Well, Scott Peterson was found guilty of the 1st degree murder of his wife, as well as 2nd degree murder of his unborn son.

All I have to say is: It's about freaking time! I really hope the jury decides that he should die for his crimes. Same goes for the Mark/Lori Hacking murder case.

Your thoughts? :rolling:

Not like I didn't see it coming... The news covered how guilty he was every night for 2 months.

Did it?

That's a serious question--I've stopped watching televised news shows.

Scott who? How about some info for us Non-USers.

He did what? When? How?

Wonder if the Jury found him guilty of the murders or just found him guilty of being a total jerk. Hope they give him life in prison in a six by twelve cell with a roommate named Bubba. My advice Scott...stock up on plenty of soap on a rope.

This just backs up my theory that jury's do not understand reasonable doubt.Now I was not in the courtroom so I can only go on the evidence released to the public.From what I can see I can't beleive they got a conviction.
They had absoluley no hard evidence on him.I think they proved he was not a great guy but in my mind they failed to prove he killed them.
It also seems as if the judge manipulated the jury to get the verdict he wanted.This case is ripe for appeal.
Let's be honest here is there anywhere in the United States he could have gotten a fair trial?

From what I have heard from this thread alone The news covered how guilty he was every night for 2 monthsI don't think the trial would have been even remotely fair.

A quick summery for our friends oversees.

Peterson's wife and unborn son dissappeared.After some days of frantic searching her body washed ashore.

The investigation turned to Scott.They discoverd one of her hairs on his fishing boat.Her body washed ashore some 90 miles from where he was fishing on the day of she vanished.It was also uncovered that he was having an affair.

The affair become the central focus of all the news around here.The police taped hours of conversation between Scott and his lover.She tried to get him to confess,he never did.

They never found a murder weapon.They have no witnesses.A cause of death can not even be determined.Now this man may get the death penalty.

Now I am not saying he did not do it,he may have.All I am saying is they did not prove he did it.I think the media tried and convicted Scott Peterson,and that is a travesty of justice.

I am sure a quick google search would turn up many articles on this case,you could hardly get away from it here in the sates for some reason.

That's appaling. If the case is as Dorion described it, then there's no real case against this man whatsoever.

I presume that he can appeal this?

He can appeal. It won't be successfull - it will go to an appeals court, then, possibly, to the state's Supreme Court. If it goes all the way to the latter, it might have a chance, but likely not. Most state supreme courts are capable of distinguishing between evidence and circumstance, and this one seems to be mostly the latter. Hopefully they'll be able to appeal to a just court.

Who is this Peterson guy? After watching Fox :puke: I was under the impression that this guy was somekinda celebrity...

I'm not a big fan of jury trials where the jury decides if the man has done it or not. If he has done it, a jury chosen from amongst the people is probably the right assembly to decide if he's to blame or not. But to evaluate evidence... I really would prefer a professional board of people for that.

If he knew his wife was pregnant and still killed her, he is rightfully guilty of two accounts of murder. If he didn't know, couldn't have known etc, then he shouldn't be made accountable for more than one murder, though.

Yeah, and let him have a pleasant stay with Bubba, as DHB says, if he's really done that.

Well, sounds like the American Public doesn't fully understand the clause of "beyond reasonable doubt". From all the evidence I have heard this man could never be convicted in a New Zealand court. The judge would constantly remind the jury that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused comitted the crime.

Thank God I don't watch tv. Even so, I seem to have absorbed info on the case as if through the atmosphere. So, a few more salient points, IIRC:

1) At first, it was treated as a missing person case, and generated alot of media attention, with lots of public sympathy for Scott.

2) Scott knew his wife was pregnant (it was 8 months afterall); they had decided on the name "Connor." Also, somehow, the body of the child/fetus was found separately from that of the mother. And they washed up only a few miles (not 90) from where Scott had gone fishing.

3) When he fell under suspicion, Scott moved from SF to San Diego, where his parents lived; the police trailed him, afraid he would run to Mexico if he knew how close to being arrested he actually was.

4) The police had the woman he was having an affair with tape their phone calls; these calls, in addition to her testimony, make him out to be a chronic liar, at the very least.

Well, sounds like the American Public doesn't fully understand the clause of "beyond reasonable doubt".Oh, come now. You're talking about the land of OJ. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

If there is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence, ("preponderance of"), you can easily reach "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defense was so desperate on this one that they hired some guy and chick about the size of Scott and Lacy, and a boat identical to the one Scott owns, and tried to fool the jury by showing a video that "proved" he couldn't have thrown her out, that he would fall in, with her still in the boat. This is ridiculous, and it took about 24 hours for someone to do the same experiment and disprove it. Nevermind the fact that they were only showing him trying to push her over the side, it is a lot easier to toss something over the transom of a small boat. :rolleyes:

I agree circumstantional evidence can convict.I think you just need more than they have here.
Yes they proved he was having an affair,they proved he was in the area the body washed ashore,but that is all they have.

There may have been testimony in the courtroom that I am not privy to that may have changed my mind,but from what I have read about the case it does not seem like it.

The fact that they cannot determine cause of death leaves open the question was there even a murder here.(I know this mat seem extreme but we are talking murder here not just of one person but a baby as well.)

