Scott Peterson Sentenced to Death

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt

Maybe they should put the execution on pay per view, help pay off the state's deficit...

Too bad it won't happen for another 10-20 years...

[Tref]

Well, I am not a big proponent of the death penalty, but Scott's death does mean thing to me:

...More food for us!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Perhaps he can go out in style as a human piñata.

[MickeyLumbo]

a pinata from the front yard of NA and seamonkey would be a hit!


seriously, i think the reason the judge denied the Petterson's time to speak is becasue of their emotional outburst during Brent's time and that their display of a lack of respect for the Court. if they hadn't stormed out, they likely would have been removed.

irony, isn't it, that his cell view will be of the bay?

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by MickeyLumbo

a pinata from the front yard of NA and seamonkey would be a hit!

I can think of nothing so wrong and so funny. I'm bad that way.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, as one of the few who still believes Peterson to be not guilty, I take some consolation in the fact that his death penalty is, in this state, tantamount to a life sentence.

He will join 680 other inmates on California's death row. 11 people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1971. Um, chances are that Peterson will die in prison of natural causes (the death sentence provides him with facilities safer than he would find in general population).

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, as one of the few who still believes Peterson to be not guilty

Interesting.

I am not one to follow the court case du jour, whether it be Michael Jackson or Robert Blake or Scott Peterson. However, all I've really heard is an overwhelming sentiment that he is guilty (based on tidbits here and there - I have no idea what any of the evidence in the case is).

I note you say he is "not guilty" rather than innocent. Do you believe he committed the crime but that there was not enough evidence to convict,, or that he did not commit the crime?

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I note you say he is "not guilty" rather than innocent. Do you believe he committed the crime but that there was not enough evidence to convict,, or that he did not commit the crime?

Both. I don't believe the case against him was proven at all - with the priviso that I was certainly not in the court room every day. It was all circumstantial evidence - - which is fine, but I found it rather flimsy and prejudicial. The only physical evidence was a hair of his wife found on his boat. Um, yeah, they were married. Her hair should be everywhere he went. I think the jury succumbed to the same sentiment that struck most of America, namely, that he must be guilty because he's a lying, cheating scumbag.

But I also believe that he's innocent - because he did not any any time evince nearly the smarts necessary to pull off this particular crime with zero physical evidence. The crime was done by a genius, and Peterson is an imbecile.


In any event, his place on death row means he's protected from the inmate population, and chances of being executed in this state are slim ... though his notoriety may make him one of the prime candidates.


By the way, I think he has a good case on appeal: The judge made a huge and prejudicial blunder in allowing the jury to go unsupervised to examine the boat. Big mistake, huge. Reversable.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Both. I don't believe the case against him was proven at all - with the priviso that I was certainly not in the court room every day. It was all circumstantial evidence - - which is fine, but I found it rather flimsy and prejudicial. The only physical evidence was a hair of his wife found on his boat. Um, yeah, they were married. Her hair should be everywhere he went. I think the jury succumbed to the same sentiment that struck most of America, namely, that he must be guilty because he's a lying, cheating scumbag.

I do think that he killed Laci. However, I do NOT think that the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstancial evidence, the coincidences have to add up a little better than what I read about the case. Here, I think the prosecution got lucky for two reasons:

1) He was a lying, cheating scumbag. Yeah, you arent supposed to convict someone based on this but juries are made of human beings.

2) Mark Geragos had no evidence showing an alternate theory -- that Peterson was "stone cold innocent". His defense was based entirely on coincidence as well. I was reading an article about that issue this morning. Usually, the defense has to prove that the prosection has not made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to try and show anything beyond that. However, Geragos made it a point that he was going to "prove" an alternate theory or Laci's death... which was never really "proven". That may have been in the jury's mind as well.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, as one of the few who still believes Peterson to be not guilty, I take some consolation in the fact that his death penalty is, in this state, tantamount to a life sentence.

I know this wasn't in CA, but didn't Timothy McVeigh get offed pretty quickly? Or was this because it was a federal crime?