Guilty of 1st degree murder

[Jason L Williams]

No way he'll be put to death. That trial was even more of a circus than OJ's trial.

[Dan-H]

hang him high.

I'm soooo sick of the news coverage this trial has gotten.

I wonder how long the appeal will go on. no wait, I really don't care...

[blupupher]

?????

[Robert J. Yates]

I was guessing he would get off like OJ.

Oh well, he actually might want to hope for death row. Probably better than playing punk for Luther on the main cell block

[speaceman]

From everything I heard in the case about how he acted and what he said after Laci "dissappeared" that guy was more guilty then what my dog looks like when I catch it waste deep in the hole it just dug in the back yard.

[MLCJeep]

Thank god! Maybe the morning news will now talk about something important like weather and traffic.

[cbassett]

Convictions solely on circumstantial evidence make me cringe.

From what was let to the public, I'm suprised they convicted him.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by cbassett
Convictions solely on circumstantial evidence make me cringe.

Dang, this will be the second time I've agreed with you today but you raise an entirely valid point. That exactly was my reasoning as to why I thought he would not be convicted.

From the newswire....

"a slaying for which prosecutors had no eyewitnesses, no weapon, not even a cause of death."

I would suspect that the appeal is probably already in draft form, particularly given the jury shenanigans.

[speaceman]

Originally posted by cbassett
Convictions solely on circumstantial evidence make me cringe.

From what was let to the public, I'm suprised they convicted him.

Believe it or not, Karma is built into the jury system and jurors will go with if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that's good enough for them.

People know the odds on things and who else but Scott would have killed Laci? Couple that with the stuff he said and how he acted afterwards, it's not hard to see why the jury went the way they did.

All that said, I thought he was going to get off. I was really surprised that the jury went with conviciton, just because of all the shennanigans. (not the actually circumstantial evidence presented).

The whole time I listened to the case on the radio, there was no doubt in my mind he did it, just based on his actions.

We all know what guilty people act like. We've all experienced it in our lives.

Juries, despite the much vaunted "decide based on the evidence before you impassionatly" hollywoodized ideal we always hear about in Perry Mason movies, also can make decisions using their gut.

[cbassett]

Originally posted by speaceman
Believe it or not, Karma is built into the jury system and jurors will go with if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that's good enough for them.

People know the odds on things and who else but Scott would have killed Laci? Couple that with the stuff he said and how he acted afterwards, it's not hard to see why the jury went the way they did.

All that said, I thought he was going to get off. I was really surprised that the jury went with conviciton, just because of all the shennanigans. (not the actually circumstantial evidence presented).

The whole time I listened to the case on the radio, there was no doubt in my mind he did it, just based on his actions.

We all know what guilty people act like. We've all experienced it in our lives.

Juries, despite the much vaunted "decide based on the evidence before you impassionatly" hollywoodized ideal we always hear about in Perry Mason movies, also can make decisions using their gut.

Given your comments, you're convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt. I am not convinced beyond even a reasonable doubt. We would result in a hung jury.

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

[TObject]

A little sidetrack.

Could anybody enlighten me on the subject why of all the crime that happens on the daily basis this one has been receiving so much media coverage for so long? What's so special about it?

Thanks!

[cbassett]

I think the "news" media covered that tonight:
- Attractive couple
- Filandering husband
- Attractive mistress
sex sells.

I too am suprised by the amount of publicity this case covered.

One positive note as a result of this case, it may help more people stick to their marriage vows.

[speaceman]

The guy's own alibi places him in the same area that the bodies wash up and he was in the area when Laci first dissappears.

He lies to pretty much everyone (parents, mistress) about what he is doing and where he is after laci dissappears.

His concrete repairs to the driveway
are of a different type of concrete than the bags he said he used that found in his warehouse.

He has very little reservation in getting rid of his wife's stuff or changing things around in the house while his wife is supposedly missing.

He ends up in SD as the hammer is about to drop with $10K of cash, a new hair do, someone else's ID, and a bunch of camping equipement and survival gear.

You don't think he did it?

There are cases like this every year (that aren't 3-ring circuses) where juries have to decide based on less then ideal evidence.

