There is no evidence beyond CIRCUMSTANTIAL that says Scott Peterson killed Laci. There is no DNA, camera, audio or eye witness to confirm that he is responsible. There is only the opinion of 12 jurors, fellow human beings that are no better than Scott Peterson.
The case is not provable and he should be walking free like O.J. Simpson. This is unfortunate, but it is possible the people are capable of committing the perfect murder, meaning they can get away with it. I am not saying it is the case with Scott and O.J., but it could be.
Circumstantial, yes. Now before I go on, let's not start with the O.J. case. I don't want to get started on that.
But there are some glaring points in this case. The dude was cheating on his pregnant wife, he was fishing the day she went missing downstream from where the bodies were found, he was trying to sell her car and their house about a week into the search... you get the idea. I don't think it's that much of a leap to see that this guy probably did it.
Notice I said *probably*. Albeit I am not a member of the jury or that well-versed in this case as others might be. But from I have read, I could not say he is guiltly *beyond a resonable doubt*.
I'm new to this debate, but I was just thinking the same. I do NOT want to see Scott Peterson put to death.
I think death penalties should be for cases where there is INDISPUTABLE evidence.
If I were a member on the jury, I would have reasonable doubt. I wouldn't want someone to be put to death at ANY time, if there is even a slight possibility that it could be some freakish coincidence.
Sure Scott looks guilty by all the circumstantial evidence introduced, but what about evidence that wasn't able to be produce?
What if someone else killed Laci, and Scott was the hapless hubby who may have intended to leave his wife, or is just a cheating cad with no feelings? There are men and women out there with no conscious or remorse for others.
I think he's a liar, and he probably thought he was a free man, now that his wife was gone missing, then dead. He was free to pursue his dreams and whatever else he wanted (if not Laci). So that doesn't make him to be an evil monster who killed his wife and child necessarily. It makes him an ***hole!
Since when do we put ***holes to death without cold hard evidence?
He should live, if by chance he did commit those crimes....life in prison should be sufficient. There is no other alternative unless he confesses to the crime, which is unlikely.
HECK said this in post #2 : Circumstantial, yes. Now before I go on, let's not start with the O.J. case. I don't want to get started on that.
But there are some glaring points in this case. The dude was cheating on his pregnant wife, he was fishing the day she went missing downstream from where the bodies were found, he was trying to sell her car and their house about a week into the search... you get the idea. I don't think it's that much of a leap to see that this guy probably did it.
-HECK!
My point is that you cannot leap to choosing a death sentence for someone with out proof, which there is none. Only opinion.
- soo? it happens everyday, all the time, does that mean that person killed there wife?
quote:
he was fishing the day she went missing downstream from where the bodies were found
- Could have been the perfect frame? I mean why would Scott Lee Peterson tell police and detectives where he was fishing exact point, if thats where he dumped the body? It makes no sense.
quote:
he was trying to sell her car and their house about a week into the search... you get the idea
- ok... again this brings us to the cirumstantual evidence part. i mean he was selling her car and the house, everyone has a way of dealing with things. emotions are different in everyone. i mean have you ever had a wife that was murdered and you were getting blamed for it, and things werent looking good? You most likely havnt, soo you dont know, maybe you would have reacted the same way.
- possibly someone found out about the cheating thing. i mean maybe someone framed him for what he did, or maybe amber or someone amber knows did something. the police stopped the search to quickly and just focused on him instead of others. i mean we all know he purchased a boat and the ticket and all that, maybe someone knew about it, which isnt hard to find out. soo they did what they did to laci, then KNEW he went fishing, found/followed/ or saw where he was fishing, after his leave, they dumped the body. again, another perfect murder. or possibly it was an accident. a fight that got out of control. he may have told her about amber like he claims, and they got into a scuffle, she was hit and fell, or something and died. a complete accident. but again nothing found besides CIRCUMSTANTUAL evidence, which in my eyes shouldnt result to death. if you dont have more evidence besides what it appears or what it may look like, also known as coincidence (spell check) then you cant sentence a man to death. life is what he should have got.
Just because this man be the biggest jerk, or you dislike him, i cant see that being enough to convict someone of murder! Quote Mark Geregos: Scott Peterson's defense attorny.
Not only your opinion...I completely agree with you Sordid.
Logically, the question of guilt or innocence is severable from the question of appropriate penalty. I am curious for those who felt that there was reasonable doubt, assuming, hypothetically, that the prosecution proved him guilty of this particular crime beyond any doubt whatsoever, do you think he would deserve the death penalty?
