PDA

View Full Version : Peterson given death



kAb
12-13-2004, 10:59 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/10404804.htm?1c

Jury recommends death for Scott Peterson

BRIAN SKOLOFF

Associated Press

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - A jury decided Monday that Scott Peterson should be put to death for murdering his eight-months pregnant wife Laci, whose Christmas Eve disappearance two years ago formed the basis for a legal drama that has captivated the nation ever since.

The jury returned its verdict on the third day of deliberations and after seven days of tearful testimony in the penalty phase of the trial. The jury had two options in deciding the 32-year-old fertilizer salesman's fate: life in prison without parole or death by injection.

Peterson clenched his jaw when the verdict was read and leaned over to speak with his attorney, Mark Geragos, but showed no other emotion.

Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, cried, her lips quivering. Scott Peterson's mother, Jackie, showed no apparent emotion.

A crowd of several hundred gathered outside the San Mateo County Courthouse broke out in cheers and scattered applause after the sentencing verdict was broadcast. The scene was reminiscent of the guilty verdicts Nov. 12, when about 1,000 people descended on the streets outside, most of them erupting in cheers to show their support for the jury's decision.

"If there was anyone to have the death penalty apply to, it's Scott Peterson. He's the example why the death penalty exists," said Dave Ogden, a 38-year-old painter from Sunnyvale who was among those outside the courthouse.

In arguing for death, prosecutors called Peterson "the worst kind of monster" and said he was undeserving of sympathy. The defense begged jurors to "go back there and please spare his life."

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi will formally sentence Peterson on Feb. 25. He can recommend a lesser sentence of life in prison without parole, but it's rare for judges to reduce a jury's verdict in a capital case.

In a brief news conference after the verdict, Geragos said he was "very disappointed."

"Obviously, we plan on pursuing every and all appeals, motions for a new trial and everything else," he said.

The decision came almost two years to the date after the disappearance of Laci Peterson, a 27-year-old substitute teacher who married her college sweetheart and was soon to be the proud mother of a baby boy named Conner. The story set off a tabloid frenzy as suspicion began to swirl around Scott Peterson, who claimed to have been fishing by himself on Christmas Eve and was carrying on an affair with a massage therapist at the time.

The remains of Laci and the fetus washed ashore about four months later, just a few miles from where Peterson claims to have gone fishing in San Francisco Bay. The case went to trial in June, and Peterson was convicted a month ago on two counts of murder.

All the while, the case never stopped making headlines.

The case graced more People magazine covers than any murder investigation in the publication's history. Court TV thrived during the case, providing countless hours of coverage on the investigation and gavel-to-gavel commentary throughout the trial. CNN's Larry King hosted show after show with pundits picking apart legal strategies, testimony and even Scott Peterson's demeanor.

Trial regulars showed up by the hundreds to participate in the daily lottery for the coveted 27 public seats inside the courtroom.

Peterson will now be sent to death row at San Quentin State Prison outside San Francisco, the infamous lockup where prisoners gaze out small cell windows overlooking the same bay where Laci Peterson's body was discarded.

Peterson still might not be executed for decades, if ever. That is because California's death row has grown to house more than 640 condemned men and women since the state brought back capital punishment in 1978. Since then, only 10 executions have been carried out. It can take years for even the first phase of the appeals process to begin.

California's last execution was on Jan. 29, 2002, when Stephen Wayne Anderson - described by supporters as the poet laureate of Death Row - was put to death by lethal injection for the Memorial Day 1980 murder of 81-year-old Elizabeth Lyman during a break-in at her home.

As many as three murderers face possible execution in 2005, said Department of Corrections spokeswoman Margot Bach.

Prosecutors spent months portraying Peterson as a monster, a cheating husband and cold-blooded killer who wooed his lover even as police searched for his missing wife. They said he wanted to murder Laci to escape marriage and fatherhood for the pleasures of the freewheeling bachelor life.

The prosecution put on a short, but emotional case in the penalty phase of the trial, calling just four witnesses.

