Scott Peterson found guilty

The verdict is in. Thanks goodness.

One does have to wonder, though, why this case got so much attention. Unfortunately, spouses are murdered every day, and barely make the news.. This case has been on every news report, every radio, etc....
More attention should be made to other murders, too...
Gal

 

(shrug) Peterson's case has never been national news. It's another case of local news going national only because it's sensational. IE: entertainment for the ghoulish masses. Same as OJ, Jon Benet Ramsey, and a host of others. It keeps them from having to fill air time with real news, like what's going on in Sudan, or Amsterdam, or Russia, or what Congress is doing. News isn't news anymore, it's mostly infotainment, with local weather thrown in.

 

You are absolutely right GT. Ratings for the tv.

Just like reality shows. Oh wait, don't get me started on those.

Gal

 

GT, where are you getting your news from? If you try the BBC's website, it has pretty excellent coverage of all world events... or even get an RSS feed to keep you informed as it gets updated.

(Its also fairly unbiased, which is pleasant)

 

A whole bunch of places, mostly internet based, plus PBS runs BBC news late every evening (and it IS far superior to U.S. "evening news" for world events), Frontline on PBS, Nightline on ABC....

 

It is pretty sad that Laci's and her son's death was publicized like that.

But nevertheless, I'm glad he was found guilty.

I hope they don't give him the death sentence, but life in prison, so he can realize every single day how empty his life now is. Except for horny male jail buddies.
Bastard.

RIP beautiful Laci, you and your son; and to all those people like Laci as well.

 

I personally didn't care either way. . . .


the evening news is apparently for entertainment
or they really think that people really care that Lindsay Lohan got drunk on her birthday
or that Tom cruise was spotted in an airport in Miami. . . .


I guess some people reallly dont care what is going on over seas. .oh wait they do now because they now know we are over there . . .and it makes them feel. . ."Patriotic"
when they didn't know they wanted to see footbll highlights or who "J LO's" husband of the week is. . . . .

the news isn't supposed to be entertaining its supposed to be informative

and everything is geared to the "upper middle class" all the ads with the cubicle guy beer and women. . .what about the people who work(sweat, grease) for a living and go home to their family and open up a cold one?

sorry. . . . .
I gotta go cook dinner for my wife. . . . . .
ha, I would rather get greasy

 

i totaly agree with jarcher and gt.. news insnt news anymore
its just there to scare you
oh well, here in Canada it isnt as bad, we have the CBC. LONG LIVE STATE RUN TELEVISION!!!!
oh no... the Canadian government must be keeping stuff from us
AHHHH!!!!!!!!!

lol

ps. sorry about the weird post!

 

This is why i only watch BBC

 

Glad they found him guilty. Can you imagine what that poor girl was thinking and the horror she went thru, maybe even for just a few minutes. So tragic.

Steve

 

Personally I dont understand how they convicted him. Evidence was shoddy at best. Just goes to show that not only the news isn't what it used to be, but it seems our Justice System? ain't what it once was either.

 

You don't think he should have been found guilty? Was there any other suspect?

This man, if you could call him that, was a cad. I am sure he thought he could get by with it. From what I heard, the prosecution put it together very well with closing arguements.
Suppose it depends on how much you watched, and what station, but there was never a doubt in my mind he did it and deserves to rot.

But, as I stated in my first post, other murders don't get the coverage and deserve it just as this one did. Spousal abuse is on the increase and has been for years. I wish there were answers on how to stop it, or to get the victims out of the sitations.

Gal

 

The police get a suspect and that's the one they work up evidence against. Even if you are innocent, a case can be made against you with circumstanial evidence.
I sat in jail for 10 days once for armed robbery, which I didn't do. They caught the kid that did it, and he said I was the trigger man. He was mad because I wouldn't loan him some money to buy drugs. Well, they arrested me in the middle of the night. Then they released a story to the press that was completely bogus. I had to spend alot of money just to get out of jail.

Bottom line: You can't always trust the cops or the media. Cops are looking for promotions and media for a story to sell.

 

I'm not saying he didn't do it. I believe he did, but with the shoddy evidence they had, I just don't see how they could get a conviction is all.

