| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:05 pm  |
I have been following it all along even subscribing to the court transcripts because I didn't want to rely on all media hype. I think the jury made the right choice but was still saddened when they read the verdict. No one won anything that day. No one in these two families will ever be the same. All were destroyed.
I hope he doesn't get the death penalty though because I just don't believe in it. He should get life without the chance or parole.
-Cheri |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:42 am |
| Eeek! I must be the only one that follows CourtTV! Could be some morbid curiosity in me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:28 pm |
No, you are not the only one interested in Scott Peterson. I have been following the whole thing since the day poor Laci went missing (wow two years ago!). I am also a religious viewer of Larry King Live who has had his expert panel of lawyers on his show many, many, many times to debate the whole trial.
I believed Scott was guilty for a number of reasons. First, in my opinion, someone who has said such gigantic lies about almost everyting has an aberration in their character; an aberration so great that it would be conceivable for them to commit murder. Also, the fact that he was fishing at the very same spot where Laci and Baby Connor's bodies were found was (to me) not a coincidence. So many people have said that people grieve in different ways in order to explain Scott's strange behaviour while Laci was missing, but to me, Scott did no grieving at all. Very, very strange.
Those who believed Scott Peterson was not guilty have said that the jurors voted with their emotions. This is complete rubbish. I have been on jury duty and the very first instructions given by the Judge is that we, the jury, absolutely CANNOT come to a veridct based on our emontions, feelings and opinions but MUST base our decision on the evidence presented in court and on nothing else. What an abosolute insult to those jurors to be told their verdict was made emotionally.
I don't believe in the death penalty (we don't have it in Canada anyways) but I think that Laci and Baby Connor can finally rest in peace with the conviction of Scott. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:56 pm |
Glad someone else was keeping up with ole Scott!
I went from thinking he did it from the first moment I heard Laci was missing. I knew she was dead... and that was way before I learned he had a girlfriend.
I have NEVER before done that and I was ashamed of myself and worked hard at keeping an open mind. Around about that time there was rumor of a possible drug connection and I thought that could very well be what happened to Laci. While I waited to hear more about a possible drug related killing I started hearing strange stories about Nazi low riders and satanists among the artists at the Albany Bulb. I thought to myself, "Wait a minute..."
There were a few too many stories, about who could have done it, floating around for my comfort, that none of them seemed believable anymore. But still I waited. There was a promise of "The REAL Killers" being revealed, "Within days, if not hours." I thought we'd hear about them at the Preliminary Hearing.
Instead, we heard that she was found in the TAN PANTS that she was wearing the night before. That's what did it for me. I'll never forget that day... I was sitting here at my computer, brokenhearted. Her husband, his father....the murderer of mother and child.
As the trial progressed and more evidence came out in the open I think everyone(including his parents) realized there wasn't even a shred of doubt. Scoot did it. Why they (family)stood by him the way they did is I guess something only a family in that exact situation could comprehend and I won't even attempt to judge them. They are in my thoughts and prayers just like the Rochas.
Ok enough of the heavy stuff. Did you see where booted Juror #7 said she would have been a guilty? I can't wait to hear more detail about #5. You're probably like me and can't wait for the gag order to be lifted just so Justin Falconer's 15 minutes of fame will be over. I can't even stand to watch him. The talking heads have used him up.
I also like Larry King, but didn't you think at times he seemed pro-defense?
-Cheri |
|
|
Mabsy
Moderator
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Posts: 9644
|
|
|
Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:40 am |
This didn't get much coverage in Australia but I have followed it on cnn.com. I have watched plenty about it in the last ten days as CNN was the only english speaking channel in the hotel 
I don't know all the evidence but I must say that he was guilty in my mind just based on the lies and the odd choice of the location of his fishing trip. So I agree with Leeleedeedee on what she said. I also found that the "outrage" some lawyers expressed at the verdict was strange. I don't see how it was based on emotions - it seems to be based on some pretty damaging evidence, of course there is other evidence that may not have got media attention...
The only thing that I found odd was the 'murder 1' and 'murder 2' charges. Surely, if you have a premeditated killing of a woman who is 8 months pregnant then the subsequent death of the child is also premeditated? Again, I'm sure that there are heaps of technicalities here that I don't understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:30 am |
Hi Phredd4 & Mabsy (Mabsy - so glad you had a safe journey!)