"Every morning when I get up I cry," Sharon Rocha said during the penalty phase. "It takes me a long time just to be able to get out of the house ... I miss her. I want to know my grandson. I want Laci to be a mother. I want to hear her called mom."

Rocha would later rise halfway out of her seat and scream at Scott Peterson, who was seated impassively at the defense table: "Divorce was always an option," she said. "Not murder!"

Defense attorneys argued during the trial's guilt phase that Peterson was framed and that the real killers dumped Laci's body in the water after learning of Peterson's widely publicized alibi. The defense fought hard to save Peterson's life, calling about 40 witnesses over seven days in the penalty phase.

They seized on anything from Scott Peterson's past in attempt to spare his life, including testimony that he never cheated on the golf course or lost his temper.

They told jurors of the Scott Peterson who was a smiling, snuggling toddler. He was the high school golf captain who tutored younger students. He sang to seniors on Sundays and once broke up a dog fight. He cared for mentally retarded children. He was the highly motivated son who worked his way through college.

And finally, he was the young professional who married the woman he fell in love with in college.

"I wish there was a phrase that I could give you that could turn this around and make you believe there is good, there is real, real good in this person," defense attorney Pat Harris said during closing arguments. "But I don't have that phrase ... that's up to you to decide."

Living in the bay area, this hits home for me. I'm not sure how I feel about it, on the one hand, Laci didn't deserve to die, and neither did her child, but is death the right way to go?

NikkiD
12-13-2004, 11:10 PM
It's about time. In my opinion he deserves the death penalty, if not for his wife then for what he did to an innocent, defenseless, unborn child.

krome
12-13-2004, 11:58 PM
may the :devil: have mercy on your soul scott.... (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=eternal&spell=1)

ziggyjuarez
12-14-2004, 01:21 AM
Not yet you dip shit:rolleyes:

Darth Sushi
12-14-2004, 02:16 AM
http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/hang.gif

cpt_azad
12-14-2004, 02:26 AM
It's about time. In my opinion he deserves the death penalty, if not for his wife then for what he did to an innocent, defenseless, unborn child.

my thoughts exactly.

j2k4
12-14-2004, 03:11 AM
It's about time. In my opinion he deserves the death penalty, if not for his wife then for what he did to an innocent, defenseless, unborn child.

I would echo your sentiment doubly, Nik.

There is an adjunct subject worthy of discussion in another thread-perhaps in a day or two.

spinningfreemanny
12-14-2004, 05:09 AM
I would echo your sentiment doubly, Nik.

There is an adjunct subject worthy of discussion in another thread-perhaps in a day or two.

Oh, it's coming, j2...I feel it.

If the jury thinks he should die, I'm perfectly fine with that.
May this provide any consolation to the family.

RPerry
12-14-2004, 06:28 AM
Yes.... He deserves this punishment. He was the one responsible for protecting his wife and child, yet he took their life. I have no problem with the State of California taking his.

whiterook-2
12-14-2004, 06:44 AM
death penatly?.... cmon, think about it. nowadays the death is painless and quick.
I think he should be put in prison for the rest of his life, with regular shower gang bangs and daily beatings from the rest of the prison population.

Skiz
12-14-2004, 07:05 AM
http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/hang.gif

ditto

ziggyjuarez
12-14-2004, 01:08 PM
He did not get the death penalty yet.The jury only said it,not the judge:frusty:

dwightfry
12-14-2004, 04:28 PM
It seems I'm one of the few that think this is rediculous for a few reasons.

There was no concrete evidence, it was all circumstantial. The death penalty shouldn't be used unless there is concrete evidence convicting the indivisual.

The severity of the crime needs to be considered. The murder of the Laci and her child was truly dreadful, but it's hard for me to consider a double homicide as severe as a bombing that killed hundreds of people, including children at daycare. The death penalty is supposed to be for the worst of the worst. Compare the two, one's obviously much worse.

And of course, life in prison seems like more of a punishment anyways.