If he didn't do it, who did?

Where were Geregous's magic theories about the cult kidnaping her and such? None of that materialized in the case. If he couldn't find anything confuse the prosecution with, then there wasn't likely anything for him to work with.

And I too, can't beleive how much this case was covered.

[Paradiddle]

He did it - there is no doubt in my mind. He was smart enough not to admit to it like that guy that killed his wife and bought a new mattress the same day.

I think I read a stat that said 90% of all pregnant women killed/murdered/disappeared were done so by the person who got them pregnant.

I hope he gets executed - mostly because I think he's a smug a hole. And I agree with Shalom - just what was he doing in SD with all that stuff, money, and fake id?

"Send lawyers, guns, and money, Dad - the $hit has hit the fan"

[Robert J. Yates]

i'm not saying he did't do it as I think he did - what I am saying is that I don't think the prosecution presented a preponderance of evidence to convict with.

guy is a liar, a cheat, an emotional blackhole - so what. how does that factor into cause of death and who committed it. funny thing about dna - given the propensity of the judicial system to use it any chance it gets - where was it in this case

[blupupher]

Originally posted by TObject
A little sidetrack.

Could anybody enlighten me on the subject why of all the crime that happens on the daily basis this one has been receiving so much media coverage for so long? What's so special about it?

Thanks!

Well, not being in Cali, this has recieved minimal coverage here in Texas. I initialy did not know what this thread was about.
There are other "big" stories going on here that you probably have not heard about. Calvin Murphy is the story here now, as is Quanell X.
It is like the Enron deal, HUGE story here, still being talked about every day on the news, and this is 2 years later. You may have heard a little about it in Cali because of the impact it had on you during the power problems.

[cbassett]

Okay, first let me state that I do not believe he's innocent. I'm also not convinced he's guilty. I have a suspicion, but that is not enough to convict, period. Now, on to debunking your comments.

Originally posted by speaceman
The guy's own alibi places him in the same area that the bodies wash up and he was in the area when Laci first dissappears.

He lies to pretty much everyone (parents, mistress) about what he is doing and where he is after laci dissappears.

So he's an honest liar?

Of course he was lying to his mistress, she thought he was single!

Nobody has established that he lied about going fishing. Only that he had purchased a fishing license a couple days before saying he was going golfing. Most fishermen I know buy their fishing licenses days or weeks in advance of actually going fishing. Some of them actually have lives/hobbies other than fishing. Some of them like to golf, or are fair-weather wheelers; so when they've planned to golf or go wheeling then the weather turns to cr@p, it's understandable that they might decide to go fishing instead.

Originally posted by speaceman
His concrete repairs to the driveway
are of a different type of concrete than the bags he said he used that found in his warehouse.

As I recall, the concrete type was consistent with some of the repairs around the house however, as well as with the anchors he's made. Oh, and as for folks saying, "Who makes an anchor out of concrete?", the answer is many.

Originally posted by speaceman
He has very little reservation in getting rid of his wife's stuff or changing things around in the house while his wife is supposedly missing.

I'm not aware of which of "Laci's stuff" he got rid of.
I'm fairly confident that neither you nor I have any idea what he was thinking, so neither of us can speak to his "reservations".
Rearranging things in the house where he and his missing wife live, the location where he last saw her; that's evidence of murder how?? How would you feel about your home and your surroundings if your wife went missing? Probably not exactly the same as Peterson or anyone else, so no telling what you'd do. Maybe changing some things around the house would make you feel a little better about staying there, less haunting.

Originally posted by speaceman
He ends up in SD as the hammer is about to drop with $10K of cash, a new hair do, someone else's ID, and a bunch of camping equipement and survival gear.

Survival gear: lol. So when we camp when wheeling are we now to refer to ourselves as survivalists? Just about everything on the "survival gear" list is packed into just about every persons' rig that I've gone wheeling with for weekend stints.

San Diego: His parents and brother live there.
$10k: Closer to $15k I thought.. Anyway, as his mother explains it, she had mistakenly withdrawn it from a shared account, and had returned it to him that day.
New hairdo: Noteriety can be a bitch to your personal life. A change of appearance might buy him a touch of privacy for a little while.
Someone else's ID: His brothers. As his father stated, he had the ID so that he could get a resident discount at the golf course they were planning to go to in the coming days.

