Life, death or new trial? Peterson to find out - Vote

[3dGameMan]

Life, death or new trial? Peterson to find out: ~source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7204523/)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050316/050316_scottlaci_hmed_5a.h2.jpg

The Associated Press
Updated: 9:52 a.m. ET March 16, 2005

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - A judge will hear from defense lawyers and the family of Laci Peterson at the sentencing of Scott Peterson for the murder of his pregnant wife.

Judge Alfred Delucchi was set to decide Wednesday whether to grant Peterson a new trial, sentence him to death — as a jury recommended — or give him life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Amber Frey, who had a relationship with Peterson shortly before his wife vanished and helped prosecutors with her testimony, told NBC's "Today" show Wednesday that she wouldn't be in court. As for a punishment, she felt that life in prison would be harder on Peterson than a death penalty because he'd have to live with his actions for years to come...

[das7282]

Can I hook him up and the throw the switch? :shocking

Oh yeah, that's right. They don't do the electric chair anymore... Bummer :(

[wazman]

Can I hook him up and the throw the switch? :shocking

Oh yeah, that's right. They don't do the electric chair anymore... Bummer :(

So do it anyway.

[pan]

Whether the guy is guilty or not, he was convicted without any direct evidence. Lack of direct evidence is supposed to stop trials from being launched in the first place, but since the main goal of criminal trials in the US is to provide discovery for civil suits rather than convict criminals it is becomming more common for criminal trials that don't have evidence to actually support, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges.

The fact that the guy got convicted had more to do with jury manipulation and whether or not the jury liked the guy.

The problem with any trial of this type is that the jury pool is poisoned by the media before the trial ever starts.

Consider if you were in his shoes and assume he is innocent; as you should according to US law. You leave for the day, come back home and your wife is missing. You are not a guy that gets along with people, you are cheating on your wife, and people describe you as odd. You are of course the first suspect; in fact, due to a total lack of any evidence you are the only suspect. Since you are the only suspect the police don't bother looking for any other suspects; instead they go looking for anything they can use to convict you. (This alone is grounds for a mistrial in the US.)

The media reports to the world that you are odd and are the only suspect, and by doing so imply you must have done it.

The prosecution may not have given the defence all of the evidence availible, or overwhelmed the defence lawers with 'evidence' to make it harder to actually find any pertinant date with wich to mount a defence. The jury, enraged by the very thought of the murder, is ready to convict anybody who the prosecution point a finger at. Without any direct evidence of guilt you are convicted.

The fact that the judge did not direct the jury to consider whether or not there was any direct evidence, in fact did the opposit, should lead to a mistrial. The judge ejecting two jury members without sufficient cause, two jury members whom were against convicting by the way, should also force a mistrial.

There is more direct evidence that this guy is unlucky than he is guilty.

This is why Canada got rid of the death penalty. Reguardless of the supposed impartiality of the justice system, it is still only as good as the people sitting on the jury.

Peterson could very well be guilty, and I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just saying the fact that he was convicted on the evidence presented to the jury does not bode well for innocent people charged with a crime. If this case were the template for the US legal system convictions would be based on popularity rather than evidence of guilt.

[eire1274]

Pan summed up my feelings. I did not vote.

Who cares what punishment man gives... God gets the final word.

[CyberGuy]

Whether the guy is guilty or not, he was convicted without any direct evidence....

It would not be the first time something like this happened. There have been stories where people rot in jail for 20 years and at the end of it, the real evidence shows up proving him totally innocent.

If there truly was no hard evidence in this case, I am sure his lawyer would have moved for mistrial on any or all of your points. That this did not happen leads me to believe that (1) the defendant had a defender for a lawyer that was more interested in gaining court time rather than an interest in the possible innocence of his charge, or (2) some hard evidence did show up that was not publicly presented (the media isn't always told all the details).

In either case I will hold off judgement on executing him until all the facts are clear.

[das7282]

It just came down about a ½ hour agao... He got death.

[CyberGuy]

source~ (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050316/ts_nm/crime_peterson_dc)
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (Reuters) - The California judge in the trial of Scott Peterson (news - web sites) said on Wednesday he agreed that the former fertilizer salesman should be sentenced to death for the murder of his wife and unborn son in a case that attracted nationwide attention.

Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi was to formally sentence Peterson on Wednesday after hearing from family members.

Speaking at the start of the proceedings, Delucchi called Peterson "cruel, uncaring, heartless and callous" and said he agreed with the jury's death penalty sentence.

In November, a jury convicted Peterson, of Modesto, California, of killing his pregnant, 27-year-old wife, Laci, and unborn son on Christmas Eve 2002.

The case, with revelations of Peterson's extramarital trysts, deception and cold-blooded murder, generated saturation cable and local television coverage as well as related books.

[Tivon]

Death is the easy way out. Life is cheaper than Death because of court costs anyway. Give him the rest of his life to think things over. :Thumb

[Tivon]

It just came down about a ½ hour agao... He got death.

BOOOOOOO! :negative

[getit29]

I whole heartedly agree with pan on this here I really and truly believe
he was railroaded into court as the old saying goes. I also believe by 99.9%
he is totally innocent of murder because I seem to have this uncanny knack
for being able to tell when someone is lying and I've not seen any at all of
*(without a reasonable doubt)*
of hard evidence presented against him. Now if the prosecution has any of
*(without a reasonable doubt)* of evidence against him now is the time
for them to release it to the general public and media to substantiate their
claim that he is honestly and truly guilty. Until the time that, the evidence is
shown to me I will still presume he is innocent by 99.9% because there has
been waaaay to many people convicted of crimes that they did not commit
and they are still in prison or have been put to death. :Nope

[das7282]

I whole heartedly agree with pan on this here I really and truly believe
he was railroaded into court as the old saying goes. I also believe by 99.9%
he is totally innocent of murder because I seem to have this uncanny knack
for being able to tell when someone is lying and I've not seen any at all of
*(without a reasonable doubt)*
of hard evidence presented against him. Now if the prosecution has any of
*(without a reasonable doubt)* of evidence against him now is the time
for them to release it to the general public and media to substantiate their
claim that he is honestly and truly guilty. Until the time that, the evidence is
shown to me I will still presume he is innocent by 99.9% because there has
been waaaay to many people convicted of crimes that they did not commit
and they are still in prison or have been put to death. :Nope

So what's your take on OJ? I bet you think he's innocent too. :Nope

So you also have this "uncanny knack for being able to tell when someone is lying". Next thing you are going to tell me is you can read minds. Go ahead... give it a try... tell me what I'm thinking right now. Really... It's not that hard to figure out what I'm thinking.

Ok here are a few facts that seem to be escaping a few of you that are supporting Scott...

For those of you who feel the Scott was "railroaded"... Do any of you NOT remember that for the first few weeks after Lacey disappeared his family, Lacey’s family, the police, the media and the public at large were doing everything they could to SUPPORT Scott in (what they thought) was a very difficult time for him?!?! It wasn't until AFTER he started acting strangely that people started taking a second look at him. And as for the police is concerned, it is common practice and in most cases "policy" that the closest person (usually the spouse) to a missing person is a prime suspect. So of course he was a suspect from the beginning. But if you ask me, I think the police were great to Scott at first. Do any of you remember the press conferences where the police were standing there WITH Scott asking the public for any information on Lacey’s disappearance? Do any of you remember Lacey’s FAMILY standing with Scott in the beginning.

In fact it wasn't until Amber Fry called the police to say, "Scott's wife and unborn child are missing but yet he's carrying on an affair with me as if nothing is wrong! Something is very seriously wrong with that." If I had a "mistress" and my wife and unborn child came up missing, you can bet I would tell her that things need to be put on hold indefinitely between us until I find my wife and child. But no, Scott kept on with the affair and didn't even tell Amber about his wife and child (missing or not) until he started getting nervous that people were taking a good look at him. Little did he know that Amber already knew and it was her that got the police to start (seriously) looking at Scott.

Bottom line is this... Scott all but dug his own grave. He had the whole world believing that his wife and unborn child disappeared. All he had to do was continue with the grieving husband/father act, stop seeing Amber (if only for a little while) and stop lying to police and he would have been home free. But no... the guy only showed remorse when it was in front of the camera and he couldn't stop seeing Amber.

