• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Scott Peterson DP over turned.

I'm surprised they overturned it. I thought the reasonings were pretty weak. Hopefully there aren't jail groupies willing to contribute to his new bail, or maybe the judge will order no bail.

Whoops, never mind. They only overturned his death sentence, not his conviction. I didn't know what "DP" meant.

My brain isn't functioning. Death Penalty, d'oh.
 
Last edited:
wasapi said:
https://ktla.com/news/california/ca...jemgHzYu02_B1gh01h6T_hyUVHL2vxGe1HVYIJUAC5Ws4

Peterson is crying that he had an "unfair" verdict, still claiming innocence.

I don't get it. He murdered his wife and baby. Yes Scott, there was massive publicity. That, in no way, made your trial unfair. The publicity resulted from the horrific murders you committed. Suck it up.
Click to expand...


Well, reading that link makes it very clear that the death sentence was overturned by the CA SC because the judge made significant and reversible errors in jury selection for the sentencing (penalty) phase. His conviction is not affected in any way by this ruling.

The laws and criminal codes relating to trials and trial procedures are there for good reasons. Fundamentally, they are there to (try to) ensure that both the defendant(s) and the State can have as fair a trial as possible. And there have to be proportionate sanctions if those laws and codes are not properly observed.

In this case, the CA SC ruled that the trial judge had made a significant error in the way in which he oversaw the selection of the sentencing jury: specifically, he dismissed potential jurors who said they disagreed in principle with the death penalty but would nevertheless pledge to follow the law and vote to impose the DP if the evidence warranted it.

The State still has the option of requesting a new penalty phase - one in which the rules are followed properly. On the one hand, if they feel the citizens of California want this man executed, they should make such a request - and after all, they're not going to end up with a lesser sentence than the one Peterson has now received, given the nature of the case. But on the other hand, a repeat penalty phase will mean a significant additional cost and time-sink for the courts, and it also has the obvious potential of causing additional suffering for those who were touched by the crime. So......
 
wasapi said:
https://ktla.com/news/california/ca...jemgHzYu02_B1gh01h6T_hyUVHL2vxGe1HVYIJUAC5Ws4

Peterson is crying that he had an "unfair" verdict, still claiming innocence.

I don't get it. He murdered his wife and baby. Yes Scott, there was massive publicity. That, in no way, made your trial unfair. The publicity resulted from the horrific murders you committed. Suck it up.
Click to expand...

As LJ has pointed out the death penalty was overturned, not the conviction. The California Supreme Court rejected Peterson's argument that the conviction should be overturned because of pre-trial publicity.
 
whoanellie said:
As LJ has pointed out the death penalty was overturned, not the conviction. The California Supreme Court rejected Peterson's argument that the conviction should be overturned because of pre-trial publicity.
Click to expand...

In practice, in California there is no death penalty. No has has been executed since 2006, and there are over 700 inmates on death row. Apart from moral and ethical objections to the death penalty, it's probably a practical mistake to sentence someone to death. It extends a complex and expensive appeals process for no purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_California
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-death-row/
 
Sorry if my poorly written post implied that his conviction was over turned. It wasn't, and never will be. And, as has been pointed out already, taking the death penalty off the table means nothing. He would never have made it to execution anyway. No one in California will, regardless of the crime, regardless of how horrific it was.
 
wasapi said:
Sorry if my poorly written post implied that his conviction was over turned. It wasn't, and never will be. And, as has been pointed out already, taking the death penalty off the table means nothing. He would never have made it to execution anyway. No one in California will, regardless of the crime, regardless of how horrific it was.
Click to expand...
If he was innocent, and in Texas, he would be pushing up daisies by now.
 
Samson said:
If he was innocent, and in Texas, he would be pushing up daisies by now.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm okay with any and all death penalties being overturned. I'm not sure about this case. I was aware of it but I was in Iraq at the time and not really following it. Generally though our track record on death penalty cases has not been stellar and as mentioned above there are really no prospects that California will go back to using it.
 
Samson said:
If he was innocent, and in Texas, he would be pushing up daisies by now.
Click to expand...

He is not innocent, but if in Texas, I doubt he would be "pushing up daisies by now". Case in point, Darlie Routier. Guilty of savagely slaughtering her two little boys, and she is still - unfortunately - around.
 
