It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Scott Peterson Sentenced to Death

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Geragos blew this case from the beginning. He spread himself too thin between SP and MJ. Then, he made some claims he couldn't back up; i.e., not only was SP innocent, but that he (Geragos) would name the real killer(s).

SP cooked his own goose, with his conversations to Amber Frey. He told her this would be the first holiday without his deceased wife (she was still alive). Then he sold Laci's car way too soon.

Death penalty is appropriate. It is not a deterrent to other killers, but it is a deterrent to SP. Nothing can deter serial killers; they are emotionless sociopaths. They would be the first to sign up if an execution were televised on PPV. Putting them to death is the only way to stop them, and is one of the best arguments for the death penalty.





posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
That's sort of odd, a Californian jury giving someone the death sentence. I guess not everyone in California is an aging-liberal-hippy.

The death penalty is too pleasant for a lunatic like this, he should be locked away for the rest of his life, living with the knowlage of what he's done. But it makes you wonder; why would someone do this? Why would anyone do something as bad as this. Humans weren't born with the capacity to do something so heinous, they only do it if their life experiences has turned them into a twisted person, or if they have some serious mental problems.

I'd just like to say this to all of you who support the death penalty: It won't solve anything.

People will still commit crimes, people will still kill other people, and people will still keep on hating.


Many of us aging California liberal hippy's agree that this monster doesnt' deserve to live and be a tax burden to the aging liberal hippy's that are tax payers.
So much for profiling!



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Some criminal lawyers take on the case but are not very willing to save their client from jail or death. They are lawyers but they still have their own private opinion and if they think you're guilty they may not be too gung ho on saving your bacon.
I think there may have been some of that here.

I worked for a criminal lawyer for awhile and got to know how their minds work. Of course, i did not work for a "high profile" lawyer... but i learned a lot about how they feel and handle cases.

Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I think Scott Peterson is not a very smart cookie. After all he fled to mexico with died hair and thousands of dollars in his possession. Sometimes circumstantail evidence is the best way to convict a person.
A death sentence is the best thing that could happen to Scott because he will be segregated in Death Row from the general population and in prison..they hate nothing more than child abusers and killers. His life would not be worth one plug nickel if he was given "life."



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
A member said:


SP * * * told her [Amber Frey] this would be the first holiday without his deceased wife (she was still alive). Then he sold Laci's car way too soon.


Another member said:


[SP] fled to mexico with died hair and thousands of dollars in his possession.


I did not follow this media circus where an "average Joe" husband was prosecuted as prime suspect in pregant wife's death. I never quite understood why this particular case drew so much media and public attention. Yes, the act was heinous if true. I wonder if he would have been convicted or once convicted sentenced to death, had it not been such a high profile media event.

Certainly, with the widespread attention given this case, SP's case potentially serves as a deterrent to others, though it's not clear what kind of deterrent it will be. Husband's who contemplate committing this kind of heinous act will either be detrred from doing it or will be deterred from going about it in such a stupid manner. Will the lesson to other murderers be that they must be more careful than SP and not repeat his mistakes? I think that's the downside of this kind of media event. It trains other evil people how not to commit their evil acts.

The two quotes above make me wonder about his guilty knowledge and intent. Why did he tell Frey that his wife will be gone? Why did he sell his wife's car (was it before or after her death had been confirmed?). Why did he dye his hair and "flee" to Mexico? Very strange and questionable conduct. But I tend to agree with Indy. Based on all I have heard about the SP case, it was weak on both sides. There is enough room for reasonable to drive a freight train through.

I do wonder whether the judge will confirm the jury's choice of the death penalty.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone


I do wonder whether the judge will confirm the jury's choice of the death penalty.


I am not sure but I think that the judge already confirmed the dealth penalty and a date of Feb. 25th was mentioned and....an automatic appeal will be filed?



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
You know, I haven't been following this case at all. I'm not even sure who that guy killed. His pregnant wife, Laci, right? I don't see what the attraction is, there are murder trials every day. what makes this case so special? Is it the rich white people angle (if he was rich, I don't know, I'm just speculating)? I skip over it in the paper, and turn the channel when it's on. It's boring IMHO. It seems that FOX is obsessed with it, so it must have some appeal to the lowest denominator. There is so much more stuff that is so much more important, it's really aggravating that this gets so much coverage.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Myself I am a firm believer in the death penalty but in this case unless the jury had a lot more evidence then was shown on TV I don't think they had enough evidence to convict much less give him the death penalty.