- dave
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
No, being a liar does not a murderer make...however if this man was totally incapable of honesty, why is it that so many are willing to take his word that he is innocent? Yes the evidence is largely circumstancial, however being that not one of us is a member of the jury, nor have we been present for the duration of the trial and able to view and listen to every bit of evidence, its impossible to declare without a doubt that he is innocent. To claim he was framed is almost laughable. Who would frame a fertilizer salesman who before this case was a big fat nobody with insecurities about his penis performance? One of the first things investigators rule out is the possibility of the victim or victim's family having any enemies. If she was kidnapped and murdered in some unlikely plot for someone to seek revenge and frame Scott, don't you think he would have mentioned those potential enemies to police? Besides anyone seeking revenge against Scott would more likely just give Laci proof that he was cheating on her...thus making his life a living hell when she would boot him out into the street and take him to the cleaners for child support and household expenses.
And I wouldn't worry sordidmesh...with the fact that there are over 600 inmates on California's death row and the fact that California executes an average of one inmate per year or less, its highly likely that Scott will perish of natural causes before a needle ever finds its way into his arm.
For those of you sobbing over the jury's decision and believe that this angel of a man is undoubtedly innocent, keep in mind that his quality of life on death row will be much better than that he would have had he gotten life in prison... on DR he will remain in a solitary cell, as opposed to becoming a Lifer, where he would be thrown into general population, bunk with a big, mean, scary & hairy thug...and where the other inmates - keen to his infamy, would certainly make a daily playground of his face and rectal region. After all he'd already received threats from other prisoners before the sentencing was even read. At least this way the poor "saint" won't be subjected to such torture and his face will remain unmangled for some deranged idiot chick to fall in love with him through a pen pal relationship and marry the condemned wife and baby killer. Anyway...thats just MY opinion...
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
Too remote and too long a time span to connect back to Scott as the killer dumping Laci body.
quote:
woolfe99 said this in post
Logically, the question of guilt or innocence is severable from the question of appropriate penalty.
Despite the guilt and penalty phases are bifurcated, the jury would still have to maintain some consistency as to applying the sentencing. What they were inconsistent in was with first degrees as to Laci and Conner. Since jury decided Scott planned to killed returning on first degree, then Conner would be the same, not as unintentional being inside her womb.
The jurors said they have NO doubt and as a result felt proper to give death penalty. But they also said the entire murder case was circumstantial and could not see any other possibilities other than Scott.
I am curious for those who felt that there was reasonable doubt, assuming, hypothetically, that the prosecution proved him guilty of this particular crime beyond any doubt whatsoever, do you think he would deserve the death penalty? -- dave
Then I will be the first to say "Fry the b@st@rd!" In fact, let me pull the switch. I believe in death sentences.
The entire surrounding area where bodies washed up was not restricted area nor protected from public access. Therefore, there are lots of doubt without any eye-witness that connected him to transporting Laci's body. Neither forensic experts nor the police dogs detected Laci inside the boat. That pair of plier and hair wasn't corroborated by the dogs or any other hard physical evidence.
But they shouldn't be used when there isn't any uncontroverted HARD evidence supported by solid, solid forensic evidence. Just because the body washed up where he went fishing isn't solid evidence. That's simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. It was separated by a long long long time from when he was there and when the bodies were washed up. I could agree there was MORE a nexus if the cops found the body the same day he was around that place. But it was long long long time later and would create LOTS of reasonable doubt that the real killer in disposing of the bodies would put them there after watching the media and following the reported news of the police divers. That's why this case is so filled with reasonable doubts that it reeks with a faulty theory presented to the jurors.
Logically, the question of guilt or innocence is severable from the question of appropriate penalty. I am curious for those who felt that there was reasonable doubt, assuming, hypothetically, that the prosecution proved him guilty of this particular crime beyond any doubt whatsoever, do you think he would deserve the death penalty?
- dave
If he would have been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of premeditation...then yes, I would have been satisfied with a death sentence...
Right now..its all circumstantial....and unless I am sure 100 percent of their guilt, I am against a death penalty. Too many innocent people have been executed for crimes they didnt commit...
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
chelktty said this in post #9 : I have to side with HECK! on this.
No, being a liar does not a murderer make...however if this man was totally incapable of honesty, why is it that so many are willing to take his word that he is innocent? Yes the evidence is largely circumstancial, however being that not one of us is a member of the jury, nor have we been present for the duration of the trial and able to view and listen to every bit of evidence, its impossible to declare without a doubt that he is innocent. To claim he was framed is almost laughable. Who would frame a fertilizer salesman who before this case was a big fat nobody with insecurities about his penis performance? One of the first things investigators rule out is the possibility of the victim or victim's family having any enemies. If she was kidnapped and murdered in some unlikely plot for someone to seek revenge and frame Scott, don't you think he would have mentioned those potential enemies to police? Besides anyone seeking revenge against Scott would more likely just give Laci proof that he was cheating on her...thus making his life a living hell when she would boot him out into the street and take him to the cleaners for child support and household expenses.
