Laci's brother Brent was the first to speak on the victim's impact. Shortly into his rant against Scott, SP's parents began to yell from the gallery, saying to Brent "You're a liar!" and "He didn't do it!" The judge told them he would have them removed if there were anymore outbursts, adding, "I don't care who you are".
After Laci's family spoke, each one speaking to Scott directly and telling him he was evil, the judge asked Mark Geragos if Scott Peterson wanted to make a statement. Geragos stated that SP did not want to speak but that his parents wanted to speak as victims. The judge denied their request.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
They should have removed his parents from the courtroom for that horrible behaviour. His parents as victims? Please. If Scott doesn't have the ability to speak for himself, then his parents should not be allowed to either. It's not like he is a minor.
After the outburst, Lee Peterson left the courtroom. A few moments later, Jackie Peterson left the courtroom "in a huff". Geez, I understand them wanting to stand by their son, but this was not their time and place to act out. Laci's family has waited a long long time to finally say what they needed to say to Scott. They should've respected that.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
Listen... I have tried and tried to understand this case...
I just don't get it.... are people such sheep of the tabloids??
HOW ON EARTH DO WE SET A PRECEDENT OF CONVICTION AND DEATH PENALTY.... WITHOUT EVIDENCE??????
Is he a likely suspect... sure.
BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Should we routinely kill to avenge infedelity now??
Have we become as theocratic as the extremist muslim tribes in how we run a justice system??
CAN SOMEONE ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS CONVICTION TO ME?
And please do not sully the word "evidence" by placing 'circumstantial' in front of it!!!!!!!!
Circumstances should only be relevant post conviction in a sentencing phase... NOT ... NOT be the meat of the prosecution!!!
No one { no matter how unlikeable } should be convicted of a death penalty offence without physical evidence and/or eye witness testimony!! What kind of puritanical society are we developing where the suspicion of guilt and questionable morality can substitute EVIDENCE?
Decide if the path to a better future lies in building a better war machine or in building the relationships that will make the war machine obsolete!
chelktty said this in post #4 : After the outburst, Lee Peterson left the courtroom. A few moments later, Jackie Peterson left the courtroom "in a huff". Geez, I understand them wanting to stand by their son, but this was not their time and place to act out. Laci's family has waited a long long time to finally say what they needed to say to Scott. They should've respected that.
Exactly Chel. They should have respected her parents time to say what they needed to say. They should have walked out before it came to an outburst.
Here in CA, we are still waiting for the nightstalker to be executed. He was convicted in the late 80's. Scott will die an old man before he even gets a date.
rowdyrjp said this in post #5 : Listen... I have tried and tried to understand this case...
I just don't get it.... are people such sheep of the tabloids??
HOW ON EARTH DO WE SET A PRECEDENT OF CONVICTION AND DEATH PENALTY.... WITHOUT EVIDENCE??????
Is he a likely suspect... sure.
BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
Should we routinely kill to avenge infedelity now??
Have we become as theocratic as the extremist muslim tribes in how we run a justice system??
CAN SOMEONE ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS CONVICTION TO ME?
And please do not sully the word "evidence" by placing 'circumstantial' in front of it!!!!!!!!
Circumstances should only be relevant post conviction in a sentencing phase... NOT ... NOT be the meat of the prosecution!!!
No one { no matter how unlikeable } should be convicted of a death penalty offence without physical evidence and/or eye witness testimony!! What kind of puritanical society are we developing where the suspicion of guilt and questionable morality can substitute EVIDENCE?
HI ROWDY!!!
I havent "seen" you in so long! Missed ya!
Anyhow...yes, I would agree with you!
Well...circumstantial evidence is "good" evidence...the only issue with it that I see is that its more of a story presented by the DA...a theory of sorts...not a firm fact. Thats where the problem with circumstantial comes in.
So I think it should factor..but to take that "story" and turn it into a death penalty case...I dont agree with that...at all.
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)
I saw interviews with some of the jurors and all of them were completely convinced Scott did it. I know everybody assumes all jurors are stupid (until they have jury duty), but these people heard the case and decided on the death penalty. There was no DNA evidence which has spoiled everybody in recent years, but when everything was taken as a whole it became pretty obvious Scott was the man. I mean, he was caught trying to get across the border after he had cut and dyed his hair, grew a beard and had 10,000 dollars of cash on him. There's no doubt in my mind they got the right guy.
jrkiv said this in post #10 : I saw interviews with some of the jurors and all of them were completely convinced Scott did it. I know everybody assumes all jurors are stupid (until they have jury duty), but these people heard the case and decided on the death penalty. There was no DNA evidence which has spoiled everybody in recent years, but when everything was taken as a whole it became pretty obvious Scott was the man. I mean, he was caught trying to get across the border after he had cut and dyed his hair, grew a beard and had 10,000 dollars of cash on him. There's no doubt in my mind they got the right guy.
Right...you just spelled out a case for circumstantial evidence. Thats the point.
And for the record 6 detectives/agents testified that Scott was NOT crossing the border...he was going the opposite way..back to his parents house.
Thats the whole problem with this case...people made assumptions beforehand..and they never let it go.
BTW....DNA isnt the only form of hard evidence you know.
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)
03-16-2005 05:47 PM
His parents as victims? Please. 
If Scott doesn't have the ability to speak for himself, then his parents should not be allowed to either. It's not like he is a minor.
