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.

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.