Gut Rumbles

November 12, 2004

my prediction

I haven't paid much attention to the Scott Peterson case. I suppose that fact makes me really weird, but I don't watch Survivor, either. My life is real enough that I don't need "reality TV."

The Peterson jury has reached a verdict and they're supposed to announce it in about 15 minutes. I claim to be no expert on the case, but from what I've read and seen about the trial, I have an opinion.

1) He probably did it. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would.

2) The prosecution has no hard evidence against him. Even the circumstancial evidence is pretty flimsy.

3) If their case against him were solid, they wouldn't have tried to convict him the the press before the vase ever went to trial.

4) I predict that he will be found "Not Guilty."

I believe that Scott Peterson is a real scumbag. I've seen plenty of evidence to confirm that fact. But being a real scumbag, fucking around on your spouse and lying your ass off ARE NOT reasons to send somebody to Death Row (If they were, Scott would have to stand in line behind my ex-wife and wait his turn.) and I don't believe that the prosecution proved that he killed Laci.

If the prosecution didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury must let him walk. And I think that's what will happen.

I'll know in 10 minutes.

(Wow! I was wrong about that one. They threw the book at him.)


He got what he deserved. He's lucky he didn't live in Texas. I predict his fellow inmates will get him.

Posted by: Alaska Kim on November 12, 2004 04:31 PM

Hopefully his fellow inmates dig his pretty hairdo and ....

Posted by: John on November 12, 2004 04:47 PM

Hell yes they did!

(But I was anticipating the "not guilty" bullshit as well.)

Posted by: Key on November 12, 2004 05:06 PM

Nailed his ass! I, like most of the rest of the media-consuming public, though that Peterson was Guilty as Hell - but you gotta admit that the case for the prosecution was pretty fucking flimsy, as double-homicide cases go. Not a shred of physical evidence, everything totally circumstantial...then the juror hijinks...I thought we had another OJ on our hands there for a minute.

Now. I hope they either a) fry him (or "humanely inject him" or whatever they're calling it in Fruitifornia these days) or b) lock him in a deep, deep hole and throw away the key.

Posted by: queenie on November 12, 2004 05:16 PM

Murder in the First Degree. Sounds like replacing those two jurors did the trick. Of course not that smarmy civil lawyer he had masquerading as a defense lawyer has some grounds for an appeal, albeit small. I just hope that the appeals court has their collective shit together and lets the verdict stand. This is far from over. I just think it's too bad this didn't happen in some state that still fires up Old Sparky for this kind of Refuse Removal.

Posted by: Mamamontezz on November 12, 2004 05:32 PM

I'm quite pleased with the verdict ...pleasantly surprised too. I'm with Mama on this though, it's far from over. We'll have many more years of appeals and waiting before all is said and done.

I felt horrible for his family though...the crowd gathered outside the courthouse jeered when the Petersons came outside. I don't feel that was called for at all. I hope Scott roasts in hell for eternity...but his family shouldn't be humiliated for supporting him.

Posted by: Chablis on November 12, 2004 05:43 PM

I have a feeling he won't get the death penalty. in which case I hope he enjoys a lifetime of being a large man's butt buddy.

Posted by: girl on November 12, 2004 06:06 PM

Well,he may not be "finished," but Amber won't be coming to visit. haha. He got what he deserved. Rob, maybe you can speak to that jury about doing something about your wife.

Posted by: Heather on November 12, 2004 06:24 PM

I didn't follow every step of the Peterson trial and I don't watch Survivor, either; I did catch the news cast of him when the jury read the verdict, and he didn't have much of a reaction. I would think an innocent person would have a very negative reaction to a 'wrong' verdict.

Posted by: Michele on November 12, 2004 07:47 PM

I predict he'll be found guilty of 1st degree murder of his wife and 2nd degree murder for his unborn son. :-P LOL!

Posted by: BUCK on November 12, 2004 09:11 PM

Actually, the verdict makes me a bit uncomfortable. Granted I haven't been following the trial very closely but it seems to me that the prosecution didn't have enough to put me beyond a "reasonable doubt". Also, the jury is deadlocked for days, they replace a couple of jurors and they come back with guilty in three hours?

Personally I think he did it but I am doubtful that there was enough evidence presented to convict.

