Seems the jury has stalled.
Peterson jury hits snag in deliberations
What do you think?
Guilty?
Not Guilty?
Peterson jury hits snag in deliberations
What do you think?
Guilty?
Not Guilty?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scott Peterson: Guilty or Not?
- Thread starter MacDawg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not "snapping" at you, but I just don't care. I can't believe the media has spent so much time covering this stupid case. Is it sad? Yes. Death and murder always are. But "murder" is by no means unique as news stories go and I would rather hear other news from around the world.
Guilty - the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning. Guess I wouldn't have been a good juror for this trial. I haven't really been following the trial too closely, so I don't get what the jury is hung over.
He's not just a cold blooded murderer, he's stupid, too. Who would pick Amber over Laci, anyway?
He's not just a cold blooded murderer, he's stupid, too. Who would pick Amber over Laci, anyway?
Mr_Ed said:
I hear you. My wife and I had this discussion the other night. Why this case? I know she was pregnant, but there are other cases, many cases, around the US (and world) that are never mentioned. How does the media pick and choose?
For example, the fascination with the Jon Benet Ramsey case?
Its whatever the news can package and sell.
Just thought people might express an opinion on the case. Yours is "I don't care" which is quite valid. Maybe others don't care either!
Do you care MR members? And if so, guilty or not guilty?
I think he's guilty of being a jerk and a liar, but not a murderer.
When the trial started, I thought for sure he was guilty. But, after hearing a lot of the evidence, I think he's not guilty. If you listen to those phone calls, and even the prosecution witnesses, you can tell that this guy was very happy that he was about to become a father. The testimony that the baby was born and killed was very strong and convincing. Mark Geragos did a great job in that point in the trial.
Also, who would be stupid enough to murder a person, dump her body and then tell police you were fishing there? If he murdered her, he would have said he was fishing someplace else.
Just my opinion. What do others think?
When the trial started, I thought for sure he was guilty. But, after hearing a lot of the evidence, I think he's not guilty. If you listen to those phone calls, and even the prosecution witnesses, you can tell that this guy was very happy that he was about to become a father. The testimony that the baby was born and killed was very strong and convincing. Mark Geragos did a great job in that point in the trial.
Also, who would be stupid enough to murder a person, dump her body and then tell police you were fishing there? If he murdered her, he would have said he was fishing someplace else.
Just my opinion. What do others think?
Interesting.
I have a hard time listening to the Amber tapes without believing him to be guilty.
Does anybody have a more likely scenario than the one that says SP killed her?
I have a hard time listening to the Amber tapes without believing him to be guilty.
Does anybody have a more likely scenario than the one that says SP killed her?
Certainly guilty of being a slimy, detestable human being. Did he do it? Probably. I have a hard time believing there was some satanic cult or other such nonsense, so who else would have done it? Is he "guilty," meaning will he be found criminally responsible? I'm leaning towards probably not, but you never know.
But there is a difference between a "reasonable doubt" and "a shadow of a doubt". I think the doubts have to be reasonable and rational, not outlandish or far fetched. I think plausable explanations have been offered for the doubts that have been raised. And yet I'm not sure the defense has proposed a plausible explanation of a different scenario.
Statistically the odds are pretty good that he did it.
"In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends." Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996
Other stats here
Another woman
A pregnant wife
Motive
Opportunity
Damning taped evidence
Pretty tough odds
Statistically the odds are pretty good that he did it.
"In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends." Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996
Other stats here
Another woman
A pregnant wife
Motive
Opportunity
Damning taped evidence
Pretty tough odds
i'd have a hard time sentencing sp to death/jail time given that i have doubts based on what i've seen/heard so far. i agree with others that he's a lying despicable jerk but i haven't seen enough to consider him a murderer.
I find this all pretty surprising. I thought most everyone would agree that he was guilty.
Just what kind of evidence (short of a confession) would it take to convince you in this case? What evidence is lacking?
I'll admit, I haven't followed the case very close, but I believe that there is some physical evidence too.
Just wondering what it would take to convince all of you.
Just what kind of evidence (short of a confession) would it take to convince you in this case? What evidence is lacking?
I'll admit, I haven't followed the case very close, but I believe that there is some physical evidence too.
Just wondering what it would take to convince all of you.
I live in San Luis Obispo, where Cal Poly SLO is located, and where Laci and Scott met. My brother played on the JC golf team with Scott and said that he was a weirdo and a dufus. My friends parents also owned the sports bar/resturant that they sold to Scott, they said he was rather strange as well.
With that being said, Scott seemed like a strange person, but does being strange make you a murderer?
With that being said, Scott seemed like a strange person, but does being strange make you a murderer?
Any loss of life in such a tragic way is sad. Murder even complicates the situation more. It is a taking of human life, sin. If the word's of Jesus were followed this would not happen. It's to Love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind, an soul. Also to Love your neighbor as yourself. Only Lacie, perpetrator, and the Lord know for sure who committed the murder. Since I haven't heard all the fact, there is no way to know for sure.
With the jury having trouble making a decision is doesn't look good for the prosecution.
With the jury having trouble making a decision is doesn't look good for the prosecution.