Look as I have said I am not saying he is innocent,but the evedence here is to weak to convict.Show me something solid that links him to the crime I will take anything.

[ November 14, 2004, 23:23: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

This guy is a nasty piece of work. He needs either the chair, lethal injection or to be put in a room with no windows and lots of gas. Although I can't agree on 2nd degree murder of an unborn child. The line becomes way too blurry here.

This guy is a nasty piece of work. He needs either the chair, lethal injection or to be put in a room with no windows and lots of gas. Although I can't agree on 2nd degree murder of an unborn child. The line becomes way too blurry here. Even if he didn't murder anyone? I agree circumstantional evidence can convict.In New Zealand you can't convict someone purly on circumstancial evidence. If you prove someone is a lier (what the prosecution did) it doesn't suddenly mean they are lying about not being guilty. Me? I lie sometimes, therefore I'm a lier, therefore I'm guilty of any crime I'm accused of - at least according to the US justice system. There has been no hard evidence that Peterson actually killed his wife and unborn child. There is only a high probability that he did so - therefore there is DOUBT and it's very resonable considering all the evidence is circumstancial.

@ Abomination

That's the problem with our justice system. You could get away with anything.

Or be executed for nothing.

Me? I lie sometimes, therefore I'm a lier, therefore I'm guilty of any crime I'm accused of - at least according to the US justice system. Oh please! that's the worst use of logic I've ever seen! :eek: :rolling:

It's not my logic, but it's how this case was handled. Peterson was labeled a lier so that anything he said would be held under suspicion even if it was true or not. If this is going to be a major piece of evidence used against anyone then the justice system is a joke.

I kind of agree with Abomination. I personally think Scott is the murderer, but I can't figure out how anyone can convict without a reasonable doubt. The only thing I can say without a reasonable doubt is that he is a piece of scum. Does that mean he is a murderer? Quite possibly, but if I was on the jury I would have required some actual evidence of the crime.

Without discussing the merit (or lack thereof) of the evidence and verdict, I'd like to remind you all that when a case is appealed it's not the evidence that gets re-tried. What happens is that the appeals court reviews the proceedings of the lower court to determine if there were any procedural or judicial lapses. If it's found that the trial wasn't conducted properly, then the verdict is overturned. The appeals court does NOT second-guess the jury's thought-process.

Honestly, I'm surprised that he was convicted of anything more than being a selfish prick. Let the apppeals begin.

On a side note, I have to say that I cared about this case only slightly less than I did about OJ, or Jon-Benet Ramsey, or Elizabeth Smart, or... pick any one of the sad, horrendous crimes that the media decides to take as a Cause. As horrid as these situations are, none of them have any impact on my life whatsoever. There's plenty of other sad, horrible news in my own backyard that doesn't get all that press and is far more likely to have some bearing on my day-to-day activities.

Is the media in other countries the same?

In New Zealand you can't convict someone purly on circumstancial evidence. I find this hard to believe. In some instances circumstantial evidence can be more compelling that the non-circumstantial types, such as eye-witnesses. Perhaps by way of example:

Moe is accused of murdering Curly by dropping a piano on his head from a 10th story of a hotel.

Situation A: We have an eye witness account by Larry of Moe cutting the rope that held up the piano while Curry was standing beneath.

Situation B: There was long-standing knowledge of animosity between Moe and Curly known by many of their mutual acquaintances. Some even say that Moe had told them that he would kill Curly if given the opporunity. Additionally, the hotel manager remembers Moe entering the hotel, mere minutes before the murder, with a large pair of bolt cutters in his hand, and taking the elevator upstairs. However, no one actually saw Moe cut the cables in this case.

In the above scenarios, "B" is the much more compelling case, despite the fact that it is entirely circumstantial. Scenario "A" is not circumstantial - you have an eyewitness account, but is less compelling because you have to be able to prove that Larry is a reliable witness. Does Larry have some personal motivation (or even dislike of Moe) that would cause him to lie about what he saw? How certain are we that Larry actually saw Moe - he was 10 stories above him and might not have a clear view. Does Larry need corrective lenses to see correctly, and more to the point, if he does was he wearing his glasses or contact lenses at that time?

Not all murders occur like the assassination of JFK - where you have actual film evidence that it occurred. Writing off circumstantial evidence as too preposterous to convict someone is itself, preposterous.

I personally thought Scott was guilty -- but the evidence was simply not there. It's sad that we either have to protect the legal system and let a killer go, or we convict and make the legal system weaker.

Unfortunately, the judge dismissing the attorney on the jury (persumably because he wasn't willing to convict on circumstantial evidence) will cause the whole thing to be overturned during appeals and yet another killer will waltz away....

I also thought it was suspicious that the judge dismisses two jurors and then they come up with a verdict. I guess beyond a reasonable doubt means getting the people with doubts out of the jury pool.

TGS - those dismissals may actually be the best support for an appeal that Peterson has. As Rally rightly noted, the jury's verdict is not at issue on an appeal, the judge's rulings are what's under scrutiny. I think that this judge may have goofed big time, but we'll see what the justifications were for the juror dismissals.