Re: Scott Peterson's Murder Conviction Questioned

Porcelain · ‎02-19-2014

He's Guilty McGuilterson. But his conviction has to be arrived at according to the law or it's no good. We have to be absolutely scrupulous when it comes to institutions that deprive people of their freedom and their lives.

I'm fine with some remedy if a juror really did lie. But if so, he's just going to get convicted again because he's totally guilty.

When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

Cakers3 · ‎06-17-2015

@KingstonsMom wrote:

@Cakers3 wrote:
@icezeus wrote:
I am from California, paid close attention to the trial, and there was a ton of evidence against that looser husband of hers.

He did it, and because a juror lied the whole case should be retried?

I don't agree with this decision at all.
@icezeus Yes, it should.

A juror who lies is not credible; I don't know if the jury had to be 100% in its verdict but the fact remains she had a personal experience that was close enough in her own memory/feelings to bring a predetermined vote for "guilty" even before the trial began.

We cannot pick and choose which circumstances merit a retrial; everyone has some bias in any given life circumstance.

If a dishonest juror merits a new trial, so be it. We cannot say it that incident shouldn't apply just because it is Scott.

What if there is reasonable doubt? Could a juror's identifying with the crime sway the verdict when the verdict may not be accurate?

Our system may be flawed, our system may rankle some people; but in the end all avenues for a fair trial have to be used no matter the crime and the defendant.

You would want the same for yourself, no?
@Cakers3

As much as I think Scott was guilty based on evidence presented at his first triaL, I have to agree with your post.

If there is new evidence proving his innocence, it deserves to be heard in a court of law.

I would expect the same.

@KingstonsMom I did not follow this case as closely as others did but saw enough to agree with his conviction.

I'm not sure if they are pushing for not guilty but they seem to be pushing more for a new trial based on "errors".

I know there was another person of interest during that time but the person was eventually dismissed. I forget all the details.

"" Compassion is a verb."-Thich Nhat Hanh

Bri369 · ‎11-03-2018

@Pearlee wrote:
@KingstonsMomYou set forth the information in your OP as if it was your own. Is it? If not I fail to understand why you don't credit whose information it is that you are copying here.

Did you not see that it was the LA Times that was cited? LOL

jbinrwc · ‎03-11-2010

I live in Redwood City where the trial was held. I am convinced that Scott is guilty. Not sure that the issue with the one juror is enough to justify a new trial. I believe that he would be convicted again in a new trial. It would cost us a lot of money to reach the same conclusion.

I happened to see Laci's mother and stepfather in my local Safeway during the original trial. I cannot begin to describe the stress and sorrow and pain on their faces. I can't even begin to describe the look on her Mom's face. I wanted to cry for her. I don't know how they would do if they had to live through another trial when the result would be the same. A new trial would cause them more pain than I think they might be able to bear. Probably unnecessary pain for them.

I certainly believe in justice but there are times when enough is enough when the verdict will not change.

“Do not think only of your own joy, but vow to save all beings from suffering.”
Dalai Lama

January121 · ‎03-21-2010

He is Guilty!!! Guilty!! Guilty!!! & deserves to be executed!!!!

kivah · ‎03-11-2010

@Foxxee wrote:
Just watched a case on Oxygen this morning where a wife was murdered. Of course, her husband was a prime suspect. He was convicted of murder, later to be found not guilty. His life has been ruined what with all the finger pointing guilty by the press, friends, and community before the case even went to trial.

My eyes have been opened by some of the cases I have seen on Investigation Discovery and Oxygen. It's scary out there. Women can be attacked and murdered by anyone.

There are also many women who kill their husbands because they're tired of them OR they want to collect the insurance. I've seen many of these shows on the ID channel and can't believe how people could kill anyone.

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

While I strongly suspect he's responsible for killing Lacy, I truely do waver on premeditation.

Lindsays Grandma · ‎03-10-2010

I lived in CA at the time and watched the entire trial. It left me with no doubt that he killed Laci. Regardless of what I believed I'm willing to open my mind. It was a very disturbing trial and I honestly believed there was no room for a "Not Guilty" verdict. However, when there is an issue regarding a juror there is no choice, a new trial has to take place.

The moving finger writes; And having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line Nor all your Tears Wash out a Word of it. Omar Khayam

qualitygal · ‎10-04-2010

He's breathing, his wife and soon-to-be-born child aren't. He's due to stay right where he is in my book.

kivah · ‎03-11-2010

@SydneyH wrote:
While I strongly suspect he's responsible for killing Lacy, I truely do waver on premeditation.

Scott didn't want children --- so he killed Laci when she was 8 months pregnant. He was also having an affair with Amber --- and a month before he killed Laci, he told Amber that his wife had died. The best evidence were Amber's and Scott's phone calls. He also bought a boat - that Laci's parents weren't aware of. He's obviously a psychopath --- never showed any emotion. He killed Laci and their son Connor. Do these killers think they're going to get away with it???