Peterson case revisited

[peptoabysmal]

This case just gets more interesting as time goes on.

First there was the search for Laci.

The media coverage of the story, which brought into question whether or not Scott could get a fair trial.

Scott turning up in southern California with dyed hair and cash to burn.

The defense saying that Satan worshippers may have been involved.

The fact that Laci was pregnant, which turns this into a double homicide.

And now, GPS devices planted on Scott’s vehicles are going to be allowed as evidence.

(Yes I know these are disjoined fragments of sentences, thank you)

I find this case interesting and groundbreaking in many ways.

Judge allows global positioning evidence in Peterson case (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/17/PETERSON17A.TMP)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The fact that Laci was pregnant, which turns this into a double homicide. Which confuses me a bit. How pregnant did she have to be to call it a double homicide? Is there a limit, say, more than one week pregnant? Or when the husband knows she's pregnant?

Is it a wish to call it a double homicide because that might carry the death penalty?

How does this correspond with abortion laws? :confused:

[subgenius]

I was laughing to myself just yesterday over his claim, and the Jedi Knight defense of the claim that his hair and beard went blond from swimming in a pool.
Anybody here ever go swimming in a pool and go blond? Wouldn't all swim teams be blond?
How boneheaded can you get?

(Short detour)
This in turn reminds me also of the lousy prosecution of OJ. One of their many stupid decisions was to not introduce evidence of a disguise that OJ had in his car. Disgusting that shows use Marcia Clark as an expert. Bugliosi wrote a great piece about how badly she handled that case. Should have been a cakewalk.
(End of detour)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Which confuses me a bit. How pregnant did she have to be to call it a double homicide? Is there a limit, say, more than one week pregnant? Or when the husband knows she's pregnant?

Is it a wish to call it a double homicide because that might carry the death penalty?

How does this correspond with abortion laws? :confused:

That's a good question. IIRC, the two laws don't overlap on this issue. That is, I think it's a separate legal issue when you kill someone who is "with child" as opposed to "choosing" to abort a fetus. I have no idea myself how Roe vs. Wade could impact this. Some of the pro-choice organizations are worried about this, though.

Since the case is in California (the law varies from state to state)

One of those states — California — adopted a law in 1970 that defines murder as the "unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040216-121903-2516r.htm


If I read this correctly, if you abort a fetus "without malice" then it is not breaking this law?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
I was laughing to myself just yesterday over his claim, and the Jedi Knight defense of the claim that his hair and beard went blond from swimming in a pool.
Anybody here ever go swimming in a pool and go blond? Wouldn't all swim teams be blond?
How boneheaded can you get?

(Short detour)
This in turn reminds me also of the lousy prosecution of OJ. One of their many stupid decisions was to not introduce evidence of a disguise that OJ had in his car. Disgusting that shows use Marcia Clark as an expert. Bugliosi wrote a great piece about how badly she handled that case. Should have been a cakewalk.
(End of detour)

Not that I believe the Peterson defense, but when I was a child my hair would turn white from the swimming pool, I mean white like some vampire albino freak white.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
That's a good question. IIRC, the two laws don't overlap on this issue. That is, I think it's a separate legal issue when you kill someone who is "with child" as opposed to "choosing" to abort a fetus. I have no idea myself how Roe vs. Wade could impact this. Some of the pro-choice organizations are worried about this, though.

Since the case is in California (the law varies from state to state)

If I read this correctly, if you abort a fetus "without malice" then it is not breaking this law? Hm.... If double homicide might carry death penalty in California (and single usually doesn't), I'm still confused. I'l try to look into it - does she have to look pregnant?

As for the abortion/killing/choosing, I'm even more confused - is the murder/not murder depending on who actually killed the fetus, not how is was killed? :confused:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hm.... If double homicide might carry death penalty in California (and single usually doesn't), I'm still confused. I'l try to look into it - does she have to look pregnant?

As for the abortion/killing/choosing, I'm even more confused - is the murder/not murder depending on who actually killed the fetus, not how is was killed? :confused:

If I read it right, which is quite possibly wrong since I'm not a legal expert, it is the intent of the killing that matters and the life in question must qualify as a fetus.

[Dancing David]

When the double homocide laws were introduced there was considerable debate over the intent of the law. At first it was presented as the 'heinous' crime punishment, not onlt did the murderer kill the woman but they killed the baby.

This was viewed by the pro choice people as a granstang gesture to try to get abortion treated as murder, but so far, it is thirty years and that isn't happening.