I think he did it but I don't think they came even close to proving it. No more than they had on him a public defender should have been able to get him off. I know it would be a cold day before I let his lawyer defend me

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I keep saying it over and over. Nothing makes sense about this case. We never had a chance to know Lacy and all we heard about her were the kinds of things we always hear about most murder victims. They were angels on earth.

She was one good looking woman. I never saw a bad picture of her in all the months this was on the tube. We know a lot about Amber and none of it is flattering. Unless Lacy was the bitch from hell at home, I can't see why Peterson would even be interested in Amber except that she was easy and his wife wasn't in the condition or mood to satisfy his libido.

On top of that, why would he be interested in raising Amber's child and not be interested in raising his own? Maybe it was his in-laws. From what I have seen of Sharon Rocha and her "companion," I wouldn't enjoy their company, at all. I never saw an honest emotion from Sharon Rocha, ever.

On the other hand, I can't think of any excuses for Peterson's behavior during the investigation. Why would he develop such elaborate lies for Amber's sake? Did he think that she wouldn't catch wind of a case that was getting national attention?

If he was innocent, wouldn't he want to simplify his life dramatically? Wouldn't he want to jettison all excess baggage ASAP? Sharon's "companion" confronted him about his having an affair before she was murdered, if my memory serves. He himself went fishing on the same day that Peterson went fishing. Is there a connection there? Why was Scott's going fishing so bizarre and "What's his Name's" going fishing so unremarkable.

I don't know. I think there is more than a reasonable doubt when you look at the evidence and frankly, that's what the jury is supposed to rule on. I've seen many cases of people smearing a person to give the impression of guilt without any evidence of such. I never have felt comfortable "divining" the truth. I want to see facts.

I didn't see anyone involved in this case whom I felt any real sympathy for. Something tells me that Lacy was a victim of a pathetic systemic family problem that Scott must have come to the conclusion that he could no longer endure.



[edit on 04/12/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I’m with both Indy and Grady all the way on this one.

I’ve seen numerous lists of reasons for Peterson’s conviction, and I have my own. No matter what I come up with, though, the reasons the jurors used for justifying a MURDER ONE conviction are appaulingly inadequate, based on circumstantial evidence and emotion.

IMHO, Peterson’s conviction and recommended death sentence amounts to a travesty of justice and flys in the face of what our justice system is all about.

---------- Begin List of Reasons For Conviction ----------

Scott seemed like a classic sociopath.
Irrelevant. So are many other people, but that doesn’t spell “murder”.

He had affair(s) on the side.
Irrelevant. Made him an adulterer, and a member of a LARGE, well-established Men’s club in America.

Scott bought a boat.
Irrelevant. So?

Scott made concrete anchors.
Circumstantial. The prosecution “claimed” he made 5 anchors from the cement; 4 anchors to weigh down the body, WHICH WERE NEVER FOUND (cough, cough), leaving one which they found in the boat. Let’s play Word Association:

Which of the following options go with the word “Boat”?

a) Toilet seat
b) Mayonaise
c) Choo Choo Train
d) Anchor

Make 1 choice only.


While Laci was pregnant, Scott told Amber he didn't want children of his own.
Irrelevant. Simply made him a responsible adulterer.

Scott told Amber that his wife was dead.
Circumstancial. I wonder how many other adulterous men have done the same thing.

The Amber Frey tapes in general.
Garbage. Those tapes proved nothing except that Peterson is a pathological liar and adulterer. IMHO, the single goal behind this was to assassinate Peterson’s character, making the jurors hate him. Frankly, I think Amber Frey and Peterson are peas in a pod; a match made in Heaven.

Scott’s wife washed up in the same area where he fished.
Circumstantial. I think this is one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence, but it’s still CIRCUMSTANTIAL. A lot of people fished there.

The jurors feared an OJ outcome.
I’ve seen this reason given numerous times. Supposedly this jury didn’t want to repeat the O.J. scenario. I don’t know if this entered their minds or not. My response to that is, nor is he John Wayne Gayce, Jeffery Dahmer, the Son of Sam or Charley Manson.

The prosecution established motive and Scott was the logical perpetrator.
Flimsy. A decent attorney could make Laci’s mother appear to have a motive. In any case like this one, the husband is ALWAYS a suspect. If other suspects cannot be found, and the case is weak, then the hubby takes the fall. It makes people think that “justice” was served, puts a feather in the prosecutor’s hat, but has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

Geragos promised the jury a lot, but didn’t delivered.
Geragos should lose his license to pratice law. He did Peterson a colossal injustice. An attorney 2 years out of law school should have been able to get Peterson off.

