Awaiting the Peterson verdict.... [Archive]

greatdarkwing

11-10-2004, 11:18 PM

I think he did it, but the circumstancial evidence is pretty weak, especially in a death penalty case.

Not really, too many circumstances that put him with enough of a motive, and enough time to have killed her. For example: The whole umbrella thing is wierd. The whole reason he said he went to the warehouse was to put away the umbrellas. He said he forgot...How could he forget if he was able to put away the boat tarp WHICH WAS STORED UNDER THE UMBRELLAS. Then add the cement. Then add him fishing in the same spot she washed ashore, with expert testimoney saying the decay time matched her being in the water for as long as she was. Then add him being found at the Mexican border (something the Defense barely even touched upon cause they knew they couldn't explain it). All these circumstances point the finger DIRECTLY at Scott. And lets not mention the phone call between Scott and his mother in law where hes listening to a message from her saying they were investigating a lead in the case, and he laughs !!!!!!!!!

~Alex

dissention

11-10-2004, 11:33 PM

Not really, too many circumstances that put him with enough of a motive, and enough time to have killed her. For example: The whole umbrella thing is wierd. The whole reason he said he went to the warehouse was to put away the umbrellas. He said he forgot...How could he forget if he was able to put away the boat tarp WHICH WAS STORED UNDER THE UMBRELLAS. Then add the cement. Then add him fishing in the same spot she washed ashore, with expert testimoney saying the decay time matched her being in the water for as long as she was. Then add him being found at the Mexican border (something the Defense barely even touched upon cause they knew they couldn't explain it). All these circumstances point the finger DIRECTLY at Scott. And lets not mention the phone call between Scott and his mother in law where hes listening to a message from her saying they were investigating a lead in the case, and he laughs !!!!!!!!!

~Alex

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.

greatdarkwing

11-10-2004, 11:37 PM

dissention

11-10-2004, 11:39 PM

I think we agree for once! Dissention, this is a great step forward in our relationship :nod: :laugh:

~Alex

:lol: :lol: :lol:

But, c'mon, wouldn't it have been fun to see Geragos defend Peterson by saying a junk food binge made him do it? :laugh: It worked once before, why not again, eh?

greatdarkwing

11-10-2004, 11:42 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

But, c'mon, wouldn't it have been fun to see Geragos defend Peterson by saying a junk food binge made him do it? :laugh: It worked once before, why not again, eh?
Geragos should just dress up in a clown costume complete with the big red honking nose :laugh: Isnt that an image you'd wanna shake from your head?

~Alex

dissention

11-10-2004, 11:44 PM

Geragos should just dress up in a clown costume complete with the big red honking nose :laugh: Isnt that an image you'd wanna shake from your head?

~Alex

His schnozz is already big enough to honk. ;)

SuzeQuze

11-11-2004, 10:26 AM

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.

I disagree. I believe that there isn't reasonable doubt here. Here is a legal def:

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

So the jurors do not have to be absolutely sure to convict. If they use logic they have to convict because there are no LOGICAL explanations to let Peterson off.

strandinthewind

11-11-2004, 10:30 AM

strandinthewind

11-11-2004, 10:33 AM

I disagree. I believe that there isn't reasonable doubt here. Here is a legal def:

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

So the jurors do not have to be absolutely sure to convict. If they use logic they have to convict because there are no LOGICAL explanations to let Peterson off.

But that is not the point. The point is it is the prosecution's burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. They have not shown that. They have not directly linked him with the crime with anything but circumstantial evidence. But, juries have convicted on circumstantial evidence, which IMO is essentially all that has been shown here.

Again, this is legal theory and procedure and not actual culpability :cool:

SuzeQuze

11-11-2004, 10:36 AM

But that is not the point. The point is it is the prosecution's burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. They have not shown that. They have not directly linked him with the crime with anything but circumstantial evidence. But, juries have convicted on circumstantial evidence, which IMO is essentially all that has been shown here.

