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
---------- 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.
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
c) Choo Choo Train
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
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
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.