Scott Peterson - Guilty!

[aquariumfishguy]

Scott Peterson found Guilty – Murder 1st degree for the killing of Lacy Peterson, and Murder 2nd degree for baby Conner Peterson.

Thank the Lord, and the wonderful jury.

[mayreee]

HAHA I just got on the computer to post that. I never know what to think in these high profile murder cases.

[geoffgarcia]

Thank the Lord, and the wonderful jury.the evidence and information I've seen on the case was 100% circumstantial.
I didn't see one shred of evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
Granted I didn't spend 23 weeks listening and viewing evidence and testimony like the jury so I'm sure they have their reasons.

What will be interesting is to hear why the lawyer/doctor foreman asked to be removed from the case on Wed.
Perhaps he knew the case was leaning toward murder 1 and he didn't want to have Scott's possible death sentence on his hands...

I dont think the Lord or jury need to be thanked...its a matter of due process.

[aquariumfishguy]

We are allowed to feel differently... I posted this because, obviously, I am glad the verdict came in as it did. Jury plays an enormous role in all this, as they pick them very carefully. And yes, I believe God can judge somebody before they die - therefore, I am proud that he was found out. The fact that it was mainly circumstantial is all the more proof in my opinion. I bet he was sure of himself when he walked into court this morning.

What’s coming next could be taken harshly by a few, but this is a common sense case, and anyone who can rub two pennies together knows Scott is guilty as charged. Amen.

[PumaWard]

I felt he was guilty and relieved to find the jury decided he was. I thought for sure the prosecution screwed up the trial in the beginning

[N8DOGG]

now give him the chair

[Reefer Ron]

If Scott would of had the money OJ had I feel the verdict would have been different! No one really knows except Scott.

[geoffgarcia]

The fact that it was mainly circumstantial is all the more proof in my opinion.are you saying the (apparent) lack of evidence is (partial) proof that he is guilty? That he executed (pardon the pun) his plan so well as to not leave a trail?


What’s coming next could be taken harshly by a few, but this is a common sense case, and anyone who can rub two pennies together knows Scott is guilty as charged.I wish things were always as they appear, life would be so much simpler. Yet every single month there is another person released from life in prison or death row that was wrongfully convicted and freed by DNA evidence. For every person that is exonerated, I'd guess/extrapolate that there are 20 that never surface because there was no DNA evidence to analyze. (Granted the percentage of that get released is small.)

I had a friend who was incarcerated for a year on a rape charge based on circumstantial evidence, he was even picked out of multiple lineups by witnesses (if I recall correctly; this was about 6 years ago). He was freed on DNA evidence. To say it ruined his life would be a gross understatement.

[chunksofpoooo]

extrapolate

i like that word

I don’t know why i felt it was necessary to point out the fact that i agree with you; but i do, completely.

[Leopardess]

I'm glad. I thought they screwed it up, just like Puma.

Of course, however circumstantial...how many people do you know that have multiple affairs, talk of murdering their pregnant wives, have their wife disappear, only to move several hundred miles away, unannounced, with bleached hair and beard, 15,000$ of cash on their person and rented a boat the same day in the same area as where the woman's body washed ashore? Sure some of that is circumstantial....but added together and well....you get a mountain from a mole hill, IMO. And not all of it was circumstantial, as far as I've heard/followed. They had audio tapes of scott talking to his little mistress there about his wife's disappearance and his desire to...."have her gone."

[aquariumfishguy]

are you saying the (apparent) lack of evidence is (partial) proof that he is guilty? That he executed (pardon the pun) his plan so well as to not leave a trail?

Geoff, this case, however circumstantial it may be, was a common sense case... as I have said. Not all circumstantial cases are "common sense", in fact many are opposite of common sense. Some verdicts shock the nation, if high profile. Others just leave the family shocked... in your friend’s case, s/he might have had a very loose trial, totally filled with holes. I have sympathy - honestly, but common sense should be used in cases that are circumstantial. Otherwise, nobody would be tried and convicted unless the jury had 100% facts. Heck, if we went on pure airtight evidence, we wouldn't have religion, or many of the theoretical studies going on today. We might not have half of the scientists that we have.

