Scott Peterson

[Guest Anglesault]

Based on what? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just curious

 

I've lost all faith in humanity. I'm just really worried

 

Also, since there's been talk of it in this thread, when was the last time we (California) executed someone on death row anyway? I believe it's been a few years, at the very least. For a frame of reference, Charlie Manson's still alive and well, isn't he? Or did he get a life sentence?

 

You do something like one a year

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Based on what? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just curious

 

I've lost all faith in humanity. I'm just really worried

 

Also, since there's been talk of it in this thread, when was the last time we (California) executed someone on death row anyway? I believe it's been a few years, at the very least. For a frame of reference, Charlie Manson's still alive and well, isn't he? Or did he get a life sentence?

 

You do something like one a year

I think the last man to be executed in California was Polly Klaus's killer. In Charlie Manson's case, he was sentenced to death, but around the time he was waiting his execution California banned the death penalty. So Manson lucked out in that regard. But, I think Manson has showned that he is a complete loon, and he will never see the light of day ever again, so it is like his life is no longer his, it belongs to San Quetin's.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

You know, Stalinist Russia used to have the "guilty until proven innocent" mantra, too.

Hey Tyler, you are absolutely right... he is innocent until proven guilty. I am hoping that he is found guilty though. My reasons being:

 

1. He has shown no remorse about his wife first being missing, and then ending up dead. I know if my pregnant wife was missing, I would be an emotional wreck.

 

2. He has lied before about not having a girlfriend on the side.

 

3. He was missing a pool cover for his pool, which coincidently was the same size of the cover found wrapped around Laci's body.

 

4. His story about going fishing on X-mas eve. He said that he was going sturgeon fishing, but the boat he went fishing in was way to small. Any sturgeon fisher will tell you that you need a much bigger boat. But the boat he used was big enough to hold him and another body. And his wife was found in the area he claimed he was fishing in. A real coincidence.

 

5. Speaking of the boat he used, he attempted to sell it right after he had used it. I find this funny because he had just recently purchased the boat. I know if I bought a boat I wouldn't sell it right away. It was nice boat. And funny, when the cops were able to track the boat down, they found a concrete residue on the boat. And I highly doubt that the cement was used for fishing.

 

6. Scott has also started to sell all of Laci's belongings, hardly the act of someone who still has faith his wife is still alive. I would never do something like this unless I got confirmation that my wife was indeed dead.

 

7. If he is not guilty, then why the hair color change? Why the goatee? Why the 10,000 in cash? Why did he have his brother's ID? And isn't convient that he was down in San Diego, which is only a hop, skip, and jump away from Mexico. Shouldn't he be doing all he can to find his wife up in Northern California?

 

He will get his day in court. But there is a lot of evidence and holes in his alibi. Since they were able to find the body, this does not bode well for him. I also think that he is an arrogant jerk, who more than likely thought he was smarter than the cops. I also think that he believed that her disappearance would not get the attention that it did. Being that his wife has been killed, he really has not been too broken up about it. His break up on TV came off as phony to me. There was no genuine emotion to it.

[Guest SweetNSexyDiva]

Crazy Dan, I totally agree with everything you said! So eloquently too... If I was pregnant and missing my husband would be on a rampage to find me! Not calm, cool, and collected like Scott. And he definitely wouldn't be selling the house and my things after only a month!

[Guest Anglesault]

You know, Stalinist Russia used to have the "guilty until proven innocent" mantra, too.

Hey Tyler, you are absolutely right... he is innocent until proven guilty.

Except I'm not on a jury, so my opinion on this shithead really doesn't have negative effects

[Guest Crazy Dan]

You know, Stalinist Russia used to have the "guilty until proven innocent" mantra, too.

Hey Tyler, you are absolutely right... he is innocent until proven guilty.

Exept I'm no on a jury, so my opinion on this shithead really doesn't have negative effects

Of course it doesn't. I think that the events leading up to his arrest have dictated that he is a "shithead". You have every right to think he is guilty, I do.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I am not sure if I should have made a seperate thread for this question or not, so here goes: Do you think it is a good or bad precident to Call this a DOUBLE-homicide. What future implications will this bring to various issues concerning a fetus and/or will this just be filed under "special circumstances" and never rev-visited again?

