Scott Peterson...

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:05 pm

I'm sort of surprised that we don't talk about this case that much in here...but I'm puzzled as to why two jurors have been removed in as many days in this case. I for one, am not completely convinced he did it for various reasons, and I'm afraid that these jurors were the ones holding out and now they're replaced. If the jury comes back with a quick verdict, I'd be skeptical. What do you people think of this case?

Odds for mistrial? 2-1?

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:37 pm

One of them was kicked off for doing research on the case on their own, which I guess is verboten. The jury had to start deliberations over from the beginning, which I bet sucked.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:57 pm

I'm waiting on my judgement of this decision until I see the reason the second juror was dismissed and how quickly they come back with a verdict. Rumors had it that it was gonna deadlock.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:15 pm

I haven't seen enough evidence to make a judgement. I would have to wait until all the evidence presented in court was made public.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:28 pm

I'm just wondering why he was caught trying to flee to mexico with money in his pocket and his hair dyed.

Bettina

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:57 pm

I'm wondering why the newsies spend so much time talking about this when there are so many other things going on in the world that don't get a tenth of the explanation or the detailed discussion of minutia that the Peterson case gets.

Deadmeat · Post by **Deadmeat** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:01 pm

That, along with his mistress and his sudden interest in fishing (he bought the boat and was online studying San Francisco Bay tidal currents just before his wife's disappearance) are all too suspicious. Personally, I think he did it. I'm just afraid this mess with the jury is going to lock things up and a second trial with all the publicity, etc. might result in his getting away with it.

Deadmeat · Post by **Deadmeat** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:06 pm

Woody, it's all about the sensationalism. Pregnant woman found floating in bay, mistress and blah, blah, blah. The media scarfs it up.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:14 pm

Don't know don't care. It doesn't affect me.

edit: hi chief.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:35 pm

The man deserves a fair trial, innocent until PROVEN guilty. I'm astonished by the number of people who "know" he's guilty when the jury, who've heard the case in its entirety, apparently can't come to that conclusion.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:54 am

Bring him down here to Texas.....I'm sure he is guilty here

........

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:09 am

Heh!

If you think Peterson is innocent, you're smoking crack. OJ is more 'innocent' than Peterson and you know damn well that OJ was guilty. If someone murdered your wife (even if you didn't give a **** about her AND your UNBORN SON), I don't think you'd be dying your hair a different color, growing a beard and stashing 50k in a NEW car about to make tracks for Mexico.

Unix · Post by **Unix** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:29 am

I don't think he would've ever made it over the Mexican border. I hear they're pretty tough on immigration.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:05 am

TB = armchair juror.
The guy may be a piece of crap, but he deserves a fair trial regardless of public opinion, Mr. Thurman.

If it was such a slam dunk as you suggest, why haven't the jurors, who have heard all the fact, come back with a guilty verdict?

Did you ever consider that the media was swarming the guy and he needed to get away? Dye his hair, take a vacation to Mexcio until things are sorted? I'm certainly not suggesting that it is fact. I'm only suggesting that dying your hair, carrying 50k in cash and playing golf near the boarder does not make you a guilty man. Suspicious?, yeah.. but certainly not guilty. IIRC, he didn't try to flee to Mexico, he was found playing Golf in san Diego and they ASSUMED he was planning to flee to Mexico.

I do not KNOW O.J is guilty and I do not KNOW that Peterson is guilty. The truth is, you don't KNOW either.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:25 pm

No offense B, but if you dont know for yourself that O.J. was guilty by now something is wrong with you

A good portion of jury members are just ignorant. Taking them out of their own little bubble of life makes it difficult for them to form rational opinions. I know, I've been one and most of the other people don't know what the hell is going on half the time. They just want to make a decision and go home, right or wrong. There are those of us that want to make the right decision and go home just as quickly but a decision DOES have to be made.

I blame the lawyers personally. If you use common sense though you can tell which guy is spouting the lies and which guy isn't. Especially after you weigh all the evidence. Most of these lawyers do their little dance of the mind phvck on the jury and get them thinking about shiat that doesn't have anything really to do with what happend and people get all confused. This is where bad decisions are made and people get off with things they obviously are guilty of.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:04 pm

I guess there's something wrong with me.

This isn't "Clue" and as enjoyable as it might be to guess the outcome based on the evidence the public has been given, it's a man's life we're talking about, maybe his death.
A woman with child was murdered and I'm just as interested in real justice as the next guy, but I've seen multiple circumstances that would point to a person being guilty, seemingly no way the evidence could have been coincidence, but it was. I've been a victim of it: When I worked for Pacbell back in the mid-80's, we had just got paid and all I had was dollar bills. I wanted something to drink and I asked a supposed friend if she had change. She told me that her purse was in her locker in the break room and gave me the key to get into her purse and get some change. I did exactly that( okay, probably not the smartest move on my part.. but, whatever). I was the only one in the breakroom and when I opened her purse she had a wad of cash sort of stuffed in there and the change was in the bottom. I reached past the bills and grabbed a handful of change, made sure nothing fell out, closed her purse, put it back, locked the locker and went on my way. About two hours later she comes to me and says "the jokes over". To make a long story short, I was fired for stealing.
I did not take her money ,I am not a thief. I was pissed for being accused and being fired. But, I didn't look at it from their point of view at the time. It was too obvious to them who took her money... me. I actually lost friends over that incident and I did nothing wrong.

As little faith that I have in our justice system, it's the best thing we've got and most likely the best system in the world. Let the jurors decide whether or not Peterson is guilty. If he's guilty and he walks? He'll get his in the end. A jury of peers extends only to those that have been selected and does not include those of us that watch the 6 o'clock news.
At this point he is an innocent man. If he's not, I hope he fries.

B-

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:58 pm

The Jury reached a verdict in 6 hours of deliberations with their new panel. Theyre announcing it on CNN shortly.

phlegm · Post by **phlegm** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:18 pm

Guilty

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 3:18 pm

Guilty!!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:43 pm

Guilty as sin...now lets see him fry.
Up side now is we won't have 10 hours of daily "news" about this idiot.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:52 pm

I've no idea who you are talking about. Someone killed someone else? Wow, never heard of that happening. Is it someone I know? It's not? Hmm...interest waning.

I wonder how many drama queens are(were..it's over?) on the edge of their seat. How many are here?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:56 pm

*Looks around*

That would be you Testi

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:04 pm

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:00 am

Whats interesting and may have far reaching effects is the jury found Scott guilty on TWO counts of murder.
First degree for his wife.
Second degree for his unborn son.
While this question deviates a bit from the thread, how do you think the second degree murder charge will affect Roe v Wade?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:41 am

It wont.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:52 pm

There's a lot of paranoia from certain Roe v Wade supporters that any protection of the unborn will somehow come back to bite them. But it won't -- at least not in the near future. Maybe in 20 years the courts will manage to overturn Doe v Bolton and this will be part of the precedent they cite, but Roe v Wade is not likely to go away.

(background: roe v wade said women can have abortions early on for many reasons, but late-term only for "health" reasons. Doe v bolton said "health" refers to anything physical, mental, emotional, psychological, social, economic, blah blah blah... in other words, "having a baby would cramp my style" is treated as a valid health concern under DvB.)