A jury found Scott Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Laci, and of second-degree murder in the death of their unborn son today. The verdict reached by the six-man, six-woman jury leaves Peterson facing a possible sentence of death or life in prison without parole.
Hmmmmmm. No physical evidence, but lots of stuff linking him including behavior and motive.
Of course, the fact that he's guilty of killing an unborn is of special intrest to me because of my argument that life is LIFE at the moment a pregnancy begins. Jurors believed that too obviously and used California law to the extent in that guilty charge.
Good, glad to see it. A quick Death would be good to see, though that won't happen.
Man that is quick. With all the screwing around with the jurors I thought it would take at least another week and had no idea of what they'd come back with for a verdict.
Guilty, I, based on the limited amount we hear, have to say good for him. Let's see what happens on the appeal
You're absolutely right, human life is human life from the point of conception. If it is not, what is it?
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Very good. I was half afraid we were going to have to watch Scott Peterson walk out of court with that stupid smug look on his face that he has had this whole time.
I do wish that he had been found guilty of first degree in his son's death also though. How can he have premeditated and intentionally murdered his wife, but not the baby? He obviously knew that by killing Laci, the baby would also die. So he purposely, with planning, killed them both.
__________________
I thought all writers drank to excess and beat their wives. You know one time I secretly wanted to be a writer.---C.K. Dexter Haven
I do wish that he had been found guilty of first degree in his son's death also though. How can he have premeditated and intentionally murdered his wife, but not the baby? He obviously knew that by killing Laci, the baby would also die. So he purposely, with planning, killed them both.
I was thinking the exact same thing hntngirl.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
My thoughts exactly. Why was it alright to kill the baby if she had chosen to, but not if he chose to?
I'm glad he was found guilty since what I've heard seems to make it pretty clear, but since it took a week for them to decide and two jurors were replaced during the decision making process, he'll have endless attempts at appeals.
__________________
Today' s small bucks are tomorrow' s trophies.
[image]http://www.whitetails.com/deer8.html[image]
I'm glad he was convicted of killing Laci, but I think the part about the unborn child sets a major precedence. We'll see how it turns out for other cases as well as abortion.
That Judge thats always on Fox News said that if he had been the judge, there would not have even been a trial. He said the state could produce no evidence that she was even murdered let alone who did it. He said there was absolutely no evidence. He is talking about just from a legal view point. The state didn't produce any evidence to charge anyone. I am no lawyer but as a rule I agree with his view points. I wonder now if the can apply the death penalty in a case where no phsical evidence was present? I sure wouldn't vote for it if I were in that place. But of course I don't believe in the death penalty in any case so my view would be slanted big time.
That Judge thats always on Fox News said that if he had been the judge, there would not have even been a trial. He said the state could produce no evidence that she was even murdered let alone who did it. He said there was absolutely no evidence. He is talking about just from a legal view point. The state didn't produce any evidence to charge anyone. I am no lawyer but as a rule I agree with his view points. I wonder now if the can apply the death penalty in a case where no phsical evidence was present? I sure wouldn't vote for it if I were in that place. But of course I don't believe in the death penalty in any case so my view would be slanted big time
UH MOTIVE? HE BOUGHT A BOAT 3-4 WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDER..... CHEATED ON HIS WIFE........CONCRETE ANCHORS...... WENT FISHING IN SAME AREA....WHO ELSE COULD KILL LACI OTHER THAN SCOTT? JUSTICE WAS SERVED PERIOD.
Just repeating what the judge said. There was no physical proof that a murder took place. He said he would have to have had the state prove that a murder happened. One can draw all kind of conclusions. He wanted to see proof of a crime. Well its a mute point anyway. But I have a boat and I have often made concrete anchors for use where I loose a lot of expensive boughten anchors. I know one thing. If your spouse is murdered you are toast. Regardless of proof. I think if she was murdered that he may have done it. I never heard any proof on TV but a guy don't get all the facts and we sure as hell didn't need it. Like they said on Fox tonight, many murders take place every day in the inner cities. Nobody cares. Where is the wall to wall coverage of those crimes. It has to have sex, cheating and middle to upper class white people before the press gives a hoot.
Scott peterson GUILTY
