Iím with both Indy and Grady all the way on this one.
Iíve seen numerous lists of reasons for Petersonís 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, Petersonís 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 doesnít spell ďmurderĒ.
He had affair(s) on the side.
Irrelevant. Made him an adulterer, and a member of a LARGE, well-established Menís club in America.
Scott bought a boat.
Scott made concrete anchors.
Circumstantial. The prosecution ďclaimedĒ 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. Letís play Word Association:
Which of the following options go with the word ďBoatĒ?
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
Petersonís character, making the jurors hate him. Frankly, I think Amber Frey and Peterson are peas in a pod; a match made in Heaven.
Scottís wife washed up in the same area where he fished.
Circumstantial. I think this is one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence, but itís still CIRCUMSTANTIAL. A lot of people fished
The jurors feared an OJ outcome.
Iíve seen this reason given numerous times. Supposedly this jury didnít want to repeat the O.J. scenario. I donít 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 Laciís 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 ďjusticeĒ was served, puts a feather in the
prosecutorís hat, but has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Geragos promised the jury a lot, but didnít 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 ----------
Donít get me wrong, if Peterson did, in fact, murder his wife and unborn child, then I would have no sympathy for him. Iím not a Peterson groupie.
However, there are things about this case that stink to me. Hereís a few:
--------- Begin List of Things That Stink ---------
1) First of all, the verdict of ďguiltyĒ 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 ďinnocent until proven guiltyĒ and ďbeyond a reasonable doubtĒ, 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 didnít stand a chance.
2) For whatever reasons, Geragos simply didnít 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 Freyís testimony made me want to throw up. Sheís 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 Amberís testimony did was trash Petersonís 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 heís a liar, an adulterer and a sociopath doesnít 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 ďguilty 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
ďjusticeĒ 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 Petersonís guilt or innocence before now talk about it as though itís
an established fact. AND ITíS NOT! Itís just the skewed opinion of 12 angry people. Whatís wrong with everyone? Have we lost the ability to think? Is
it OK now to kill someone because we donít 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 doesnít spell murder. And since
there was no hard evidence presented, I canít imagine what these jurors were thinking when they coldly and THOUGHTLESSLY decided to end Petersonís
life. This isnít 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 ďbeyond a reasonable doubtĒ.
IMHO weíve all somehow taken a big step backward.