The truth is, humans just work this way. The jury is human, after all. Now - granted, not everyone likes our process of finding one innocent or guilty. But that isn't the same thing as whether a case is inferred or not. This is a whole other issue. Cases in our judicial system are very often tried on circumstantial evidence, as this case proves.

Oh and, yes, he did leave a trail. That is where the common sense plays in. Scotty boy just didn't leave much solid evidence around. Many serial killers are smarter than Scott and they too leave very little (if any) solid evidence around.

[Must4ng s4lly]

He did it and got what he deserved the little worm!

[dwayne]

now give him the chair

That was my first instinct, but.... the more I think about it, I don't want him to get the death penalty.

He's a very handsome guy. If he goes to jail, he will become someone's 'beotch'. Not to mention that most prison inmates don't like pregnant women and baby killers and will make his life very miserable indeed. Life in prison, in this case, is a much more deserving sentence.

As far as the case being circumstantial, I agree with afg. "this case, however circumstantial it may be, was a common sense case" IF he was innocent, then why was he found near the Mexican border, hair dyed ala Backstreet Boys, with $15g in cash?? IF he was innocent, then why did he rig his cell phone to look like he was phoning his mistress from Paris, when in fact he was at his dead wife's candelight vigil? IF he was innocent, then why was he clearing out his unborn son's nursery only days after they went missing?? If he was innocent, why did he apply for a one day fishing license to go out on Christmas? Common sense points to guilty.

Guilty as charged. Death is TOO easy of a sentence.

~Tara

[Dangerdoll]

He's a very handsome guy. If he goes to jail, he will become someone's 'beotch'. Not to mention that most prison inmates don't like pregnant women and baby killers and will make his life very miserable indeed. Life in prison, in this case, is a much more deserving sentence.

~Tara
this is what I believe. I thought about the DP, but honestly, he may just be getting a break if he goes there. Sure, he loses his life but he doesn't spend 30+ thinking about why he's there..... he loses his life..... doesn't have to live his life out in a cell, to think about it.....

[gnahc79]

They should have sold advertising time for the verdict announcement. I bet our state govt could have raised $2.5 mil with 3 commercials, just like the Super Bowl :).

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/10216759.htm

Trial cost may top $2.5 million

By JIM WASSERMAN

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Costs to investigate, arrest and prosecute Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife, Laci, have topped $2.1 million in the couple's hometown of Modesto and in Stanislaus County, government officials estimated this week as they try to have state taxpayers pay the bill.

Acrimony over costs is also growing between Stanislaus County and San Mateo County, where Peterson was convicted last week of first-degree murder in the 2002 death of his wife.

The Bay Area county just south of San Francisco says Stanislaus County still owes it more than $250,000 for jailing Peterson through most of 2004, using a county courtroom for five months and keeping jurors in $135-a-night hotel rooms. The county seat of Redwood City also claims that controlling traffic, media and crowds outside its downtown courthouse have cost city taxpayers more than $70,000 since the trial began.

Frustrated with the slow pace of reimbursement, San Mateo officials said Thursday they want a court order compelling Stanislaus to pay.

Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller Larry Haugh said the county has already paid $67,000 and will pay more. ``Things are tight,'' he added.

If Stanislaus doesn't move faster, San Mateo wants legislation to have the state pay the bills.

In a letter to the county's state Assembly member, San Mateo Supervisor Mark Church said it's ``imperative'' the county be reimbursed to avoid cuts in other county services. San Mateo, Church said, shouldn't be penalized for its willingness to conduct the trial after it was moved from Stanislaus.

Combined, the still-rising costs faced by both counties seem certain to make the Peterson case the most expensive in California since 2002, when a Santa Clara County jury convicted and sentenced to death Mariposa County handyman Cary Stayner for murdering three women in Yosemite National Park in February 1999.

The Stayner case cost nearly $5 million to investigate and prosecute, according to the state controller's office, with the state picking up nearly all of Mariposa County's costs, including those of moving the three-month trial to San Jose. The controller's office reported the state also paid Shasta County in northern California $5.2 million to investigate and prosecute Ben and James Williams for the July 1999 shotgun murders of two local gay men.

