What do you think the verdict will be and why?
(Sorry...just so sick of all the politics...heh heh)
What do you think the verdict will be and why?
(Sorry...just so sick of all the politics...heh heh)





Oh gosh ....I think he did it personally...I hate the guy damnit at least cry for your wife. There so much "evidence" that they have discussed in and out of the trial....and all of that media coverage.
But, saldy I think I should just get to my point and say thet he should die for what he did. Take a life then have yours be taken. The real truth is that I dont see him being convicted for the murders. I believe that our judicial system will let us down and only for the fact that there "is not enough evidence" and "questional evidence" thats a bunch of bullcrap. Id say more on this but my brain functions are limited at 2:15....
He did it, but they're gonna let him off. He's a white OJ.
"She has written so well, and marvellously well, that I was completely ashamed of myself as a writer...But this girl, who is to my knowledge very unpleasant and we might even say a high-grade bitch, can write rings around all of us who consider ourselves as writers"
Ernest Hemingway on writer, aviation pioneer and horse trainer Beryl Markham
Murder one or two; two maybe because so much time elapsed between Laci's disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the baby's.
For detailed information about the trial and case, go to
He's guilty. It's written all over his smug prick face. I guess it was too difficult to for him to realize that all he had to do was divorce his lovely wife. Instead, he had to send her (and their child, who never even got the chance to live) into a far-too-early grave.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the case was handled correctly. I have this strange feeling in the pit of my stomach, that they'll let him off. I hope I'm wrong. He should be made to suffer a fate worse than death. He's the lowest form of scum there is.
Rhi- worry not, fair lady. Some of Laci's relatives are NorCal bikers. If Scott walks, he won't walk long.....
I've been following the trial since it started in the pre-lims last year. The only good thing about the whole thing is juror #5 (who is a doctor and a lawyer). However, all of the evidence is circumstantial. They couldn't use the body as it was so decomposed...never found a murder weapon...never found complete evidence of foul play...the cadaver dogs never identified the truck or the boat...
The good points are that there were only 3 people who used the launch that day...and Peterson was one of those people. Laci and Connor's body washed up within miles of the alleged dump site...and his taped phone calls are "questionable". He even had a taped phone call with his mother in which she tells him to "deny, deny, deny. Don't tell the police anything."
As great as it would be that he get convicted...I have a sick feeling that he's going to walk. If I was on that jury, I would simply say, "I cannot convict a man without evidence. I BELIEVE he is guilty...but there is not one thing that concretely links him to the crime!"
Unfortunately, like in the OJ case, I believe that there were a lot of mistakes made...the damning evidence...like something that was used to anchor Laci's body...would have sealed his fate...but they have nothing. I personally believe that they should have sent divers in after those...but, that's just MHO.
![]()
![]()
The prosecution actually has to prove that he did it.
People have been convicted of crimes for less- I can see appeal complications due to the high profile of the case. BUT.......Scott's problem was having been a yammering, duplicitous psycho. He went on "Good Morning America" in front of the whole nation and lied. Then he tried to split to Mexico.
The most satisfying development? His noticable weight loss during the trial. Before capture and arrest, he was a pudgy f*ck with bleached blond hair. As his trial progressed and even his own lawyer appeared less and less interested in the welfare of his client, Scott lost pounds. You could say something's "eating him up from the inside.." Hmmm....If you were a juror watching him smirk and wiggle but get more gaunt, with everything you've been told......how would you vote?
Being a dumb-ass and a murderer are two totally different things. I can sit here and say that I would convict him in a heartbeat. HOWEVER, due to the lack of hard evidence, how do you convict someone? You can DO it...but it won't hold...simply because there is no evidence. I think that the prosecution rushed this case a little too fast. I think forensics over-looked some key items...I think that evidence gatherers missed a piece or two (or three). Why? Maybe because once they started focusing on Scott, they figured they had an open and shut case.
With the scenario that the Prosecution gives, there is no EVIDENCE at the house that foul play happened there. No blood turned up...no murder weapon, no way to see how Laci was killed (to badly decomposed)...the only thing that the prosecution proved was that Laci and Conner were killed and washed up on a beach. But, other than that...they have nothing...no anchors...no eye-witnesses...nothing that "points" to the killer.
THAT is what the problem is...it's all circumstantial. Did he kill her and the baby? Most likely, however, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed her? No, they didn't. With the circumstantial evidence that they have, it's gonna be a hard one. The wild card is juror #5...he's either for the guilt verdict or against is...and with the amount of "clout" that he has with the other jurors...they'll most likely follow him.
