Scott Peterson Trial Verdict!!!

[swive]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...1112/ap_on_re_us/laci_peterson

At 4:00 EST. That mean 1:00 PST.

I live in San Diego and this trial has caught my attention. I'm definately going to watch it on TV.

[Nail]

i bet lil scottie is shittin his pants in anticipation right now

[TheDragon]

To the best of my recollection, i have never seen a real trial with anyone who is more obviously guilty than he is.

[swive]

At 11/12/04 03:01 PM, g3tLoST wrote: I live in San Diego and this trial has caught my attention. I'm definately going to watch it on TV.

Oops. The media is banned to showcase videos. So I'm going to listen to the verdict on the radio.

I hope this does not turn into an another OJ Simpson case. Scott Peterson is guilty big time.

[phileeguy]

At 11/12/04 03:08 PM, DanielTaylor wrote: To the best of my recollection, i have never seen a real trial with anyone who is more obviously guilty than he is.

you must have missed the o.j. trial

[Earfetish]

What's this story here? Is it that guy who shot his wife and kid, and his daughter testified against him? Or what?

[LadyGrace]

But still... the fact that they dismissed jurrors because it was going to be a hung jury... that makes me a bit wary. It's as if they'll make sure he's guilty no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I think he's guilty, but the fact that they tampered with the jury pisses me off. If I were Scott, I'd call for a mistrial.

[swive]

At 11/12/04 03:10 PM, Earfetish wrote: What's this story here? Is it that guy who shot his wife and kid, and his daughter testified against him? Or what?

He was having an affair with another woman, and murdered her pregnant wife and tried to flee. Google it or something. This case is HUGE in the US right now.

[TheDragon]

At 11/12/04 03:12 PM, g3tLoST wrote:

At 11/12/04 03:10 PM, Earfetish wrote: What's this story here? Is it that guy who shot his wife and kid, and his daughter testified against him? Or what?

He was having an affair with another woman, and murdered her pregnant wife and tried to flee. Google it or something. This case is HUGE in the US right now.

Sorry, i mistook this trial for the one with the guy who was drugging all of these women, having sex with them while they were out of it and filming the whole fucked up thing. He was a fugitive for a while too. For all i know, that trial has ended by now, i live in Australia so i'm not completely up with American news.

[Kazzar]

At 11/12/04 03:08 PM, g3tLoST wrote:
Oops. The media is banned to showcase videos. So I'm going to listen to the verdict on the radio.

Yeah, I was about to post something about that but wasn't sure if it was officially banned. I remember this case from like, last year or somethin. guesse he's still on trial. but anyway. It won't turn into an O.J. simpson thing cuz there wasn't so much racism involved.

[LadyGrace]

At 11/12/04 03:21 PM, JmBd wrote: Hahaha!!

A hung jury.

Yes, Josh, in the court room world, the term for a jury that cannot reach a verdict is "hung." *pat pat*

[swive]

At 11/12/04 03:23 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 11/12/04 03:21 PM, JmBd wrote: Hahaha!!

A hung jury.

Yes, Josh, in the court room world, the term for a jury that cannot reach a verdict is "hung." *pat pat*

Yeah, I'm sort of pissed off at that too. The fact that they chased out two people who has been with the case for so long is wrong.

[LadyGrace]

At 11/12/04 03:25 PM, JmBd wrote: I want to be part of a hung jury.

Poor little Josh and his dilusions of gradeur. You'll never have a substantial penis, you're just going to have to deal.

[Kolohe]

At 11/12/04 03:11 PM, LadyGrace wrote: But still... the fact that they dismissed jurrors because it was going to be a hung jury... that makes me a bit wary.

Nothing could be further from the truth. No judge in their right mind would dismiss jurors to avoid any verdict. You might as well just have a lynch mob if this was the case. One juror was dismissed because he refused to take part in the deliberation process and a second was dismissed a day later for reasons that have not been disclosed (this was #5, the lawyer). If a judge let people go because of what they were going to vote one way or another, the lawyers would move for a mistrial and the judge would be dismissed for corruption. If he is convicted, I guarantee that he will make a motion for an appeal because of all of this.

Anyhow, I’ve been following this case very closely and I have to say that Scott is getting a bum rap from the media. It sickens me how much shit they talk on the guy and nothing has been proven against him. The media says that this case is full of circumstantial evidence that makes the jurors have to connect the dots, and when they do they will see that the evidence points to murder. I disagree, when you do this, you are filling in the blank spots with emotion and speculation. This is so fucked up because they may condemn a man just because they don’t like him.