Stanislaus County and the city of Modesto want the state to pay for their investigation into the 2002 Christmas Eve investigation into Laci Peterson's disappearance and murder that started in Stanislaus County, spread to searches of the San Francisco Bay that led to the discovery of the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn son and then moved to the trial in San Mateo County.

From the beginning of the case, when Modesto police spent more than $100,000 on overtime searching for Laci Peterson, local officials have scrambled to get the state to pay the bills.

Estimating that costs could reach $5 million with appeals, Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Salinas, said he'll introduce a new bill to get the state to pay 100 percent of the bills when the Legislature reconvenes Dec. 6.

Denham's first bill died in the final minutes of this year's legislative session that ended in August. Although most lawmakers favored paying Stanislaus County's estimated $1.5 million costs, some objected to paying the Modesto Police Department's tab to investigate and arrest Peterson, which Denham estimates at $1 million.

Haugh said under current state formulas Stanislaus County must pay the first $1.5 million to get 90 percent reimbursement for costs above that.

``That's why the legislation we're trying to get is so important,'' he said.

Costs of Peterson's defense are also expected to run into the millions, though Los Angeles defense attorney Mark Geragos and Peterson's family have refused to discuss their financial arrangements. The Petersons own San Diego Crating and Packing, a Poway company that provides customized packing and crating for shipping.

The Modesto Bee, citing records filed with the San Diego County Recorder's office, reported the Petersons refinanced a home in July 2003. They also lent Scott Peterson $100,000, the newspaper reported, citing records filed with the Stanislaus County Recorder's Office. Peterson used his Covena Avenue home as collateral.

A call from The Associated Press to Peterson's parents was not immediately returned.

[Dangerdoll]

and I heard yesterday that they (the defense & Scott) are looking to get a different Jury for the sentencing.

[aquariumfishguy]

hmmm wonder why? :D

[Dangerdoll]

as if they could prolong Monday's sentencing date :D

[geoffgarcia]

And on all that evidence they just gave him the death penalty
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/13/peterson.case/index.html

[125gJoe]

I would have thought the mother would have something to much more 'useful' to say.... It just sounds weird..

Quote from MSNBC:

"As Jackie Peterson literally begged for her son's life Wednesday, she was in tears and so was her son.

"I beg you to consider how he helped people, how he could do good," Jackie Peterson said, adding that "we mourn for Laci and Conner. And we mourn for Scott. If you kill him, it would be a whole family wiped off this earth. It would be such a waste." "

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6682575/

[dwayne]

I'm absolutely disgusted that he got the death penalty... I hope that the judge is a mean SOB who realizes that the death penalty is too good for this POS, and reverses the jury's decision (he can reverse death penalty to life, but cannot reverse life to death penalty).

Scott Peterson does NOT deserve the death penalty, and here's why: The article at kansascity.com was free earlier today... it's still free but now you have to sign up for access to it...Kansas City Article (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/10410434.htm?1c)

Some snippets from the article:

California has only executed 10 guys since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978. Those guys sat on death row an average of 16 years. Nine death row inmates have lived there for more than 25 years.

In his cell, he can keep a tv, books, a music player, a wall poster, pictures of family. Closed circuit tv shows movies occassionally. He can take in cell study courses, and request law journals as well as other books. Family members will/can visit him during scheduled hours, or he can call them on a phone that rolls by on a cart every day. Inmates can shower every day, on their own by themselves, in a secured shower, escorted there in handcuffs by guards. There is no lights out time, he can stay up as late as he wants. He cannot hold a job.

My comments:
If he had received life without possibility of parole, he would have been separated from general population only until his formal sentencing in February. Once he hit general population, since he's such a good looking guy, someone would definately offer to protect him from the others who want to kill the baby/wife killer. You be my beeotch, and I'll keep you safe. But he can't stay safe forever, because there are no guarantees that his 'sugar momma' will be assigned to the same job that he is...

So what do you think he deserves? A nice safe life with TV and books, protected from the general population while awaiting his appeals, and maybe his execution in 25 years? Or to be someone's beeotch for life, and maybe survive 25 years?

