Jury debates over Scott Peterson’s fate…and finds him guilty
 

So the trial for the “husband from hell” is just about over. With the closing arguments complete, now we all have to wait for the jury to deliberate.

How does everyone feel about this case? Do you think he’ll walk or get what he deserves? Also – I’ve been told that the judge is only going to give a 2-hour notice once the jury has reached its verdict. We do have a cable TV in the lounge area here at work, so I’ve been setting it to Court TV to try and keep up-to-date. I even noticed on their website that you can get the verdict sent to your cell phone, which is pretty crazy (though I’m the only one of my friends without one yet!)

Personally, there’s nothing I’d rather see than a death sentence for this disgusting human, though life in prison wouldn’t be a bad 2nd option either.

Kimberly

I don't want to distract too much from your discussion, but I don't think that this case ever had a rightful place in the national news. Murder happens all the time, we just pay attention to it when it's like a soap opera. There are so many important things that could have been covered, but across major networks the hours of wasted coverage probably add up to years by now.

Additionally, thanks to the media coverage, there's no way that anyone who ever watches TV could be a perfectly fair and impartial juror.

I must admit to knowing nothing about the case, but it is good to see you have decided to do away with that excessive jury thing. Let's make everything trial by media.

give him the chair

I've heard nothing about this case, I don't watch TV as much as I'd like to just sit around and relax :(

I find that unless I'm sitting in the jury box, my opinion on specific ongoing trial cases is useless.

I honestly can't figure out why this case has gotten so much attention, it was a made for tv movie, has gotten more than one cover of People magazine, and has gotten national attention. The guy who did the same thing in Utah, hasn't gotten near the amount of attention.

Husbands murder their wives everyday, what made this case so special?

and wives killing their husbands, and people killing their kids get attention too

I think it got so much attention because she was missing for so long before they found her. A missing person's case...specially a woman 2 months away from giving birth...gets a lot of attention....

so naturally when it comes out scott was having an affair and then she turned up dead the public is going to follow the case

there are lots of cases that get attention like this...Lori Hacking, Pamela Smart, Susan Smith, the military guy Jeffrey MacDonald (book was Fatal Vision), Diane Downs (book was Small Sacrifices)...the list goes on and on

I'm going against the trend here.. I don't think he did it. Yes I said it. I don't think he's guilty of murder. There just isn't enough (from what I've seen) that would convince me that he did it. Sure he's a terrible husband and a liar, but I just don't think he murdered Lacy.

Personally, I think it got so much initial attention because Lacy's smile was so damned hypnotic. I believe the natural subconcious reaction to her photos was, "Damn, how could anybody hurt such a beautiful smile?"

Why did this case get so much attention? They're beautiful people. Plain and simple. Yeah, she was missing for months and was pregnant, which did give lots of attention to the case. But here in Albany, NY a woman, Cassie Kindlon went missing after a fight with her boyfriend. The boyfriend had a histroy of being abusive towards her. Cassie was 19, and had 2 young children. Why didn't this case get national coverage?

She wasn't a beauty. She was of mixed race, her boyfriend was black.

She went missing in May and her body was found a little less than a month ago. It's sick that the media will fixate on certian cases, while others go unoticed.

I think Averett's right. Cause seriously: Lacy was cute. And if I were a female, I would definitely be attracted to Scott.

On a more serious note, I hope the jury does the right thing and decides objectively, not based on their emotions. From what I understand of the case, they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think he's probably guilty, but I would not find a person guilty if I didn't know for sure. The media really killed his chances of a fair trial though.

I agree with what most have said already. I'm not sure why this case has received more attention than say the case Averett is referring to. I do think he won't receive a fair trial and if he did do it, I think he will get off. Media imo has much to blame for that.

I think just the opposite. The media determined his guilt before a jury was even chosen, and they made sure everyone knew that they felt he was guilty.

I live in the Bay Area and am sick of all the media attention it is getting. Were she not white this wouldn't even be known outside of where it happened.

Also: what really pissed me off about this was when the Palo Alto Daily News ran an article where readers could enter a contest to pick the jury from the jury pool. Whoever was closest to the actual jury selected won some prize or something. Probably a lifetime subscription to the Enquirer. Damn sensationalism. I sent them a scolding email and have not read that paper since.

He did it. If he was a true fisherman he would know, when asked what he was fishing for. Yet he was researching the currents in SF bay. Good fisherman learn what the currents can do and how they affect where the fish are. But they know what type of fish they are fishing for!!

Amen to that. Too many people are so quick to judge without the facts it is sad. Says volumes about this scoiety we live in.

He might be a stupid fisherman :)

just thought I'd point out that "reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt". These people get crucified in the media, and if it starts before voir dire (jury selection), it is possible to contaminate the pool, but more often than not on the case-of-the-moment the jury gets sequestered and doesn't see the media stuff anyway.
Though mistakes do happen, it is important to note:
74% of crimes do not result in arrest
76% of charges filed are dropped or taken to juvenile court
22% of charges go to trial
thus only 14 of 1,000 crimes actually go to trial
These people are not just chosen randomly, they are more often than not guilty, so assuming guilt as a person who is not actually assigned to determine the guilt is probably a safe bet. It's not cost-effective to frame people, wrongful prosecution is almost *always* a result of the prosecution believing incorrect witness testimony.
If a guy's wife disappears in the middle of a period of marriage conflict, statistically, he probably is a good first place to look.
going back to the "beyond the shadow of the doubt" fallacy that many people assume, it's not "prove that it was him and not someone who looked exactly like him", it's "what would a reasonable person infer from this situation?"
civil trials are even looser in regards to this, OJ is a good example.