---------- End List of Reasons For Conviction ----------

Don’t get me wrong, if Peterson did, in fact, murder his wife and unborn child, then I would have no sympathy for him. I’m not a Peterson groupie. However, there are things about this case that stink to me. Here’s a few:

--------- Begin List of Things That Stink ---------

1) First of all, the verdict of “guilty” seems (IMHO) to fly in the face of justice, and it makes a mockery of the premise upon which our system of justice is based. That being the simple idea that it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than it is to send 1 innocent person to jail. But, I think that noble idea, as well as “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”, have gone the way of the dinosaur.

On flimsy, circumstantial evidence and heated emotions, a jury has convicted a man of 1st degree murder and recommended the death sentence. All without an iota of hard evidence. Emotion is not supposed to enter into the verdict, but it most obviously did. I think Peterson had a hanging jury, inadequate legal representation and didn’t stand a chance.

2) For whatever reasons, Geragos simply didn’t perform in this case. He allowed the conviction to happen through ineptness, lack of interest or malicious intent. In any case, Peterson did not receive adequate representation, and now he will likely die because it.

3) Amber Frey’s testimony made me want to throw up. She’s not exactly a winner herself. Gloria Alred also makes me want to heave every time I see her hateful, ugly mug. At any rate, all Amber’s testimony did was trash Peterson’s character, incite the jurors and make them hate Peterson vehemently on a very personal level for his being a lying, cheating sociopath. Hating him alone, however, should not enter into the process of rendering a verdict. A little evidence to go along with it would be in order. Hating a man because he’s a liar, an adulterer and a sociopath doesn’t justify taking his life away. To do so would be an immoral, cruel and primitive action far worse than the action the defendant was tried for.

4) The atmosphere around the courthouse while the jurors deliberated was zoo-like. It consisted of a crowd of blood-thirsty animals, drooling over the flesh of a fresh carcass. When Peterson was found guilty of 1st degree murder, they relished the sound of the words “guilty of murder in the 1st degree”.

To put icing on the cake, the death sentence has now been recommended. I guess that same blood-thirsty, lynch mob can now feel satisfied that “justice” was served. It stinks to me and says a lot about the underlying mentality of our society today.

--------- End List of Things That Stink ---------

If you recall, when the guilty verdict first came down, everyone in the media seemed to be shocked. After all, there was no hard evidence presented that Peterson committed the crime; only speculation, inuendo and meaningless tapes. But, an angry jury armed only with that, came back with guilty in the 1st degree. Now, due to that verdict, everyone in the media who questioned Peterson’s guilt or innocence before now talk about it as though it’s an established fact. AND IT’S NOT! It’s just the skewed opinion of 12 angry people. What’s wrong with everyone? Have we lost the ability to think? Is it OK now to kill someone because we don’t like them? Kill them without a shred of hard evidence that they even committed a crime?

Well, I for one totally disagree with the verdict and recommended sentence in this case. Even though I get the impression that Scott Peterson is a sociopath and pathological liar who takes advantage of dull, weak-minded women (my impression of Amber), that alone doesn’t spell murder. And since there was no hard evidence presented, I can’t imagine what these jurors were thinking when they coldly and THOUGHTLESSLY decided to end Peterson’s life. This isn’t my idea of justice, and it makes me sick. This verdict (IMO) was handed down on the basis of emotions only, not on any OBJECTIVE reasoning that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

IMHO we’ve all somehow taken a big step backward.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
The idea was Peterson had to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing that was proven in this case was that Scott was having an affair. Yippy. Why would a guy go through all the trouble of killing someone, cleaning up, wrapping up the body, making anchors, taking her out to the lake in broad daylight and somehow dumping her weighted body overboard without falling in and without being seen, going back home and acting as if he had been fishing just to take the police to the place where he ad been just so they could find the body. Make sense? Heck no.

Wasn't the rumor floated that she had been kidnapped? Ok. Lets pretend she was. Maybe someone had her and was looking for a way to get rid of her and heard Scotts story about fishing. So this gives them a way to get rid of the victim without being blamed. Everyone knows the spouse is always the #1 suspect. I mean if Scott can dump the body why can't someone else?

Another possible scenario and more likely than the other I presented. Amber was tired of Scott not getting around to dumping Laci so she decided to do something about it. Murder for hire. I'd bet anything Scott told Amber that he was going fishing for the day at the bay. Wouldn't you? "Sorry Amber I can't make it over today for our time. I'm headed out to the bay to go fishing." . So that becomes the time to take care of Laci. Get her killed and dump the body in the bay. You get rid of her and the worst that can happen is that Scott gets blamed. So she has nothing to lose. And if it does come back on him well thats what he gets for not dumping Laci when he had the chance.