~Tara

[geoffgarcia]

Once he hit general population, since he's such a good looking guy, someone would definately offer to protect him from the others who want to kill the baby/wife killer. You be my beeotch, and I'll keep you safe....it seems like a lot of people make assumptions about prison life...I'm not saying its wrong or right...but I dont buy into it, I think jail violence is exaggerated for television (I have 2 friends that are corrections officers and know people that have had extended stays in prisons)


So what do you think he deserves? A nice safe life with TV and books, protected from the general population while awaiting his appeals, and maybe his execution in 25 years? Or to be someone's beeotch for life, and maybe survive 25 years?the former, given the second option you listed.
the latter is cruel and unusual punishment.
wishing that type of punishment on anyone is revolting to me...

[dwayne]

...it seems like a lot of people make assumptions about prison life...I'm not saying its wrong or right...but I dont buy into it, I think jail violence is exaggerated for television (I have 2 friends that are corrections officers and know people that have had extended stays in prisons)

the former, given the second option you listed.
the latter is cruel and unusual punishment.
wishing that type of punishment on anyone is revolting to me...

Geoff.... jail violence on tv shows is most definately exaggerated. However one thing I know FOR SURE is that in real life, the vast majority of inmates don't like baby killers (or child molesters) and if they're lifers themselves, they will have no qualms about taking care of them - be it killing them, torturing them daily etc... my mother, her boyfriend, and my brother all work in the prison system (my mother and her boyfriend for almost 15 years, they've seen it all). It most certainly does happen. Making a cute, vulnerable man your beotch also happens VERY frequently. Is it revolting, sure it is, but it happens... when you're in prison for life without a possibility of ever getting out, what seems revolting to you while you're on the outside can very easily turn appealing when you know you're stuck with that or no other options.

I'd much rather see him get life in prison. As I said, sitting in a cell by himself for the most part, waiting for his execution, learning, reading, watching tv, etc etc... is just too good for him, even if the (eventual) end result is his life being over.

~Tara

[Dangerdoll]

I'd much rather see him get life in prison. As I said, sitting in a cell by himself for the most part, waiting for his execution, learning, reading, watching tv, etc etc... is just too good for him, even if the (eventual) end result is his life being over.

~Tara
I totally agree and never thought they'd come back with a Death recommendation....

[slipknottin]

There is no use for him on our planet, remove him.

[geoffgarcia]

Is it revolting, sure it is, but it happens... when you're in prison for life without a possibility of ever getting out, what seems revolting to you while you're on the outside can very easily turn appealing when you know you're stuck with that or no other options.

I'd much rather see him get life in prison. As I said, sitting in a cell by himself for the most part, waiting for his execution, learning, reading, watching tv, etc etc... is just too good for him, even if the (eventual) end result is his life being over.

~Taraits not that it happens thats revolting, its that you would wish it on someone...

[dwayne]

Geoff, you don't make sense! If you think "that" (being someone's beeotch) is so revolting... and worse than death... then it follows suit that Peterson deserves it. At least that's my logic. :D Would I wish "that" on my worst enemy? Nope, probably not. But I was wishing it on that worthless piece of feces (or at least was wishing it on him up until yesterday, now I'm holding out a glimmer of hope that the judge will reverse the jury's ruling)

~Tara

ps ~ I am a supporter of the death penalty under different circumstances...

[aquariumfishguy]

There is no use for him on our planet, remove him.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), we cannot use that method for "removal". For if we did, our country would be known as one huge delusion of grandeur

I (too) am pretty upset that he got the death sentence… far too easy.

[aquariumfishguy]

Another thought - this is just my personal view, but anybody who thinks it is revolting to wish for Scott to be "taken care of" within prison walls, yet finds it perfectly ok to wish death on someone (however horrible they might be), is a hypocrite IMO.

<whistles as he quickly runs> :D

[dwayne]

Another thought - this is just my personal view, but anybody who thinks it is revolting to wish for Scott to be "taken care of" within prison walls, yet finds it perfectly ok to wish death on someone (however horrible they might be), is a hypocrite IMO.

<whistles as he quickly runs> :D

:laugh:

I think being taken care of and the death penalty are both horrible things to 'look forward to'... in Peterson's case, death is just way too easy.