Phredd - I understand where you're coming from with the "not wanting" Scott to be guilty. Right at the very beginning when Laci first went missing I was talking about this to a very good friend of mine who is a police officer. He knocked my socks off when he said so casually that it was Scott. Just like that without there being any evidence at all against Scott and before we knew about all of his lies and Amber. When I asked my friend why he would say that without any evidence he said that in about 95% of these types of murder "it's the spouse" who did it. As things slowly unfolded his words began making sense and it surely looked like Scott did do it. I said to my sister (who was even more caught up in this as she watches nothing but CNN) that I could hardly wait until EVERYONE could freely talk about this case so we could understand where everyone was coming from. Yes, I'm sick of Jason and what he thinks. So irrelevant as he was booted off the jury sooooo long ago. And, yes, I surely thought Larry King was getting too pro defense and that poor Nancy Grace had no one to stand up for her. She was a lone voice in the wilderness, but thankfully she's a tough cookie and a smart one too. I was getting so annoyed at Larry King that I didn't even watch the last couple of shows before the verdict because I couldn't believe the people on his program who thought that Scott was sooooo not guilty and that Mark (the missing lawyer) did the most superb job of defending him. How about the superb job of the prosecution?
Mabsy - isn't it wonderful to have CNN when one is travelling!? I understand your point about the murder 1 & 2 charge because I felt the same way. However, one lawyer later said that the murder 1 charge against Laci meant that Scott had premeditated intentions of killing Laci but Baby Connor's death was not "premeditated" it was just a consequence of Laci's death - therefore the murder 2 charge against Baby Connor. Did I exlain that correctly? Isn't it just so sad for everyone?
What a tragedy! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:29 am |
Did either of you see Larry King on the friday nite the verdicts came down? Nancy Grace was there and as usual Larry was so rude to her which I don't get, because she's even hosted his show a few times when he’s been on vacation or whatever. But this time he was exceptionally brutal. Larry continually cut her off almost immediately after she began to answer his questions until she called him on it. I was so proud of her. You are right leeleedeedee, she is one tough cookie. The show was stacked with defense attorneys with whom Larry sang the "no evidence, emotional verdict song" for the entire hour.
Nancy was clearly deeply affected emotionally by being in the courtroom for the verdict. She cried on CTV and almost did on Larry King Live, apparently out of sheer frustration.
THIS TIME she made sure that abrasive Larry let her finish. For the past couple weeks as things came to a boil, Larry heavily stacked his show with "ALL DEFENSE" talking heads. I loved it when she went head to head with them all, because the last week it was 7 or 8 defense to the lone Nancy, who picked them all off one by one.
I kept saying "Bring it home sister, don't let them get you down!". And she was the only one I can recall who said previously that the jurors would come back with a conviction, so she obviously knows her stuff.
I personally think Larry might feel threatened by Nancy because she has signed a contract with CourtTV AND CNN. Bye, Bye, Larry! Step aside please!
Do either of you know if there is a minimum and maximum possibility for Scott? I mean are the only options life without parole or the death penalty? Is that was the "special circumstances" was?
-Cheri |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:50 am |
Hi Phredd, I so agree with you in everything you have just said. I did watch Larry King the night of the verdict, but I could only watch it for half an hour because I just could not beleive that everyone was so pro Scott even at this point in time when there was a clear verdict. Even Ted Rowlands who always appeared neutral attacked Nancy at one point. Everyone seemed angry and in a bad mood. I coudn't take it anymore becaue it was only Nancy who seemed to think that Scott got what he deserved.
It is not only you and I who thought that Larry had some grudge against Nancy because it clearly came out on his show his blatant anoyance/disrespect at her. Maybe he feels threatened. Nancy clearly has many supporters -thank God for that since we need people who take a stance for the "victims." I am so moved by Nancy's compassion, but her knowledge of the "facts" on every case she talks about is outstanding. She does her research. She knows what she's talking about and her opinions are based on "facts" and not emotions.
As far as the death penalty verdict goes, my understanding is either the death penalty due to the special circumstances or life without parole. I may be wrong on this but so far this is what I believe to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:41 am |
This is probably going to get me in trouble (like my "what's your biggest fear" post that deteriorated into a political discussion), but I have absolutely no problem with the death penalty. In fact, I think the convict should be put to death in the same manner as they killed their victims (i.e.: Osama Bin Laden should be put in the lower floors of a vacant skyscraper ready for demolition and it should be imploded down on top of him).
| phredd4 wrote: |
| Do either of you know if there is a minimum and maximum possibility for Scott? I mean are the only options life without parole or the death penalty? Is that was the "special circumstances" was? |
Murder 1 is a capital crime with an automatic sentence of either life without parole or execution. There's no wiggle room when it's a capital crime, I don't think the judge is even permitted to grant leniancy in those cases.
While I'm sorry for both the Peterson and Rocha families, I hope Scott burns in everlasting hell.