Don't think for a minute that the second idea is far fetched. Amber certainly had motive and since she was sleeping with a married man that had a kid on the way it was certainly not beneath her to do something immoral.

All three scenarios are possible. Scott... the kidnapper... and Amber. First and Third scenarios all had motive. Neither case had physical evidence. And in Scotts case there was circumstantial evidence that could have just as easily pointed to someone else as him. And for that he gets found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is far less to convict him on then there was OJ. I mean did this guy have a history of violent behavior? Abuse? What? Nothing right?

As Larry Flynt said... "all I'm guilty of is bad taste"



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
It's my humble opinion that there's a lot more to this story than what was told in court. Maybe Peterson did kill her and dump her body in the bay, but why in the hell would he put his alibi in the same place he put the bodies? If he did it, he must have been convinced that the bodies would never make it to the surface, but he's got a lot more faith than I would have.

I have to change one thing I said. Laci's father is really the only family member who showed what I would call genuine emotion and Sharon Rocha savaged him to the press.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Hello people:

Oh the Death Penalty , An eye for an eye hmmm.
I still think that he'll suffer more with live in Prision
but that will cost us a lo of tax payers money.
The little I know of the leathal injection is from reading
the news papers , but I had read is almost pain free.
I don't belive is fitting for what he have done.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by latinwolf
The little I know of the leathal injection is from reading
the news papers , but I had read is almost pain free.
I don't belive is fitting for what he have done.


I think somewhere we have forgotten why we put people to death. We don't put people to death to punish them. Punishment has only one purpose and that is to extinguish behavior. When we put a person to death, we have declared, as a society, that that person has committed a crime of such magnitude that he no longer deserves the resources he consumes and that society would be best served by that person's demise.

I would think that any jury that would convict a man of a capital crime and did not have the wherewithal to render the death penalty, should probably be sent back to the deliberation room to reconsider.

If the jury genuinely believes that Peterson committed this crime, then his sentence is just, but death is not a punishment, even if he suffers as a result.


[edit on 04/12/14 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by latinwolf
Hello people:

Oh the Death Penalty , An eye for an eye hmmm.
I still think that he'll suffer more with live in Prision
but that will cost us a lo of tax payers money.
The little I know of the leathal injection is from reading
the news papers , but I had read is almost pain free.
I don't belive is fitting for what he have done.


I agree with you... Death is just an easy way out. I would be for the Death Penalty if it was a slow painful process. But still its death, his misery would be better.. They should make him suffer. I wouldn't mind spending my tax money for his torment and torture alive.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Even if Peterson's conviction is upheld, by the time all his appeals are exhausted, experts estimate that some eighteen to twenty-five years will have passed. Those years will be punishment enough, at least for my dime.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
I don't see what the attraction is, there are murder trials every day. what makes this case so special?


I can't speak for everyone, but the appeal for is the nuances of the case that cannot be appreciated by the casual observer. I have said it before that even the Coen Brothers could not dream up a more twisted tale of human frailty than was exhibited in this case. Hell, forget the Coen Brothers, Shakespeare would be hard pressed to top this case.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   
The death penalty solves nothing and makes implicit murderers of its supporters.

You want someone dead for murder?
Fine, but then you're not better than the murderer himself.

Who executes the executioner?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
The death penalty solves nothing and makes implicit murderers of its supporters.

I agree. Anyway, here's quite an extensive ats-thread about the use of capital punishment:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
The death penalty solves nothing and makes implicit murderers of its supporters.

You want someone dead for murder?
Fine, but then you're not better than the murderer himself.

Who executes the executioner?


Your right to some extent.. the Death Penalty.. knowing that it exist for the minds that have intentions to Kill, might be in itself a deterent to prevent one from murdering anyone, however knowing that if you do, you to will pay the same price...(Death) There was a choice to be made... he made the incorrect one. Now for really wanting someone dead for murder, tough call, but it would not be my first choice.. But Laci and Conner was'nt given a choice. So you the murderer made the decision for yourself to allow us/me/you to put you to death as a result of your actions.. Being any better then murderer... hmmm, I think just a touch better, by putting one to death may save 10 more lifes as a result of doing so... Remember you made the decision(the murderer) to be put to Death by the Socieity that you have taken life away from... At least we will do it in a humane way.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join