Hmmmmm...
Hung jury speculations
Mistrial motions
Jury misconduct accusations
The prosecution is not having a good day today.
Hung jury speculations
Mistrial motions
Jury misconduct accusations
The prosecution is not having a good day today.
Let's see:
She was white, middle to upper-class, drove an urban landy, and was from California. Yeah, so what?
Would this be news if it was a Latina women in the barrio who rode the bus and was on welfare?
Could care less about this trial.
She was white, middle to upper-class, drove an urban landy, and was from California. Yeah, so what?
Would this be news if it was a Latina women in the barrio who rode the bus and was on welfare?
Could care less about this trial.
chanoc said:Let's see:
She was white, middle to upper-class, drove an urban landy, and was from California. Yeah, so what?
Would this be news if it was a Latina women in the barrio who rode the bus and was on welfare?
Could care less about this trial.
There have been lots of others that fit her description that haven't gotten this coverage either. It is a media thing, but why this one? Dunno.
MacDawg said:
That's the problem, bud. There is no physical evidence, it's all circumstancial. Plus, you must realize that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a hunch that he was involved, but the D.A. has done nothing to prove that he is guilty. It sucks.
MacDawg said:
I thought this one was getting more coverage because it was the first time that a murder charge had been made on behalf of an unborn child? Incidentally, it's getting no coverage in the UK. I have a friend who is writing a book about it (and has been at the trial every day for the past 6 months or so) who is convinced of Peterson's innocence.
I'm less sure - there seem to be big holes in the prosecution evidence (so going to be hard to say beyond all reasonable doubt) but the defense don't seem to have made enough of some of them and too much of some of the more circumstantial defenses (like the Satanic cult - he'd have done better speculating on the burglars across the road lying about the date they robbed the house and Laci disturbing them while walking dog)
Lots of things seem too stupid to have done if it was premeditated but perhaps not if in a panic. Who knows! But like the poster above points out, it's not up to him to prove his innocence, it's the prosecution's job to prove his guilt. Makes you wish for the old Scottish verdict of 'Not Proven!'
Here's a case I'm very familiar with that was judged solely on circumstantial evidence and hearsay...
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
I was just on a jury two weeks ago...
Nobody here can answer guilty or not guilty. That's for the jury to decide and is irrelevant of whether he did it or not. O.J. was not guilty...
The jury I was on was hung and in a Q&A period after the trial, the judge told us that if the defendant had chosen to be tried by a judge instead of a jury, she would have easily found him guilty and that this was a very clear case. The problem that prosecutors run up against these days is that television programs like CSI lead people to believe that there is often overwhelming amounts of physical evidence that irrefutably point toward guilt, be it fingerprints, hair or DNA. The expectations of such evidence, which in the majority of cases is not a financially practical option, lead to the concept of "reasonable doubt" being interpreted as "possibility of doubt" instead of "probability of doubt".
Scott Peterson did it and is going to be found not guilty.
Nobody here can answer guilty or not guilty. That's for the jury to decide and is irrelevant of whether he did it or not. O.J. was not guilty...
The jury I was on was hung and in a Q&A period after the trial, the judge told us that if the defendant had chosen to be tried by a judge instead of a jury, she would have easily found him guilty and that this was a very clear case. The problem that prosecutors run up against these days is that television programs like CSI lead people to believe that there is often overwhelming amounts of physical evidence that irrefutably point toward guilt, be it fingerprints, hair or DNA. The expectations of such evidence, which in the majority of cases is not a financially practical option, lead to the concept of "reasonable doubt" being interpreted as "possibility of doubt" instead of "probability of doubt".
Scott Peterson did it and is going to be found not guilty.
I am completely sickened by each and every one of you who said "who cares" And for the person who implied that there was some socio-economic or nationalistic (I know you really meant racist, but you DO know that "latino" isn't a race, right?) reason why people are making a big deal out of this.. you make me doubly sick. You not only don't care that a woman and a child were murdered, you don't care because she wasn't the proper color, with the proper background to make it important.. EXACTLY what you are accusing the media of, by the way.
Did he kill them? I don't know. However, he did admit to sleeping with another woman while his wife was pregnant, all the while claiming how much he wanted this baby, and loved his wife.. if you want an "I don't care" answer, I'll give you one. I don't care if he did it or not, he deserves a good old-fashioned stoning just for that.
Did he kill them? I don't know. However, he did admit to sleeping with another woman while his wife was pregnant, all the while claiming how much he wanted this baby, and loved his wife.. if you want an "I don't care" answer, I'll give you one. I don't care if he did it or not, he deserves a good old-fashioned stoning just for that.
IndyGopher said:
I for one, do care, and I have mildly followed the case because of my closeness to the case I mentioned above Watson case . My questioning of the media is why some cases are given such national exposure and others never see the light of day. I'm not claiming racism or things like that (and I don't think your comments were directed at me), because there are plenty of all sizes and shapes (colors and races) that aren't made a media circus.
For instance, what has happened to the Lori Hacking case?
I care because I think the guilty should be brought to justice. We all have our issues, but we don't all resolve them by murder.