Again, this is legal theory and procedure and not actual culpability :cool:

There is only circumstantial evidence, true. But it is extensive and all points to the same conclusion. So, there isn't a REASONable doubt here IMO. The prosecution has laid out the time line and given the jury plenty of information to convict. The problem is you have to be smart to convict this way, and most people aren't :p

strandinthewind

11-11-2004, 10:41 AM

There is only circumstantial evidence, true. But it is extensive and all points to the same conclusion. So, there isn't a REASONable doubt here IMO. The prosecution has laid out the time line and given the jury plenty of information to convict. The problem is you have to be smart to convict this way, and most people aren't :p

Not really, the judge is required to give instructions laying out exaclty what is expected of the jurors and that the prosecution must have demonstrated BARD that each element of the crime(s) were commited by the def. They have not shown that. They have not linked him with the crime. he should not be convicted. AND - convicting him on any other basis is just wrong and undermines the integrity of the legal system. It is tantamount to saying he had an affair so he is a sinner and he deserves the death penalty for that, so we will convict him for that even though that is not the issue in this trial. Granted that is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point :shrug:

I gues it is just a pet peeve of mine when people think that someone should be convicted by something other than the law. The law is there to protect us and many of the alternatives to the reasonable doubt standard are babaric.

SuzeQuze

11-11-2004, 10:50 AM

Not really, the judge is required to give instructions laying out exaclty what is expected of the jurors and that the prosecution must have demonstrated BARD that each element of the crime(s) were commited by the def. They have not shown that. They have not linked him with the crime. he should not be convicted. AND - convicting him on any other basis is just wrong and undermines the integrity of the legal system. It is tantamount to saying he had an affair so he is a sinner and he deserves the death penalty for that, so we will convict him for that even though that is not the issue in this trial. Granted that is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point :shrug:

I gues it is just a pet peeve of mine when people think that someone should be convicted by something other than the law. The law is there to protect us and many of the alternatives to the reasonable doubt standard are babaric.

Unga bunga. Seriously though, I do see your point. I am just frustrated that you cannot convict someone just because it is clear that he committed the crime. And honestly I have not followed the case closely enough to know what the jury has been shown. I do think that sometimes people have trouble understanding that reasonable doubt does not mean that you have no doubt in your mind that the person committed the crime.

strandinthewind

11-11-2004, 07:53 PM

Unga bunga. Seriously though, I do see your point. I am just frustrated that you cannot convict someone just because it is clear that he committed the crime. And honestly I have not followed the case closely enough to know what the jury has been shown. I do think that sometimes people have trouble understanding that reasonable doubt does not mean that you have no doubt in your mind that the person committed the crime.

I know - people think that means you have to be 100% sure and that most def. not is the standard. If it were, there would be few convictions and many less plea bargains because people would want to go to court and let the prosec. face that HUGE burden :cool:

And - it is so frustrating when everyone knows someone did it, but the prosec. ignorantly brings the wrong charges and/or files the case prematurely, like I think they did in this case.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 10:40 AM

I know - people think that means you have to be 100% sure and that most def. not is the standard. If it were, there would be few convictions and many less plea bargains because people would want to go to court and let the prosec. face that HUGE burden :cool:

And - it is so frustrating when everyone knows someone did it, but the prosec. ignorantly brings the wrong charges and/or files the case prematurely, like I think they did in this case.

It would seem that perhaps the heinousness of the crime, and the prosecutor's conviction that Peterson committed the crime, may have clouded his/her vision on carrying out proper procedure. I actually did check out a lot of the information on this case on courttv.com but it was a while back. That site is cool because all of the facts are there. After reading it I felt like any jury would have to convict. But, I was not in that courtroom. Please God, let them convict!

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 01:00 PM

It would seem that perhaps the heinousness of the crime, and the prosecutor's conviction that Peterson committed the crime, may have clouded his/her vision on carrying out proper procedure. I actually did check out a lot of the information on this case on courttv.com but it was a while back. That site is cool because all of the facts are there. After reading it I felt like any jury would have to convict. But, I was not in that courtroom. Please God, let them convict!

Or they wanted to make a name for themselves and then write a book get as talk show - can you say Marcia Clark :laugh: - who I like BTW :cool:

Again and from what I have seen, they have presented nothing but circumstantial evidence and have not directly linked him to the crome. I do not think anyone would like to be convicted on that - yet many are willing to convict on it - go figure :cool:

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 01:18 PM

Or they wanted to make a name for themselves and then write a book get as talk show - can you say Marcia Clark :laugh: - who I like BTW :cool:

Again and from what I have seen, they have presented nothing but circumstantial evidence and have not directly linked him to the crome. I do not think anyone would like to be convicted on that - yet many are willing to convict on it - go figure :cool:

Strand, are you a lawyer?

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 01:21 PM

Strand, are you a lawyer?

yes - does it show :laugh:

The Tower

11-12-2004, 01:25 PM

yes - does it show :laugh:

Only when you lift your skirt......