Arm
12-14-2004, 05:30 PM
Eh we need more executions in the world, not less dwightfry. And an execution thats as brutal as the crime. :cool: Not that I really care about the Scott Peterson case. If he is executed just so I can stop hearing about it in the media constantly, then it'll be worth it. :01:

sArA
12-14-2004, 05:33 PM
death penatly?.... cmon, think about it. nowadays the death is painless and quick.
I think he should be put in prison for the rest of his life, with regular shower gang bangs and daily beatings from the rest of the prison population.




Oh yep....death is just too much of an easy way out for him and for the authorities...bread and water, no medical treatment regardless of illness...just to add to whiterook's little idea.... :devil:

dwightfry
12-14-2004, 06:39 PM
Eh we need more executions in the world, not less dwightfry. And an execution thats as brutal as the crime. :cool: Not that I really care about the Scott Peterson case. If he is executed just so I can stop hearing about it in the media constantly, then it'll be worth it. :01:
Execution is murder. It exists for the worst of situations. If you are going to throw out the basis of it's existances, at the very least you should need solid evidence showing you have the right guy. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is okay for convicting somebody, but when it comes to execution there should be absolutly no doubt.

NikkiD
12-14-2004, 07:04 PM
Oh yep....death is just too much of an easy way out for him and for the authorities...bread and water, no medical treatment regardless of illness...just to add to whiterook's little idea.... :devil:

There are a couple of problems I see with him spending life in prison. Because of criminal rights laws and prisoner's rights laws, the above would never be allowed to happen. And with a prisoner that's had as much media exposure as Scott Peterson, the likelihood of him ever entering the general population in the prison is doubtful. It's hard to believe that the prisoners of San Quentin have never heard of him. His lawyer is sure to know this, as is the state, which - if his sentence was converted to life in prison - might keep him out of the general population for his own protection. This is just speculation on my part, of course.

As it stands, he'll have at least a decade or two to wait it out in a cell before the needle goes into his arm, if in fact it ever does.

I don't believe in the death penalty in all cases. When a child is murdered, in cold blood, even one, I do believe it is fitting and just.

RPerry
12-14-2004, 07:30 PM
Execution is murder. It exists for the worst of situations. If you are going to throw out the basis of it's existances, at the very least you should need solid evidence showing you have the right guy. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is okay for convicting somebody, but when it comes to execution there should be absolutly no doubt.

Did you watch the same trial I did ? Believe me, there is no doubt.

dwightfry
12-14-2004, 08:31 PM
I followed it as closely as I could without actually seeking information. Seeing as I work at a TV station that was a lot. All I saw was he's not a good guy. He lied to his mistress while his wifes disappearence was being investigated. He tried to change his appearence, sold his wifes car, etc. What solid evidence was there? I believe none. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about the case, because I don't. But from what I've heard there was hardly enough evidence to convict the guy let alone kill him.

So, how about some insight on what makes this an open and shut case?

(Don't think that I am defending him. I'm not. If things are as clear as you say, I must have missed something big.)

vidcc
12-14-2004, 09:45 PM
It would actually cost the state less to keep him in prison for life than go through all the appeals etc. involved as a safety net.... But then thank goodness that the appeal system is there as was proven a few weeks ago when an innocent man was realeased after 20 years on death row.

Formula1
12-15-2004, 01:13 AM
I don't believe in the death panalty and just about any case. Probably life in prison is more fitting.

j2k4
12-15-2004, 02:53 AM
It would actually cost the state less to keep him in prison for life than go through all the appeals etc. involved as a safety net.... But then thank goodness that the appeal system is there as was proven a few weeks ago when an innocent man was realeased after 20 years on death row.

Substitute "could" for "would" and that might fly, but as Peterson is a relative youngster, I rather doubt it.

This is not to diminish the outrageous cost of the appeals process.

As an aside, it occurs to me the legal system ought to accomodate a malpractice tort for victims of bad lawyering.

ziggyjuarez
12-15-2004, 03:01 AM
EDIT

Arm
12-15-2004, 06:21 AM
Just kill his worthless ass. Who really cares? Well not me.