The wrong Carlos?

wasapi said:
He is not innocent, but if in Texas, I doubt he would be "pushing up daisies by now". Case in point, Darlie Routier. Guilty of savagely slaughtering her two little boys, and she is still - unfortunately - around.
Click to expand...
Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham, Larry Swearingen, and Carlos DeLuna. The cases against each of these three look extremely questionable. Two of the three have been the subject of threads here, but the Cards DeLuna case has not; that is why I provided a link.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham, Larry Swearingen, and Carlos DeLuna. The cases against each of these three look extremely questionable. Two of the three have been the subject of threads here, but the Cards DeLuna case has not; that is why I provided a link.
Click to expand...

Chris, thank you. I am not familiar with those cases, but I will go back for the link to read about them.
 
wasapi said:
https://ktla.com/news/california/ca...jemgHzYu02_B1gh01h6T_hyUVHL2vxGe1HVYIJUAC5Ws4
Click to expand...
Good. The Death Penalty is an abomination.

Peterson is crying that he had an "unfair" verdict, still claiming innocence.
Click to expand...
If he is so obviously guilty, why does he still claim innocence? The possibilities are:-

1. He is a psychopath who cynically thinks he can get off by deceiving us.

2. He truly believes he is innocent, even though he did it.

3. He really is innocent, and the cops framed him.

From cases like Steven Avery we know that 3 is the most likely, but the other possibilities are worth exploring. What evidence do we have that he is a liar or deluded?

When a convicted person is actually guilty they generally accept the verdict, but occasionally they continue to profess their innocence despite the weight of evidence against them. This indicates a psychological problem that could be studied to better understand the criminal mind, perhaps even eventually allowing us to identify and treat 'at risk' people before they commit a heinous crime.

The Death Penalty is an abomination because it wastes a valuable resource which we could use to reduce crime and improve justice. If you think Scott Peterson deserves to die then you should be OK with him being subjected to experiments that would normally be deemed unethical.

Imagine having a simple, painless way to determine with absolute certainty whether a suspect is lying or telling the truth! It could make trials and errors a thing of the past and greatly improve confidence in the justice system. But to do that we need to study criminals like Scott Peterson, rather than just leaving them in jail to rot.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
If he is so obviously guilty, why does he still claim innocence? The possibilities are:-

1. He is a psychopath who cynically thinks he can get off by deceiving us.

2. He truly believes he is innocent, even though he did it.

3. He really is innocent, and the cops framed him.

From cases like Steven Avery we know that 3 is the most likely, but the other possibilities are worth exploring. What evidence do we have that he is a liar or deluded?
Click to expand...

I would say there are more possibilities than that. I remember the case being big news and also a favourite obsession of Larry King for a while - he seemed to have people connected to the case on his show all the time. I never really looked into it as most of what I could see was just finger pointing from Mark Geragos and maybe Nancy whatserface. I just quickly scrolled through the Wikipedia page on the subject.

I think it is quite likely that he committed the murder (someone must have), and continuing to proclaim innocence could indeed mean any of the 3 things you mentioned, but I would also think that if guilty he could also be ashamed of what he did. Having proclaimed his innocence so long and having people he loves believe in him would surely make it difficult to now say, "You know what, they were right, I did it!" As implausible as it might be that he is innocent, his continuing to assert that he is is probably all that family members might be holding on to.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Good. The Death Penalty is an abomination.

If he is so obviously guilty, why does he still claim innocence? The possibilities are:-

1. He is a psychopath who cynically thinks he can get off by deceiving us.

2. He truly believes he is innocent, even though he did it.

3. He really is innocent, and the cops framed him.

From cases like Steven Avery we know that 3 is the most likely, but the other possibilities are worth exploring. What evidence do we have that he is a liar or deluded?

When a convicted person is actually guilty they generally accept the verdict, but occasionally they continue to profess their innocence despite the weight of evidence against them. This indicates a psychological problem that could be studied to better understand the criminal mind, perhaps even eventually allowing us to identify and treat 'at risk' people before they commit a heinous crime.

The Death Penalty is an abomination because it wastes a valuable resource which we could use to reduce crime and improve justice. If you think Scott Peterson deserves to die then you should be OK with him being subjected to experiments that would normally be deemed unethical.

Imagine having a simple, painless way to determine with absolute certainty whether a suspect is lying or telling the truth! It could make trials and errors a thing of the past and greatly improve confidence in the justice system. But to do that we need to study criminals like Scott Peterson, rather than just leaving them in jail to rot.
Click to expand...

1 and 2 have a little bit of overlap. If someone is a psychopath they know that they did it but it doesn't matter and that's why they should be set free.

I would say the Steven Avery case proves No. 1.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Good. The Death Penalty is an abomination.