:eek: :xoxo:

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 01:29 PM

yes - does it show :laugh:

Um, a bit. ;) What type of lawyer if you don't mind my asking? Just curious.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 01:29 PM

Only when you lift your skirt......

:eek: :xoxo:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

touche'

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 01:30 PM

Um, a bit. ;) What type of lawyer if you don't mind my asking? Just curious.

I have done criminal.

Patti

11-12-2004, 02:30 PM

I just heard on the radio that the jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 4pm eastern time.

dissention

11-12-2004, 03:08 PM

I just heard on the radio that the jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 4pm eastern time.

He's guilty. If they reached a verdict, that's what it is. :nod:

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:17 PM

He's guilty. If they reached a verdict, that's what it is. :nod:

Wow - we agree for once! :xoxo:

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:22 PM

He's guilty. If they reached a verdict, that's what it is. :nod:

It will be interesting to see. But, I agree, it could be guilty. This case has just been bizarre from the get go. I mean what was up with replacing a juror during deliberations right after asking the judge to reinstriuct them and two or so days later a verdict.

In any event, in 40 or so minutes and we will know :cool:

BTW - didn't the judge allow the jury not to convict for the death penalty, which, if so, could have allowed the jury to be surer of their actions.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 03:24 PM

It will be interesting to see. But, I agree, it could be guilty. This case has just been bizarre from the get go. I mean what was up with replacing a juror during deliberations right after asking the judge to reinstriuct them and two or so days later a verdict.

In any event, in 40 or so minutes and we will know :cool:

BTW - didn't the judge allow the jury not to convict for the death penalty, which, if so, could have allowed the jury to be surer of their actions.

Yes, the judge allowed them to convict on second degree murder without the death penalty.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:26 PM

dissention

11-12-2004, 03:26 PM

It will be interesting to see. But, I agree, it could be guilty. This case has just been bizarre from the get go. I mean what was up with replacing a juror during deliberations right after asking the judge to reinstriuct them and two or so days later a verdict.

In any event, in 40 or so minutes and we will know :cool:

BTW - didn't the judge allow the jury not to convict for the death penalty, which, if so, could have allowed the jury to be surer of their actions.

The juror was replaced because their fiancee's relative is buying the restaurant Scott used to own. :laugh:

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:29 PM

I just heard on the radio that the jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 4pm eastern time.

Yes. The judge did not allow video in the courtroom, but did allow an audio feed to be broadcast. It will be live on courttv.com for those who don't have access to the TV.

dissention

11-12-2004, 03:29 PM

You know, for all the hoopla, I really don't think Geragos is "all that". That boat stunt is enough to make me truly sick (on at least a moral level), and the fact that he made so many "mistakes" during the trial just blows me away. Examples:

1. He promised that he would show that Scott is "stone-cold innocent" in his opening statement as well as promising to prove that the baby was born much later than the time Laci disappeared. He didn't deliver on either count.

2. He was making jokes during the trial much to the disgust of the jury.

3. His expert witness imploded on the stand.

I've always maintained that he is a horrifically bad lawyer of epic proportions. All of his big cases from the past few years have been lost, have imploded, and/or ended in his firing. His stunts ALWAYS backfire (Winona, Jacko, Peterson) and he doesn't just have egg on his face, he has an omelette all over his suit.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:30 PM

The juror was replaced because their fiancee's relative is buying the restaurant Scott used to own. :laugh:

OOPS!!!!! :laugh:

But, as long as there is no direct connection, e.g. not buying it directly from SP and SP has no interest in it, then that is not a huge problem :shrug:

This is the second replaced juror - there was a first one right?

Tick Tock Tick Tock :eek:

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:30 PM

I've always maintained that he is a horrifically bad lawyer of epic proportions. All of his big cases from the past few years have been lost, have imploded, and/or ended in his firing. His stunts ALWAYS backfire (Winona, Jacko, Peterson) and he doesn't just have egg on his face, he has an omelette all over his suit.

Wow - we agree on two points!! :D

He does seem to take on cases with people who are pathological liers. Amazing. If I were a criminal defendant there is no way in hell I would want him - LOL!

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:32 PM

You know, for all the hoopla, I really don't think Geragos is "all that". That boat stunt is enough to make me truly sick (on at least a moral level), and the fact that he made so many "mistakes" during the trial just blows me away. Examples:

1. He promised that he would show that Scott is "stone-cold innocent" in his opening statement as well as promising to prove that the baby was born much later than the time Laci disappeared. He didn't deliver on either count.

