The jury in the Scott Peterson trial decided on a sentence of death today. It is possibly, but not likely, that the judge will reverse the sentence to life in prison.


I have to admit I'm quite surprised that a CA jury would return a death sentence to a white defendant who has no prior crimes.


I doubt that this would have been my verdict for sentencing IF I were assured that Scott would indeed serve a life sentence.


My mind seems to settle on a death sentence as the last resort when one cannot be sure if the defendent might escape or be paroled and commit the same crime again. I rather doubt that we have to be concerned about Scott murdering someone (other than possibly another pregant wife). And, it's my understanding that a life sentence in CA really means life - not 10 or 20 years.


However, I'm not second guessing the jury. They saw the horrible way Scott murdered his wife and child. Furthermore, he increased the pain of her loved ones by forcing them to search for her for several months.


A death sentence was probably doing Scott a favor so that he doesn't have to suffer the consequences of his actions for his natural life.

Scott Peterson was found guilty of the first degree murder of Laci Peterson and the second degree murder of Connor Peterson.


Can't say I really understand why the jury found murder in the 2nd degree for Connor since Scott was obviously aware that Laci was pregnant and that the murder of her would cause the death of Connor.


I'm going to "guess" that they decided that the murder of Connor was incidental to that of the murder of Laci and therefore second degree. I disagree.


However, I have to say I am delighted that the jury stuck to the facts and convicted Scott and that they didn't take the easy out of convicting of 2nd degree murder for Laci.

As I watch the news in the Scott Peterson trial as of late, I'm reminded how similar the behavior is to that of the recent USA election.


Yesterday we told the story of the boat Mark Geragos placed within two blocks of the courthouse, not caring for the effect this might have on the family of Laci and Connor but rather being totally intent on "winning".


Last night, some well meaning florist delivered flowers and covered the boat in flowers. One would hope this was the end of the story but unfortunately its not. Someone else, intent on "winning" removed the flowers from the boat and spelled out "Not Guilty" by placing the flowers on the ground. Not to be out done, someone else removed the word "not" leaving "guilty".


Geragos' original gesture was mean and just a legal dirty trick. Because of the gag order in the case, some speculate it was contempt of court. Others argue that since no "words" were used, it didn't violate the gag order. Sorry, one can communicate with other than words.


The point is this: Laci's family lost two loved family members who were murdered in cold blood. They've then had to endure finding out that their son-in-law, who they also loved and respected was undoubtably responsible. Next they were subjected to four months of the search for Laci and Conner, followed by the hideous condition of Laci's body when found. Top that off with 11 months of court manuvering and a trial, lies and coverups by the Peterson family and now this by Geragos, all in the name of winning. Mark Geragos knows his client is guilty (see his interviews on Larry King before he got the case if you doubt me), but that doesn't stop him from his court room antics, laughing and joking while the subject matter is the murder of two human beings.


The people who placed the flowers on the boat surely did this just out of respect to the Rocha family's feelings, a kind, generous gesture; one human being hugging another to express their understanding. But apparently Geragos' original action wasn't hideous enough for some intent on winning - someone had to take that kind gesture and turn it into a fight to win.


Just like the election, the outcome of this trial has far reaching consequences. Is American justice going to let trickery and treachery, allow a murderer to go free, based on something other than the facts in the case ? Have people become so intent on winning at any cost that they will let a murderer walk free? Can the consequences of justice be purchased with a high priced lawyer who will reduce himself to any level just for a notch on his belt?


Geragos: If you believe in the innocence of your client, why not just give the jury the facts and allow them to make the right decision? Of course we all realize that you are lacking in facts, but is winning worth your soul?

Today the 2nd juror #5 was replaced without explantion.


Note that yesterday, juror #7 was replaced with the indications being that the juror (a woman) had done some independant research and brought this fact into the jury room.


Interestingly enough, juror #6, who I'm concerned about being another Justin Falkner, has been elected foreperson. The 2nd juror #5 was the original foreman.


We can always hope, which I will until the verdict is read - but none of this seems to bode well for getting a verdict from this jury.


I certainly wonder what could be going through anyone's head that still considers it possible that Scott is innocent.


Also reported today was a boat with a dummy (supposedly representing Laci Peterson) owned by Mark Geragos, Scott's attorney.


