reasonbable to think there would be a crime scene in his truck, boat, or house if he had done it. (which I think he did, btw)...

Though this can be true - again, I don't know many people that would run out when their Wife and unborn child is missing and sell her car, then want to put their home up for sale? maybe it's, he KNEW she wasn't coming back. Pressure can make you do stupid things, but this I doubt! what about the Jewelry he gave to Amber, all of Laci's. Blood and hair too, but then again, blood all over the Bronco of O.J. and that bastard still walked.

 

[dmp]

Though this can be true - again, I don't know many people that would run out when their Wife and unborn child is missing and sell her car, then want to put their home up for sale? maybe it's, he KNEW she wasn't coming back. Pressure can make you do stupid things, but this I doubt! what about the Jewelry he gave to Amber, all of Laci's. Blood and hair too, but then again, blood all over the Bronco of O.J. and that bastard still walked.

Right - if OJ can walk with MOUNTAINS Of physcial evidence, the circumstantial evidence surrounding Scott Peterson could lead to a 'not guilty' verdict.

 

[janeeng]

Right - if OJ can walk with MOUNTAINS Of physcial evidence, the circumstantial evidence surrounding Scott Peterson could lead to a 'not guilty' verdict.

GOT THAT RIGHT! And it truly stinks too!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

This guy is guilty as sin....and I think he's going to walk.

The prosecution didn't get off to a good start, there was the mess with that one moron juror, the prosecution also went on far to long with their case, and they did half the job for the defense of providing reasonable doubt. Plus, the shotty way the police handled the entire situation from the start.

I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I don't see any way a guilty verdict is coming from this.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

normally i would aim for the death penalty on murderers, especially of babies.
but...i think that he should be locked up, fed only water, beans and rice every day-nothing different. his walls should be wallpapered with photos of his wife's and his child's dead bodies. he would not have any windows, and no contact with any other human life other than the person serving his food. no letters, phonecalls, visits, nothing. keep him there, in that room, only able to look at those photos, so that he will live, but live in hell on earth for the rest of his life. when he dies...feed him to the sharks.

 

[Gem]

I think that "reasonable doubt" is one of the least understood concepts in the US legal system today.

It was not intended to mean "is there even the sliver of a chance that he might not have done it," it was intended to mean, "is there another explanation that is equally or more REASONABLE to believe than the one the prosecution has put forth."

So what do we all KNOW:

- Scott Peterson is an admitted adulterer and liar.
- He told his mistress his wife was dead.
- He called his mistress from a vigil for his wife and son...to talk about getting together and how his wife had died and this was his first Christmas without her
- He told some people he was going golfing, others he was fishing, the day his wife disappered
- He told Laci's family they couldn't collect some of her things because he wanted it all there when she got back....then called a real estate agent to see about selling the whole house and everything inside it
- He was found heading towards Mexico, his hair dyed, a beard grown, large amounts of cash in his glove compartment, in a rental car....the police had examined his car several times earlier...found suitcases of his clothes and large amounts of cash as their investigation heated up

There were other things...but I'm talking off the top of my head...

With all of this information...is it "REASONABLE TO BELIEVE" that anyone other than Scott killed Laci???

 

[dmp]

I think that "reasonable doubt" is one of the least understood concepts in the US legal system today.

It was not intended to mean "is there even the sliver of a chance that he might not have done it," it was intended to mean, "is there another explanation that is equally or more REASONABLE to believe than the one the prosecution has put forth."

So what do we all KNOW:

- Scott Peterson is an admitted adulterer and liar.
- He told his mistress his wife was dead.
- He called his mistress from a vigil for his wife and son...to talk about getting together and how his wife had died and this was his first Christmas without her
- He told some people he was going golfing, others he was fishing, the day his wife disappered
- He told Laci's family they couldn't collect some of her things because he wanted it all there when she got back....then called a real estate agent to see about selling the whole house and everything inside it
- He was found heading towards Mexico, his hair dyed, a beard grown, large amounts of cash in his glove compartment, in a rental car....the police had examined his car several times earlier...found suitcases of his clothes and large amounts of cash as their investigation heated up

There were other things...but I'm talking off the top of my head...