2. He was making jokes during the trial much to the disgust of the jury.

3. His expert witness imploded on the stand.

For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY he is held in such high regard. Maybe his nonfamous work is good, but his last several famous ones were horrid.

dissention

11-12-2004, 03:33 PM

OOPS!!!!! :laugh:

But, as long as there is no direct connection, e.g. not buying it directly from SP and SP has no interest in it, then that is not a huge problem :shrug:

This is the second replaced juror - there was a first one right?

Tick Tock Tick Tock :eek:

They didn't give a reason for the second juror's dismissal. I'm sure we'll hear why once this is all over, though. That juror that was dismissed very early on in the trial is annoying as hell; he knows next to nothing about the case, yet they have him on all the talk shows for his "expert opinion." I just about went bonkers when he was giving commentary on the Kobe Bryant case. :laugh: What a hack.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:33 PM

OOPS!!!!! :laugh:

But, as long as there is no direct connection, e.g. not buying it directly from SP and SP has no interest in it, then that is not a huge problem :shrug:

This is the second replaced juror - there was a first one right?

Tick Tock Tick Tock :eek:

I am amazed at how many seemingly "problem" jurors made it onto the jury. The doctor/lawyer who was ousted, etc. Very interesting . . .

I was shocked to find out that they allowed a lawyer onto the panel.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:35 PM

For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY he is held in such high regard. Maybe his nonfamous work is good, but his last several famous ones were horrid.

Yes. How about his allowing Michael Jackson to show up late to his hearing and allowing that circus atmosphere. Completely ridiculous.

dissention

11-12-2004, 03:36 PM

Wow - we agree on two points!! :D

He does seem to take on cases with people who are pathological liers. Amazing. If I were a criminal defendant there is no way in hell I would want him - LOL!

1. After seeing the tapes of Winona stealing merchandise, he continued to maintain that she had receipts and that he had seen them. He also claimed to have the prescriptions in his possession. He lost the case.

2. He not-so-subtley threatened all witnesses in the Jacko case by exclaiming he would come down on them "like a ton of bricks." He also led the charge that Jacko was abused in police custody. He was quickly fired.

3. Every stunt of his in the Peterson case has backfired and the jurors, by all accounts, loathe him. He will lose it.

HE'S AWWWWWWWWWWWWFUL.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:38 PM

They didn't give a reason for the second juror's dismissal. I'm sure we'll hear why once this is all over, though. That juror that was dismissed very early on in the trial is annoying as hell; he knows next to nothing about the case, yet they have him on all the talk shows for his "expert opinion." I just about went bonkers when he was giving commentary on the Kobe Bryant case. :laugh: What a hack.

Juror Justin Falconer was dismissed about a month into the case because he had an "encounter" with Laci Peterson's brother in the courthouse.

The second juror was supposed to have commited misconduct because she was doing her own research on the case, outside of what was presented in court.

The last juror asked to be let go after the group ousted him as foreperson. That is the one that I find the most interesting because he was the lawyer on the panel.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:40 PM

1. After seeing the tapes of Winona stealing merchandise, he continued to maintain that she had receipts and that he had seen them. He also claimed to have the prescriptions in his possession. He lost the case.

Yeah - that is the one that got me. I mean . . . REALLY. How do you go to trial with that kind of case?

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:44 PM

Juror Justin Falconer was dismissed about a month into the case because he had an "encounter" with Laci Peterson's brother in the courthouse.

The second juror was supposed to have commited misconduct because she was doing her own research on the case, outside of what was presented in court.

The last juror asked to be let go after the group ousted him as foreperson. That is the one that I find the most interesting because he was the lawyer on the panel.

Interestingly, he could have been making them adhere to the judge's instructions :shrug: I know people who like lawyers on their panels - so go figure :cool:

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:46 PM

Interestingly, he could have been making them adhere to the judge's instructions :shrug: I know people who like lawyers on their panels - so go figure :cool:

Wow - in my area, there is no way they would allow a lawyer onto the panel. Alas, I probably will never get to serve on a jury (which I think would be interesting, just once . . .)

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:46 PM

Yeah - that is the one that got me. I mean . . . REALLY. How do you go to trial with that kind of case?

