Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Buckaroo · 03:07 PM

Jurors in the Scott Peterson murder trial reached a verdict Friday, winding up the sensational case on their second day of deliberations after having to start back at square one twice in two days.

They are suppose to annouce the verdict a 4PM EST.

More to come

ManOfSteal · Nov 12, 2004, 02:28 PM

Guilty!

TheBadgerHunter · Nov 12, 2004, 02:50 PM

The butler did it.

No really, fill in us non-americans-who-would-rather-die-than-watch-cnn.

Buckaroo · Nov 12, 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
The butler did it.

No really, fill in us non-americans-who-would-rather-die-than-watch-cnn.

You can always check out foxnews.com

turtle777 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
The Scott Petterson Jurry has anounced a verdict.
They are suppose to annouce the verdict a 4PM EST.

Your sentences don't make sense.
Not that it really matters...

-t

Buckaroo · Nov 12, 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by turtle777:
Your sentences don't make sense.
Not that it really matters...

-t

I appolagize. I fixed it.

turtle777 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
I appolagize. I fixed it.

Anything else you wanna fix ?

-t

Buckaroo · Nov 12, 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by turtle777:
Anything else you wanna fix ?

-t

Alright, I can't spell. Hold on.

Buckaroo · Nov 12, 2004, 03:13 PM

Guilty

turtle777 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Alright, I can't spell. Hold on.

Congrats. It's all good.

-t

sideus · Nov 12, 2004, 03:14 PM

What a dirtbag.

alphasubzero949 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:18 PM

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peters...10326484c.html

Guilty.

turtle777 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:23 PM

Next question: life in prison or execution ?

-t

Skip Breakfast · Nov 12, 2004, 03:24 PM

Does California have the death penalty?

AKcrab · Nov 12, 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Skip Breakfast:
Does California have the death penalty?

Indeed. Damn liberals.

Skip Breakfast · Nov 12, 2004, 03:28 PM

Good. Kill 'em All.

shabbasuraj · Nov 12, 2004, 03:30 PM

GUILTY.

sideus · Nov 12, 2004, 03:42 PM

If you have a hot wife and are thinking of killing her. Don't. Go ahead and send her to me. I've got a spare room.

the_glassman · Nov 12, 2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by turtle777:
Next question: life in prison or execution ?

-t

Um, California doesn't have the death penalty and hasn't for some time.

Buckaroo · Nov 12, 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Um, California doesn't have the death penalty and hasn't for some time.

Technically yes we do, but there never has been an execution. They appeal it forever and ever. I guess it's the same thing as not having a death penalty.

placebo1969 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Um, California doesn't have the death penalty and hasn't for some time.

Method of Execution:

California authorizes lethal injection and lethal gas. Lethal Injection will be used if the inmate fails to choose a method.

When lethal gas was challenged in Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F. 3d 301 (1996), the Ninth Circuit held this method of execution unconstitutional. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of California changing its statute to provide that lethal injection be administered unless the inmate requests lethal gas. The Ninth Circuit, on remand, held that since Fierro had not chosen lethal gas, his claim was moot. However, the court held left open the reinstatement of the issue for an inmate actually facing the gas chamber.

from an anti death penalty page:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...11&did=493

AKcrab · Nov 12, 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by the_glassman:
Um, California doesn't have the death penalty and hasn't for some time.

From the article linked above:

Jurors also confirmed special circumstances: premeditated murder with multiple victims, meaning Scott Peterson, 32, could face execution.

Jurors will determine in the penalty phase whether he should be executed or spend life in prison without parole.

placebo1969 · Nov 12, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Technically yes we do, but there never has been an execution. They appeal it forever and ever. I guess it's the same thing as not having a death penalty.

There have been 10 since 1977.

the_glassman · Nov 12, 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by AKcrab:
From the article linked above:

I don't think California has executed someone in a good many years. If the Manson clan got out of it, I don't see a problem for Peterson escaping it either.
More Info

MindFad · Nov 12, 2004, 04:20 PM

FOUR MORE YEARS

o wai

Love Calm Quiet · Nov 12, 2004, 04:23 PM

CA has death by anticipation... You have to sit in a cell forever: thinking you might be executed. Or *wishing* you would already.

itai195 · Nov 12, 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by the_glassman:
I don't think California has executed someone in a good many years. If the Manson clan got out of it, I don't see a problem for Peterson escaping it either.
More Info

We last executed someone a couple of years ago, I think. I doubt Peterson will get a death sentence though... frankly I'm surprised he was convicted. But at least now that the trial is over, in a few months time nobody will care anymore, thank god!

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Nov 12, 2004, 04:40 PM

Why do cases like this become so "sensational" and people get obsessed with it? I mean many serial killers do it for the attention they get afterwards.

I remember during the OJ trial they showed many Americans who couldn't leave the TV for a second that they actually had TV installed across from the toilets. And every damn "hard copy" or similar show had nothing but OJ every show for a year.

This murder isn't that interesting and much much much worse happens everyday and doesn't get noticed.

I guess it is the fault of the media with all the hype but if people didn't want to see it they wouldn't air it.

Kenneth · Nov 12, 2004, 05:10 PM

'nuff said: 'bout time.

DeathMan · Nov 12, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Kenneth:
'nuff said: 'bout time.

Strike that. Reverse it.

MacNStein · Nov 12, 2004, 05:59 PM

Second Degree murder for killing an unborn child? Interesting...

sideus · 06:55 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Second Degree murder for killing an unborn child? Interesting...

Why not? The defense argued that Conner was full term and was born Feb. of last year.