Now lets look at the evidence... Sure there isn't a lot of "solid" evidence but there still is some that is compelling, like... She was found in the same area that Scott himself admitted he was at the time of her disappearance, her body was wrapped in the same kind of garbage bag the was found in Scott's house and (I think) she was bound with the same kind of rope that was found in Scott's house. (The rope I'm not sure of because I remember reading about it somewhere. But I only read it that once and I never heard much else about it so I don't know how true it is.)

Now why would he tell the police where he was when is also happened to be exactly where he dumped the bodies? Well he probably thought he needed witnesses to backup where he was when they disappeared but he also knew he ties the bodies put good enough that they would never be found. Remember, they were tied up in garbage bags and rope and it appeared that they were weighted down with a brick (or something else heavy). The only reason the bodies were found is because animals in the water had chewed them up into enough pieces that most of the body parts were freed from their weight and washed up on shore.

With all that said, I know we have these laws called "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" but we are also ALL human and we ALL have a natural instinct that says, "If it smells like sh!t and it looks like sh!t, then it usually is (with almost 99% certainty) SH!T!

[eire1274]

While I agree with Pan on the lack of direct evidence, it is my personal opinion that Scott Peterson was way in the wrong. They guy was just a major creep; he was just smart enough to hide things well enough that there was nothing to place him at the murder.

[egarrard]

I'm beginning to be appalled by how some of you are being sucked into the videoization of morality. Are you saying that any circumstantial evidence should be thrown out? Are we supposed to release any suspect that we don't have a video of them committing a crime?

I know of someone who was suspected of stealing credit cards. There was no direct evidence (fingerprints, numbers on their person, etc.) that they did it, but something that was purchased by one of the credit cards was delivered to a friend of this person. In your world, this person would have gotten away with it. In the real world though, this person was fired and may yet be prosecuted.

If there had been only one piece of circumstantial evidence against him, I might agree with you on Scott Peterson. Unfortunately, there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence presented against him. And he didn't present a reasonable explanation for any of it. It was beyond any reasonable doubt. And, unlike with O.J. and Bill Clinton, politics never got involved in the trial. The jury was allowed to make their decision purely on the evidence presented. It was a fair decision.

[das7282]

I'm beginning to be appalled by how some of you are being sucked into the videoization of morality. Are you saying that any circumstantial evidence should be thrown out? Are we supposed to release any suspect that we don't have a video of them committing a crime?

I know of someone who was suspected of stealing credit cards. There was no direct evidence (fingerprints, numbers on their person, etc.) that they did it, but something that was purchased by one of the credit cards was delivered to a friend of this person. In your world, this person would have gotten away with it. In the real world though, this person was fired and may yet be prosecuted.

If there had been only one piece of circumstantial evidence against him, I might agree with you on Scott Peterson. Unfortunately, there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence presented against him. And he didn't present a reasonable explanation for any of it. It was beyond any reasonable doubt. And, unlike with O.J. and Bill Clinton, politics never got involved in the trial. The jury was allowed to make their decision purely on the evidence presented. It was a fair decision.

I'll second that! :Thumb

[Tivon]

I'm beginning to be appalled by how some of you are being sucked into the videoization of morality. Are you saying that any circumstantial evidence should be thrown out? Are we supposed to release any suspect that we don't have a video of them committing a crime?

I know of someone who was suspected of stealing credit cards. There was no direct evidence (fingerprints, numbers on their person, etc.) that they did it, but something that was purchased by one of the credit cards was delivered to a friend of this person. In your world, this person would have gotten away with it. In the real world though, this person was fired and may yet be prosecuted.

If there had been only one piece of circumstantial evidence against him, I might agree with you on Scott Peterson. Unfortunately, there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence presented against him. And he didn't present a reasonable explanation for any of it. It was beyond any reasonable doubt. And, unlike with O.J. and Bill Clinton, politics never got involved in the trial. The jury was allowed to make their decision purely on the evidence presented. It was a fair decision.

