NEWS: Judge: Peterson Jury Has Reached Verdict: UPDATE: GUILTY

Originally posted by Valhall
JUSTICE IS SERVED!

With complimentary 3 hots and a cot every day!!!

WOOHOO!!!

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Valhall]

His new girlfriend, Woody, awaits in jail

Originally posted by robertfenix
I think Death would be too good for this scumbag. I hope they put him in the worst Fed-Pen they can find so some other lifers can get real "friendly" with him.

Exactly! I do not think the death penalty is harsh enough for this type of crime. I was a bit surprised at the verdict, with all the mishaps with the jury...I thought for sure he would walk. Thankfully...I was wrong...

The main story has been updated. I actually attempted to get to the courthouse to do some on the scene interviews with the crowd, but downtown Redwood City (Just a few miles from where we live) was a madhouse and police were diverting traffic away from the courthouse.

Originally posted by FredT
The main story has been updated. I actually attempted to get to the courthouse to do some on the scene interviews with the crowd, but downtown Redwood City (Just a few miles from where we live) was a madhouse and police were diverting traffic away from the courthouse.

We appreciate the effort!

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by marg6043
It's called circunstancial evidence and that is how the OJ trial was also.

I didnt see anything CLOSE to proving he did it. All they proved to me was he was a lying dog. I will admit to not following it very close, but I would hate to think I was convicted on that little of evidence

I did not see much evidence either but I guess that is not what the jurors felt about it, I thinks that emotions played a big part in the decision.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of Scott Peterson. I don't know him and personally have no feeling for him one way or the other. My only feeling is that he's another human being and, therefore, capable of being hurt.

From everything I've heard in the media, I think the jury in this case is out to lunch, and nothing more than a blood-thirsty, state sanctioned lynch mob. IMHO it's another case of the injustice that life brings.

After all this time, I've yet to hear of one single piece of hard evidence. All the way it's been nothing more than circumstantial evidence. WEAK circumstantial evidence, at that. Any of us can sit around and imagine a murder scenario, but that's a totally subjective thing and doesn't add up to murder.

Yes, the guy's a pathological liar. SO WHAT! Yes, the guy was a womanizer and lied to and mislead poor little Amber Fry. SO WHAT! Yes, the guy had no feeling for Lacey Peterson. He obviously didn't love her. SO WHAT!! Yes, he lied to his and Lacey's parents constantly. SO WHAT!!!

If you add up all the above, you come up with a person who lies a lot, can't be trusted and deceives women for possibly carnal reasons. You may despise him for this and think he's a despicable person. BUT THAT DOESN'T ADD UP TO MURDER ONE!!!!

What happened to "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT"? From what I've heard about the case and the evidence (or lack of ...), there was more than ample reasonable doubt. And certainly nothing to merit a verdict of 1st degree murder.

Not only that, but the 2 verdicts rendered were inconsistent. To say he was guilty of the "premeditated" murder of Lacey on the one hand, and then say the muder of the unborn child was not premeditated is totally inconsistent. It makes absolutely no sense.

I heard earlier that one of the jurors mentioned they had pressing personal business to take care of at home over the weekend, or something like that. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that this person changed their verdict to guilty because of it. To think that a person's destiny could hinge on something like this makes me sick to my stomach. But, in real life that's the way it is.

IMHO Scott Peterson may well have been the victim of a callous, hateful lynch mob for a jury. Furthermore, convicting him of MURDER ONE on flimsy, circumstantial evidence is MONSTROUS, and not in the spirit of "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". Unless the prosecution put on a case that conclusively, without a shadow of doubt, found Scott Peterson guilty, then the verdict should be "INNOCENT", and a defense should not even be necessary.

Finally, you may not like Scott Peterson, and you may think he's the biggest sleaze on Earth, but that in itself is not sufficient to justify taking his life away. IMHO, justice was not served. Scott Peterson was rail-roaded on flimsy evidence, hearsay and the imaginery senarios cooked up by people who had no idea what the real truth is.




[edit on 11/12/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 11/12/2004 by netbound]

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
But I always did have the nagging feeling he did it.

Me too.

But I dont think we should send people to prision over "nagging feelings"

I just hope they showed SOMETHING to the jury that I didnt see.

True.. True. Well with all the jury jerking around, they defense has great grounds for an appeal.

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
True.. True. Well with all the jury jerking around, they defense has great grounds for an appeal.

From what I have seen a public deffender should have be able to get him off.

He has shown himself to be a lying cheating sack of feces but that doesnt spell murder.

I would hope if they had me for a murder and didnt know what they were killed with, how they were killed, where they were killed, why they were killed, etc; I would hope they gave me the benefit of the doubt.

You know like they are susposed to do?

Though I do think he did it, I don't think they (the jury) had the evidence to render the guilty verdict.

Thank God!!

Now I don't have to hear about this stupid court case anymore!!!

Yours truly, world's worst courtv fan.

FredT How does Garagos sleep at night?????

cstyle226
On top of a huge pile of money, and in solace that he sold his soul away a long time ago

.

What?? Do you guys have no understanding of what role a criminal defense attorney plays in this system? Garagos did his job and he he did it fairly well. This is an adversarial system. Garagos does not work for the proesecution. His job is to do everything within his power to win an acquittal so long as he does so within the ethical parameters of zealous representation of his client. Garagos has no reason to lose sleep over this. He did not sell his soul. That latter comment has no place in this system. Would you prefer a system where there is no presumption of innocence, where you have no right to defend yourself, to face your accusers, to have guilt determined by a jury, and where you are considered guilty on the basis of an accusation and little more? You all would do well to turn off the TV, read some books, and learn how this system is supposed to function, and how the way it's set up is supposed to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of government power.

