Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Scott Peterson: Death

This is topic Scott Peterson: Death in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003762

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-14-2004, 09:36 AM:

Kinda amazed this hasn't come up yet. Could it be that no one here cares? I'm somewhat surprised that he got the death penalty in CA in one sense, but not surprised in another given all the evidence. Although a LIFE sentence probably would have secured a much more swift execution.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-14-2004, 10:01 AM:

With the lenghty appeals process, death sentences in California typically take 20 years to be carried out. Since California brought back capital punishment in 1978, only 10 executions have been carried out. The state's death row is the largest and the slowest in the nation with over 600 prisoners now.

In those 20 years 38 deathrow inmates have died of other causes:
Three killed by other prisoners, a dozen committed suicide and the rest died of natural causes. So by the time all his appeals are used up, he's 32 now he should be 52 in 2024.

[ 12-14-2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]

Posted by Daniel Wright (Member # 1983) on 12-14-2004, 10:05 AM:

He killed his wife and unborn child. Although he deserved a death sentence, being placed in the general population would have been a far worse punishment.
[uhoh]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 12-14-2004, 10:06 AM:

Send him to Texas, it'll be done much quicker. [thumbsup]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-14-2004, 12:12 PM:

I'm going to try and avoid any political dimension to the following remarks as much as I can. Brad et al - please feel free to edit or delete any of this if you feel I've overstepped the line.

As a general rule I oppose the death penalty, but for him I'll make an exception.

It's not so much the fact that he murdered his wife and unborn child, but the amorality and cold-bloodedness which caused him to do it that shocked me about this case. As a Californian friend recently expressed it to me in an email, men who find they don't want to be married anymore or who get frightened at the prospect of being a father divorce their wives and pay maintenance, or at the absolute worst run away across the border. Not only did Peterson do what he did instead, but the evidence shows that he contemplated it and prepared for it for a long time previously. There were plenty of chances for him to have woken up, smelt the coffee and then pulled out.

The fact that he went through with it coupled with the lack of any other evidence of mental illness suggests to me that he simply doesn't operate along anything like the same moral principles of even 99.99% of the rest of us. Putting any revenge motive aside (and I do oppose the death penalty on those grounds), quite simply, there has to be a foolproof way of making 100% sure that no other woman or unborn child will ever be at risk from him again. There is also the issue of giving the family and friends of his victims the chance of getting a night's sleep ever again, and I hope that the jury took that into account in arriving at their decision.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2004, 12:27 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Kinda amazed this hasn't come up yet. Could it be that no one here cares?

Or maybe we just don't like oversensationalized stories. I am glad that the guy finally got sentenced and whatnot, but a girl I went to high school with disappeared and was later found murdered buried by the side of a highway. She wasn't pregnant like Lay "C" Peterson was, but we all suspect her scumbag husband and he hasn't been arrested yet. No new news on this story for over 5 or 6 months. I care more about hearing news from this case than the Peterson case. I wonder how the media chooses which stories will be the national headliners?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-14-2004, 12:41 PM:

Point taken that there are probably lots of similar cases that go unreported. The answer to your question is your last sentence coupled with 'we all suspect her scumbag husband', IMHO. Peterson did not fit the scumbag husband stereotype: in fact, he appeared to have been the model middle-class husband and father until his wife and child turned up dead. That's what makes it all the more shocking, and therefore generated the media interest. You can see the same phenomenon at work in the coverage of European 'middle class murderers' such as Harold Shipman in my part of the world or that cannibal bloke (Erwin someone, wasn't he?) in Germany.

Sadly, if the husband of your schoolfriend was already well known as a scumbag, then as far as the TV stations are concerned, that ain't news. I guess my post above betrays the fact that I fell for the drama effect of the Peterson coverage, too - thanks for the reality check.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-14-2004, 01:11 PM:

Rochester just had a similar "lurid" case of a man hiring the murder of his wife. But the judge was able to prevent exploitation of the case by the media:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040923/NEWS01/409230345/1002/NEWS

quote:
Background
Kevin C. Bryant is charged with hiring his wife's half-brother, Cyril N. Winebrenner, to kill her. They and Winebrenner's girlfriend, Cassidy A. Green, are charged with first-degree murder. Winebrenner and Green are expected to testify against Bryant in exchange for leniency. Winebrenner told investigators that Bryant paid him $5,000 for the slaying and promised him half of the life insurance proceeds. Green claimed she provided the rifle used, drove Winebrenner to the Bryant home and helped destroy evidence.