Yeah, I think he did it, but it's a shame that the police couldn’t unearth any solid evidence against this guy. They are the ones who fucked up and now the prosecution is trying to make up for it by tugging on the jury's heart strings. Fuck, sometimes I really hate our justice system. You know what though, it's one of the best ones around and I support it 100%. I believe that he should walk free based on everything that I have seen.

[LadyGrace]

At 11/12/04 03:32 PM, mastershaked wrote:

At 11/12/04 03:11 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

I disagree, when you do this, you are filling in the blank spots with emotion and speculation. This is so fucked up because they may condemn a man just because they don’t like him.

Most of the convictions in this country are based upon circumstantial evidence. In fact, it's pretty rare when you can prove someone did something without any reasonable doubt. We just don't have a "minority report" of sorts to prove to us that someone murdered someone beyond the shadow of a doubt. If anything, OJ's evidence against him was stronger than Peterson's, and yet, OJ was equited based upon "circumstantial evidence." We can never be positive about murder unless someone confesses, and even then they could be lying. =/

[Kolohe]

At 11/12/04 03:38 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Most of the convictions in this country are based upon circumstantial evidence. In fact, it's pretty rare when you can prove someone did something without any reasonable doubt. We just don't have a "minority report" of sorts to prove to us that someone murdered someone beyond the shadow of a doubt. If anything, OJ's evidence against him was stronger than Peterson's, and yet, OJ was equited based upon "circumstantial evidence." We can never be positive about murder unless someone confesses, and even then they could be lying. =/

OJ’s acquittal was really based on the fact that the jurors dismissed the DNA evidence because they thought that it wasn't reliable and there was and issue about evidence tampering. Cochran made allegations that the chain of custody was compromised and that that crime lab planted evidence. I guess it pays to have a high power attorney.

Anyhow, I disagree about the whole circumstantial evidence thing. The whole point of our justice system is that we should never convict unless you are 100% sure that the accused is guilty. Basically assuring that no free man goes to jail, but some guilty men will walk free. In this day and age of media smear campaigns, it's no wonder that people loose sight of this. Anyhow, MOST murder convictions need a body, a murder weapon and evidence that places the murderer at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. I disagree with you when you say that most cases aren’t proved beyond reasonable doubt. Most murder cases are clear cut because of extensive forensic evidence and personal testimony. This case has very little hard evidence that proves anything. Like I said, I think that he killed his wife, but if he gets convicted based on the prosecutions case, I'll be pissed because they have not met the wickets for a conviction plain and simple.

[JJAGoodfella]

PLACE YOUR BETS PEOPLE!! INNOCENT OR GUILTY!

I vote GUILTY!

[DroopyA]

At 11/12/04 03:25 PM, JmBd wrote: How is it when they can't reach a verdict, they suddenly have huge penis's.

I want to be part of a hung jury.

Haha!

Penis.

[Kolohe]

Okay, the verdict is out and Peterson was found guilty. Great day for humanity, bad day for the justice system as far as I'm concerned.

[Siiike]

The verdict is guilty! GUILTY! GUILTY! JUST ANNOUCED! GUILTY!

[swive]

Official verdict in!

GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!

1st Degree MURDER!

People are crying in the background.. this is crazy.

[StarNG]

FUCKIN GUILTY.

Its only obvious.
He was charged with killing the baby too. He should get the electric chair that piece of shit.

[Barry-Fanilow]

oops i just made a topic, didnt see this, sorry

[snayk]

At 11/12/04 04:12 PM, xSlinkyxGirlx wrote: He should get the electric chair that piece of shit.

They don't use that thing anymore. Lethal injection. They feel no pain.

[swive]

At 11/12/04 04:17 PM, snayk wrote:

At 11/12/04 04:12 PM, xSlinkyxGirlx wrote: He should get the electric chair that piece of shit.

They don't use that thing anymore. Lethal injection. They feel no pain.

I would give him life without a chance of parole. Jails should be tougher, and I hope he gets raped to a maximum degree.

[Oro]

lol fuck. I posted one too. Damn =(

[phileeguy]

they should let the prisoners choose their mode of death.
or perhaps let america vote.

[snayk]

At 11/12/04 04:19 PM, g3tLoST wrote: I would give him life without a chance of parole.

If someone is sentenced to life they can be out of there in 22 years (if I remember correctly).

[swive]

At 11/12/04 04:23 PM, snayk wrote:

At 11/12/04 04:19 PM, g3tLoST wrote: I would give him life without a chance of parole.

If someone is sentenced to life they can be out of there in 22 years (if I remember correctly).

Yeah, if parole is allowed. But with no parole, no chance of getting out unless the prison blows up and you manage to escape.

[skully]

i hope he gets prosicuted