Busyman
12-15-2004, 02:02 PM
I don't believe in the death panalty and just about any case. Probably life in prison is more fitting.
I would take a more radical approach.....

Exile to a habitable island.

No Escape springs to mind.

That way they are not being killed by the government and they are sent away from our lives.

dwightfry
12-15-2004, 04:16 PM
I would take a more radical approach.....

Exile to a habitable island.

No Escape springs to mind.

That way they are not being killed by the government and they are sent away from our lives.
Yeah, we need another australia. :P (That is what happened, is it not?)


Just kill his worthless ass. Who really cares? Well not me.
I fear the day you are put on a jury :blink:

How about someone giving me one peice of hard evidence convicting the guy?

RPerry
12-17-2004, 08:56 PM
How about the bodies floating up about 2 miles from where he said he went fishing ? Why did he sneak about with different cars to the Berkley marina several times after the seach there started ? talk about returning to the scene of the crime :whistling

Smurfette
12-18-2004, 07:59 AM
How about the bodies floating up about 2 miles from where he said he went fishing ? Why did he sneak about with different cars to the Berkley marina several times after the seach there started ? talk about returning to the scene of the crime :whistling
WTF? That's not hard evidence, it's circumstantial.
How many other people were within 2 miles of the place the bodies showed up? People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and one person's 'sneaking about' is another's strolling around.
So, for an Englishman completely untainted by press and courtroom imagery, can you offer some irrevocable evidence to even link him to the crime?

S!X
12-18-2004, 08:53 AM
Motherfuckers allways get whats commin to them in the end.

Smurfette
12-18-2004, 10:27 AM
Motherfuckers allways get whats commin to them in the end.
I unblocked you for that?
The big problem is that they don't - and there are more than a few cases of the wrong motherfucker getting what should be 'coming to' the real perpetrator.

A few years ago 'Dubbya' refused to commute the death sentence for a man (who was executed some days later) convicted on the evidence of one witness the other side of the street from the crime, even after several witnesses that were much closer to the event had given evidence stating that he was not the man they saw committing the offence.
If I can find a link I'll post it.

HERE (http://www.truthinjustice.org/graham_jurors.htm)

And HERE (http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Bush/bush38.html)
The evidence was ambiguous. Graham was condemned to death on the basis of testimony by a single eyewitness, Bernadine Skillern, who acknowledged that she only saw the assailant for two seconds at a distance of 30 to 40 feet. There was also evidence that Skillern was coached by police, who showed her a photo array of possible suspects, before being asked to review a real-life lineup. The only suspect in both lineups was Graham. Another witness who said he also saw the shooter did not pick Graham out of the lineup. But this witness and a second exculpatory witness were never interviewed by Graham's lawyer and neither testified at Graham's trial. There were so many questions about Graham's guilt and his incompetent representation that even the somnambulant Board of Pardons and Paroles produced five votes recommending that the death sentence be commuted to life in prison.

RPerry
12-18-2004, 01:25 PM
If your looking for forensic evidence, it isn't there.


How many other people were within 2 miles of the place the bodies showed up?

I'm sure there were a few, but it wasn't any of their wives and child, and none of them were from Modesto :dry: ( 90 miles away from the bay )

Smurfette
12-18-2004, 05:21 PM
If your looking for forensic evidence, it isn't there.
I'm not saying the guy is innocent, just pointing out the folly of snuffing out someone's life when there is no absolute proof of guilt.

I'm sure there were a few, but it wasn't any of their wives and child, and none of them were from Modesto :dry: ( 90 miles away from the bay )
I have a real problem with that.
You appear to be suggesting that she couldn't have been murdered by anyone outside of her family, which is ridiculous. You cannot eliminate possible suspects because they weren't related to the victim. She could have taken a cab to follow him and been murdered by the driver on the way. She could've been having an affair and been murdered by her lover. The thing is, it may be coincidence that she was murdered near where he was at the time.
Who says the murderer has to come from her home town? It would be a coincidence, but not an impossibility.