Let's not forget about the car he purchased with "fake ID": Actually, the car was purchased in his mother's name. Yep, the last two cars he's owned were confiscated and being tracked by GPS device by the police. Understandable that anybody would like to have a car and not have it taken away.

So what's the story now, he lied to his parents or they're actually in on it? If they're in on it, why not charges brought for accessory after the fact or aiding and abedding? I'd be all for it, and would be suprised to hear that folks that will hang a guy on largely flimsy circumstantial evidence would not wish to take down those that helped him. Your belief is far enough beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

Originally posted by speaceman
You don't think he did it?

Two answers to your question, from two perspectives:
-personally: I think he may have done it.

-putting myself as a juror: Not even close to enough evidence to convict.

Originally posted by speaceman
If he didn't do it, who did?

Again, two answers to your question, from two perspectives:

-personally: Someone that kills people, I don't think we have a shortage of those in this country. If the killer(s) turned on the TV, read the news, magazines, tabloids, blogs, etc, etc, and noted that there was almost an instant air of suspicion about Scott and his fishing trip, and Modesto Police's apparent bent on nailing Scott, and had at least the IQ of a gnat, he/they'd quickly realize the best place to dump the body would be in the bay near the Berkeley marina.
There's also the issue that there are at least a couple dozen fishing holes between Modesto and Berkeley; easily double that number in the same mile radius around Berkeley. So why dump the body in precisely the location of your alibi?

-putting myself as a juror: Not our problem.

[cbassett]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
He did it - there is no doubt in my mind. He was smart enough not to admit to it like that guy that killed his wife and bought a new mattress the same day.

But dumb enough to dump the body in the same exact location as his alibi.

Originally posted by Paradiddle
I think I read a stat that said 90% of all pregnant women killed/murdered/disappeared were done so by the person who got them pregnant.

Modesto PD Chief probably read that same stat, and instead of investigating the crime proceeded to obsess over Scott Peterson, despite numerous tips that shed doubt on his guilt (such as the person that called days after Christmas, reporting she saw Laci walking in the neighborhood at approximately 10AM).

Originally posted by Paradiddle
I hope he gets executed - mostly because I think he's a smug a hole.

Evidently, there are at least 12 other people that agree with you: They're hanging him because he's an asshole, not because of a preponderance of evidence sufficient to remove any reasonable doubt.

[Paradiddle]

Hey - since when are Republicans worried about what's true and fair?

Get with the program brother - your side won - reap the spoils!!!

HANG THEM ALL!!!!!

[speaceman]

Originally posted by cbassett
But dumb enough to dump the body in the same exact location as his alibi.

Hey look, that's the great thing about the jury system in this country.

If you were on that jury you could have fought tooth and nail to keep him out. If that's your beleif then that's cool. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Me, from every thing I heard about the case, circumstantial or not. I would have no issue convicting him. He did it. The evidence pointed to him doing it. His defense attorney really didn't offer any other theories (like he claimed he would) and he didn't really poke any holes in the prosecution's theory. (all the major defense witnesses fell apart on the stand).


As for why he dumped the body in the exact location he stated in his alibi, I think he's a smug bastard, who was just smart enough to commit a crime and do a great job leaving little evidence behind, but not smart enough to keep his mouth shut to those around him, too smug to "live" like a person who's wife is supposedly missing, too eager to "move on" before finding she was actually dead, and just short of being smart enough to realize that things you dump at the bottom of the ocean don't always stay down there, no matter how well you anchor them down.

So I think his alibi was set up to cover why he was taking the body to the marina, because he never thought he'd be seeing it again.

Like I said, he was a couple steps above the average criminal. He almost did it "right".

His smugness and missing a couple key details, like making sure to cover the 1 in a million shots (like the body floating to shore) did him in.

Mostly his mouth did him in. If he acted more worried and didn't make plans to bang his mistress during a candle light vigil for his wife, then I think he would have gotten off.