I'm just saying that our "Justice System" failed him. They had absolutely no concrete evidence against him as far as I can see. The police never even bothered to look elsewhere is my point. They latched onto him & never looked back.

If it can happen with this case, what's to stop them from convicting anyone they want?

 

gal,

suesman has a point, lack of evidence and all that. I have a good friend who is an attorney and he explained to me that some of the proof required and all the checks and balances are there for a reason, you don't really agree with it or see the importance of it until it is you sitting in that chair and you are innocent.

I was very surprised when they announced the guilty verdict. I think the 41 points delivered by the prosecution was very compelling and really helped.

But, I am like you and glad they found him guilty.

Steve

 

I didn't waste all that much time following the case, but it sounds like all their evidence is circumstantial, no hard evidence whatsoever, which SHOULD make it tough to get a murder conviction. The burden of proof in a civil case is " preponderance of the evidence", but in a criminal case, the burden of proof is supposed to be "beyond the shadow of a doubt", which, in this case, doesn't sound like they had.

ArchAngel is quite correct. Once they have a suspect in custody that they think they can hang it on, they do NOT keep looking for the right man; they look for evidence to hang the guy in custody, and in all too many cases, intentionally ignore and bury evidence that would prove their suspect was NOT the guilty party.

While the "criminal justice system" generally works pretty much the way it's supposed to, God help you if you're an innocent suspect where they don't have any good leads to the actual guilty party.

 

Agreed.

Steve

 

Eyewitness testimony (even when false-glad you came out OK) and fingerprints on a murder weapon are so-called direct evidence because they directly link the suspect and crime. Circumstantial evidence usually points to a link to the crime that wouldn't exist with an innocent person, like the 33 bodies in John Wayne Gacy's basement or Petersen's disguise, large cash stash, and trip toward the border.

Our justice system sitnks, but I wouldn't chance any other.

 

Our justice system stinks, but I wouldn't chance any other

I agree. In 1975, when I was in college, I was crossing the street to go to a mom and pop store across from our house, and was suddenly surrounded by 3 police cars. I was cuffed, placed in a car with another suspect, (who immediately said "So, they caught you too" ). I was taken down to a house where a 78 year old woman ID'd me as one of 2 men who had broken into her home while she was there. The identification was made with me standing on the sidewalk in front of the house with the victim inside the house looking out the window. I did fit the description - levi's, levi jacket, white t-shirt and curly hair. I was arrested, processed and questioned for about 3 hours. The other guy made bail in about 30 minutes (knew the system it seems).
I repeatedly explained the class I had been in, the instructor, the bus I took home and the name of the bus driver ( I rode the same route everyday, and most of the riders knew each other by sight, and the bus driver by name).
Finally an officer came in and asked if I would submit to a close up ID by the victim, since she was older and her eyesight was not great. I jumped at the chance. Fortunately, up close she realized I was wearing glasses and much heavier than the man who entered her home ( one time I was glad to be fat ) . I was taken back to the station where all records (fingerprints, booking papers, arrest record, etc) were destoyed IN MY PRESCENCE, a contact officer was assigned in case any mention or record of the arrest showed up in the future, given a ride home, and recieved a letter of apology from the police chief. I was very impressed by the professionalism of the police and, despite their inital skepticism regarding my claims of innocence, surprised by the amount of effort they went to in verifying MY claims - Contacting my college professor, the bus driver, neighbors who saw me arrive home, etc. Sometimes the system works as it is supposed to.

 

Sometimes is the key word here.

 

Unfortunately that's pretty much the way it works anywhere.


Name me a system that has always worked perfectly.

There's always going to be someone who messes it up. Either too lazy, too biased, too arrogant, whatever.

The prosecution's evidence may have been circumstantial but there was opportunity and there was motive. I don't really recall the defense making any great contradicting claims to the prosecution - oh YEAH, besides the Cult-killing idea.

The defense was desperate. Not surprising, either.

 

I guess it all boils down to: we're all just human and subject to making mistakes.

 

While going through my divorce, and for years after it, I sincerely prayed that nothing questionable happened to my ex. As a divorcing/divorced spouse, opportunity and motive would have placed me squarely as the number one suspect. And since I lived alone, having an alibi would have been pretty iffy, especially for night-time hours when bad things tend to happen.

 

Yep, you pretty much would've been toast.