You're right, Venus. But there are some incredibly conservative residents of Northern CA, and there might be a "make an example of him" sentiment going on. Also, the Modesto Police Department has been anxious to not mess up this high profile case after the bungling of the Yosemite Tourist Murder Case (they were marginally involved.) Brocchini's testimony might have been strong enough for the jurors to feel confident in the abilities of the MPD. Aside from that, there are few other reasonable suspects in this case. Chucklehead Peterson provided his alibi location right where the bodies were dumped......anyone with brains would have said he was FAAAAR away from there that morning......maybe even with his mistress, no?
Viewed on an objective basis, doesn't appear to me to clear hurdle of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, jury view will be subjective, and there does appear to be sufficient evidence to allow the jury to return a verdict of guilty on the basis of inferences drawn from that evidence. As he's such an unlikeable person and this appears to be one those cases where most believe he's guilty, even though the State can't produce any direct evidence, my guess is that he'll be found guilty... and the conviction will be upheld on appeal.
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Do you think so? Wouldn't it be hard to deny an overturn of the verdict if the reasoning was, "Well, he's just such an asshole...no one liked him...and besides...we THINK he did it..."
Wasn't that the same problem with the OJ case? The state couldn't PROVE he did it...
Circumstantial evidence in most states can be used for conviction, if that circumstantial evidence is compelling enough. In California, I believe that the prosecution needs to present some shred of direct evidence in support of circumstantial evidence.





From what I have seen I think he is guilty- I am hoping the jury will give him life w/o parole.
I don't believe in the death penalty .
I think he'll be convicted and have the sentence overturned or lessened to nothing upon appeal. I have no knowledge of California criminal law, though, so that's just a hunch.
Six months in jail, maximum. The bastard.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche





As much as I think he did it too, I don't think he's going away for it.
There's just not enough hard evidence to push beyond the "shadow of a doubt".
On a related note, I don't think I'm all too pleased with the "Laci Peterson" law either. I mean, to be charged with two counts of murder seems like it should be under different cicurmstances, not ONLY because a woman is pregnant. I'm not sure though... I'm kind of torn. What do you think?![]()
Because there ain't no tits on the radio





As for the Laci Law- I think it needs to be rewritten so to exclude the anti-choice language.
In the case of murdering of a pregnant woman I think 2 counts is justified- why ? Because the woman had already made her choice to give birth.
It's all about the womans choice for me.
I agree, TL. The Laci Law was pretty much written that anyone who murdered a pregnant woman would be charged with, not just her murder, but the murder of her unborn child. If I am not mistaken, if the baby somehow survives, then the person would be charged with the mother's murder and some kind of "reckless endangerment" or something along those lines for the child.
The law does need some "tweeking"...but it's a start.
I'm not understanding the principle at all. If the fetus is wanted, he/she has full rights - if the fetus is not wanted, he/she has no rights?
I haven't followed the case, other than some very damaging admissions - but they were implied, not a confession. We know, as human beings know each other, that he did it. Whether that rises to legal rationale for a conviction is another matter. It's proper that the State actually has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think he is guilty as hell. The evidence may be circumstancial but it is pretty damn good circumstancial evidence.
Want to talk about convicting somebody and sentencing them to death with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL?
Shortly after three eight-year-old boys were found mutilated and murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas, local newspapers stated the killers had been caught. The police assured the public that the three teenagers in custody were definitely responsible for these horrible crimes. Evidence?
The same police officers coerced an error-filled “confession” from Jessie Misskelley Jr., who is mentally handicapped. They subjected him to 12 hours of questioning without counsel or parental consent, audio-taping only two fragments totaling 46 minutes. Jessie recanted it that evening, but it was too late— Misskelley, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols were all arrested on June 3, 1993, and convicted of murder in early 1994.
Although there was no physical evidence, murder weapon, motive, or connection to the victims, the prosecution pathetically resorted to presenting black hair and clothing, heavy metal t-shirts, and Stephen King novels as proof that the boys were sacrificed in a satanic cult ritual. Unfathomably, Echols was sentenced to death, Baldwin received life without parole, and Misskelley got life plus 40.
For over 11 years, The West Memphis Three have been imprisoned for crimes they didn’t commit. Echols waits in solitary confinement for the lethal injection our tax dollars will pay for. They were all condemned by their poverty, incompetent defense, satanic panic and a rush to judgment.