What's next
County Court Judge Patricia D. Marks, who will preside over Kevin Bryant's trial for first-degree murder, has scheduled a hearing for Friday on the prosecution's request to use the allegations as evidence in Bryant's trial. Jury selection in Bryant's trial begins Tuesday

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 12-14-2004, 01:52 PM:

I think it also has to do with how much the families involved make an issue about the circumstances surrounding any crime. For example, just before 9/11 all we heard about was Chandra Levy's disappearance. Yeah, even though it was a sexy tale of secret meetings, a popular Congressman, and sex, it was also sensationalized because the Levy family was always on TV. They never missed a chance to talk to the media and the media never missed a chance to run with them.

Samething goes for Elizabeth Smart, the "Amber" case, and even that girl in Michigan who was killed in her parent's basement . . . you know the beauty queen at age seven - what was her name? These families never missed a chance to get on TV, shed some tears and beg the public about WHERE their kid is, or WHO killed their kid. Mostly its their scum bag lawyer who is coaxing them to do TV so the case doesn't die until its solved. And to the delight of the lawyers, in some cases its never solved.

Two years ago, a few twentysomethings from Ohio drove over here to Pennsylvania to rape and kill a highschool girl they picked up along the road. Dumb asses probably would have gotten away with it if they didn't return to the crime scene the next day with gasoline and matches in order to burn the body. Within a few days they were all arrested and one did get the death penalty (in Penssylvania execution is anywhere from 15 - 18 years after the crime). Nevertheless, during that time, the girls parents didn't do TV or anyother media outlet. They were poor scrubs from a working-class neighborhood from an area of the country nobody really gives a shit about in which their daughter's murderers were on the next rung down on Darwin's ladder.

I don't even remember her name.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-14-2004, 03:19 PM:

Off-topic a bit, but can states that allow for legal abortions claim a double-murder in the slaying of a pregnant woman? Would that be a double-standard or no? Is the fetus a life or not? If a woman killed the woman would it be the woman's right to choose? Hmmm...

=TMP=

Posted by Brandon Willis (Member # 2345) on 12-14-2004, 03:21 PM:

I once had a pregnant woman ask me if she had to purchase a ticket for her unborn child. She looked 100% serious. I wanted to say yes and charge her, but the good customer service person in me won out and I didn't.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-14-2004, 03:35 PM:

Would have been an easy answer for me. Children under age 2 are always free. [Wink]

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 12-14-2004, 05:52 PM:

Great, a solution to the huge national distraction. Wonderful.

Which trial will be come the new reality entertainment event of the season? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-15-2004, 02:28 AM:

Brandon: I read a story in the paper once about some researcher who suggested that pregnant women be banned from going to see violent or suspense films, because the physiological reaction they induce in the viewer could hurt unborn children. Censoring the movies you can see before you are even born is going a bit far, IMHO!

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-15-2004, 12:23 PM:

Time for the Dave'ster to chime in on this one.

With all the hysteria around this Scott Petersen trial and now the death penalty, it is absolutely amazing to me just how many people are willing to put this man to death, when taking into account, that NO ONE actually knows for sure what happened.

Remember that the account we have recieved from the prosecutors is only thier theory of what happened. The fact that the jury bought it is easily understandable. These same people are of the general population and probably couldn't tell the difference between film and video projection. Then again, I wouldn't really know that either, as I do not know them either, nor do I know what really happened in the jury room during deliberation.

The facts are simple...

1. NO ONE was there, so therefore no one can really know for sure what really happened.

2. Biblical arguments aside, Capitol Punishment can never be undone, so should not be an option, in the case of error.

3. Nothing attracts a crowd like a lynching.

Yep, the scott petersen deal reminds me of an old tyme lynching. Quite often people would stick the guilty monaker on someone, rightfully or not, and the whole town would gather to chant words of hate and disgust as they hung the poor man to death.

I am not saying he is innocent. Once again, I do not know one way or the other. The poor jury has to decide that one for all of us.

Even with all the evidence produced, I still am not convinced. I would have been voted out of the jury because I would refuse to convict based upon the evidence provided.

Recall the rules of criminal law, well at least the most important one....

IF you find any reasonable doubt as to guilt, no matter how small, you must find the defendant not guilty. It is so very important that we remember that it be of value that 9 guilty men go free than to imprison ONE innocent man.

That is the basis of our system of justice. I however sadly find that here it did not go that way. Instead, emotions played a bigger part in the findings and sentencing, than did actual fact.

Argue all you want with me, and I am sure you will, but I could not have found him guilty based upon the evidence provided, no matter how much of a scumbag he was or wasn't.

Ciao baby

Dave

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 12-15-2004, 12:29 PM:

The jury reached the correct verdict. The sentence should be carried out forthwith.