Now the story around this boat is that Geragos "borrowed" it for a day to demonstrate that a woman of Laci's size could not be dumped from the boat. Reports say that Geragos had to perform the experiment three times to get the boat to capsize.


Geragos had this experiment video taped and then tried to submit it as evidence. The judge refused to allow the jury to see it. Wonder if Geragos was planning to show the two failed attempts!


Anyway, because the boat was submersed, the owner refused the return of the boat - meaning Geragos just bought a boat.


So today, the boat turns up two blocks from the court house. Geragos is obviously hoping news reports of the boat will leak to jurors and they will only get the part of the story he wants them to hear. What a low life.


If his client was truely innocent, Geragos wouldn't have to resort to ugly tricks that can only hurt Laci's family.

Today's news from the Scott Peterson trial seems to indicate what we've feared - a hung jury.


I fervently believe there is NO reason for a hung jury, but ever since we heard about Justin, Juror #5 who got booted from the jury, we worried about his reported "friend", juror #6.


Speculation based on Court TV's reporting is that juror #6 has refused to deliberate. The guess is that he says "not guilty" and refuses to even discuss why that might be the wrong verdict.


It's alarming to hear that Scott Peterson gets tons of "fan mail" from women, some even admitting they think he is guilty but sexy. Yuck!


This isn't a cartoon character folks. This is a real live man who killed two human beings. If that's not bad enough, those humans were his lovely wife and unborn son!


And, it's disheartening to think that someone lied their way on to a jury just to ensure that Scott Peterson gets away with this hideous crime.

Hearing Scott Peterson's fake international calls to Amber Frye can leave no other conclusion. Even the defense admits he's a dirt bag. Well Duh! But their contention is that dirt bag doesn't make a wife and baby murderer. Yeah, they are right. But they are wrong in what they want you to conclude from that. Scott Peterson just happens to not only be a dirt bag but also a wife and baby murderer! I'm astounded that there is an educated person (such as a lawyer) that wants to float the idea that after predicting the death of his wife (okay, Scott's clarvoyant - that could happen), that the same clarvoyant person is stupid enough to go fishing on top of his wife's and baby's bodies! What? His clarvoyance failed him just at the time it counted most? Just to add a little icing on the top - Mr. Clarvoyant is now so broken up over the "disappearence" of his wife and son - he calls his girlfriend while at the vigil for his missing wife and son. There are guppies born every day - but even I can't imagine one born that could believe this story! Even Sci-Fi films put together a more congruent plot.

If the report from Catherine Crier is accurate, it clears up a lot of my confusion.
On June 25, 2004, Catherine Crier (Court TV, Catherine Crier Live) announced a recorded phone call from Scott's mother to Scott. Reportedly, sometime in January after Laci "disappeared", Scott's mother called Scott, telling him that his sister needed a "yes or no". She also advised Scott "deny, deny, deny".

Guess that clears up the question whether it was possible for her to not know of Scott's guilt.

Juror #5 in the Scott Peterson trial, who was dismissed from the jury two days ago, simply has to be a wacko.

Yes, his statements about pregnant women being "crazy" are pretty outlandish and show a bias against women, but that's not what my opinion is about.

Juror #5 seems to think he saw and heard nothing that would cause him to believe Scott killed his wife, Laci Peterson and unborn son, Connor.

Okay, the evidence so far is circumstantial. Coincidences do happen. But come on, THAT many coincidences?

Let see:

1. Scott goes fishing on December 24th - something he's done only 4 times in 10 years.

2. Scott tells others that he's going golfing. Something he does very frequently. But then supposely he didn't go golfing because it was too cold.

Oh yeah, sitting your butt in a little fishing boat on the water is probably a lot warmer activity.

3. Scott is cheating on his wife. Lies about it after his wife and unborn son turned up missing.

4. Scott tells his girlfriend on December 9th that his wife is dead.

Juror #5 tells us that this is just what men do - lie when they have affairs.

Hmmm, and the lies end up being truth later in the same month?

5. Scott is found to be talking to this same girlfriend on the phone in the bathroom the day after his wife and son have gone missing. Not, mind you, telling his girlfriend that something awful has happened, but rather telling her they will soon have more time together.