With all of this information...is it "REASONABLE TO BELIEVE" that anyone other than Scott killed Laci???

Fortunately for the Defendant, he doesn't have to prove 'somebody else' killed Laci and Conner. The Prosecutor has to convince the jury Scott did kill them - beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, If there exists a 'reasonable doubt' to his innocence - whatever that doubt is...The jury HAS to rule in favour of the defendant.

beyond a reasonable doubt
adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.

Thus, as I said, if there exists a doubt he killed her (No crime scene or other evidence could be one...) the jury is forced to rule in Scott's favour.

 

[Gem]

-d-

you last sentence proves my point...

You say: "if there exists a doubt he killed her" and that is wrong...it is "if there exists a REASONABLE DOUBT that he killed her."

Is it reasonable to believe that a man who was cheating on his wife frequently, who lied about his location during his wife's disappearance, who called his mistress (who, according to the defense, he didn't really care about) to tell her that his wife had died and he was alone) during prayer vigils for his son (who, according to the defense, he cared deeply about), who lied to every person he knows, who refused to let family members have possessions belonging to his wife, but was arranging to sell all of those possessions, quickly if necessary, and who was found heading towards Mexico in disguise, in a rented car with large amounts of cash...right around the time that the police were trying to arrest him or question him....DIDN'T kill his wife

The jury has to look at that information and more and decide if any other option creates a "reasonable doubt."

If they do think there is a reasonable doubt...they'll let him walk. If they don't, they'll find him guilty.

I, personally, do not think that the death penalty is appropriate in this case, but we'll see what happens.

But just because it is possible that a sadistic satanist cult or space aliens or Laci's elementary school sweetheart decided to capture, kidnap, and murder her...doesn't mean that it is REASONABLE to believe that it happened rather than Scott murdering her.

 

[dmp]

* man who was cheating on his wife frequently, No bearing on the case. One who has a relationship outside his marriage isn't a killer

* who lied about his location during his wife's disappearance, He panicked. Again - being a liar doesn't mean he's a killer

* who called his mistress to tell her that his wife had died See above

* who lied to every person he knows, speculation - not relevant

* who refused to let family members have possessions belonging to his wife, I wouldn't let my wife's family take shit if she died...at least not at first. ESPECIALLY before they found her body

* was arranging to sell all of those possessions, Speculation - ALL of her former possessions? Impossible to say. I'd eventually sell my dead-wife's stuff too. Am I a killer?

* who was found heading towards Mexico in disguise, maybe for a break from the hundreds of Media following him during this Uber-high profile case.

* in a rented car Wasn't it in a car he bought using his mom's name?


As we both agree to; their exists no (or so little amount to be considered none) PHYSICAL evidense he's committed a crime. Of course people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I'm pretty sure neither of us is on the Jury. The People have to prove every doubt the jury has as being an Unreasonable Doubt. It's reasonable to think MOST people would act odd if their spouse was killed/missing.

 

[Gem]

-d-

I think we are going to have to disagree on this one. I know that in a case that is based upon circumstantial evidence...EVERYTHING matters.

Now, you may feel that something doesn't matter....I may feel that it does...but in the end it will be left up to what the jury feels matters.

 

[Zhukov]

Now that the Scott Peterson trial is winding down, does anyone want to guess

People die everyday. People murder other people everday. There is probably a pregnant mother murdered by the father somewhere in the world every single day.

This trial is a media exagerated/fabricated spectacle. If you disagree, tell me why it's so important. Actually don't bother, I'm breaking my own rule by even commenting on the matter, and hopefully I'll be able to refrain from ever perusing this thread again, in which case I won't be reading any response anyway.