[ 12-15-2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Bob Maar ]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 12-15-2004, 12:38 PM:

quote: Dave Williams
emotions played a bigger part

Speaking of emotions, did you hear about Peterson's emotions as described by the juror. There were none. Not even a "wait a minute, I didnt do this" emotion. [Confused]

But I do like your idea of a public lynching..I'd get the day off of work to go see that!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-15-2004, 01:14 PM:

My thoughts in brief about the Petersen murder trial. The United States averages between 14,000 and 20,000 murders per year. The only reason why this case captured the media's attention is because of how pretty the people involved were.

Sex and beauty sells. The victim, Lacy, was beautiful and symbolized everything right about motherhood. Scott was the attractive, womanizing bad boy our culture loves to glorify while pretending to hate.

I guarantee you if Lacy and Scott Petersen were average looking people no one would have given a shit and the whole legal process would not have taken 2 full years to complete.

Finally, I was really disgusted by the mob of "I want to be on TV" whores hanging outside the courthouse. They were there to cheer the guilty verdict as if it was an NFL tailgate party. No sense of shame there obviously.

I suppose Scott Petersen is getting what he deserves. The couple press conference thingies I've seen with the juror members seemed to show them having responsible perspective about what was involved. So I trust their guilty verdict and their judgment on the case. As slow as it takes California to execute prisoners on death row (about 1 per year), Petersen will die of old age in prison long before he ever faces lethal injection. He should be happy he doesn't live in Oklahoma. We do business PDQ around these parts.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-16-2004, 02:02 AM:

quote: Jeremy Fuentes
Speaking of emotions, did you hear about Peterson's emotions as described by the juror. There were none. Not even a "wait a minute, I didnt do this" emotion.

And when a defendant shows emotion, he's usually faking it, or showing to much, or whatever. There is no "right" level of emotion that is ever good enough for anyone. I have seen cases described by so called experts where on one end this expert will say that such and such person showed no emotion and is therefore guilty, and the same expert will say that such and such other person showed emotion, how dare they try and fool us, they are guilty too.

It's all in perspective. My perspective is that evidence must clearly show, with no doubt, that guilt is present. I too saw the interviews with the jurors. They seemed level headed. But I never did say thew were stupid or crazy, just only average. The average person can't tell the difference between coke and pepsi, much less guilt and innocense.

Mind you, I am not arguing for finding him innocent, or that he did it, just is there enough evidence ON ITS OWN, without theory, conjecture or emotion, to convict.

He may have done it, he may have even hired someone to do it. It could have been a gang of punks, devil worshipers, mormons. Anything could have happened. The media blew this thing so far along that there was NO WAY that anyone on the jury pool could have NOT been influenced by it prior to the trial.

The whole thing was a joke.

As for remorse. If someone pleads innocent and maintains that, how can they show remorse? Makes no sense. If he hated her and wanted to divorce her, then why would her death make him feel internal sadness? If there was that much hate for her as the prosecution claimed,then he would have no feeling for her at all. That is no surprise there was not one feeling for her from him.

For every reason, there is an equal answer to that reason. Lets face it, his lawyer did a crappy job. He had this cavalier attitude that he was going to win. I am sure that came across way wrong.

So thats it for today... c

ciao baby

dave

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 12-16-2004, 07:40 PM:

I just have to put my little Star Trek reference into this discussion. I'm reminded of the TNG episode "Drumhead". I think that the most important thing that should be emphasized to every jury is that no matter what, people are always presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't know all the details of the trial but from what I've been able to piece together there was nothing concrete that could peg him as guilty. He very well could have done it but with decisions like these the ends can't justify the means. Regardless of the penelty for the crime, be it death or life in prison, you can't convict a man if you can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's the very basis of what our justice system is based on. It's not perfect but I can't imagine a world worth living in if it were any other way.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-19-2004, 07:18 PM:

quote: Dave Williams
I have seen cases described by so called experts where on one end this expert will say that such and such person showed no emotion and is therefore guilty, and the same expert will say that such and such other person showed emotion, how dare they try and fool us, they are guilty too.

That's like the old witch test where they tie a weight to the defendant and throw her into a pool. If she floats, it is the work of the devil so she is guilty. If she sinks, then she was not guilty. Unfortunately, she usually drowned in the process, but hey, that was the best test they had.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-20-2004, 01:58 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
That's like the old witch test where they tie a weight to the defendant and throw her into a pool. If she floats, it is the work of the devil so she is guilty.

And as a Monty Python sketch pointed out, it's not a very reliable method; because if she's guilty, the penalty is being burnt at the stake. Having just been immersed in water, the condemned witch is unlikely to ignite very easily.