I understand this, however I have heard very little evidence against him that hasn't been debunked, aside for the evidence that he's a crappy person.

i understand that the govmt of cali will spend millions on the prosecution of this guy ( who could be and probbaly will be found guilty) they spent 22 weeks "proving" there case. HA 22 weeks... what did they have almost 200 wittnesses... unbelivable the judicial system of this great county is royally fucked up.. if this was just poor family or "normal" people wich they seem to have been befor the dissapearance this disgrace would never have happened. my mind is still blown that has tuened into such a circus.

I was in Cali at the start of this, and the way the prosecution behaved was inexcusible. Not giving evidence to the defense, etc. I'm surprised the judge didn't dismiss the case. So far, I haven't heard any actually evidence that Perterson murdered his wife. Like the defense attorney said, the prosecution did a great job proving that Perterson is an asshole, but not a murderer.

This is all well and good, until it is you on trial.

murdered pregnant WHITE FEMALE = National News

murdered pregnant Minority Female= Who Cares

LMAO, did he really say that? In those words? That would be classic.

ive been following this case in england yes we even know about it here courtsey of fox news, however been in england i proberly dont know as much information as you american guys but from what i do know and been a law student i think he will walk most of the evidence i have heard seems to be circumstantial with no real proof so i think at the end of the day it will be another oj simpson case.
however on saying that i think this guy is guilty as hell, hes too cool and smary about it all, he showed no hurt leading up to his arrest when laci was first missing infact for somebody facing the death penalty he looks as if he doesnt care what happens to him
by the way have they reached a verdict yet we have had no word over here

A lot of this has been discussed already in this thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...scott+peterson

My opinion can be summed up in three points:

1. Why do we care?
2. The media is once again exploiting your desire for drama instead of covering stories that matter
3. I'm a bit of a hypocrite. He probably did it.

This peterson thing is not worthy of our attention.

It seems like pretty much everyone here has already decided he did it... I dont know enough about the case to make a judgment. If he is guilty I hope he will get asuitable punishment, but I dont really favour the death penalty.

SecretMethod70

well, not precisely in those words.

i read today that the jury may NOT be able to come to a conclusion....mistrial?

I hope he gets off.

It's funny the amount of people who label him as guilty, yet they don't realize that there really isn't anything linking him to the murders aside from his alibi, which really doesn't prove jack shit. None of the evidence shows he did it, not to mention they tested the boat and found it impossible to dump a 150+ lb body off the side without the boat tipping.

They brought up a theory that someone dumped the body there after he gave his alibi and it was slapped all over tv and newspapers.

As for him changing his appearance, I'd do the same fuckin thing if my wife disappeared and I went fishing to clear my head, then mysteriously the bodies are found in that exact spot later on. I'd flip the fuck out, because obviously people would think it's me. What else do you do? People panic in those situations and make stupid decisions.

It's not even a far fetched theory, either. They can't counter it at all.

Innocent till proven guilty, because when it's your turn to get tried (and you never know, it could happen to you), I'm sure you'd be thinking the same damn thing.

I dunno, this story from CNN.com bothers me. What about anyone else?

It seems to me that if a juror feels strongly that he should be found guilty or not guilty, that juror SHOULD stick to their guns - so long as they are openly explaining the reasons for their position to the other jurors and are listening intently to the other jurors' opinions. I favor a hung jury over a falsely unanimous jury any day.

Another thing that is bothersome to me is this deal with the boat. Alright, so the jury conducted their own "experiment." It shouldn't take a genius to point out that the jury is not exactly made up of people qualified to be conducting "experiments." But, hey, if you're gonna let them do that, I guess you're gonna let them do that. But it is bothersome to me that the judge would allow the jury to conduct their own experiment yet not allow them to see a similar experiment conducted by people with whom there is actually a basis for believing they know what they're doing - unlike the jury themselves.

haha, the video "performed by the defense" is supposed to be more realistic? I would guess the juror's experiment was MUCH closer to the reality of the situation than any BS the defense put together. It's the same as OJ's bloody glove. Ridiculous.
Whenever any defense hangs together on some kind of huge conspiracy to frame a guy that is already acting suspicious as hell... at least OJ had the race card lend a shred of credence to it.

Ah, I did misread the article the first time. I didn't notice the defense were the actual people performing the experiment in the video. Nonetheless, I see no reason - especially in a death penalty trial - to not allow it.

Independent researchers also performed experiments, but it wasn't allowed in court, either.

I also want to add that one further component of why this was catipulted into the national media seemed to be the links between lacie's pregnancy, the prosecutor's decision to charge scott with double murder (since we have an interesting criminal statute that defines unborn babies as persons), its implications for the broader social debate of abortion, and its timing--occurring when abortion issues were being pondered during Bush's presidency and discussing began about possible court appointees.

Yeah, that whole "not allowing" thing is ridiculous. How can you not allow it and just expect everyone to forget about it?

That'd be like finding pictures of the guy in the act of killing his wife, then telling people, "Ok, just ... don't use that. Use everything but that." Yeah, right :rolleyes:

I don't like the fact that this story has reached the media magnitude it has, but then again, I find myself curiously entertained my the entire situation. I have a close friend that lives a block from the Peterson house and I go down to Modesto quite often. I believe in Innocent before Guilty, but to me, the circumstantial evidence seems to be stacked against Scott. I have to say he is not only an asshole, but guilty as well. Fry the bastard!

Yeah, that whole changing appearance, bag full of cash thing doesn't exactly scream innocent.