RPerry
12-18-2004, 07:19 PM
Smurfette,
Before you wish to debate a case, which I feel you have very little knowledge of, Please direct yourself to courttv.com. I don't wish you to read the commentaries, having watch alot of that while the trial was going on, they are extrememly one-sided. But read the transcripts and so forth, and you see what most everyone else sees.

I once believed the man was innoocent, but his lies, his actions, his lack of emotion for his dead wife and child, his flirtiing with another woman while the rest of his family was searching for his wife, the fact that Laci's stepfather reported her missing instead of her husband, and finally, if I were being charged with something like this, I would have taken the stand to defend myself.
I won't go into the concrete anchors he made( several of them) for his tiny boat cause they were never found. perhaps one day they will be, then you can have your real concrete proof :lol:

ahctlucabbuS
12-18-2004, 07:35 PM
Just kill his worthless ass. Who really cares? Well not me.

Coincidentally I watched "12 angry men" last night. If you ever get a chance to watch the film, guess which character you'd be with that statement? ;)

And just for the record, I'm against the death penalty. I see no reason why a society should lower itself to the same act as a killer.

No system is infallable and given there's always a chance of executing an innocent (and indeed as it stand, there's evidence of this happening to many people in the USA in the 90's) that should be enough, if you don't buy the ideological argument.

Let them rot in prison. :dry:

hobbes
12-18-2004, 07:47 PM
I think reading Sara's 2 headed post made the lightbulb go off.

Survivor- The Death Row Inmates.

An island, little food, lots of sharks and TV cameras.

This way the prisoners can make money and be a source of entertainment as well.

The "survivor" gets a painless lethal injection.

Just to encourage violence, an "animal of the day" could be dropped on the island. Maybe a few hundred scorpions on Monday and a Tiger on Tuesday.

Talk about paying back ones debt to society.

Smurfette
12-18-2004, 09:19 PM
Smurfette,
Before you wish to debate a case, which I feel you have very little knowledge of, Please direct yourself to courttv.com. I don't wish you to read the commentaries, having watch alot of that while the trial was going on, they are extrememly one-sided. But read the transcripts and so forth, and you see what most everyone else sees.

I once believed the man was innoocent, but his lies, his actions, his lack of emotion for his dead wife and child, his flirtiing with another woman while the rest of his family was searching for his wife, the fact that Laci's stepfather reported her missing instead of her husband, and finally, if I were being charged with something like this, I would have taken the stand to defend myself.
I won't go into the concrete anchors he made( several of them) for his tiny boat cause they were never found. perhaps one day they will be, then you can have your real concrete proof :lol:
I'm not debating the case per se, I'm arguing against the death penalty and asking for someone to point out the evidence that convicted the man... because what I've read here should not be enough to take a man's life.

I did take a look over at CourtTV a while ago and found a piece heavily coloured by emotion, so I closed the window lol. I think that was just after he had been found guilty and therefore 'fair game' for a little tabloid-style sensationalism.

As I've pointed out, I know next to nothing of the case, the evidence or the pontifications of the lawyers. I'm of a mind he's guilty, but I don't think that the weight of the circumstantial evidence (as I've read here) is enough to guarantee guilt.
All these things you mention point to a very callous man, but they do not point to a guilty man. He may have hated his wife, and cared not the slightest jot for the unborn child; his actions before, during and after the search may well be those of a disgusting soulless man, but these things do not prove guilt - there are undoubtedly other people in the world a little or a lot like this that are not murderers so we cannot use them to condemn a man... although I agree that they are enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

RPerry
12-19-2004, 12:37 PM
I did take a look over at CourtTV a while ago and found a piece heavily coloured by emotion, so I closed the window lol. I think that was just after he had been found guilty and therefore 'fair game' for a little tabloid-style sensationalism.


I tried to warn you about that :P
If you ever get the free time, try again, but go to the part where it says full trial coverage. It shows transcripts of phone calls, and pictures of evidence and so forth.
I had alot of time off during the trial, and the tv program itself was laughable. Most of the "anchors" are former prosecutors, in particular, Nancy Grace who always managed to get on my nerves although by the end of the trial, I had to agree with some of her views.