well, if the evidence was obtained illegally without a warrant, then it should not be allowed.

OK, I'll be REALLY shocked if this doesn't end up in a whole new trial after appeals - this is just rediculous. There have been THREE jurors replaced - and two during deliberations. I find this whole thing astounding.

But my point is... whether it's supposed to be included or not, you can't just erase it from your mind.

If it was shown to be nearly impossible to dump that body along with all the concrete blocks and the jurors saw that only to have the judge say, "You can't use that." ... how can that not affect your decision?

That'd be like catching your girlfriend cheating on you because you snuck into this club you weren't supposed to be in in the first place and having someone say, "Forget about it, you weren't supposed to be there to begin with!" Yeah, so? She still cheated.

As for the jurors being replaced - it's ridiculous. Look at what they're replacing them with... all kinds of people that would be biased against him. That's wrong in so many ways.

They make it a point to say "The juror was replaced with a woman aged 20-30 and a mother of four children who wept during the trial as the evidence of the decayed corpses were displayed." Yeah, I'm sure her choice will be one based on fact and evidence as opposed to raw emotion.

To be fair, alternate jurors are selected at the same time as the actual jurors and through the same process. They are subject to the same rules as actual jurors as well, in case they need to become jurors. So, the people that were selected as alternates were fairly chosen before the fact of their reactions to the case were known. I agree they appear likely to be biased against him though, but that's part of the "art" of jury selection.

Guilty...guess it's time for the appeals. I'd really like to know why the third juror was dismissed....some of the judges earlier comments seemed like he was willing to dismiss jurors who were simply impediments to reaching a consensus.

Wasnt it because they were doing their own research? I kinda figured that he would be guilty though. From what i saw during the begining of the investigation, it was pretty obvious that be did it, with the wave currents info, him dying his hair, and taking all his money out, and going to mexico.

GUILTY! Dirty rat bastard...:(

One was - the other they did not report the reason for.

Just because he was found guilty doesn't mean he did it :thumbsup:

There wasn't even enough evidence to link him to the crime.

Conversely, take a look at the OJ murder trial. More than enough evidence was shown to convict him, yet he got off with "Not Guilty" because his lawyers were good bullshitters. Doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[edit]
It's pretty scary if you think about it... what if you were in his shoes and you know you didn't do it, yet everyone believed you did? Kinda sad.

well, that's why a judge can declare a mistrial.

the analogy is flawed. warrants exist to curtail the powers of state. The court doesn't exist to "find out the truth". The court exists to carry out justice while maintaining the rights of the people.

I agree.

Yeah well, if you were in his shoes, and you didn't do it, wouldn't you do everything in your power to cooperate with the police? Instead of lie, dye your hair and have a large amount of money right after the bodies were found?

If it smells like a skunk, and looks like a skunk, it's gonna be a skunk.

But yeah, another trial in the media spotlight handled horribly.

People always think they'd know what they would do in a situation like that, but they don't.

Who's to say you wouldn't flip out if you were framed (which is a theory that they used)? In a calm state of mine I'm in now, it's easy to say, "Nah, I'd cooperate," but in the moment when your emotions take over, you have no idea what you'd do. (I already explained this all in a past Peterson thread, so if you want details, dig it up).

But anyway, a high profile media case is not determined by facts or evidence, but public opinion.

This case was shown to be "mother and child murdered, father suspected", so naturally people take the "guilty until proven innocent" perspective and say things like, "How can that bastard do that to his family?" I've seen it first hand, and it's BS. Especially women with children.. they immediately show disgust toward him, yet don't even follow "innocent till proven guilty".

I think if this case didn't get as much attention as it did, it would've turned out differently.

[edit]
To elaborate more, the prosecution did a good job of revealing portions of his personal life to try and make him look like a bad person - like the fact he cheated on his wife and was a liar. So naturally the effects of that on people are, "What an asshole, he cheated on his pregnant wife."

Asshole? Most definitely. But it doesn't mean he killed her. We all make stupid choices in life... a lot of people cheat and lie on their spouses, but it certainly doesn't mean you're a killer. Other than that, what evidence was there? Trying to flee or hide doesn't equate to guilt. OJ took off in a White Bronco and was found not guilty.

That's the only thing the prosecution had going for them... just like in the OJ murder trial, they tried to make it appear that because Mark Fuhrman (sp?) was racist, that means the entire LAPD planted evidence against him. That's a conspiracy theory of massive proportions.

Play the race card in LA after something like the '92 riots, what do you think will happen if he is found guilty?

This case is the same... god forbid a man cheats on his wife and is found not guilty. Mothers and women across america would be outraged, and I do believe that affected the outcome.