Carrie
P.S. Please forgive me if I have offended anyone -- it wasn't my intent, it's just that this is a topic that I feel very strongly about. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:58 am |
carekate
 Well done for having the "conviction" to speak out on something you believe in strongly.
I personally happen to agree with you, so often these days the punishment does not fit the crime, and our prisons seem to be more like holiday camps. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:05 am |
| carekate wrote: |
This is probably going to get me in trouble (like my "what's your biggest fear" post that deteriorated into a political discussion), but I have absolutely no problem with the death penalty. In fact, I think the convict should be put to death in the same manner as they killed their victims (i.e.: Osama Bin Laden should be put in the lower floors of a vacant skyscraper ready for demolition and it should be imploded down on top of him).
| phredd4 wrote: |
| Do either of you know if there is a minimum and maximum possibility for Scott? I mean are the only options life without parole or the death penalty? Is that was the "special circumstances" was? |
Murder 1 is a capital crime with an automatic sentence of either life without parole or execution. There's no wiggle room when it's a capital crime, I don't think the judge is even permitted to grant leniancy in those cases.
While I'm sorry for both the Peterson and Rocha families, I hope Scott burns in everlasting hell.
Carrie
P.S. Please forgive me if I have offended anyone -- it wasn't my intent, it's just that this is a topic that I feel very strongly about. |
Carrie, no offense taken. I respect everyone's opinion. There are some people that I have, at one time, thought deserved the death penalty. But if the decision on their life was in MY hands I just don't think I could do it. I'm sure the jury will make the right choice. They won't take this burden lightly.
Thanks for answering my question concerning the penalty phase. It's good to know he will never again be released into society.
This case has me in deep thinking mode. In the last few days I have really been thinking about the reality of the losses that young Scott Peterson is no doubt dealing with now. How ironic that his desire for freedom has ultimately cost him the loss of every freedom he took for granted in his life.
I am just so sad thinking about all the lives lost here. Don’t get me wrong. He deserves all he was given completely, but it’s just difficult to fathom why someone who had everything going for them ended up in such a place.
All this week I have thought so much about the things I have taken for granted in my own life. Things I am now seeing as luxuries. Things Scott Peterson will NEVER again be able to experience because of his choices. I hope I will never again take for granted the wonderful freedoms I have in life.
This week these are the things I noticed that I have certainly taken for granted in the past. Such simple things......but they could all be taken away from me.
My warm cozy comfy king size bed with nice clean sheets, down duvet where I can sleep safely with no fear.
Hitting the snooze button on my alarm clock as many times as I want.
Going to bed when I want.
Making a fresh pot of coffee in the mornings and drinking it out of my own cup.
Taking a nice hot shower or bath at the time that pleases me and with the toiletries of my choosing.
Using skincare and makeup of my own choosing, changing daily if I want.
Choosing which clothes I want to wear each day.
Shopping for new clothes.
Choosing to drive my car wherever and whenever I want. I may want to take a drive for no reason at all other than to get out of the house.
Going to or renting a movie.
Taking a long walk.
Having a pet.
Lighting a candle.
Watching TV whenever I want, whatever I want. Turning it off when I get tired of it.
Having the job which I choose and feels meaningful to me.
Getting on the internet whenever I want and looking at whatever I want. Checking EDS forums constantly for new posts.
Celebrating holidays with my family and attending family reunions.
Having my husband, son and granddaughter in my life on a daily basis.
Of course I could go on and on but you get the general idea.
-Cheri |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:40 pm |
Hello Carrie,
Don't worry about offending anyone because you are entitled to your opinion. As I have said, I am not for it but that's me and I know there are those who are for the death penalty. We all must respect one another's opinions. I'm glad you posted your thoughts. That's what this forum is all about.
I wonder what the motive was for Scott's murder of Laci. If it was the desire to be a single, swinging guy, well didn't he ever hear of the word divorce? So much easier.
I heard on CNN today that the lawyers are asking for a whole new jury and a change of venue for the sentencing hearings. I guess I'm dumb because if Scotts' only two options are the death penalty or life without parole well then what would be the purpose of these changes? It's not like there's going to be a "not guilty" verdict! Don't understand this strategy. However, I think this is the trial of the 21st century. It really just doesn't go away. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm |
I know divorce is not easy on anyone, but seeing how Scott's parents put up money for him on several occasions, I'm sure he wouldn't have had to worry about money for child support or alimony. However, I think Jackie gave him money at times without telling Lee.
As far as motive, I suspect there is so much more to Scott Peterson than we'll ever understand and we may never know the real reason.
The venue doesn't make sense to me either. Where would they find a new jury that hasn't been tainted by the media? They'd better stay with the current one, because is seems most of America wants him to get the DP. |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:49 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
