Would you spit at his mother? (page 3)

kls

Some people just have no brains. To spit on her because of her son wether she believes him guilty or innocent she did not do the crime.

BrendaCloutier

His parents are guilty of no crime. They are just a much victims of his crime as Lacy and baby. To spit on his mother is horrible!

He has been found guilty of First Degree Murder and as such is subject to the penalties as outlined by the law. That the crime appeared to be circumstantial at this point is irrelevent.

If he is given the Dealth Penalty, his case will automatically be appealed. He has the right to continue appeals right up until the drugs are pumped into him. The death penalty is not carried out with any speed, but (supposedly) everything is done to make sure he truly is guilty before execution.

Peace

Brenda

PS. If he is guilty of such a heinous crime, he should get death.

Mary

O.J. was innocent, at least in my opinion.

It's hard to believe anyone in America still believes this psychopath is innocent, but apparently there are. I would strongly suggest you read Vincent Bugliosi's book: Outrage: The 5 Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. He pulls no punches in this book and shows beyond any doubt that O.J. Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole but why he was found Not Guilty: the worst possible jury, a sloppy and incomplete prosecution, a fatal change of venue, judicial error that allowed the defense to play the race card, and a weak summation and rebuttal that barely addressed the defense's frame-up and conspiracy theories And if you still believe O.J. innocent after reading this book, you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.

Gretchen956

I feel so sorry for Mrs. Peterson, as a mother myself I think it must be especially painful to see the son you raised to have values and be a productive member of society do something so horrendous. She doesn't deserve to be spat upon.

As for Scott, he has more of a chance to die of old age in prison than put to death on death row. I think they only execute one or two people a year down there. I think there are thousands ahead of him in the cue should he receive that sentence.

I agree with those who say that the death penalty should be reserved for those we know with 100% certainty are guilty. Our justice system allows them to find them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Those in between a reasonable doubt and 100% certainty should not be executed IMHO.

Sherry

Dawn

People tend to blame the family for a criminal's behavior - especially in an instance where the criminal act is so awful. It's sad.

I remember once when one of our prosecutors came into my office after a meeting he had with a defendant's parents - the defendant was accused (and later convicted) of an extremely grusom and cruel murder. He shook his head and said "It's too bad that murdurers have mothers too". This mother was devastated to think that her son could have done such a horrible thing - and yet, she was also devastated knowing that he was going to face the death penalty. She begged for mercy for him. Of course she did - what mother wouldn't? It's an awful thing for a mother to face.

Tim Horton

To spit on someone is absolutely disgusting behavior. They should be ashamed of themselves. They're no better than the son who committed the crime. Thats nasty.

Amazing1914

Funkyderek,

If the evidence is only circumstantial, then he shouldn't have to prove his innocence. He should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

He didn't have to prove his innocence, as he was presumed innocent, before trial. However, once a jury decides he is guilty based on the evidence presented to them, then the burden of proof shifts after trial. Now the onus is on Scott to sit in jail and if he can, prove his innocence.

Juries are allowed to convict on circumstantial evidence, though it is a hard case for a prosecutor to nail down. The problem is that Scott Peterson had a lot of circumstantial evidence against him, plus his attorney, Mark Gerrigos may not have properly defended him.

For example: Long before they found Laci's body, tt was well known in the media that Scott had been to the marina to go fishing. If she was murdered by someone else, then they could have easily taken her body there to make Scott look guilty. Scott's attorney never introduced that possibility to the jury or offered an alternative theory to the prosecution's theory.

Unfortunately, for Scott, his behavior and recorded phone calls, where he made some stupid inferrences, badly hurts his own case, making himself look guilty. All of this weighed on the jury and they found him guilty.

He will now have a much harder time to prove he is not guilty and get his conviction overturned on appeal. What will help him are the weird things that happened on the jury, including the forman who was removed. The former jury forman now states that he was threatened by the other jurers. This and other jury problems will likely cause the conviction to be thrown out. If that happens, Scott can retain new counsel, and get a new trial, where once again, the burden of proof will be on the State and not Scott.

nb-dfed

I think spitting at his mother was just awful. I have no idea what kind of mother she was, but I'm sure she doesn't think her son was justified in murder. It's not her fault.

Would you spit at his mother?

Share this