Scott Peterson is GUILTY of MURDER #1
11-12-2004, 12:19 PM
#1
Community Organizer
Thread Starter
Scott Peterson is GUILTY of MURDER #1
He's guilty. Now the appeals. (This should be messy) They are going mention about the jury change. 3 times.
BC
BC
11-12-2004, 01:07 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Roseville, CA
Posts: 6,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Back-cracker,Nov 12 2004, 02:19 PM
He's guilty. Now the appeals. (This should be messy) They are going mention about the jury change. 3 times.
BC
BC
There will be a long appeals process, but he will still be rotting in jail. I am GLAD that they nailed his a$$ to the wall.
Ryan
11-12-2004, 01:31 PM
#4
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Torrance, CA 90509
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are so going to Fry his a$$ and I believe he deserves it. I think he thought he was going to OJ his way out of it!
When Mrs. Oatnet called me with the news, she had it on the TV, I asked her if she could hear a sound like bacon frying or did they grant him an appeal?
When Mrs. Oatnet called me with the news, she had it on the TV, I asked her if she could hear a sound like bacon frying or did they grant him an appeal?
11-12-2004, 01:36 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Roseville, CA
Posts: 6,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oatnet,Nov 12 2004, 03:31 PM
When Mrs. Oatnet called me with the news, she had it on the TV, I asked her if she could hear a sound like bacon frying or did they grant him an appeal?
11-12-2004, 01:47 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: where the drama's at...
Posts: 7,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CrAzYNeSs,Nov 12 2004, 01:31 PM
I must be living in a hole... but who's Scott Peterson... i'm gonna go on a search!
Trending Topics
11-12-2004, 02:36 PM
#8
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley, CA
Posts: 3,962
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
I hate to sound like the spoilsport here...
I don't have all that much a problem with the convictions, but the call for the death penalty seems a bit extreme considering the fact that the trial was all based on circumstantial evidence combined with Scott being a two-timing sleazeball.
I'd settle for life w/o parole. And for those that know me and my political leanings, that is a very unusual position for me to take. Then again, I never put much weight on circumstantial evidence in any case.
Any physical evidence linking him to the murders and I'd be with the rest of the crowd carrying torches and pitchforks.
I don't have all that much a problem with the convictions, but the call for the death penalty seems a bit extreme considering the fact that the trial was all based on circumstantial evidence combined with Scott being a two-timing sleazeball.
I'd settle for life w/o parole. And for those that know me and my political leanings, that is a very unusual position for me to take. Then again, I never put much weight on circumstantial evidence in any case.
Any physical evidence linking him to the murders and I'd be with the rest of the crowd carrying torches and pitchforks.
11-12-2004, 03:03 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fountain Valley
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rworne,Nov 12 2004, 03:36 PM
I hate to sound like the spoilsport here...
I don't have all that much a problem with the convictions, but the call for the death penalty seems a bit extreme considering the fact that the trial was all based on circumstantial evidence combined with Scott being a two-timing sleazeball.
I'd settle for life w/o parole. And for those that know me and my political leanings, that is a very unusual position for me to take. Then again, I never put much weight on circumstantial evidence in any case.
Any physical evidence linking him to the murders and I'd be with the rest of the crowd carrying torches and pitchforks.
I don't have all that much a problem with the convictions, but the call for the death penalty seems a bit extreme considering the fact that the trial was all based on circumstantial evidence combined with Scott being a two-timing sleazeball.
I'd settle for life w/o parole. And for those that know me and my political leanings, that is a very unusual position for me to take. Then again, I never put much weight on circumstantial evidence in any case.
Any physical evidence linking him to the murders and I'd be with the rest of the crowd carrying torches and pitchforks.
but then again its just my opinion i might be wrong
11-12-2004, 05:02 PM
#10
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Fernando Valley, CA
Posts: 3,962
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Well, what matters to me is that if there's going to be a death penalty case, it needs to be clear-cut.
In this case they have a motive, but no cause of death, no time of death, and no physical evidence. Just a string of coincidences that look really bad for the Scottster.
Now about the second charge for the fetus? Don't even get me started. Either it's a lump of flesh or a human being. You can't have it both ways. Yes that opinion sucks, but it's fair.
In this case they have a motive, but no cause of death, no time of death, and no physical evidence. Just a string of coincidences that look really bad for the Scottster.
Now about the second charge for the fetus? Don't even get me started. Either it's a lump of flesh or a human being. You can't have it both ways. Yes that opinion sucks, but it's fair.