This is why I think he is on cocaine. I mean it fits the bill doesn't it. High powered lawyer not really making rationale decisions. Very strange behavior. I guess he thought people would like WR enough not to convict her in the face of that HUGE evidence. AND - what was up with that "I was learning for a movie role" tripe :laugh:

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:47 PM

Wow - in my area, there is no way they would allow a lawyer onto the panel. Alas, I probably will never get to serve on a jury (which I think would be interesting, just once . . .)

they bring the court - or they being the attys in voir dire

most attys do not like other attys because we tend to be too analytical, etc.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:48 PM

This is why I think he is on cocaine. I mean it fits the bill doesn't it. High powered lawyer not really making rationale decisions. Very strange behavior. I guess he thought people would like WR enough not to convict her in the face of that HUGE evidence. AND - what was up with that "I was learning for a movie role" tripe :laugh:

Yes, I would have to agree!

What ever happened about candor toward the tribunal? :shrug:

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:49 PM

Yes, I would have to agree!

What ever happened about candor toward the tribunal? :shrug:

Maybe he thinks it is damage control in some sort of tell the press and then spin it kind of way. I mean the press has power - no question about it. But, they also love to feed on what they have built.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:51 PM

Interestingly, he could have been making them adhere to the judge's instructions :shrug:

Yes, I heard that the jury had issues with how slow and methodical he was with the evidence. So who knows.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:53 PM

Maybe he thinks it is damage control in some sort of tell the press and then spin it kind of way. I mean the press has power - no question about it. But, they also love to feed on what they have built.

Yeah, kind of like the boat stunt that Mr. G pulled this week . . .

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 03:53 PM

Yes, I heard that the jury had issues with how slow and methodical he was with the evidence. So who knows.

and they asked for the instructions again a few days after the initial instructions. To me, that suggests they want to convict but do not want to run afoul of the law, etc. But, ass with any jury, it could mean anything as they are next to impossible to predict, esp. in a case like this where there is really no direct evidence - but he sure seems guilty.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 03:56 PM

Yeah, I think he did it.

And those phone calls with Amber Frey . . . what a bastard.

amber

11-12-2004, 03:56 PM

This is why I think he is on cocaine. I mean it fits the bill doesn't it. High powered lawyer not really making rationale decisions. Very strange behavior. I guess he thought people would like WR enough not to convict her in the face of that HUGE evidence. AND - what was up with that "I was learning for a movie role" tripe :laugh:
Hmmn, that's exactly what i thought when i first read the description of how he is. Drug of choice for lawyers, i swear, too. Also, they can usually afford it :)

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:00 PM

Yeah, I think he did it.

And those phone calls with Amber Frey . . . what a bastard.

I tend to take the position that they were irrelevant once the affair had been ackhowledged - I mean what did they add to that fact other than to inflame the jury? I say this not knowing what all the calls said mind you.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:04 PM

alright people IT IS 4:00 DAMNIT :laugh:

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:10 PM

alright people IT IS 4:00 DAMNIT :laugh:

No kidding! There's another online stream from here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6471310/

I couldn't get the courttv stream to work.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:12 PM

No kidding! There's another online stream from here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6471310/

I couldn't get the courttv stream to work.

Omigosh, guilty 1st degree!

gldstwmn

11-12-2004, 04:12 PM

Bad verdict. :distress: :distress: :distress:

DeadliestPoison

11-12-2004, 04:12 PM

He has been found guilty of first-degree murder or Laci and 2nd-degree murder of Conner Peterson.

EDIT - Psh. Y'all beat me.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:14 PM

He has been found guilty of first-degree murder or Laci and 2nd-degree murder of Conner Peterson.

EDIT - Psh. Y'all beat me.

Isn't it strange that Laci is 1st degree and Connor 2nd?

amber

11-12-2004, 04:14 PM

Bad vercdict. :distress: :distress: :distress:
Bad Lawyer

dissention

11-12-2004, 04:19 PM

This should not come as a surprise.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:22 PM

Bad vercdict. :distress: :distress: :distress:

IMO a bad verdict as well because of the evidence being solely circumstantial. Having said that, Peterson's lawyer is to blame. the prosecution got off to a bad start, but G. kept acting like an idiot. He also never showed if Scott P. did not do it then who did. While that is not an element of the crime, etc. - it sure would have helped the jury aq. him.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:23 PM

This should not come as a surprise.

well, not after they got rid of the foreperson during deliberation and reached a verdict less than six hours later :laugh:

dissention

11-12-2004, 04:24 PM

IMO a bad verdict as well because of the evidence being solely circumstantial. Having said that, Peterson's lawyer is to blame. the prosecution got off to a bad start, but G. kept acting like an idiot. He also never showed if Scott P. did not do it then who did. While that is not an element of the crime, etc. - it sure would have helped the jury aq. him.