So they have enough data to put him away for life, but do they have enough to end his life? :shifty

[Bobenis]

An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind. :Nope

[getit29]

So what's your take on OJ? I bet you think he's innocent too. :Nope

So you also have this "uncanny knack for being able to tell when someone is lying". Next thing you are going to tell me is you can read minds. Go ahead... give it a try... tell me what I'm thinking right now. Really... It's not that hard to figure out what I'm thinking.

Ok here are a few facts that seem to be escaping a few of you that are supporting Scott...

For those of you who feel the Scott was "railroaded"... Do any of you NOT remember that for the first few weeks after Lacey disappeared his family, Lacey’s family, the police, the media and the public at large were doing everything they could to SUPPORT Scott in (what they thought) was a very difficult time for him?!?! It wasn't until AFTER he started acting strangely that people started taking a second look at him. And as for the police is concerned, it is common practice and in most cases "policy" that the closest person (usually the spouse) to a missing person is a prime suspect. So of course he was a suspect from the beginning. But if you ask me, I think the police were great to Scott at first. Do any of you remember the press conferences where the police were standing there WITH Scott asking the public for any information on Lacey’s disappearance? Do any of you remember Lacey’s FAMILY standing with Scott in the beginning.

In fact it wasn't until Amber Fry called the police to say, "Scott's wife and unborn child are missing but yet he's carrying on an affair with me as if nothing is wrong! Something is very seriously wrong with that." If I had a "mistress" and my wife and unborn child came up missing, you can bet I would tell her that things need to be put on hold indefinitely between us until I find my wife and child. But no, Scott kept on with the affair and didn't even tell Amber about his wife and child (missing or not) until he started getting nervous that people were taking a good look at him. Little did he know that Amber already knew and it was her that got the police to start (seriously) looking at Scott.

Bottom line is this... Scott all but dug his own grave. He had the whole world believing that his wife and unborn child disappeared. All he had to do was continue with the grieving husband/father act, stop seeing Amber (if only for a little while) and stop lying to police and he would have been home free. But no... the guy only showed remorse when it was in front of the camera and he couldn't stop seeing Amber.

Now lets look at the evidence... Sure there isn't a lot of "solid" evidence but there still is some that is compelling, like... She was found in the same area that Scott himself admitted he was at the time of her disappearance, her body was wrapped in the same kind of garbage bag the was found in Scott's house and (I think) she was bound with the same kind of rope that was found in Scott's house. (The rope I'm not sure of because I remember reading about it somewhere. But I only read it that once and I never heard much else about it so I don't know how true it is.)

Now why would he tell the police where he was when is also happened to be exactly where he dumped the bodies? Well he probably thought he needed witnesses to backup where he was when they disappeared but he also knew he ties the bodies put good enough that they would never be found. Remember, they were tied up in garbage bags and rope and it appeared that they were weighted down with a brick (or something else heavy). The only reason the bodies were found is because animals in the water had chewed them up into enough pieces that most of the body parts were freed from their weight and washed up on shore.

With all that said, I know we have these laws called "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" but we are also ALL human and we ALL have a natural instinct that says, "If it smells like sh!t and it looks like sh!t, then it usually is (with almost 99% certainty) SH!T!
First off I believe in my mind that OJ is GUILTY AS HELL!!!!! in my opinion PERIOD.
Second thing I'm sorry to disappoint you das but I did not claim I was a mind reader at all. I was just saying that if I look into someones eyes and the
expressions on their face while they are talking I can usually tell if they are lying or not. That is unless they are professional liars that are constantly
lying about everything and have mastered their eye movements and have no facial expressions at all. Though I may not be 100% correct everytime in
detecting peoples lies I'm pretty close to it most of the time. Now for the prosecutions circumstantial evidence of the garbage bags and his where abouts
at the purposed time of the crime and the (rope?) and his ongoing affair with Amber Fry, sorry but that is not enough hard evidence for me to decide he is
guilty and that he deserves the death penalty. I remember from many years ago a situation somewhat similar to this one only it was not as high of a profile
case as this one was it was on a local level. The guy was convicted on first degree murder charges of allegedly murdering his wife and all the evidence they
had was circumstantial evidence to convict him on. I always said that he was telling the truth and after watching him talk I was even more convinced he was
telling the truth about not killing his wife. Well it turns out that he was telling the truth all along after serving several years in prison they found new evidence
to substantiate his claim of innocents. It was his mistress that committed the murder and set it up to look like he did it just because he wouldn't leave his wife
and get a divorce so he could marry her. Now maybe that will explain why I'm not convinced he did it just based on all of circumstantial evidence.