It does appear that the judge's dismissal of two jurors, apparently holdouts, early in deliberations, following a multi-month trial, followed by a guilty verdict after virtually no deliberations at all, will win Scott Peterson a reversal on appeal. I have not heard the basis on which the trial judge dismissed those two jurors. But on it's face it looks suspicious. The judge has no right to dismiss holdout jurors to expedite a verdict. It is the holdouts who stimulate discussion and analysis and help lead a jury to a sound outcome, whatever that might be in this case. I didn't follow it so I have no opinion whether he is guilty or innocent. My impression is that the prosecutor villified him to the point where most jurors didn't care how weak the evidence was but so long as there was some evidence, however weak, this person who was presented as a scoundrel and a scumbag was not going to walk.

dgtempe:
His new girlfriend, Woody, awaits in jail.

That's backwards. Scott will be the girlfriend. "Woody" will be Scott's suitor.

I don't think they were hold out jurors-

didn't the first bring some information from the outside (utility related) and wasn't the second a law school graduate that was the juror foreman?

netbound, you sound just like the smarmy defense lawyers on the news crying foul. Do you actually believe what your saying? Look at ALL the "circumstantial" evidence put together, would you have been happy if he got away with this? ARE you happy that OJ got away with it?

[edit on 11/12/0404 by dangermouse]

Why do so many get wrapped up in this story. Murders happen all the time, but this local news more-at-eleven story somehow got pumped up into a national cause celebre. Worse, it becomes international event because, of course, CNN plays it up big, and CNN is seen around the world. CNN pumps up these kinds of stories in order to pump up its ratings. I wish everyone would ignore it, like I do (except, hypocritically, for a message like this).

Dangermouse

netbound, you sound just like the smarmy defense lawyers on the news crying foul. Do you actually believe what your saying? Look at ALL the "circumstantial" evidence put together, would you have been happy if he got away with this? ARE you happy that OJ got away with it?

Answers/responses to you post:

1) Better to be a smarmy defense lawyer than a sociopathic prosecutor.
2) Yes, I actually believe what I�m saying.
3) If there had been enough evidence presented to show his guilt �beyond a reasonable doubt�, then I would definitely not be happy if he got away with it. From my point of view, however, the �reasonable doubt� test was not passed. Not by a long shot.

You see, our system of justice in America was intentionally designed with the idea in mind that it is far better to allow 100 guilty people go free than it is to convict a single innocent person. That is a very basic principal and is the underlying foundation of our justice system.
4) I don�t really feel one way or the other about the outcome of the O.J. trial. That trial was mostly circumstantial, too. But, at least, the evidence wasn�t as flimsy as in the Peterson trial. The Peterson trial offered only theory and conjecture, and nothing substantial or definitive.

If Scott Peterson did in fact commit the murder, then he's a pro at it and covered up the evidence like a real expert. And if he did it, then I completely misjudged him. I never gave him enough credit to be able to pull off something like that so cleanly. He didn't seem to be that smart. If you're right, Dangermouse, then Scott Peterson should go down in history as one of the most masterful murderers ever.

Before I go taking somebody�s life away they (the prosecutor) better SHOW ME THE MONEY! Rumor, inuendo, hearsay and the just like don�t get it.

This whole thing became a sick show. The people outside the court were screaming for blood like they were in a Roman Colosseum witnessing a gladiator event, or like they were a KKK lynch mob. Goes to show how much we�ve evolved over time. We�re still just a bunch of monkeys; biggest difference is today�s monkeys wear tennis shoes, ties and convey meaningless dribble over an internet.

We definitely disagree on this one, Dangermouse; the difference being, I require evidence.

I' going to have to agree with Netbound. I do believe in my heart that he is guilty, but the evidence presented in the case does not prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he did it. There is reasonable doubt all over the place.

he looks guilty as hell, but i have to wonder if he was framed because of being such a dick! he owned a resturant ,maybe some guy he fired hated him bad enough and knew he was a whore hopper so its possible someone could have done it to get back at him.the guy seems like such a jerk to me.i hope they got the right guy and he suffers for what he done, he needs to just confess and write a book.lol.proceeds going to children hospitals or something like that.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by DriVeN]

Hopefully the jury did not convict him because he was a dick. I However, we were not and will not be privy to all of the evidence presented in the trial nor the nuance of the witnesses etc. But once the sentance phase is done we will be able to hear the jury's side of things.

Originally posted by FredT
Hopefully the jury did not convict him because he was a dick.

I think this is what has happen. How can three people that wasnt to talk about the trial. Less that 8 hours find him guilty.

I think he might be guilty now, I feel he will win the appeals. We will see, its shady.

Dont get me wrong, I think He killed the # out of them. Bit the state HAS to prove it without a question.

1. No murder weapon
2. No murder place
3. No proof of how they were murdered

SC,

You don't have to have those to get a conviction. the case was always going to be about circustantial evidence. Garragos also made alot of claims in his opening that he never lived up too.

But the jury issue will be the big point in the appeals IMHO. We will see. My bet is that they will drop the death pentalty and settle for life as part of a plea bargain???