No, this is not pro-Scott Peterson post. And this page is not about to become a Laci Peterson murder gab-fest. As usual, here is my cynical and angry take on the conviction and sentencing of Scott Peterson

I considered the Laci Peterson murder trial a bunch of crap and I didn't give a shit. So now that we've got that out of the way... Nevertheless, I couldn't and didn't completely block it out. And ultimately I learned a bit about the case and had some idea about the trial. And now I have "opinions".

A couple weeks ago, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing both Laci Peterson and their unborn child despite having no murder weapon, no cause of death, no witnesses, and not even a sensible motive. It was a completely circumstantial case. In my opinion, there was a great deal of reasonable doubt as to whether he killed her. It just didn't make sense that he would kill her and not divorce her. It could've been an accidental killing, but obviously that possibility didn't come out in the trial. On the other hand, Laci was such cute girl, and Scott looked like such a prick. Case closed, he's guilty, etc...

Then he was sentenced to death. This occurred despite legal experts prediction that it was highly unlikely. Circumstantial case, good looking guy, first crime... seems like a lifer, not a death penalty.

I wouldn't have cared if he DID kill her, since I don't support the death penalty, I wouldn't support it for Scott Peterson. I only support the death penalty in the case of puppy killers.

What I found truly distressing was the jury comments after the sentencing. These people, supposed a jury of Scott Peterson's peers, spoke out on why they convicted him, and then why they chose a death sentence. And their reasons? Pure fucking bullshit. Lets step through some of it.

"No emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words," juror Richelle Nice said of Peterson

Is it expecting too much of people to decide cases such as this based on the facts, as opposed to their interpretations of the defendant's emotions? Apparently, it IS expecting too much. This woman evaluated her perception of Peterson's behavior in the court room, determined his emotional state based on her perception, and clearly let that perception determine whether she thought Scott Peterson was guilty.

"Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Conner's daddy -- the one person that should have protected them."

This is really even crazier than the previous comment. Here, she is expressing her own values, as opposed to the values held by Scott and/or Laci Peterson, of which she is totally ignorant. She is putting herself in the position of the deceased Laci Peterson, feeling the fear and dread, and projecting that emotion on Scott Peterson. Again, nothing factual about her statement. Pure speculation, and now he's sentenced to die.

"In the courtroom for the last six months, I didn't see much emotion at all. When I looked over there, it was a blank stare," Greg Beratlis said."

Another juror has decided that Peterson's "blank stare" is proof of his guilt. He also notes that the lack of perceived emotion is also important. I don't know about this Greg fellow, but my guess is that he's never been tried for murder in a death penalty case. Is it possible, just possible (let alone PROBABLE), that in such an extreme situation, any predictions or expectations of human emotion are completely meaningless. It seems just as likely to me that Peterson might pull his shit together and remain calm throughout the trial proceeding. Perhaps he didn't kill her (perhaps!), and he's being wrong accused, and he's acting proud and defiant. Is that impossible? Of course Greg the Juror is convinced that Scott killed Laci, and expects to see something. I think that even if he did kill her, there is no way to predict his emotions.


"Steve Cardosi said he would have liked to have seen a little more "expression of caring" from Peterson.

I don't have any idea what this means, and Steve didn't elaborate. Who is he supposed to care about? And why should express anything? There are clearly rules of conduct in these murder trials and Peterson didn't read the rule book.

"He lost his wife and his child, and it didn't seem to faze him. And while that was going on -- they're looking for his wife and his child -- he's romancing a girlfriend. That doesn't make sense to me at all. It just doesn't make sense," he said.

Okay now, have any of you ever been in a really fucked up situation. I don't mean killing someone! I mean, have you ever been involved in a situation where events seemed out of your control, you felt out of control, your emotions are confused, and your sense of judgement completely warped?

No? None of you?

Well, I've been in a few such situations. And it is severely off-putting, and I acted in extremely uncharacteristic ways. Now my situations were merely bad relationship drama. I can only imagine what losing my wife would be like. God only knows how I'd act. I know one thing I'd be feeling though. Scared! I'd be pretty damn scared that wasn't acting the right way! I don't find it impossible that Peterson was in denial that Laci was dead, and simply carried on as usual, assuming she'd turn up. And I'm just guessing that he wasn't expecting his every move to become the subject of worldwide public scrutiny.

Clearly, the jury wanted Peterson to put on a proper show. They wanted him to act in ways that made him appear very pained and contrite. The evidence? What evidence? It was circumstantial, and what appeared to convince jurors that he was guilty was how he acted. And it even pushed them to choose the death penalty. Not because of evidence, but because of their perceptions of Scott Peterson's emotional state.

Now, I think thats some fucked up shit. Maybe that WAS a jury of Scott Peterson's peers, and maybe he's an idiot too. Now, I DO realize that there was some compelling circumstantial evidence (the dyed hair, cash, and planned trip to Mexico stand out), but the jury didn't mention the evidence in their comments. One juror said that is wasn't "any one thing". Well, thats just plain disturbing.

Lessons learned: the moral of this story is "Don't Kill Anyone". And if you are intent of killing someone, don't kill a pretty white girl. But if you must, make sure she isn't pregnant. If you still can't help yourself, make sure you don't get caught. Very important - don't get caught. Because you WILL be on TV, and you WILL die.

For the record, I think he killed her by accident.