I wouldn't be surprised if Scott tried to appeal on the grounds of bad representation. :laugh:

amber

11-12-2004, 04:24 PM

well, not after they got rid of the foreperson during deliberation and reached a verdict less than six hours later :laugh:
He must have been the one telling them there wasn't really enough evidence... ;)

amber

11-12-2004, 04:26 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Scott tried to appeal on the grounds of bad representation. :laugh:
I would think he was a dumb ass if he didn't. Although, i also think he's guilty!

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:26 PM

He must have been the one telling them there wasn't really enough evidence... ;)

Nice one. I think there was, even though it was circumstantial it all pointed to one conclusion. That's my opinion.

dissention

11-12-2004, 04:26 PM

well, not after they got rid of the foreperson during deliberation and reached a verdict less than six hours later :laugh:

Nah, I've said all along that he'd be found guilty because the prosecution did a marvelous job with ****ty evidence. Geragos was a joke in the courtroom, his schnozz did a better job of representing Scott than his brain did.

gldstwmn

11-12-2004, 04:32 PM

Nice one. I think there was, even though it was circumstantial it all pointed to one conclusion. That's my opinion.

Enough to put someone to death over? Not IMO.

Mad4stevie

11-12-2004, 04:33 PM

Nah, I've said all along that he'd be found guilty because the prosecution did a marvelous job with ****ty evidence. Geragos was a joke in the courtroom, his schnozz did a better job of representing Scott than his brain did.

Oh, and now we find out that Geragos wasn't even in the courtroom when the verdict was announced. What a chicken sh*t.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:33 PM

Enough to put someone to death over? Not IMO.

He hasn't been sentenced to death.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:37 PM

Oh, and now we find out that Geragos wasn't even in the courtroom when the verdict was announced. What a chicken sh*t.

Well, they just announced it and he could have been in another trial (it happens :shrug: )

As for the verdict. The jury spoke. AND - other than some evidentiary exclusions that were improper (a video tape demonstrating SP's aluminum boat being unable to accomodate the weights and the body as the D theorized it did) is a good one. The jury substitutions arre another. But, courts are loathe to overturn a jury verdict - so we shall see if that is enough. Finally, I think it undermines the system whenever anyone is convicted without direct evidence because I would never want to be convicted on circumstantial evidence or found guilty of murder just because I was a philanderer (which is what the prosecution implied) - who would. But and again, the jury spoke.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:38 PM

He hasn't been sentenced to death.

Not yet! it is still on the table though and infantcide probably will get him it.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:40 PM

He must have been the one telling them there wasn't really enough evidence... ;)

Which there was not. Again, the law must be applied evenly, here it was not. AND - this happens frequently. Juries go out for blood and see the D as a the most logical target. I really cannot believe anyone would be for that type of "vigilante justice" - but people are.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:42 PM

Well, they just announced it and he could have been in another trial (it happens :shrug: )

As for the verdict. The jury spoke. AND - other than some evidentiary exclusions that were improper (a video tape demonstrating SP's aluminum boat being unable to accomodate the weights and the body as the D theorized it did) is a good one. The jury substitutions arre another. But, courts are loathe to overturn a jury verdict - so we shall see if that is enough. Finally, I think it undermines the system whenever anyone is convicted without direct evidence because I would never want to be convicted on circumstantial evidence or found guilty of murder just because I was a philanderer (which is what the prosecution implied) - who would. But and again, the jury spoke.

No one would convict you because you would be innocent. This guy's behavior was all wrong. His character deeply flawed. He was pathalogical.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:43 PM

No one would convict you because you would be innocent. This guy's behavior was all wrong. His character deeply flawed. He was pathalogical.

No, they covicted him on circumstantial evidence. There was no direct evidence. They could not directly link him to the crime. That is a requirement that was not met. So, even if what you say is true, it is not enough legally speaking.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:43 PM

Link him to the crime. You cannot. No one can. That is a requirement that was not met. So, even if what you say is true, it is not enough legally speaking.