[das7282]

First off I believe in my mind that OJ is GUILTY AS HELL!!!!! in my opinion PERIOD.
Second thing I'm sorry to disappoint you das but I did not claim I was a mind reader at all. I was just saying that if I look into someones eyes and the
expressions on their face while they are talking I can usually tell if they are lying or not. That is unless they are professional liars that are constantly
lying about everything and have mastered their eye movements and have no facial expressions at all. Though I may not be 100% correct everytime in
detecting peoples lies I'm pretty close to it most of the time. Now for the prosecutions circumstantial evidence of the garbage bags and his where abouts
at the purposed time of the crime and the (rope?) and his ongoing affair with Amber Fry, sorry but that is not enough hard evidence for me to decide he is
guilty and that he deserves the death penalty. I remember from many years ago a situation somewhat similar to this one only it was not as high of a profile
case as this one was it was on a local level. The guy was convicted on first degree murder charges of allegedly murdering his wife and all the evidence they
had was circumstantial evidence to convict him on. I always said that he was telling the truth and after watching him talk I was even more convinced he was
telling the truth about not killing his wife. Well it turns out that he was telling the truth all along after serving several years in prison they found new evidence
to substantiate his claim of innocents. It was his mistress that committed the murder and set it up to look like he did it just because he wouldn't leave his wife
and get a divorce so he could marry her. Now maybe that will explain why I'm not convinced he did it just based on all of circumstantial evidence.

Point taken.

But I'm also not saying I believe in his guilt 100% either. I’m just saying I’m convinced enough for me to say, “Fry his ass!”...

Do I "think " he did it?... I'm almost certain...
Did he do it?... Probably (I think most of us think "probably"... not "defiantly" but "probably").
Will we ever "really" know for certain?... Probably Not. There are only three people who know with 100% certainty what happened and they are all in heaven right now (Lacey, the baby and God) :Crying And the forth who "probably" knows is sitting in jail right now.

Also, in case you were insinuating it, I highly doubt Amber Fry had anything to do with the disappearance. She didn't even know Lacey existed until after she disappeared.

[egarrard]

So they have enough data to put him away for life, but do they have enough to end his life? :shiftyA lot more than they have to end Terry Schiavo's life...

[pan]

I'm sure the final decision is a long way off on this one. Based on what has been released to the public on the trial, it wouldn't surprise me if this one makes it to the supreme court on apeal. With evidence like plastic bags that over a million people in that ciry alone have in there house, rope that thousands in that city have, and statements that the guy is unlikable and strange as evidence... not to mention the hint of judicial misconduct, you can be assured that this case isn't going away anytime soon.

As for the guilt of OJ; there was probably sufficient hard evidence to convict the guy, but the police and procecution messed things up by putting a racial biggot in charge of the investigation and improperly handling evidence. (I have a friend that used to work in a DNA testing lab and he told me that the blood evidence was definatly tampered with if it contained the chemical preservatives they say it contained.)

The cases themselves have no relation to each other. I would say that both cases came out with the wrong decision for completely different reasons.

[getit29]

Also, in case you were insinuating it, I highly doubt Amber Fry had anything to do with the disappearance. She didn't even know Lacey existed until after she disappeared.
No, oh heavens no I'm not insinuating that Amber had anything to do with the murder
of Lacy and her baby in any way shape or form. I'm just saying things have a strange
way of coming out in the end after all is said and done. Yes you are correct in saying
that only (four) know for sure what really happened on that day Lacy, the baby, God
Almighty, and the killer, whomever he/she may be only time will tell.

[Tivon]

A lot more than they have to end Terry Schiavo's life...

Then the courts have too much power. :negative