• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peterson is Guilty

Ladyhawk

Muse
Ladyhawk
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Messages
847
Found guilty of 1st Degree for Laci with special circumstances. 2nd degree for unborn son. Jury to reconvene to determine sentence in 10 days....


for those of you who haven't yet heard...


(Edited to add: Special circumstances means potential for death penalty)
 
I get your meaning. The judicial system's stock just went up a couple of points for me, too. For how long, remains to be seen...
 
Peterson Trial

This is one of those cases in which we will never know for sure who killed Lacy Peterson. Pretty much a coin toss.

Should have been a lot more forensic evidence if he actually did it. And it wasn't there. And I do wonder who was surfing their computer looking for scarves when she was supposed to be dead. Wonder why no one came forward on this?

I had predicted at the start that he would be found guilty because he would be portrayed as such a cad that the jury would hate him.

But the bottom line, is that people are dead, families are destroyed, and if Peterson didn't do it, there are killers still out there.
 
I don't get it - who is he? Somebody famous? (I don't watch tv or listen to the radio, so I am majorly out of touch).

I read the cnn report, it just sounds like another (very sad) murder, why is it national news?
 
roger said:
I don't get it - who is he? Somebody famous? (I don't watch tv or listen to the radio, so I am majorly out of touch).

I read the cnn report, it just sounds like another (very sad) murder, why is it national news?
Click to expand...

I think it happened during a slow news week. Remember the Menendez murders?
 
roger said:
I don't get it - who is he? Somebody famous? (I don't watch tv or listen to the radio, so I am majorly out of touch).

I read the cnn report, it just sounds like another (very sad) murder, why is it national news?
Click to expand...


Because they were beautiful people--you know the tabloid-soap opera thingy effect. Also the circumstances made the story an ongoing news event--had that Susan Smith (she drowned her kids in a car) umbrella of suspicion story-didn't-fit-wierd-events stuff going on.


I think I'm mostly shocked because they were playing musical jurors in the end, and also I think there was doubt. I mean there had to be some reasonable doubt.

Oh and another thing-- after the Martha Stewart verdict, I can't help but think the jurors have to be sending a message somehow.
 
I know nothing of the case except the headlines. The jury was not unanimous, so they got rid of two jurors. Now we have a "unanimous" jury. Perhaps if we had gotten rid of the other 10, we could have a unanimous not guilty verdict. What a joke.

CBL
 
With all that jury mess its sure to be sent back on appeal. No way will that jury swapping fly in a capitol case.

He wont get the death penalty. Hes a clean cut whiteguy.
 
Tmy said:
With all that jury mess its sure to be sent back on appeal. No way will that jury swapping fly in a capitol case.

He wont get the death penalty. Hes a clean cut whiteguy.
Click to expand...


Well here in Cali, I believe all death penalty's are automatically appealed. But unfortunately, your right about the clean cut whiteguy part.
 
CBL4 said:
I know nothing of the case except the headlines. The jury was not unanimous, so they got rid of two jurors. Now we have a "unanimous" jury.
Click to expand...

For "knowing nothing except the headlines", you seem to have quite a lot of inside knowledge.

The first juror was kicked off for the explicit reason that she was "doing outside research", yet you were able to determine from the headlines that she was dismissed in order to make the jury unanimous.

The reason for the second dismissal has not yet been made public, although it is not unprecedented to dismiss jurors for being an impediment to rational deliberation. I'm not sure which headlines informed you of the still-secret reason, but since the explanation you suggest would be obvious grounds for a reversal on appeal, it is unlikely the court would order such a removal.

What a joke.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry then, I misunderstood.
 
Did anyone else see the irony in that SP is both a pathological liar and a fertilizer salesman?
 
Peterson

Well, there was a mountain of reasonable doubt in this case. And there was no forensic evidence.

I'm not sure why the last juror who was a doctor lawyer, was probably actually looking at the evidence. The other jurors were probably angry at them because they wanted to get out of there. So they got rid of him, and quickly arrived at a verdict.

But I do believe that some countries do give the death penalty for adultery. Maybe this is what they were thinking.
 
doctor lawyer

I meant the doctor lawyer, was probably actually looking at the evidence or the lack thereof. But who knows. Sounds like the guy is kind of private, so we may never know.
 
From the get-go, I was pretty sure - say 98% - that he did it. But there was a small part of me that kept saying, "I could eat a dictionary and puke a better alibi than this - if he did it, why wouldn't he have come up with a better one?"

For everyone here who's so certain the jury was right or the jury was wrong: If you weren't sitting in the courtroom watching the testimony and examining the evidence, you can't possibly know whether their decision was justified or not. Ask yourself how many times you've read something here that put a new light on an issue, a point of view that had never occurred to you. You think that doesn't happen in a jury room?
 
The first juror was kicked off for the explicit reason that she was "doing outside research", yet you were able to determine from the headlines that she was dismissed in order to make the jury unanimous
Click to expand...
The jury is deadlocked for a week. Then two jurors get dismissed. There is a verdict a day later. This does not pass the smell test.

IMO, if a jury cannot reach a verdict in a day or two, there is reasonable doubt. Badgering jurors to be unanimous defeats the purpose of unanimaty. Badgering followed by two dismissal followed by a conviction is not justice.

Since most of the jurors thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I imagine he is guilty. However, if one or two unbiased jurors thought otherwise for a week, he should not be convicted. A new trial is in order.

CBL
 
My personal opinion is that he did it. But if I were on the jury I would have voted not guilty all the way. There WAS reasonable doubt.
 
I don't think there was enough reasonable doubt. His 'alibi' puts him in the area the body was dumped. He had "cause" to kill her (wanting to keep it going with his mistress). The home made cement anchors were not explained away.

Did you hear the lies his parents told the courts about why he just happened to have 15 thousand bucks on his person when attempting to go on some kind of trip? His mom says she accidently withdrew his money, and had just given it back to him.

Not only that, but nobody else had any reason to kill her. There were no signs she was kidnapped. He tried to come up with lame excuses, but nothing else was remotely provable.

The most possible scenario is that he drugged and then strangled her somehow. No blood, no mess. The anchors were used to keep her under water. That is how the baby got expelled, she was under for a period of time.

I see no doubt at all that he did it.
 
CBL4 said:
The jury is deadlocked for a week. Then two jurors get dismissed. There is a verdict a day later. This does not pass the smell test.

IMO, if a jury cannot reach a verdict in a day or two, there is reasonable doubt. Badgering jurors to be unanimous defeats the purpose of unanimaty. Badgering followed by two dismissal followed by a conviction is not justice.

Since most of the jurors thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I imagine he is guilty. However, if one or two unbiased jurors thought otherwise for a week, he should not be convicted. A new trial is in order.

CBL
Click to expand...

Once you hear the reasons for the jurors dismissal, it will make sense. The woman had done some research on her own - a forbidden practice in a jury. The guy who was acting as jury foreman was deliberately trying for hung jury, he wouldn't let the jurors poll for verdict.

The case against Peterson is all circumstantial, but there is a very substantial amount of circumstantial evidence, including that Scott told Ms. Fry that his wife and child were dead prior to the murder.

edited: I think I misspoke on that last statement. I believe it was prior to the murder investigation, rather than the murder. At that time, I think Lacy was still just considered missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom