Posted on 11/15/2004 9:39:59 AM PST by Elijah18
Whenever a human goes on trial for the murder of another human, public attention is diverted to the suspect’s face and conduct. Is there a tell-tale skipped heartbeat visible in the defendant’s expression? Signs of mourning? Anguish or grief? Hand-wringing or trembling?
There’d better be. If you’re a rich superstar athlete like O.J. Simpson, buckets of blood on your walls can’t convict you and you can walk away grinning from ear to ear. If you’re a beefy, smug-mugged ordinary chump like Scott Peterson, bad psychology can convict you. Sometimes Scott’s grin appeared like a mocking smirk. Mostly, he was inert. Neither Jekyll nor Hyde, Scott Peterson is a man seemingly without regrets or emotions.
This may surprise my pro-life compatriots, but I am not totally comfortable with this trial’s outcome. Scott Peterson had two giant pitfalls: his ego and his indifference. The evidence was circumstantial but compelling enough for the jury to convict and find Peterson guilty of double homicide. Had they returned a “not guilty” verdict it would have been understandable because there was some reasonable doubt as to his guilt. With O.J. there was no doubt and yet he was cleared of all charges. That provided the emotional backdrop that haunted Scott Peterson’s jury.
However, the jurors’ reasons for convicting are obvious; they were faced with several unpleasant dilemmas. They didn’t like the O.J. verdict and they don’t like Scott Peterson. If the jurors acquitted Peterson and the anchor used to weigh down Laci’s body were found later, they’d have to accept the fact that they released a guilty man. Balanced against that sobering thought, jurors were troubled by Peterson’s bizarre behavior from the beginning; his lack of anguish when Laci went missing and his affair with Amber Frey. Likely, Scott Peterson would have been cleared of all charges had he acted emotionally distraught over Laci’s disappearance.
That did not happen. Thus, the jurors are convinced they did the right thing, as was the woman in the back of the courtroom who, upon hearing the verdict announced, “Good. I’m glad.” Who can blame her? I share the emotion and desire to see justice served. I believe Peterson is guilty and won’t shed any tears when he’s put behind bars. With better counsel and a better attitude he could have saved his own hide.
There are important lessons that come out of this verdict. One is, pregnancy means something to most Americans and despite the garbage spewed by Planned Parenthood, unborn babies do count. Crimes against helpless women are horrible; even more so when the victim is carrying an unborn child. Too many times abusive men beat their pregnant women comatose hoping to induce an abortion. The pathetic pro-abortion forces banded together to try and stop the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Known as Laci and Connor’s Law, the bill was finally passed because Congress came to its collective senses. Pro-aborts ignore the rights of women who choose to have their babies.
Today, there are no whispers or complaints heard from the “pro-choice” groups. What can they say? The message to the abortion industry is that most of us don’t agree with them. If pro-aborts condemn the fetal homicide conviction, they reveal their extremism in that they won’t even make exceptions for wanted children. If they support the fetal homicide conviction it’s an admission of their own criminality, albeit their hideous murders occur in a different way and in a different place. Unlike the Peterson jury, pro-aborts are hopelessly deadlocked. Better to remain silent.
The message to abusive men is: don’t be too cocky. Don’t assume you’ll walk off scot-free if you abuse the helpless women in your lives, whether they are wives or lovers, pregnant or not. The message is that Laci and Connor have captured the hearts of America and the media. The message is that unborn children deserve protection, and men rotten enough to kill an unborn child will be held accountable by a jury and punished.
Hopefully, this verdict will give potential baby killers a long, pregnant pause.
Copyright 2004 by Bonnie Chernin Rogoff. All rights reserved.
then he should have been acquitted. guilty is "beyond a reasonable dooubt".
Amazing. That's what's it's all about, isn't it? Whatever you can get away with. O.J. Simpson and the Sinkmaster showed the way and don't think that a provincial hick with petty dreams of high living wasn't affected by the example of those two.
IMNHO, there wasn't reasonable doubt.
Among other things, even if he didn't do it, Scott managed to confess to being an accessory after the fact.
??? where did he confess to being an accessory after the fact? I thought there was enough reasonable doubt to drive a semi through. Because I wasn't in the courtroom during all th testimony, I have to trust the jury, but I thought that the DA didn't prove anything other than corcumstances.
Cell phone conversation with Amber. She asked, "Did you kill Laci?"
He said: "No, but I know who did."
Cops taped it.
"no, but I know who did" could mean a lot of thing. it could mean that he knew personally who did, or perhaps he had his suspicions. OR he could have been trying to impress the girl.
it is damaging but it is no smoking gun.
So are Laci's hairs in the pliers in the boat.
So are his repeated trips to the site where Laci's body was found.
So is his behavior immediately after Laci went "missing" (selling Laci's car, putting house up for sale, etc). These indicate guilty knowledge.
it indicates a scumbag first class, I agree. But I wasn't in the courtroom and I didn't hear every piece of evidence. the jury did and I trust that they did a good job. I didn't think Skakel would have been convicted either, but I trust that jury too.
I don't have to agree with it, and I don't presume to question the jury. I just have a different opinion is all, no big conflict here.
My wife is not a boat/fishing person.
If her hair/s were NOT found in my boat I would be shocked.
The author has reasonable doubts but she wasn't on the jury. Only the jury's verdict counts. Apparently none of those 12 people had reasonable doubt.
The amount of physical evidence in the OJ case was very unusual. Most murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence, often not more than was available in the Peterson trial.
The only really damning info Scott provided to the police was the ticket showing he'd been "fishing" in the same area where the bodies surfaced.
well you are correct in that the decision rightly rests with the jury. they know far better than I.
cheers!
I see there was no mention of the David Westerfield case. Many people thought there was not enough evidence to convict him, yet his attorney was in the process of negotiating a plea to avoid the death penalty in exchange for providing information about the location of that little girl's body when the body was found.
Would you be schocked if they weren't found twisted in a pair of pliers with the hair tag at the end attached?
Hair Tag? I assume by that that you mean the follicle?
If you are talking about the follicle then I don't know if I would expect to find my wife's hair in the boat but if I did I would not find it unusual. She has long very thick hair.
I repeat, I would be shocked NOT to find any of my wife's hair in my boat, tangled in the anchor line, wrapped around pliers, twisted around fish hooks, in amongst the wiring.....any kind of which way. Hair gets around.....on clothing, especially on sweaters, on the person, on tools, on electronics gear that I remove from the boat after use, fishing gear as mentioned above that I remove from the boat after use, everywhere.
I have even helped her pluck grey hair from her head. Heaven only knows where that hair wound up. Just lucky for me she survived the ordeal or I might be in SP's predicament. :-)
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.