~Tara

[Indigo]

I thought I would add my two cents... I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in Canada, we, the taxpayers, end up paying for prisons and their occupants. If this is also true in the US, why on earth would anyone want to pay room and board for a convicted (I stress convicted, don't want to get flamed from either side ;) ) murderer?

I agree that death is the 'easy' way out, but in today's prison system, its not exactly much of a punishment to have a warm cell, bedding, decent food, etc. I think some of the south american countries have it right, take a look at their prisons... Human rights for criminals be darned I say

Thats all I wanted to say, I like being the instigator of debate :D

[gnahc79]

I'm not getting into the death penalty debate :), but here's some more info:


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/laci_peterson/10412556.htm

Road to death is long and filled with appeals

By Jessie Seyfer and Howard Mintz

Mercury News

When a dozen jurors decided Monday that Scott Peterson should receive the death penalty, they bucked a national and statewide trend. But with a notoriously long appeals process and a massive backlog of inmates on death row, it's also a decision that may never be carried out.

The process takes so long, legal analysts said, that Peterson is far more likely to die of natural causes than from a lethal injection.

``The math is very simple,'' said former San Mateo County prosecutor Chuck Smith. ``We have 640 men on death row. We execute one person about every three years. He's at the very end of that group. He's going to die in prison.''

California has executed just 10 men since 1978, when the state restored capital punishment. During the same time, 22 condemned inmates have died of natural causes and 13 others have committed suicide. There hasn't been an execution in nearly three years. The average length of time spent on death row of the past three inmates executed was roughly 20 years. There are currently 644 inmates on death row.

Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, has already vowed to seek a new trial and to pursue ``every and all appeals,'' though it's almost certain that another attorney will handle those efforts because ineffective counsel is a typical issue for appeal.

Peterson's first appeal will be to the California Supreme Court. It is automatic under the law and often takes about eight years to be resolved. Peterson's appeals would then move through the federal appeals court system, up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If none of those efforts bears fruit, an execution date will be set. At that point, only the governor can step in to keep him alive.

But it might not get that far. A 2002 Mercury News review of California's death penalty system found that death sentences are often reversed for a range of problems, from incompetent defense lawyers to mistakes by trial judges. Since 1987, more than 80 death sentences have been overturned, including six this year.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has been particularly tough on the state's death sentences, frequently overturning cases despite the objections of the state's prosecutors, who consider the federal court too liberal. The 9th Circuit is usually the last word on the state's capital cases -- the U.S. Supreme Court has seldom intervened to spare a condemned inmate.

In the Peterson case, the initial appeal will focus on whether Geragos or Judge Alfred Delucchi made obvious errors. Legal experts who followed the trial closely didn't see glaring mistakes or decisions that were blatantly unfair to Peterson.

``I really don't think he's got much,'' Smith said. ``I think his strongest avenue is the removal of Juror No. 5.''

Smith was referring to the mysterious removal of the former Juror No. 5 -- onetime foreman Gregory Jackson -- who was kicked off the panel during guilt-phase deliberations for reasons that remain under court seal.

Improper removal of a juror is considered ``reversible error,'' Smith said, which means the verdict would have to be automatically reversed. Peterson's other possible error claims -- the inclusion of controversial dog-tracking evidence, for instance -- would probably be dismissed by higher courts as ``harmless,'' Smith said.

It's also possible that over the many years Peterson will spend on death row, the state will have abolished the death penalty, if jurors' increasing reluctance to choose it is any indication of public attitude.

A report released today by the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center shows that the number of people sentenced to death row has dropped by 50 percent nationwide since 1999. During that time, executions have fallen 40 percent.

In the late 1990s, California was seeing 30 to 35 death sentences per year. The rate is now in the teens, said Lance Lindsey, executive director of Death Penalty Focus, a San Francisco-based anti-death-penalty organization. The Peterson jury was the first San Mateo County jury to choose death since 1995. Prosecutors had tried -- and failed -- five times previously.

Lindsey attributed the change to the fact that capital cases have become so expensive for counties to take on -- San Mateo County's price tag is well into the millions -- that often counties won't bother. Also, increased publicity about wrongful convictions and individuals exonerated by DNA evidence has made juries more reluctant.