Dammit! LOL

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:44 PM

Dammit! LOL

Oops - I edited as you posted :laugh:

I think people too easily confuse actual guilt with legal guilt. They are sometimes VERY different.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:45 PM

Oops - I edited as you posted :laugh:

I think people too easily confuse actual guilt with legal guilt. They are sometimes VERY different.

Right, you got me, that was my expression of frustration. Kind of like Homer's "Doh!". That's what I get for getting into it with a lawyer. :]

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 04:48 PM

Right, you got me, that was my expression of frustration. Kind of like Homer's "Doh!". That's what I get for getting into it with a lawyer. :]

ANd - I think this guy did it. Because and again, if he did not then who did? There was no one else logically linked to this.

I cannot wait to see if they appeal.

SuzeQuze

11-12-2004, 04:59 PM

ANd - I think this guy did it. Because and again, if he did not then who did? There was no one else logically linked to this.

I cannot wait to see if they appeal.

That's why accepting "legal guilt" is so hard for me. Because I just want to lock the bastard up. But I do understand what you mean about a link being necessary. Is that in the law books? It's just that the timeline all points to him being the killer. His behavior. Who takes off on Christmas Eve to fish with a pregnant wife at home? Who goes to a vigil for his missing wife laughing and smiling all the while (although I'm not sure the jury knew about that)?

The things that could have linked him to the murder, the boat, his activities, were all things that he lied about. I wish the truth of what happened could come out but I think this is something that we will never know. Laci's poor family.

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 05:08 PM

That's why accepting "legal guilt" is so hard for me. Because I just want to lock the bastard up. But I do understand what you mean about a link being necessary. Is that in the law books? It's just that the timeline all points to him being the killer. His behavior. Who takes off on Christmas Eve to fish with a pregnant wife at home? Who goes to a vigil for his missing wife laughing and smiling all the while (although I'm not sure the jury knew about that)?

The things that could have linked him to the murder, the boat, his activities, were all things that he lied about. I wish the truth of what happened could come out but I think this is something that we will never know. Laci's poor family.

But if we use that subjective standard, then who defines it. To be effective and fair, the law must apply to everyone in the same way. It must not be applied by some on one way and some in another. AND - the circumstantial evidence in this case was VERY damning.

As for the fishing at that time. I know many guys who go fishing then. I think most of the girls do not get that - sort of like when guys go to football games on Thanksgiving or watch them on the t.v. during the dinner (which they most certainly did not prepare :laugh: ) - thus the diff btw men and woman :laugh: (levity)

strandinthewind

11-12-2004, 05:11 PM

Yep...Also, there was never a viable alternative theory presented by the defense, IMO. In the (slim) chance that Scott isn't guilty, he's still a cad.

and that is what damned him :cool: If he had appeared contrite - the verdict may have gone the other way :shrug:

amber

11-12-2004, 05:13 PM

Which there was not. Again, the law must be applied evenly, here it was not. AND - this happens frequently. Juries go out for blood and see the D as a the most logical target. I really cannot believe anyone would be for that type of "vigilante justice" - but people are.
Right, that's why i said that. He really was probably the one saying that, because he left, then they came back with a conviction when they probably shouldn't have (still, he's guilty, i say, but you gotta have that evidence!)

gldstwmn

11-12-2004, 05:22 PM

He hasn't been sentenced to death.

No, not yet.

gldstwmn

11-12-2004, 05:27 PM

ANd - I think this guy did it. Because and again, if he did not then who did? There was no one else logically linked to this.

I cannot wait to see if they appeal.

I believe it's automatic in this case.

gldstwmn

11-12-2004, 05:29 PM

Yep...Also, there was never a viable alternative theory presented by the defense, IMO.
-Justin

Crazy as it sounds, there doesn't need to be. Justice was not served today, IMHO.

amber

11-12-2004, 05:34 PM

Crazy as it sounds, there doesn't need to be. Justice was not served today, IMHO.
Actually, i think literal justice probably was served, but not justice according to what justice is supposed to be within our legal system. Which is a shame.

estranged4life

11-12-2004, 05:41 PM

Ray Charles-"Say Stevie brotha...What do ya think of this Peterson trial?"

Stevie Wonder-"I saw that outcome coming from 100 miles away...Hey, isnt that that dumb George W. Bush I hear in the distance, Man I hope he isnt waving at us again..."

Ray Charles-"Prob'ly thinks were WMD's..."

Brian "Scott Peterson-Spokesman for Ivory's new product 'Soap on a Rope'" j.