Guilty in the First Degree!


Scott Peterson has been convicted of the murder of his wife, Lacy, and his son, Conner. First degree murder – now they will need to go to trial to determine if he should be sentenced to death. Convicted to first degree murder with special circumstances.

Based soley on circumstancial evidence – – no witnesses, no DNA, no weapon, no proof – none. Just a lot of lies, betrayals, cheating and stupidity.

For baby Conner – Scott is found guilty in the second degree.

Wow! It’s finally over! Err….except for the appeals.

Posted in

22 thoughts on “Guilty in the First Degree!”

  1. How is it 2nd degree for the baby and 1st for the mother? Just because he really only killed Laci, and Connor was a byproduct of that?

  2. Wait, I didn’t phrase that right at all. I meant since he premeditated and killed Lacy, but didn’t actually plan to kill Connor.

  3. Exactly, K. The actual legalese is: “With malice and aforethought” planned and carried out the murder of Laci.

    Connor’s death was, to use the words of another murdering bastard (Tim McVeigh) “collateral damage”.

  4. I guess ‘collateral damage’ covers it – as cold as that sounds. Hard to believe he planned to kill Lacy and they could say that Conner was just an afterthought.

    Just wow at the verdict – and Garagos wasn’t even there! After all this time, that had to have been frustrating.

  5. The attorneys are discussing that fact on CourtTV right now. Personally, I think it looked TERRIBLE that Garagos wasn’t there. I would think he should be sanctioned for it. But he’ll get away with it due to the fact that he had co-counsel there.

    I’m a little biased, here. I loathe that man. He’s every bit the “big trial to make my career” no matter who he leap-frogs over and hurts type of lawyer that I cannot stand. I only wish I could actually see his courtroom demeanor.

  6. There was DNA evidence – Laci’s hair found in Scott’s boat, and from the bodies when they washed up on the shore.

    Garagos is a self-serving clown in my opinion. He’s more interested in publicity for himself than anything else. His track record isn’t good for winning cases either.

  7. I agree – Garagos is an ass.

    The one hair in the boat didn’t do it for me. My boyfriend has my hair on his sweaters/shirts all the time – – my hair could drop off his clothes into his car, office, boat, etc – at anytime.

    I think Scott is definately guilty – but the hair didn’t do it for me at all.

  8. I think Scott probably did it based on hunch, but I don’t see the evidence. The prosecution presented several different theories as to motive, all of which were untenable. The physical evidence is slight, and can be explained away easily. And the scuttlebutt I’m getting from news reports is that the jury was able to make a decision so quickly after they got rid of the jury foreman because the foreman wanted to examine the facts in detail, whereas the majority of jurors wanted to find him guilty immediately and go home.

  9. I don’t understand how a man can be sentenced to death, if it comes to that, based on circumstantial evidence.
    I did not think it was a good idea to bring a judge out of retirement to listen to the case and he appeared to be pressing for a virdict rather than a deadlock. It was my opinion that it was his time, rather than the states money, that he was worried about.
    I do lean towards guilt, but I really don’t think the state proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

  10. I had just left work Friday afternoon…exactly 4:05 PM when I heard this come over the radio and I was so glad! I am not for the death penalty. Let him rot in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

  11. Bloody squeamish Right wingers… Hang him, hang him high. Why Tim? because he is a worthless POS. sure the evidence may be largly circumstantial, but is there any real doubt he is guilty? hang him publicly and give others out there thinking of killing their pregnant wife something to think about.

  12. I’m 100%, 100% of the people I talked to about think he did it too, and more importantly the 12 in the jury thought so. even if it’s only 90% thats good enough for me.

    I expect this kind of opposition from people like you Tim (no offence), what I don’t understand is the right wingers objecting to my stance. perhaps it is the compasionate conservatism that they talk about, seems strange they would extend it to a child murderer but baulk at the idea of providing for genuine good citzens who have fallen on hard times.

  13. I don’t think that you can ever be 100% certain of guilt, which is the main reason I am against the death penalty (yeah, I know, we’ve had this discussion before) – although I see your point about the “compassionate conservatism” thing.

  14. Truth be known, I really don’t care about 100%. As I have said before I don’t place such a high price on the value of a life as most do. I can’t see the point of bringing an unwanted child into the world when we already have more unwanted kids than we can deal with. I don’t see the point of keeping someone alive on a life support system when they have no prospect of a future. I don’t understand what is wrong with giving an out for people who are terminally ill and force them to suffer miserable humiliating and painful deaths just to salve our moral wellbeing, and I don’t understand why we bother rehabilitating violent criminals who are destined to re-offend once released or let them rot in jail, when the solution is a needlepoint, or better still a short rope and a long drop, away.

  15. I think this case will be up interesting debate in law schools everywhere, especially in comparison with the OJ case. Both largely circumstantial, both with the accused fleeing the scene. How come OJ got off? The dream team? Jury? Black? Celebrity?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top