If he is so obviously guilty, why does he still claim innocence? The possibilities are:-

1. He is a psychopath who cynically thinks he can get off by deceiving us.

2. He truly believes he is innocent, even though he did it.

3. He really is innocent, and the cops framed him.

From cases like Steven Avery we know that 3 is the most likely, but the other possibilities are worth exploring. What evidence do we have that he is a liar or deluded?

When a convicted person is actually guilty they generally accept the verdict, but occasionally they continue to profess their innocence despite the weight of evidence against them. This indicates a psychological problem that could be studied to better understand the criminal mind, perhaps even eventually allowing us to identify and treat 'at risk' people before they commit a heinous crime.

The Death Penalty is an abomination because it wastes a valuable resource which we could use to reduce crime and improve justice. If you think Scott Peterson deserves to die then you should be OK with him being subjected to experiments that would normally be deemed unethical.

Imagine having a simple, painless way to determine with absolute certainty whether a suspect is lying or telling the truth! It could make trials and errors a thing of the past and greatly improve confidence in the justice system. But to do that we need to study criminals like Scott Peterson, rather than just leaving them in jail to rot.
Click to expand...
A nice sensible post Roger :cool:
 
Elagabalus said:
1 and 2 have a little bit of overlap. If someone is a psychopath they know that they did it but it doesn't matter and that's why they should be set free.

I would say the Steven Avery case proves No. 1.
Click to expand...
The problem there is that the evidence does not in any way match the prosecution theory. In Peterson it does seem to, and therefore his claim of innocence may be best explained by the support in continuance of doubters. (yes clumsy English). And this may well have saved his life, such as it is in prison.
 
A series of articles at Psychology Today

Elagabalus said:
1 and 2 have a little bit of overlap. If someone is a psychopath they know that they did it but it doesn't matter and that's why they should be set free.

I would say the Steven Avery case proves No. 1.
Click to expand...
For me the take-home message from the Avery cases is that if the police and prosecution think you did it, it does not matter whether you are actually guilty; they can make it seem as if you are. Sometimes conscious or unconscious bias convicts the innocent, and sometimes it convicts the guilty in a questionable manner. That is one reason why I am not nailing my colors to the mast on this case at present. Another is that former prosecutor Mark Godsey has expressed doubts about the safety of Mr. Peterson's conviction, in part upon what Mr. Godsey saw in 2016 as dubious forensic evidence.

"In the habeas petition filed by Scott’s lawyers that is currently pending in the California Supreme Court, nationally recognized experts who, in contrast to the prosecution’s expert at trial, have actually had extensive training and education in this particular forensic field have now contradicted the conclusions of the expert called by the prosecution at Scott’s trial."
 
Last edited:
wasapi said:
Chris, thank you. I am not familiar with those cases, but I will go back for the link to read about them.
Click to expand...
There is a further detail.
Texas is not where Scott Peterson would choose to be.
Rod Miller is a Texan patholigist and scientific fraudster.
He stated that a New Zealander for whom he orchestrated a conviction would have been executed in Texas, and that might be the only truth he ever spoke.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
For me the take-home message from the Avery cases is that if the police and prosecution think you did it, it does not matter whether you are actually guilty; they can make it seem as if you are.
Click to expand...

To state the obvious...

That is their job. They investigate and, if the investigation causes them to believe you did it, they are tasked with proving it. It is the job of the defense to counter the prosecution’s theory/evidence and it is the job of the jury to seek the truth between the two positions.

Since all involved are humans, there is the possibility of error, in any of the steps of the process. It is, however, the process we have adopted and for the most part, it is a fairly good one.

In the Peterson case, if the expert testimony was subsequently determined to be flawed, then he deserves a retrial. That is the purpose of the multiple processes of appeals. I’m sure the result will be the same, even without the tidal, canine, and fetal growth testimonies. That is because Scott himself is his own worst enemy.
 
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater said:
To state the obvious...

That is their job. They investigate and, if the investigation causes them to believe you did it, they are tasked with proving it. It is the job of the defense to counter the prosecution’s theory/evidence and it is the job of the jury to seek the truth between the two positions.

Since all involved are humans, there is the possibility of error, in any of the steps of the process. It is, however, the process we have adopted and for the most part, it is a fairly good one.
Click to expand...

It depends how they do their job. US police investigators supposedly make a lot of use of the Reid Technique, which has a high level of built-in confirmation bias.
 
Berger v. United States

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." link
 
Samson said:
The problem there is that the evidence does not in any way match the prosecution theory. In Peterson it does seem to,
Click to expand...
If anything the evidence matches too well. All this proves is that cops in the Peterson case did a good job of framing him. They know exactly what evidence they need, so not making the evidence match their theory would be an indication that they didn't manufacture it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom