Who has doubts about Scott Peterson's guilt?

[plcdude]

I am not sure that the evidence was conclusive enough to find for a guilty verdict.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. did u watch the entire trial?

nt

[xultar]

2. I do. I honestly don't think he did it. His attorney does not deserve a

pay check.

[bloom]

3. i wasn't on the jury and I don't presume to guess what they heard

and I haven't been following all the stuff in the news, either, but that is beside the point.

[GR]

4. I Believe It Wasn't Proven And That Jury Tampering Will Reverse..

the verdict....but he may well be very, very guilty. I just don't think that it was proven and the last minute jury changes were very suspicious.

I don't think, in retrospect, that O.Js guilt was proven and I believe that the LAPD interfered with the situation and ruined their case by so doing...

[truebrit71]

5. Me. He was tried and convicted in the "liberal" media long before the jury

...deliberated...

He screwed around on his pregnant wife....that makes him a scumbag...not a murderer....

Very, very little proof....

And now the jury is saying that he was convicted because he was "impassive"...

WTF???

[imax2268]

45. yup...the media...

made him out to be a monster...he was found guilty and sentenced befor his trial ever started...

[Politicub]

6. I have doubts

The case was built entriely on circumstantial evidence. I have a hard time with sentencing someone to death without one shred of hard evidence.

But, I wasn't in the jury so I don't know everything that they saw.

[rbnyc]

7. I have doubts about anything decided in our current system.

I just think it's difficult enough to determine the truth, and meld the criminal justice system with the infotainment industry and I doubt all.

[trotsky]

9. That's the ticket, rbnyc.

"I have doubts about anything decided in our current system."

Spot on.

[rbnyc]

44. Thanks.

Sad, ain't it?

[StClone]

8. What Probability do you have him at?

I see 99.5% that he did it. Since reasonable doubt assumes a much lower probability than 99% where do you place him?

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Reasonable Doubt Assumes Lower Than 99%?

Who quantified that? I've never heard that before. I would say that in a capital murder trial, any doubt would be reasonable. So, who gets to quantify those probabilities?
The Professor

[ooglymoogly]

42. to be putting people to death on reasonable doubt criteria is insane

[dbfl33040]

10. NO doubts!

Did you read the transcripts?? I read ALL of them and there's no way the jury could come up with any other verdict other than guilty!!

[plcdude]

13. where did you find

the transcripts?

[Bunny]

16. Seriously. I didn't realize the transcripts were published yet!

Wonder how they were obtained? On edit: he obtained them in Morocco, no less!!

[dbfl33040]

29. DUH!!!!

You can get the transcripts DAILY from the Court TV web site!!!!

[Redleg]

73. Don't be a jerk.

EOM

[barb162]

15. but everything was circumstantial , though I think he probably did it

Is there anything in particular which makes you "know" he did it

[StClone]

21. What's wrong with circumstantial?

I don't understand your reference to things not being proven if there are no witnesses. It is proven that physical circumstantial evidence can be more dependable than eye-witnesses.

[barb162]

24. You might be mistaking me for someone else, but to answer your

question anyway, there was no DNA linking him to the murders which I consider hard scientific evidence. Nor other hard scientific evidence was presented of which I am aware.. Witnesses can mistake identity badly. I think there are a lot of people in jail today because of circumstantial evidence that sounded good at the time but was wrong

[StClone]

30. I re-read your post and see my error,

But still hard Science is not needed. A multiplicity of coincidences need to be explained away in order not to find him as the one and probably only perpetrator of this crime.

[barb162]

58. but you would have preferred that some hard evidence could

have been found, correct? One tiny little bit somewhere? I don't know what I would have done if I were on that jury.

I hardly followed it and I don't even know what Laci died of (knocked unconscious?) and I couldn't understand the media circus since husbands killing wives is somewhat frequent in this country.

[barb162]

60. There was one other thing I wanted to mention and that was

I'm in IL and ex-Governor Ryan let out a bunch of convicts about 3 years ago because these guys were basically innocent. DNA and other evidence proved they didn't do the crimes...one guy was even in jail for something else when he got"nailed" again for something which he couldn't have done because he was in jail. Another guy was convicted of murder even though someone else confessed to the murder and the guy who confessed had DNA at the crime site. The prosecutors still didn't go after the guy who confessed because they didn't want to admit they went after the innocent guy.

[ooglymoogly]

32. shadow of a doubt, shadow of a doubt, shadow of a doubt

yes i think he is guilty. but i don't know absolutely some strange coincidences did not happen and i am sure the jurors don't either. the prosecution did not prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. circumstantial evidence should not be accepted to inflict the death penalty...this is wrong and i think it will be overturned, i mean the death penalty.

[Bunny]

33. Shadow of a doubt is not the standard. Reasonable doubt is.

Prosecution is not required to prove anything beyond a "shadow" of a doubt, just beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a basic tenet of the American justice system that appears to be misunderstood alot. That and circumstantial evidence...

[ooglymoogly]

43. if shadow of a doubt is not the criteria for capitol murder case

when someone faces death, then what is it used for...enron execs? and how can you execute someone when there is a shadow of a doubt? have i been reading too many mystery novels, wherein capitol cases always use shadow of doubt criteria.

[Bunny]

46. Read up on American law. Shadow of a doubt is simply not the legal

requirement, whether we like it or not. Never has been. It's beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ooglymoogly]

36. the bar is not doubt.... the bar is SHADOW of a doubt

which in my humble opinion precludes circumstantial as apposed to hard evidence in a capitol case....so at least the death sentence is going to be overturned, to remove it from that obstacle.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. I think he's guilty but ...

I wouldn't have voted for the death penalty on the evidence he was convicted on. Without an eyewitness, or a murder weapon, or any real hard evidence that directly links him to the crime I would have voted for life without parole.

[rock]

19. So you have a reasonable doubt that he is guilty?

Just trying to understand.

[Ganja Ninja]

31. No, I'm not totally against the death penalty.

I'm sure enough he did it that I would send him to prison for the rest of his life. I just think the ultimate penalty requires ultimate proof.

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. Who cares? Really?

The Scott Petersen trial has been used to distract Americans from a host of very serious issues. The Petersen affair is nothing more than a different version of distraction similar to the "swift boat" assholes, gay marriage and moral values. The crime is truly only important to the people who were personally touched by it and nobody else. The media isn't fooling all of us. The coverage of this trial is a living monument to the decay and corruption that thoroughly permeates American corporate media.

[Poppyseedman]

17. Who cares???

The Peterson trial was the most pressing issues the people of this country had faced since the question of whether or not to use

.........................................................paper or plastic at Wal-Mart.

:^ )

[sendero]

54. That's your opinion...

.... and here is another.

Everyone acts like they actually believe that Peterson, Jackson, etc, etc, etc are intentional diversions.

I think that is beyond silly, you don't need a tinfoil hat for that, you need a titanium hat.

This crap is covered because the fucking sheeple tune in and watch it, and the networks get paid by the eyeball.

It's about the money, stop trying to act like there is some giant malevolent wizard controlling the airwaves. This administration can't control their own bathrooms. Get real.

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. Revenge of the Titanium Hats

In response, I would ask you to explain why is this trial got far more coverage yesterday on the cable news networks than the seven soldiers killed in Iraq or the Conyers hearings in Ohio or the fact that Bush didn't vet Kerik before nominating him?

To deny that Karl Rove and company haven't been manipulating the news is, IMHO, worthy of not a titanium or tinfoil hat, but rather a large bag that comes down around the chest area. Let's call it a "sensory deprivation" hat/bag. This hat/bag will allow you to deny that the relatively few gargantuan media conglomerates controlling up wards of 70% of all media in America haven't been actively aiding and abetting C+ Augustus and his merry band of criminals. With a "total immersion" hat/bag you can understand perfectly why almost 50% of Americans still believe that Saddam ordered the attacks of 9/11. The hat/bag crowd must believe that that idea spontaneously popped into millions of peoples heads at the same time.

Further, the issue of media manipulation is NOT tinfoil/titanium hat territory. The New York Times reported this week about the programs in the pentagon that do that very thing. Of course with your "sensory deprivation" hat/bag you might have missed it so I put the New York Times link below. I would also advise you to Google the words "pentagon" and "information" or "deception".

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13info.html


I wonder if I could get Air America through my titanium hat?

[Lorien]

67. Took the words off of my keyboard

all I know about this Peterson nonsense is that the guy is said to have killed his pregnant wife, who was said to be attractive. My guess is that if the deceased were not attractive, let alone pregnant, no one would give a damn outside of their immediate circle. People are murdered every day in this country, and most remain anonymous.

Bread and circuses, my friends.

[Poppyseedman]

14. Is he guilty?

I think he is.

That fact that the DA won this case is either an indictment of Gerogos (sp) incompetence or overwhelming evidence, most we never saw, of his guilt.

Peterson should have gotten a no name shark lawyer, instead of a celebrity lawyer more interested in actually winning the case then trying to make him self look brilliant by trying untried procedures.

[UdoKier]

18. I 've seen no good reason to think he's guilty OR innocent.

Apparently he's a liar and a philanderer. That doesn't make him a killer.

I think the case based on the evidence was much stronger against OJ Simpson, and yet he went free. But Peterson could well be guilty. I still don't understand why I'm supposed to care more about his murder case than all the hundreds of other ones. Was he some sort of public figure or celebrity? Why is this stupid case so damn important?

Our country is insane.

[plcdude]

22. I think the sensational nature

involved with the case is that it was considered a double murder. The unborn child was an important factor for some.

[barb162]

63. I read somewhere that it' s not that unusual for men to kill

their pregnant wives (but damned if I can remember what the stat was and where I saw it). Why this case took on the sensationalism it did when thids type murder is not so uncommon, I don't understand.

[neebob]

66. More than anything

I think it was Laci's looks. Call me cynical.

[shimmergal]

74. I think it was Laci's looks, AND Scott's looks...

I do think he probably did it. Still, the part that bothers me is the emphasis put upon his wild lies to Amber Frey. _Lots_ of guys involved in affairs will lie outrageously about where they are, what they're doing, their current marital status--a whole bunch of things. Most don't commit murder, however, so I think the "telling lies" is a weak rationale for his guilt.

[MemphisTiger]

20. I'm not sure he did it either

I have not read the transcrips, but the jury members that are talking are saying things like he showed no emotion. Is that enough to convict a man? I don't think so. The jury is supposed to go by the evidence and testimony given, not the defendats body language. I guess we'll never know for sure who did it. It would be nice to have a murder weapon or an eye witness not just a mistress.

[samtob]

35. Those comments are being stated out of context

in the media.

Those comments were made as an answer to a direct question regarding their perception of Peterson's attitude, or presence during the trial.

Watching and reading the media today, they are not prefacing the comments which would lead one to believe they were regarding why they convicted him. Which is not true.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Was He Supposed To Show Remorse?

If he didn't do it, why remorse? Shame? If he didn't do it? I think that the jurors are way off course on that issue.

If he ranted and raved like a lunatic screaming of his innocence, would that have been better? I doubt it. Then, they would have suggested that his irrational behavior was a mitigating factor in finding him guilty.

This "lack of emotion" thing is nonsense. Your not supposed to be a emotional timebomb in a courtroom, whether your on trial or a witness being called. Lack of emotion could very well be a display of comportment.
The Professor

[samtob]

48. When the question was asked

whether they would have liked to have heard from SPeterson (they being the jury) Two of the jurors stated they would have liked to heard from him as they were looking for a reason to not impose the death sentence.

They would have liked to hear or see him show remorse. These were the male jurors mind you. They both stated they walked into the court believing the prosecution had to prove S Peterson was not innocent. When it became clear to them that he was not innocent, they started looking for any shred of remorse or sadness from SP.

They both also stated they did not use his lack of remorse or emotion as a tool to convict him, but they were looking / searching / hoping for it in order to spare his life.