It is well known in the Matriarcha Vision Movemenat (domestic violence) that being preganant generaly increases the risk that a woman will be murdered, do judges grant more OPs for preganant women, no. Is someone more likely to be charged with domestic battery because the victim is preganant. No.

Somoe sort of irony.

My problem with the Peterson case is that it is defense that keeps leaking all the really outraegous stuff.

I don't understand why the GPS material is being questioned, unless they did it without a warrant.

[Tmy]

The GPS stuff really bothers me. THese newer cars have all sorts of ways of spying on you. The computers tell the insurance agents just what happend during the time of your accident. Braking, speed , etc. Dont car rental compaines keep track of your speeds too? Talk about big brother!!!

Is there a reason why they have a GPS record of his wearabouts???

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is there a reason why they have a GPS record of his wearabouts??? I understand the police put a GPS in his car to keep track of him.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tmy
The GPS stuff really bothers me. THese newer cars have all sorts of ways of spying on you. The computers tell the insurance agents just what happend during the time of your accident. Braking, speed , etc. Dont car rental compaines keep track of your speeds too? Talk about big brother!!!

Is there a reason why they have a GPS record of his wearabouts???

The FBI got a warrant to listen to converstaions of mobsters in thier cars recently, using the onboard voice channel in the Northstar system.

[Zero]

I don't know anything about this...somebody got killed?

[peptoabysmal]

I thought I'd drag this thread up again since something new popped up in the Roe v. Wade matter. I don't know how much bearing this has on the Peterson case.

'Jane Roe' takes her case back to court (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2411686)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't know anything about this...somebody got killed?

Here's some background and late developments on the case:
Attorney asks for jury to be sequestered in Scott Peterson trial (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/7912576.htm)

You can g:rolleyes::rolleyes:gle many more.

[alex_c]

Delucchi ruled to exclude a prosecution witness who had been hypnotized to help her memory . . . Geragos argued the psychologist, who is not licensed in California as required by law, failed to properly record what Dempewolf recalled before she was hypnotized . . . "At best it's almost comical," Geragos told the judge Tuesday afternoon. "If one were looking for a primer on how not to do hypnosis, this was it."

Sorry lots of cutting.

When I noticed the above, I got to wondering how credible hypnosis-assisted memory is. Does anyone out there know if our courts find it reliable?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by alex_c


Sorry lots of cutting.

When I noticed the above, I got to wondering how credible hypnosis-assisted memory is. Does anyone out there know if our courts find it reliable?

I found this bit:


A hypnotized person is capable of confabulation (making up stories, exaggerations and lies). A hypnotized person cannot be forced to tell the truth via hypnotic interrogation. This is why testimony derived from a hypnotized subject is not admissible as evidence in a court of law in the United States.
Story (http://www.aznewage.com/hypnosis.htm)


I have some experience in regards to using hypnosis in criminal investigations (what year was it... 1970..something) and what I can tell you is that it does not imbibe people with super accurate memory, that is, they recall a .22 pointed at them as if it were a .44 magnum. The things you observed incorrectly when conscious do not suddenly become clearer. It can, however, help bring out some details like license plate numbers you might have seen and forgotten.

[a_unique_person]

WTF is it about this case. It appears that conservatives who are lost for something worthwhile to post about, (Since everything to do with Dubya at the moment reeks), are posting about this.

Fry the guy. Thats what you do, isn't it?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
WTF is it about this case. It appears that conservatives who are lost for something worthwhile to post about, (Since everything to do with Dubya at the moment reeks), are posting about this.

Fry the guy. Thats what you do, isn't it?

Don't you have some Jihadi to defend somewhere? (j/k) :p

The case is interesting because it has several legal landmarks. It brings up a double murder vs. abortion topic. This is the first time GPS data (which devices were attached to Peterson's vehicles without his knowledge or consent) is allowed in court as evidence and now sniffing dogs testimony is being considered:

Experts: Dog tracking details most damaging to Peterson's defense (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040301-1820-ca-lacipeterson-dogs.html)

[Dancing David]

It isalso important to some of us liberals! This case is like the primer om domestic violence, except that Laci was not poor, she was not a drug addict, nor was she stupid and all the othere xcuses people make for domestic violence.

If Scott P. is innocent then I hope he walks.

BTW: the prefered method of execution is baking with a little but of lemon, so many less calories than frying! blahblah