I have been involved in this case for over 6 years now and these three men are still appealing their convictions and re-testing DNA samples (that back during the trial, weren't linked to them but that didn't matter cos they were "debil worshippin' sums of a bitches!). I believe they are completely innocent and were railroaded by the police and a town filled with satanic panic. The cops also convieniently "lost" evidence.
For more on the case go here to the official Free THe West Memphis Three Website...
www.wm3.org
"And Bill, lamenting how you never see a positive drug story on the news..."Today, a young man on acid realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration and that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and you are the imagination of yourself. Here's Tom with the weather...!"- Bill Hicks, The Greatest Comedian Ever!
You mean BESIDES OJ's blood being all over the murder scene?Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
BTW, the West Memphis Three thing makes my blood boil.
Watch "Paradise Lost" both One and Two. You'll be unable to sleep for days from the combination of the horror of the crimes commited and the combination of the egregious miscarriage of justice that was commited in the case.
To paraphrase Peterson's attorney, being a smug asshole isn't a crime. However, I still think he did it. He seems to have that bizarre upper middle class white dude "above it all" attitude. The kind that makes me walk away from a customer within seconds the the moment I smell it on him at work. Y'all know the ones I'm talking about...
Last edited by NinaDaisy; 11-05-2004 at 05:22 PM.
"She has written so well, and marvellously well, that I was completely ashamed of myself as a writer...But this girl, who is to my knowledge very unpleasant and we might even say a high-grade bitch, can write rings around all of us who consider ourselves as writers"
Ernest Hemingway on writer, aviation pioneer and horse trainer Beryl Markham
The only thing I am conviced of is that Gloria Aldred deserves the death penalty.
LOL...Monty.
The state in the OJ case could not PROVE that OJ committed the crimes because they could not produce the murder weapon...they could not provide hard evidence that linked him with the crimes. Do we KNOW that he did it? Yes...however, with the shoddy handling of the case, they lost so many of their "hot tickets" that they had to settle. In some cases, it results in a mistrial which can be good for the prosecution...in OJ's case, it resulted in an acquital.
I believe that one of two things will happen with Scott: 1) He'll be found not guilty by the very fact that even though the state has TONS of circumstantial evidence, none of that evidence DIRECTLY connects him to the crime; or 2) the jury will turn in a "hung jury" providing, both sides, a chance to "polish" their cases.
Misfit...your case is an exception...however, your boys were convicted based on EVIDENCE that "connected" them to a crime (a confession, etc). It may have been faulty evidence...it may have been coerced...but, in a jury's mind, it was evidence. THAT'S why they were convicted. In the Peterson case, there is NO evidence. No confession...no crime weapon...no proof. It's just the Prosecuter's "version" against the defense's "version". You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. If there was a direct link (murder weapon or bloody clothes) and everything else was circumstantial...then you can convict...however, this is not the case here.
BTW...there is another case about a man who was sentenced to life in prison...served 22 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. It's a thoroughly fascinating and yet totally sad story about this man...it's in the current issue of GQ (with Colin Farrell).
Circumstantial evidence is any evidence which indirectly implies the truth of some other fact. In a murder case, this would of course be the culpability of the defendant in a murder. Most evidence in any criminal trial is often circumstantial, indeed circumstantial evidence is often the most reliable.Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
The example most often used by prosecutors when explaining the concept to juries is that of a young child standing before an empty cookie jar with crumbs on his or her mouth. The crumbs on the child's mouth is circumstantial evidence he or she ate the cookies. (Your examples of bloody clothes and a murder weapon are also circumstantial evidence.)
Examples of direct evidence in a criminal case would be eyewitness testimony of the crime or a confession from the defendant. Testimony of a cop watching you speed or a radar gun readout are direct evidence.
The CSI TV series are based entirely on the gathering of circumstantial evidence, which on occassion is so overwhelming the perp confesses, ala Perry Mason and Columbo.
Proof is not a defined finish line. If it were, trials would be unnecessary. Instead juries evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence before them, and then only those 12 people decide whether the state has met its burden. A person absolutely can be convicted with only circumstantial evidence. Happens ever day.
In the Peterson case, I found the taped phone conversations with his girlfriend to be powerful evidence of his consciouness of guilt. (Another type of circumstantial evidence, like the slow speed Bronco chase in OJ.) I hear the expert battle over the corpses and time of death was fairly even, however.
I lean towards conviction, based on the a*hole factor NinaD mentioned. In cases like this, the jury may just be looking for something to hang their hat on so they can convict the mofo, and then go home and sleep well.
Put me down for 50 to convict.
Bookmarks