And I wouldn't worry sordidmesh...with the fact that there are over 600 inmates on California's death row and the fact that California executes an average of one inmate per year or less, its highly likely that Scott will perish of natural causes before a needle ever finds its way into his arm.
For those of you sobbing over the jury's decision and believe that this angel of a man is undoubtedly innocent, keep in mind that his quality of life on death row will be much better than that he would have had he gotten life in prison... on DR he will remain in a solitary cell, as opposed to becoming a Lifer, where he would be thrown into general population, bunk with a big, mean, scary & hairy thug...and where the other inmates - keen to his infamy, would certainly make a daily playground of his face and rectal region. After all he'd already received threats from other prisoners before the sentencing was even read. At least this way the poor "saint" won't be subjected to such torture and his face will remain unmangled for some deranged idiot chick to fall in love with him through a pen pal relationship and marry the condemned wife and baby killer. Anyway...thats just MY opinion...
I agree that it will be a long time before anything is carried out...
I dont believe anyone is sobbing over the jury's verdict though as you have suggested...
And he may be a liar...but I do find it odd that some people can say he is a liar but then say he told the truth in other things..(you know..when it was convenient for them to say he was telling the truth...)
BUT..a liar doesnt make a murderer 100 percent. No..we werent in the trial, but those of us that read the transcripts pretty much know what was said and what was heard by the jury...
He is better off with this sentence.....but I am not comfortable giving a person death without 100 percent certainty of their guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is a scary thing sometimes....so many people have been convicted and been innocent....
What about the other man named Scott who was found guilty of killing his wife...he also had an affair, and the circumstances were pretty much the same....later on...he was released when the real killer was found....
Im not saying Scott shouldnt get this if he is guilty of pemeditation. He probably is guilty of killing her...though I dont think it was proved as premed.
But nobody really knows because the evidence (hard evidence) wasnt there to prove that...therefore...its scary to give a sentence like this without real proof.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
- again i was throwing solutions out beside a possible murder. i was saying thats what happened. next off, i agree it will be forever before he meets the needle, and most likely will die of causes if not killed in jail. i wasnt impressed with answers given by the jurors today after trial. if you watched court tv it was funny as hell, how pathetic these answers they gave on certain subjects. the red head Ms Strawberry Shortcake im not sure was even together in the head. geregose already has a good chance at retrial, and now with these jurors, the chances are better. when the head juror the fireman was asked why he though peterson was guilty, he said because he was where the body was found? is that a good enough answer for you? because to me, its not, certainly not good enough for death. you tell me?
Just because this man be the biggest jerk, or you dislike him, i cant see that being enough to convict someone of murder! Quote Mark Geregos: Scott Peterson's defense attorny.
scott_peterson said this in post #13 : - i wasnt impressed with answers given by the jurors today after trial. if you watched court tv it was funny as hell, how pathetic these answers they gave on certain subjects. the red head Ms Strawberry Shortcake im not sure was even together in the head. geregose already has a good chance at retrial, and now with these jurors, the chances are better. when the head juror the fireman was asked why he though peterson was guilty, he said because he was where the body was found? is that a good enough answer for you? because to me, its not, certainly not good enough for death. you tell me?
So you have a link to the questions asked to them and answered by the jurors? I didnt read them but Im certainly curious as to what they were.
Thanks.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Mystic like you, was very surprised that the jury recommended death for a case that was based largely on circumstantial evidence. I think the death penalty should only be an option in cases with DNA evidence and witnesses.
In my personal opinion, I'm disappointed that he didn't get a life sentence.
As for scott_peterson's comments about the jurors, I would imagine after making the decision to sentence someone to death, which if you're not aware, is not an easy decision to make... handing out that decision, watching the reaction of the defendant's family...after weeks of emotional testimony and evidence... that you, if given the exact same situation, would not appear all that "together in the head", nor would you be skilled at answering a barrage of questions from dozens of reporters who are foaming at the mouth just to get a statement. Don't sell these 12 people short. Like I said they sat through months of testimony, evidence and small details that the media may have not released...we did not.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
12-10-2004 10:13 PM
I believe in death sentences. 
The entire surrounding area where bodies washed up was not restricted area nor protected from public access. Therefore, there are lots of doubt without any eye-witness that connected him to transporting Laci's body. Neither forensic experts nor the police dogs detected Laci inside the boat. That pair of plier and hair wasn't corroborated by the dogs or any other hard physical evidence. 
