A verdict in the Peterson trial:
Jurors found Scott Peterson guilty Friday of first-degree murder in the death of his pregnant wife and second-degree murder in the death of their unborn son.
The verdict leaves Peterson facing a possible sentence of death or life in prison without parole. A penalty phase of the trial is set to begin November 22.
I am indifferent about this verdict. I personally believe that he killed her- I have real problems with those who cheat on their spouses, and I find it inconceivable that I would leave my wife alone on Christmas Eve , particularly 9 months pregnant.
At any rate, I think he did it, but I don’t think the prosecution proved it. I guess it is a wash. Right outcome, wrong verdict.
*** Update ***
I agree with everything Jeralynn has written here:
I do not believe the charges against Scott were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was paltry at best. He was tarred by being a liar and a cheat. Scott Peterson was tried and convicted in the media, months before the trial started.
There was no murder weapon, no cause of death, no time of death, no identifiable crime scene, no witnesses. And a reconstituted jury that deliberated less than a full business day.
This jury as much said, “Someone killed her and there is no other explanation so it must have been Scott.” Shameful. That is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Like I said- I do not think they proved Peterson guilty at all. However, I really do believe he did it. Having said that, knowing what I know, I would have been unable to convict him were I a member of the jury. Got all that? I think he did it but I don;t think they proved it.
*** Update ***
Oliver states that my position on this verdict is ‘positively Kerryesque.’ To which I respond- guilty as charged.
Ralph Gizzip
Such is the stuff of appeals.
Kathy K
I was actually on a jury which had that same problem once (we thought he did it but we didn’t think they proved it). We declared ‘not guilty’.
Mind you, it was a much more minor crime, in which no-one was injured.
Kathy K
Addendum — or even harmed. It was a DUI.
M. Scott Eiland
“Oliver states that my position on this verdict is ‘positively Kerryesque.'”
My, someone is a tad bitter. Did Soros stop sending the checks to Oliver before he ran off to the monastery?
M. Scott Eiland
Your take reminds me of the Mike Tyson rape case, and of MT’s lawyer’s rather unfortunate defense strategy, namely “Everyone knows my client is a scumbag–so she *had* to have wanted to sleep with him when she went to his room!” A jury could reasonably (though not ethically) conclude that–guilty or not–it would be better to have Tyson off the streets for a while. Gerragos was stuck with a client who was, if possible, known to be even more of a scumbag than Tyson, and it would have been a remarkable accomplishment to get him acquitted.
CadillaqJaq
Personally, I didn’t have a dog in that fight and I’am tickled shitless that it’s over (pending appeal on the jurors literally “rockin’ the boat” stunt.) I have never before seen so much juror jockeying and such a quick decision rendered following such a game of “musical chairs” though. Fascinating.
So, the election politicking is over for at least a year, and news-wise nationally all we have to contend with now is a daily overdose of Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson I guess.
Perhaps CSI won’t be interrupted and we won’t have to wait for the winter reruns to see the conclusions.
Justin O.
On TV, the black man gets off, in reality he faces day to day struggles with the powers that be….and would no doubt get convicted in a heart beat……
On TV, the white man is guilty, in reality he has the upper hand
wild bird
I wonder if hollyweird will wnat to make a movie out of his crime i mean their getting to be a sick and disgusting in hollywood where they make heros out of killers(like in THE SHAWSHANK REDEMTION)and what else do they do in tinsle town is a outrage
Justin O.
Shawshank was grand………
Billy Beck
“Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is punished.”
Full stop.