Some legal experts said that given these trends, as well as the facts in the Peterson case, they were especially surprised by the jury's decision.

``In a case like this, where there's no prior criminal history and a family that cares for the person, it's unheard of,'' said Oakland defense attorney and trial commentator Dan Horowitz. ``This is the least aggravated death penalty case I've ever seen.''

Delucchi will formally sentence Peterson on Feb. 25. The judge can overturn the death decision, but that's not considered likely.

Once Delucchi sentences Peterson, he will be transferred to San Quentin State Prison. And the long wait -- and the lengthy appeals process -- will begin.

The next California inmate slated to be executed is Donald Beardslee, a San Mateo double murderer who has exhausted his appeals and could be put to death as early as February. He was sentenced to die in 1984.

[slipknottin]

Fortunately (or unfortunately), we cannot use that method for "removal". For if we did, our country would be known as one huge delusion of grandeur


What are you talking about?
:confused:

[aquariumfishguy]

...If this is also true in the US, why on earth would anyone want to pay room and board for a convicted (I stress convicted, don't want to get flamed from either side ;) ) murderer?

Because legal costs are so high, it is almost always more expensive to execute someone than it is to give them a life sentence. This is all in the name of a fair trial by jury. It sounds off, I know, but that is how our system is. It costs more execute, so it makes for an even stronger case against execution in general for those who do not favor it.

Besides, many people in prison might be making the things you commonly use. Despite depictions in the movies of people 'rotting in jail', many occupants are active - both in the prison and in the community. I say good for them, if they can be somewhat productive, cost us as less money as possible, and still be punished behind bars for their life, go for it.

[geoffgarcia]

Geoff, you don't make sense!

If you think being someone's beeotch is so revolting and worse than death then it follows suit that Peterson deserves it.Tara, I understand what your saying, and I can understand from your post that you have no clue what I'm saying.

All I'm saying is that to wish "being someones beeotch" on someone - is revolting. Its quite simple...



anybody who thinks it is revolting to wish for Scott to be "taken care of" within prison walls, yet finds it perfectly ok to wish death on someone (however horrible they might be), is a hypocrite IMO.if your referring to me (not sure you are, but just in case) - I'm against the death penalty...so there is nothing hypocritical in my stance.

[Xt87]

Its about time. I hope there isn't a great deal of appeals either.

[labont865]

Bureau of Justice Statistics figures from a few years ago showed that it cost $16,000 per year to keep a prisoner in state or federal prison. Hidden and indirect expenses to taxpayers may inflate this figure to $20,000 or $25,000 per year. I know a single death penalty costs more but that is only because they let people sit on death row for years and years.
if somebody is found guilty and sentenced to death they should be executed within one year. Give them one year to appeal and that is it. This would drop the cost by huge amounts. And as somebody else said "**** human rights for murderers" they didnt respect the human rights of the person they killed why should we respect theirs. And whats worse is somebody who can kill a PREGNANT woman. In the case where children are brought into the picture, I think anybody who can commit a crime(murder,rape,molestation,etc) against a child should be executed with no questions asked. Once found guilty I think the execution should be carried out immediately.

It may not be the popular opinion but it is my opinion. I am one who is definately pro capital punishment.

[aquariumfishguy]

Actually, the fact that someone could be waiting to be executed for 10-20 years is not where all the costs associated with the death penalty come from. Appeals, and hearings after conviction can quickly rack up the bill. The January 5, 1997 Miami Herald estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or roughly six times the cost of a life imprisonment sentence.

Many of us who are against capital punishment are so because of how many innocents are put to death. Since the late 1700's, here in America, it is estimated that up to 65% of all those who have been executed might have been innocent on death row. Even more alarming (get this...), since 1973, at least 88 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence came forward. A simple case of wrong place, wrong time can mean death for somebody... and that is wrong. If our system cannot get it right, they shouldn't have the ability to kill via a death sentence.

---And then there are those who believe human beings shouldn't have the right to kill another person as a form of "punishment" (perhaps one could argue this separates humans from animal like behaviors).