[Guest DrTom]

That's a very interesting question, NCM. As eight months, a fetus is certainly viable outside the womb, so on those grounds, I think this could be called a double homicide. It doesn't hurt the state to shoot the moon with respect to the charges, then force the defense to do its job and try to refute them.

[Guest NoCalMike]

That's a very interesting question, NCM. As eight months, a fetus is certainly viable outside the womb, so on those grounds, I think this could be called a double homicide. It doesn't hurt the state to shoot the moon with respect to the charges, then force the defense to do its job and try to refute them.

That is a fair response Dr. Tom. My only worry is first off, a fair trial, secondly how many minds will be made up by emotions as opposed to rational thinking. I think in order to make a fair judgement you have to almost look at this situation as if it happened 20 years ago, and think what kind of decision should have been made, almost like removing yourself from the reality that it really happened. I dunno, that was kind of a piss-poor way to explain it, but I am watching the Kings game and about to get off work and go have a couple beers, so please forgive me.

[Guest Anglesault]

That's a very interesting question, NCM.  As eight months, a fetus is certainly viable outside the womb, so on those grounds, I think this could be called a double homicide.  It doesn't hurt the state to shoot the moon with respect to the charges, then force the defense to do its job and try to refute them.

That is a fair response Dr. Tom. My only worry is first off, a fair trial, secondly how many minds will be made up by emotions as opposed to rational thinking

Who the fuck cares, really? This is about a murdered wife, not abortion. Don't make it about that. I personally feel that if you fuck someone, you are bringing a baby upon yourself and you should deal with that. But youk know what? This trial is not about abortion, and confusing it and cluttering it into an abortion case will just fuck up the jury and let this guy walk.

[Guest DrTom]

He's not trying to make it into an aborion case, AS. It's a valid question: can this be considered a double homicide since the fetus was eight months old, and should the state bring those charges against Peterson? I know the viability of fetuses overlaps with the abortion debate, but any similarities between this issue and abortion look entirely coincidental, IMO.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

That's a very interesting question, NCM.  As eight months, a fetus is certainly viable outside the womb, so on those grounds, I think this could be called a double homicide.  It doesn't hurt the state to shoot the moon with respect to the charges, then force the defense to do its job and try to refute them.

That is a fair response Dr. Tom. My only worry is first off, a fair trial, secondly how many minds will be made up by emotions as opposed to rational thinking

Who the fuck cares, really? This is about a murdered wife, not abortion. Don't make it about that. I personally feel that if you fuck someone, you are bringing a baby upon yourself and you should deal with that. But youk know what? This trial is not about abortion, and confusing it and cluttering it into an abortion case will just fuck up the jury and let this guy walk.

I totally agree with you that this is about a murdered wife, and not abortion, however now that it's labelled as a double homicide, and many anti-choice people already claim that abortion is "murder", it's not too far of a jump to think that if Scott Peterson gets convicted on both accounts that this could set a legal precedent for abortion's future "murders".

 

However, I've also read a couple news releases that have made it seem like the baby was born and then killed, in which case it's infanticide, not "abortion", and the double homicide is justified.

[Guest areacode212]

However, I've also read a couple news releases that have made it seem like the baby was born and then killed, in which case it's infanticide, not "abortion", and the double homicide is justified.

One theory is that it was a "coffin birth", where the gases in Laci Peterson's decomposing body forced the baby out of her womb. It's something that happens occassionally when pregnant women die, and they aren't properly embalmed.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well if it is determined that the baby was born and then killed, it is an open and shut case as far as double-homicide goes.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The question posed is more asking about what exactly is the status given to a "fetus"

[Guest starvenger]

I am not sure if I should have made a seperate thread for this question or not, so here goes: Do you think it is a good or bad precident to Call this a DOUBLE-homicide. What future implications will this bring to various issues concerning a fetus and/or will this just be filed under "special circumstances" and never rev-visited again?

I heard on the radio this morning that the head of NOW is protesting the double homicide charge because the baby was not yet born and therefore not a person...