Stompy,

Points well taken.
The evidence we've been given publicly doesn't actually support Averett's understanding of Scott's behavior.

fckm: the courts are certainly established to determine facts and come to a version of truth--nothing more or less.

The judge and jury are "fact-finders" and are not to balance those facts against personal or social considerations. Our court systems are supposed to operate in a vacuum, although I'll be one of the first to admit they don't in practice.

...people get murdered everyday. why is this case so important? i'm not saying i don't care...actually that's exactly what i'm saying. there are plenty of murders that go unnoticed and nobody cares those people. what's so special about this case?
so he's been found guilty. if in fact he did do it, and is very aware that he did it, he should rot.

I disagree with this. Juries are there to listen to the testimony of witnesses and decide guilt or innocence. They're specifically told to not attempt to find out facts for themselves. Judges are there to make sure the attorneys present evidence properly in accordance with the law.

Of course these are generalizations.

Lets hope this will be the last big media circus trial for 2004. He's SO guilty, and I'm pleasantly surprised the jury actually figured it out too.

You can disagree if you want. Your conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the process, however.

Juries are not supposed to conduct independent research. That may be where you get the notion that they can not "find out facts for themselves."

Juries, and judges in bench trials, listen to evidence and decide what the facts are. They determine whether something is a fact or not a fact and then deliberate over those facts.

No appeals court can overturn a question of fact, as it has already been decided by a jury (or judge). They can only review procedural error.

It always amazes me that juries can be found these days. The jurors in this and the OJ trial seem like regular people. How is it that they have avoided all the media attention leading up to the trial?

Well, I am only knowledgable from what I've had judges tell me, although I have since learned that judges do not always tell juries everything they need to know when deliberating cases. Such as being able to determine the justness of a law.

The only thing I know for sure is that if I were sitting in a courtroom, charged with murdering my wife, knowing that I hadn't done it, I would at every opportunity be screaming, " I DIDN'T DO IT." It just blows me away how people, innocent or not, just sit there calmly listening to evidence saying you killed your spouse. Blows me away.

and then you'd be held in contempt of court, then removed from court, and then you wouldn't be allowed to observe the proceedings against you.

Yeah. Sounds like a brilliant idea :rolleyes:

I don't understand why there's so much attention on this case, seeing how murder is, unfortunately, not uncommon. But the consideration of the unborn child as a a full person might pop up again in the near future...

I'm astounded he was found guilty of murder on purely circumstantial evidence. The whole case against him was built on speculation, not facts, and they buried him. I, for one, find this verdict terrifying. Be he guilty or innocent, nothing was, by any means, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow. he's getting the injection. I have restored faith in our legal system (alrighty, not quite). This is the most he's-so-guilty-it's-not-even-funny trial since OJ. And yes, I read the rest of the thread (alright, I skimmed it) and it's late here and I can't come up with any responses yet. I'll get back to you.

What a waste of time. Lethal injection's ass.

A brand-spanking new .45 round costs about twenty cents, works faster, and there's no doubt that about when the bastard is dead. Hell. A reload would work just as well and is even cheaper!

I agree. Like most casual observers I think he is probably guilty as hell. But when we can convict someone based on emotions and circumstantial evidence without a shred of real evidence we are all at risk.

I was really never convinced that he did it personally. As mentioned previously in this thread, it was all circumstantial evidence. I'm still not convinced. The media turned this case into a circus like they always do and in the process tainted everyone in the country against this man.

If he did it, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. I don’t agree with the death penalty. It’s an easy way out. From someone who has spent time in the system, knowing that you’re never going to see freedom again is a punishment far greater then death. Once you’re dead, you’re free, and depending on your religious believes that could mean forgiveness.

Peterson is in California, so he won’t get executed for decades, if ever. He will luckily have plenty of time to reflect on the mistake in judgment that cost him his freedom and life.

(never mind)

I say fry his guilty ass

It'll be ages before he's even executed.

There's something like 600 people ahead of him, so they're projecting it'll be decades before they even get around to him.

They only still "fry" in Nebraska...and, I think maybe Alabama. He'll get the "life vaccination", in about...oh...30 years.

here's what bugs me.. the fact that the jurors held his character in question during the penalty phase. You can't do that in the state of California. You can reject the mitigating factors but you cannot turn around and put those in the basket with the reasons to give the death penalty. I think this case is highly appealable and hopefully there will be a retrial. I for one just don't think he did it.. if he did then he's pretty stupid considering how he didn't really hide it.

Electric chair is still in use in Florida as well. Not sure if has used in a while, but I recall it being used while I lived there in years past.

I just checked wikipedia and the states still using the electric chair are Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

/end thread jack

I wish that everybody would stop talking about it. It wasn't really all that important. The people were nobody's, and the case wasn't really all that different.