Scott's attorney will tell us this just means the man is a cad. Uh, doesn't this mean something to anyone with a brain when they put together the non-emotional way Scott acted?

Okay, you are a cad cheating on your wife - but when she and your unborn son end up missing - doesn't that bring you back to reality? Wouldn't the normal person now confess everything (or at least stop lying through his teeth and continuing to carry on an affair) in order to help find his missing loved ones?

6. Laci had a pendant inherited from her Grandmother that she was known to never take off. She told a jewelry store employee that she even slept with it on, and wouldn't take it off even to be cleaned.

This much loved (and reportedly expensive) piece of jewelry was not on Laci's body when found, rather the expensive pendant was found in her house.

So we are to believe that suddenly Laci takes off the always worn pendant to walk the dog one morning?

7. Oh, did we mention that Scott had financial problems? Reportedly he wanted Laci to sell some of this inherited jewelry. Notice Scott started attempting to get rid of some of their assets (the house, Laci's car) only two weeks after his wife and son went missing? They had not been found dead yet folks. Clarvoyance? Or guilt?

8. Let's go back to that fishing incident. Interestingly enough, the bodies of Laci and Connor are found a mere 2 miles from the place that Scott went fishing the very day they turned up missing.

Tide experts tell us that the bodies came from the Berkley Marina, the very place Scott was "fishing". We are to believe that this homeless person who supposedly abducted Laci went to the place Scott had reportedly been (to make Scott look guilty) with swarms of police and investigators around it - to dump Laci's and Connor's bodies? Just how did this homeless person do this? Guess he at least had a car. Oh, he didn't take the $100,000 of jewelry. Lucky thing for financially troubled Scott.

Juror #5 thinks this is merely coincidence.

9. Scott tells his girlfriend he knows who did kill his wife. Uh, why on earth has Scott not told the police this very important information? After all, he could have saved himself, the state of California and Scott's parents an awful lot of money - not to mention a lot of time and grief.

10. Scott is arrested months later with different colored hair, a beard, his brother's ID and $10,000 in cash very close to the border of Mexico.

Yes, he was staying at his parents' house and yes, they do live close to the border - but what's the reason for the other items? How many people carry around $10,000 in cash?

11. Scott's computer shows that he was checking tides at the Berkley Marina - oh, I thought he was going golfing.

Not convinced yet? Need some more circumstantial evidence?

Try Court TV and More Court TV

I'm sorry Juror #5 but there's something so smelly here, it's incredible that one "sees nothing that suggests Scott's guilty" at this point.

Yes, our justice system says "innocent until proven guilty" but if you've heard this type of evidence so far and still aren't beginning to doubt Scott's innocence - there's something wrong with your head!

Scott's Parents

Wonder what they really think deep inside. It's got to be even more painful than even losing a child to death from illness or accident to know deep inside that your child has taken the lives of two others, especially their own wife and child!

Their outward appearance suggests total faith in Scott and belief in his innocence. But is this possible? Remember, they aren't on the jury (who supposedly aren't yet totally versed in the evidence in the case), they are extremely well versed in the evidence against Scott. Could anyone doubt the innocence of Scott with the above evidence? Can even love be so blind? I've not been in the situation so I can only wonder.

The fact that they are paying for his defense and standing by him publicly makes me very sad for them. It must be extremely painful.

The Prosecution/Investigation

Dang these guys appear to be screwing up bad. Their screw ups may just end up being the doubt a stupid jury needs to set this killer free. Can anyone smell "OJ" yet?

It really makes you wonder what type of investigators and resources the prosecution has when they have people reporting "meringue" wasn't mentioned on the Martha Stewart program that day - and yet a tape reveals it was. Come on folks - didn't you even watch the tape? Even a lowly paid paralegal should be able to handle that task!

And the investigator leaving critical things (such as a supposed visit to the warehouse by Laci on 12/23) out of his report. Of course with this item, Scott's attorney jumps on it and makes it look like the prosecution is lying and covering up. Even though other reports and a tape will show that the prosecution DID reveal this information to the defense.

There's no doubt in my mind that the evidence shows Scott's guilt. I just have to wonder why the prosecution is so inept that their mess ups can put doubt where there is no doubt.

Well this certainly won't be the last I have to say about this subject. You can count on that.