Scott Peterson Murder Trial

[Krackt420]

Anyone following the Scott Peterson double-murder trial, a 32-year-old Modesto fertilizer salesman who was having an affair, allegedly killed his pregnant wife and unborn son and dumped them in San Francisco Bay?

Defence is playing the "He was framed" card, but all things aside, that conspiracy theory wasn't even what had me thinking.

It got me thinking about how he's being charged for a double murder. Now, as far as I'm concerned an unborn child constitutes as a real and precious life at the moment of conception, but with abortion being a completetly legal and common practice,especially in the states, where do you draw the line?

Why does murdering your unborn child while simultaneously murdering your wife constitute as a double murder, but murdering you unborn child in a clinical setting is without reprimand?

[Frank the Tank]

I believe that once the fetus is past a certain age, it is considered a "life", hence the double murder charge. His wife was 8+ months pregnant, which is considered full-term.

[Bingo]

It has to be a murder doesn't it?

Abortion (and I won't get into this debate) is about free choice for the woman, not about free choice for someone else. Imagine if a guy killed a baby inside a woman and then wanted to be charged with assault, and only assault with no murder attached?

Yikes.

[Krackt420]

I deffinetly think he should be charged with murder....not a question in my mind.

I just wonder what rationale they use for determing why killing your unborn child in the manner that Peterson did is murder, but if you get a doctor and a team of nurses to do it it's "free choice for the woman".

The end result is the same, is it not?

[Cowperson]

An excellent article reviewing the issue, the legalities and linking it to Peterson's case.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...29-oplede_x.htm

Cowperson

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Hey, i've thought about exactly that for awhile now. I never brought it up though cause i figured there were legal issues that covered it (ie: when a cluster of cells actually becomes an unborn child, etc). You raise a good point.

Anyways, the coverage that trial is getting is out of control. I almost wish the election was still taking place so the media could take a break from their regular scheduled Peterson Trial coverage...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

My wife has been following it and made me sit through a bunch of the coverage (thank God for the wireless network connection and CalgaryPuck!). From what I have gathered I think the police has been incompetant in their investigation and that they did not look at all the leads. From what I know about the investigation they did not interview several witnesses who claimed to see her alive later in the day she was reported to have disappeared and they ignored many accounts of another potential suspect. They took the easy way out, fingered the husband, and built a case to convict him rather than do the leg work to close off all other avenues of investigation. The police work has been shoddy and Peterson should get off because of that. The prosecution has not been convincing IMO. I also don't like the fact that the judge has removed a juror during deliberations. That's not kosher. I think Peterson has been set up to take the fall and likely will, even though no one has proven that he committed the crime.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 10 2004, 09:11 PM
My wife has been following it and made me sit through a bunch of the coverage (thank God for the wireless network connection and CalgaryPuck!). From what I have gathered I think the police has been incompetant in their investigation and that they did not look at all the leads. From what I know about the investigation they did not interview several witnesses who claimed to see her alive later in the day she was reported to have disappeared and they ignored many accounts of another potential suspect. They took the easy way out, fingered the husband, and built a case to convict him rather than do the leg work to close off all other avenues of investigation. The police work has been shoddy and Peterson should get off because of that. The prosecution has not been convincing IMO. I also don't like the fact that the judge has removed a juror during deliberations. That's not kosher. I think Peterson has been set up to take the fall and likely will, even though no one has proven that he committed the crime.

From what I know about the investigation they did not interview several witnesses who claimed to see her alive later in the day she was reported to have disappeared and they ignored many accounts of another potential suspect.

The defence promised to produce said witnesses and failed to do so before closing arguments.

Promising and then failing to deliver are considered by some legal observors of this case to be a blow to the defence.

Still, they really don't have a lot on this guy, even though he appears to be guilty.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 10 2004, 09:30 PM
From what I know about the investigation they did not interview several witnesses who claimed to see her alive later in the day she was reported to have disappeared and they ignored many accounts of another potential suspect.

The defence promised to produce said witnesses and failed to do so before closing arguments.

Promising and then failing to deliver are considered by some legal observors of this case to be a blow to the defence.

Still, they really don't have a lot on this guy, even though he appears to be guilty.

Cowperson

Well, the defense has no obligation to produce anyone. They only have to refute the charges as laid out by the prosecution. I have no idea why they did not go down the road of producing the other witnesses, but they chose not to. It does not mean they couldn't, only that they chose not to. It could be that they did not want to confuse the jury or cloud an issue they felt was worthy of taking out and blowing holes in the prosecution's case. I'm not an attorney and don't know what they were thinking, so I can't say why they did not bring these people to the stand. Like I said, I don't think the police and the prosecution have done their job very well and that should get Peterson off (they have not proved guilt and have barely provided a motive). It will be interesting to see what the judge's instructions and actions have on the deliberation process.

[speeds]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 10 2004, 08:44 PM
An excellent article reviewing the issue, the legalities and linking it to Peterson's case.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...29-oplede_x.htm

Cowperson

I don't see what this doesn't have to do with abortion. Of course this case in particular wasn't abortion.

Still though, someone who wasn't the mother killed the baby, how is that a crime and not if the mother did it herself (or some doctor in a hospital) right at that same point of pregnancy?

that article doesn't clear that question up to me, or perhaps I'm not reading it correctly?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Speeds, the issue raised is if this man is deemed to be guilty of murdering his unborn child does that set legal precident which would point towards an unborn fetus being declaired a person under the law. In that case the question is then raised, does abortion then constitute murder, and in specific late term abortions, such as those which occur after the 6th month I believe (someone can correct me on the date, but I think it is during hte third trimester).

I know that in Canada the legal definition of a person doesn't include an unborn fetus due to some logic used by the court systems and the use of the word everybody in other sections of the Criminal Code and the Charter.

I hope that clarified the issue though, while it isn't a direct relationship, it does not have to be direct in order to have weight on other aspects of the law.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Nov 10 2004, 09:30 PM
From what I know about the investigation they did not interview several witnesses who claimed to see her alive later in the day she was reported to have disappeared and they ignored many accounts of another potential suspect.

The defence promised to produce said witnesses and failed to do so before closing arguments.

Promising and then failing to deliver are considered by some legal observors of this case to be a blow to the defence.

Still, they really don't have a lot on this guy, even though he appears to be guilty.

Cowperson

Well, the defense has no obligation to produce anyone. They only have to refute the charges as laid out by the prosecution. I have no idea why they did not go down the road of producing the other witnesses, but they chose not to. It does not mean they couldn't, only that they chose not to. It could be that they did not want to confuse the jury or cloud an issue they felt was worthy of taking out and blowing holes in the prosecution's case. I'm not an attorney and don't know what they were thinking, so I can't say why they did not bring these people to the stand. Like I said, I don't think the police and the prosecution have done their job very well and that should get Peterson off (they have not proved guilt and have barely provided a motive). It will be interesting to see what the judge's instructions and actions have on the deliberation process. [/b][/quote]
Legal Theory

The defense lawyers figured that they were going to lose this case no matter what. Its pretty tough to get around a jury trial when its a husband accused of murdering his wife and unborn child.

They're playing for a reversal on appeal, or at the very least a new trial based around ineffective council. they also have the right to bring new evidence on a appeal and they can use that to impeach the police evidence.

Its actually easier to defend a jailed client or a client thats already on death row because you have a lot more latitude, then you would in the initial hearing

Just my two cents