Edit: Time flies.

MacGorilla · Nov 12, 2004, 06:33 PM

I'm surprised at the verdict--not I don't think he's guilty, but I didn't think the prosecution proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I guess that's what juries are for.

ManOfSteal · Nov 12, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Strike that. Reverse it.

.ti esreveR .taht ekirtS

Orion27 · Nov 12, 2004, 09:27 PM

It's interesting he was found guilty of murdering a fetus. What's up with that? I wonder how the pro choice crowd feels about that. Partial birth abortion anyone?

sideus · Nov 12, 2004, 09:37 PM

Error.

sideus · Nov 12, 2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Orion27:
It's interesting he was found guilty of murdering a fetus. What's up with that? I wonder how the pro choice crowd feels about that. Partial birth abortion anyone?

Coroner and the defense team stated that Conner was full term, not a fetus.

CreepingDeth · Nov 12, 2004, 11:40 PM

Fry em.

nforcer · Nov 13, 2004, 02:54 AM

I do not believe he will get the death penalty. Probably just life.

I think the defense attorney is going to appeal and try to use the reasons for dismissing 2 jurors to try to limit the sentence as much as possible.

turtle777 · Nov 13, 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by manofsteal:
.ti esreveR .taht ekirtS

-t

The Wolf · Nov 13, 2004, 09:35 AM

Can someone please explain to me how it is NOT an irreconcilable inconsistency that he was convicted of First Degree murder of his wife, but Second Degree murder of his unborn son??? I wish somebody would explain or comment on that...

Thanks.

Zimphire · 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
I remember during the OJ trial they showed many Americans who couldn't leave the TV for a second that they actually had TV installed across from the toilets. And every damn "hard copy" or similar show had nothing but OJ every show for a year.

With the OJ thing, it wasn't just America that was obsessed. Across the ocean it was in papers everywhere, and in Canada too.

NO ONE could get enough of it.

And yes, it was the media hype that caused it all.

Zimphire · Nov 13, 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Second Degree murder for killing an unborn child? Interesting...

It's only murder when someone other than the mother decides to kill it. Don't ya know?

Zimphire · Nov 13, 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by sideus:
Coroner and the defense team stated that Conner was full term, not a fetus.

There have been many times that the baby wasn't full term and said person was tried for murder as well. That really has nothing to do with it. They just used that to FURTHER prove their point.

Zimphire · Nov 13, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by The Wolf:
Can someone please explain to me how it is NOT an irreconcilable inconsistency that he was convicted of First Degree murder of his wife, but Second Degree murder of his unborn son??? I wish somebody would explain or comment on that...

Thanks.

His motivation was to kill her. The baby died because the mom died.

It was something that happened BECAUSE of his original motivation.

The degree of murder depends on intentions and motivations.

If it was a planned murder to get rid of someone, that is 1st. If someone else dies in the process, that would be a 2nd degree. I believe, I am not a lawyer.

wdlove · Nov 13, 2004, 12:22 PM

I trust the jury after hearing and judging the evidence. Just don't understand how any human could the the life of their wife and unborn son. So heinous. There is no punishment on Earth worthy enough for him in this case.

The Wolf · Nov 13, 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If it was a planned murder to get rid of someone, that is 1st. If someone else dies in the process, that would be a 2nd degree. I believe, I am not a lawyer.

I believe you are correct. However, how can one conclude he meant to kill her but not her unborn child. I can see how this verdict could be valid where the perp "didn't know" the victim was pregnant. That is not the case here. I don't think that the verdict makes sense, and therefore may be reversed on those grounds.

::cough:: zigzag, where are you??? ::cough::

Zimphire · Nov 13, 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by wdlove:
Just don't understand how any human could the the life of their wife and unborn son. So heinous.

Putting himself before anything else. He was the only important thing that mattered. And his wife and kid was cramping his lifestyle.

Zimphire · Nov 13, 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by The Wolf:
I believe you are correct. However, how can one conclude he meant to kill her but not her unborn child. I can see how this verdict could be valid where the perp "didn't know" the victim was pregnant. That is not the case here. I don't think that the verdict makes sense, and therefore may be reversed on those grounds.

His motive was to kill his wife.

Had he just went after the child, he would have been accused of 1st for it.

Obviously his motive wasn't to get rid of the child.

He could have done that without killing his wife I am sure.

The Wolf · Nov 13, 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
His motive was to kill his wife.
Had he just went after the child, he would have been accused of 1st for it.
Obviously his motive wasn't to get rid of the child.
He could have done that without killing his wife I am sure.

Wait, he WAS "accused" of premeditation in the killing of his unborn son, he just wasn't convicted of it. My point is that if he 'just' wanted to kill his wife, he would have waited until her child was born. Therefore, I feel it's irreconcilable that he can be convicted of taking 2 lives at once (in this situation), but at the same time only be convicted of premeditation for one of those deaths [I mean 'maybe' I could be convinced that he could be convicted of premeditation in the death of his unborn son, but at the same time not the death of his wife. But, that would be a very different "factual" situation than what we have heard]. I really don't understand how you can say his motive wasn't to get rid of the child [too].

I really think this verdict reflects some uncertainty on the jury's part, but more importantly, I think it's an anomalous verdict that is completely inconsistent. If you (or any reasonable juror) believe(s) that he is guilty of M1 for the murder of his wife, then you MUST also believe the same with regard to the death of the unborn child (UNLESS, you are saying that you believe he planned to kill his wife but forgot that she was still pregnant when he actually killed her . . . which I know you don't)