Posted on 11/12/2004 11:24:19 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
News Alert: Scott Peterson Verdict to be announced today at 4:00 Eastern Time.
I wanna' see a picture of him gulping when the verdict was read.
Will we get to see more at the sentencing trial?
The mortgage was a pretty hefty one as I remember. They had refinanced it to put in the pool. Ron couldn't even afford a little fishing boat (he just wished for one) so doubt he and Sharon could assume that debt. So who do you think would get stuck with the second mortgage? Scott's parents took it out with another party IIRC.
There's a local murder..a principal killing his wife, mother-in-law and three children. The mother-in-law was a local civil-liberties celebrity. I've imagined that this one would be big.
Great! That will get a thru the long, dreary winter.
Oh, yes indeed I could be wrong. Don't recall calling anybody stupid. In my opinion, prosecution didn't prove their case and I am entitled to my opinion.
Depending on the laws of CA, the Petersons might be responsible for that, too!
I can't imagine she'd want the house; all she ever wanted was to go sit in there for a while and think of Laci.
Not telepathic. Smart and logical.
Yes, they are.
Isn't it "unless" proven guilty? Until would seem to imply a certain inevitability.
LOL. Now, to be sure of conviction you have to be "telepathic" and have "irrefutable proof."
The pro-Scotties are beating a dead horse here. After all, 12 people up close and personal to all the evidence and within smelling distance of the con man have decided that the guy was "guilty."
Most here believed he was guilty. Scores of people cheered and celebrated in the streets after the news.
Poor, poor Scottie. How unfair.
Yeah, I know. My heart breaks for Sharon. It is truly sad that Laci and Conner are gone. The pain may dim some but it will never go away for her. And none of them deserved to have this happen. Maybe Scott did it. I still have doubts. Geragos was stupid for making all those claims at the beginning of the trial about proving who did it. But he did put in reasonable doubt, IMO.
The law is imperfect, life is imperfect. You can never know "for sure" if somebody is guilty. But the jury system - properly applied - is the best method ever devised for getting as close to the truth as our imperfect world allows.
I had my suspicions about this guy from the git-go, but I have said all along that it's for the jury to judge under proper instruction from the trial court. I didn't hear all the evidence and judge the demeanor of the witnesses (and the accused), and neither did you. The jury did, and they have made their decision.
If a harmful error was committed in the course of the trial, the appellate court should take care of it - they usually do, and they err on the side of the accused (as they should). Only time will tell if the details of the trial will pass appellate muster.
Off topic, but your point about misplaced sympathy for the likes of poor Scott made me think of the few minutes I saw Keith Olbermann tonight. He was taking umbrage with the NY Post's headline today about the Widow Arafat.
My husband and I both went "WHAT?" as Keith talked about how mean this was and we raced each other for the remote.
Good grief, some people...
Maybe Geragos knew he was guilty and knew what the verdict would be, and left the piece of garbage to face the music alone.
I didn't see Olberman tonight. I DID see the Post's headline page and thought it was funny. Not out of line at all for a known murderer and terrorist's demise.
I was kind of glad that the Muslims bury their dead so quickly, otherwise we would have been treated to 24/7 coverage of the tearful sendoff, eulogies and lamentations.
As for me... they couldn't get his putrid body into the sand dune fast enough.
I've seen your remarks all day on this thread---THE JURY found him guilty. You weren't there in the courtroom, so how can you question/assume that they got it wrong?
I believe that is what they do--and they are the only ones that do make that decision. As far as the media is concerned, most of them are/were lawyers or judges, or detectives and I have heard at one time or another most of them say that in 99% of the time, a murder is committed by a family member. The husband of course, would be the most likely of all family members, therfore, they naturally would start talking about the husband right away unless there is another viable suspect.
Remember the Lori Hacking case in Utah? The husband has pleaded "not guilty" but he told his brothers he did it and there was a matteress of theirs that had her DNA on it.
Do you think the media is jumping to conclusions in his case? She was also pregnant.
And dat's da name a' dat tune!
(Hires contract hitman to kill pet bird, "Fred.")
I never, ever watch Olbermann, so tell me what he was saying about Arafats widow( before you changed the channel). Forgive me if you already did, I just go here after a break.
I had to leave just as the punditry was reaching a fever pitch, so I missed the good stuff. Sure seems odd that M. Geragos couldn't find his way to Modesto from L.A. in the, what, five hours' notice he got?
I'm starting to see FREE SCOTT posts on message boards. heh.
Maybe they can put the "Free Scott" message next to the "Free Mammia" (I don't have a clue how to spell it) - you know the cop-killer that MoveON.org and A.N.S.W.E.R. are always wanting freed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.