Of course maybe that's just the character of a circumstantial evidence conviction.

Posted by: Daniel on November 12, 2004 10:10 PM

1) Never watched Survivor, either... or Seinfeld, or Friends, or Who wants to be a whore for a million dollars?;

2) Truthfully, I thought he would get off;

3) Truthfully, I also think the women jurors looked at the evidence (even though it WAS circumstantial) a whole helluva lot differently than the men on the jury did; and

4) NOTE TO A-MAN: If you ever DO manage to take the BC "fishing" on your boat one day, dying your hair and heading to Mexico with $15K in your pockets is NOT ADVISED!!

Posted by: BJK on November 12, 2004 10:39 PM

Hmmm...I would like to hear what your daughter has to say about it... bet Thanksgiving is interesting around your table...

Posted by: Lee on November 13, 2004 01:19 AM

He's probable guilty, but I don't think it was proved.

There will be a lot of fodder for his appeal(s), what with all of the juror hijinks.

Posted by: Juliette on November 13, 2004 01:43 AM

Honestly, I haven't paid a bit of attention to the case at all.

Posted by: Graumagus on November 13, 2004 02:33 AM

From those that have been to the area the bodies were found, You can clearly see the area Scott claims to have been "fishing".
He put himself in the boat, and the bodies came ashore in a way that sinks his ass.

When you really think about what he did, it's one thing to kill a wife, but his unborn son?

Too Grim.

Posted by: wes jackson on November 13, 2004 03:56 AM

The only thing this man was more guilty of then killing his wife and unborn child was being stupid and smug. WHAT WAS HE THINKING?
On the flip side though, I used to look at Peterson and think he was similar to my Husband, he doesn't show *appropiate* emotion..they'd hang him on that basis.
It'd be a shame if that were the only reason...

Posted by: trease on November 13, 2004 07:43 AM

What's really ironic about the verdict is the 2nd degree rap of his unborn son....As liberal as the Californicators are, it's hard to believe they even considered that, when any other time they would support partial birth abortion without a thought. What's the difference, (to them)

Posted by: BUCK on November 13, 2004 08:50 AM

WELL, I think justice was served.
I hate to agree with Gloria Alred on anything, but there was that strand of hair found on the boat. I think he did it. He just thought he'd get away with it.

Sorry Charlie!

Posted by: Dave on November 13, 2004 02:51 PM

Not all Californians support P-B A, believe me on that one, Buck.

As for the difference in the verdict, all it means is that he intended to kill Laci, and planned her murder beforehand, and that he intended to kill Conner but didn't necessarily plan Conner's murder specifically. Which is probably the right verdict as the prosecution didn't present any direct evidence that he actually planned to murder his son except by killing his wife.

He won't be in with the general population either way (life or death sentence) but he will get locked in a hole at San Quentin 23 hours a day with no visitors and no privileges.

It's too good for him.

Posted by: caltechgirl on November 13, 2004 09:08 PM

What's really ironic about the verdict is the 2nd degree rap of his unborn son....As liberal as the Californicators are, it's hard to believe they even considered that

That law's been on the books for well over 30 years, since before Roe v. Wade. Maybe the Leftbats will march on the Capitol to demand its repeal now, but who knows?

Mustn't forget that even California passed a same-sex-marriage ban a few years ago by almost two-to-one.

Posted by: McGehee on November 13, 2004 10:37 PM

I agree with acid man--I think he did it, but they never proved a thing except he was a lying, cheating sob. Someone above mentioned OJ but I think they had a better case against that idiot than this piece of ----.

Posted by: Rob on November 13, 2004 10:51 PM

To a comment above:

Yes you here alot about californians being liberal. but liberal in California is literally in realation to how close your are to the ocean. Please look at the election map that has been posted from hugh hewitt to michelle malkin. Most of California is shit kickers. loggers, or farmers. That is why they move trials like this as close to SF as they can. Most of us are more inclined to hang a murderer as to let him go because life wasn't fair to them. Just to let you know the number one industry in Cali is AG BUSINESS--that usually means conservative folks and just loook at the voting map and you can see where crops, cattle, and mining still exist.

Posted by: Rob on November 13, 2004 10:59 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.