The media outlets are using these statements by the jurors to paint a different picture than the one they laid out in the press conference directly after they were released from duty. It seems they are trying to make the story drag on...like they may go into withdrawals if they cannot report on this damned case for another six months.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. But, That's Patently Ridiculous

Ok, so they heard the whole case and believe he did it, but IF they're wrong, they're looking for remorse from a guy who didn't do it. "I'm convinced he did it, so he should act like he did it and show remorse, even if he didn't do it and i'm wrong."

That's cyclic logic that can never be satisfied unless the jurors are infallible. I like California, but don't believe the citizens of that fine state are infallible. (Actually they can't be. Arnold's their governor!)
The Professor

[barb162]

64. I am not sure, but they could have been talking about his lack

of remorse for having a girlfriend while his wife was pregnant, for laughing at the one mother for putting out missing posters (taped phone call that was played), etc.

[barb162]

61. yes I found that disturbing too, the comments about remorse

The jury should have been following evidence , testimony, etc., and not try to be amateur shrinks on what Petersen was thinking or feeling when he was sitting in front of them.

[LunaC]

23. The Defense and the boat - the baby and the plastic

The Defense wanted to demonstrate that the boat would have capsized if a body were thrown over the side but it wasn't allowed into evidence (don't know why.)

And what about the strip of plastic tape that looped loosely around the baby's neck and was knotted around one shoulder? "This baby would have had to be swimming to get this tape over the head and around the arm," said Geragos.

I'm not convinced the guy did it.


http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/110804_recharge_ctv.html
http://www.findlaci2003.us/prelim-day10-autopsy-conner.html

[Old and In the Way]

25. What if the MSM had decided he was innocent?

Could they have shaped public opinion in favor of Scott's innocence? I think so.

[serryjw]

71. Is Jon Benet Ramsey's parents guilty?

Sometimes logic must prevail...or maybe Manson did it.

[Debbi801]

26. My gut instinct says he did it. But...

a lot of that I think is based on the media.

Had I been a juror on that case, I don't see how I could have put through a guilty verdict, and then the death penalty on top of that. There was just not enough (if any) concrete evidence against him.

Debbi

[Vinnie From Indy]

27. Somebody please explain why this case is worthy of discussion?

The ability of the national media to use low level brainwashing is astounding. I do believe that they are finally perfecting it in America.

The Scott Petersen case is about as relevant to our society as the mastodon, yet it is dominating the news to the exclusion of issues concerning the Bill of Rights, the war in Iraq and election fraud in Ohio.

The only reason this story is being pimped to biblical levels is to distract Americans. Period!

[dbfl33040]

51. why not???????????/

[Ron Green]

59. Well, because, as the poster says, it's distracting the public from issues

important to our democracy.

[barb162]

68. yeah but what's on TV all Saturday and Sunday? Sports and

recently that baseball player taking steroids. Like who the hell cares? But there was that story all over every damn newspaper. The Iraw war and election fraud gets far less air time play that one weekend of sports

[auntAgonist]

28. I have no idea as to his guilt or innocence. What I DO know

however is that as long as cases such as this are sensationalized and on tv, radio, in papers and in our faces for months and years, there is hardly any way that a person could get a fair trial. No one on that jury went in without knowledge, a foregone conclusion, never seen the news, read a paper, watched tv?

I exaggerate I know.

but I think you understand.

[Walt Starr]

37. I have no clue as to his guilt or innocence

I tried not to pay attention to the bullshit and ignored everything about it. I really don't give a fuck about Scott Peterson, Laci Peterson, or the baby.

Fuck that shit, it's a local story that has no bearing whatsoever on my life.

[Ron Green]

62. It bears on your life only in that the mental environment of this nation

has been successfully poisoned by this non-story that became a huge story. And for that, it affects us all as it further erodes our already slim chances of realizing the vision of our Founding Fathers.

[itcfish1]

38. He could be Guilty

as sin but he did not receive a fair trial. He was tried and convicted on Court TV

[mainer]

39. There IS no evidence

There's motive and lying and guilty behavior after the fact. But no physical evidence.

That's why this man shouldn't get the death penalty. Even though the chances are, he did it.

[G_j]

40. I DON"T CARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and now suddenly we have to hear about this here too?

OK lets see.. I posted threads about PTSD and wounded in Iraq, Inauguration walkouts, police on trial for brutally beating protesters in Italy, Sinclair Broadcasting's emboldened agenda, etc. and none of the threads could hold a candle to the Peterson threads here. :puke:

[Silverhair]

47. I don't care either. NT

[DoNotRefill]

49. I think that there are serious doubts about his guilt.

The media has been playing up the "He didn't know what he was fishing for" bit as a sure sign of guilt. Well, as a fisherman, I generally don't know what I'm fishing for either, except that I'll take whatever I can get to bite my hook.

As for the hair on the pair of pliers, well, I'm married, and have found my wife's hair in the damnedest places. I've periodically found it in food that I've prepared, and had to pull it out of my mouth. That doesn't mean I killed her and ate her, does it?

I'm deeply troubled by the circumstantial nature of the case.

[dryan]

52. My 2 cents.....

my mother was called to serve on the jury for the Dr. Sam Shepherd case which in retrospect has a lot in common with the Peterson case. Beautiful victim, pregnant, handsome husband, so-called perfect marriage..and then it came out that the husband played around. I think that as soon as it came out that Scott Peterson was a philanderer the media and the police started to build a case against him. I just don't think there was enough evidence against him.

[marano]

53. The real issue is the media coverage.

I am a Cop and the this story should not have gotten the media attention that it got. It happens everyday. The media sensationalized this story to take peoples attention away from things that should be news. Is he guilty, yeah he is. If he is not guilty...who did it. Despite what the media tells us every nite the odds of a stranger doing this to his wife are about as good as him getting struck down by lighting for doing it.

[TheWebHead]

55. people seem to forget

that in domestic homocide cases, esp. if suffocated, there is little if any evidence, and most DNA matches are irrelevant because the couple live together. Married couple no kids, no witnesses. The guy goes out to the SF bay, her body turns up there. The body was weighted down and took several weeks to reach shore. If Peterson was "set up", why would the body be weighted down... The "real killers" would want the body to be found, the entire purpose of putting it in the location Peterson was. So he falls into the circumstantial eye and his behavior afterwards only verified people's suspicions.

[surfermaw]

57. n/g

I think, he maybe guilty, but you are not supposed to put someone to death if there is a reasonably doubt...Who is to say that someone else killed her , after hearing his excuse for where he was, put her in the water. not likely, but could be.

[moondust]

65. Forensic patholigist shocked.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_283079.html

~snip~

"(There was a) complete absence of physical evidence," he said. "I never would have thought there would be a death penalty verdict.

"Somewhere along the line it is clear to me that not only was the jury lost to the defense, but the jury became hostile to the defense."

Absent any physical evidence, Wecht said, the jurors had to imagine Scott Peterson premeditated the murder, transported Laci Peterson's body to a dock, loaded it on a boat and dumped it in the sea -- all without leaving any physical evidence for investigators to find.

Given the advanced forensic techniques available to modern investigators, "This is not so easily accomplished," Wecht said.

Wecht made two visits to California, performing autopsies on the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child, reviewing all the evidence with detectives and visiting Peterson's home and the site where the bodies were discovered. Wecht did not testify because there was no physical evidence to discuss.

~more~

[neebob]

69. Not me

Even though the evidence is all circumstantial, I just don't see the reasonable doubt. Maybe the problem is that the term is subjective. I'm not glad he got the death penalty, because I think that's wrong. But I'm not the least bit worried that Scott Petersen was wrongly convicted.

[Shadowen]

70. He may well have done it. I don't know.

But the prosecution sure as hell didn't prove it.

They did an excellent job of proving he had an affair with Amber Frey. BUT NOTHING ELSE. All they had was innuendo and coincidence.

[SemperEadem]

72. I think people found him guilty through their emotions

and not paying attention to there not being any hard, physical evidence of his guilt.

Cheating on your pregnant wife isn't a crime, although the emotions of many people in this country believe that it is--since being pregnant (and married with the ability to pay for your medical treatment through your own private insurance) is the closest thing to being holy these days.