Verdict Reached in Michael Peterson Trial!!!! [Archive] - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Cypros

10-10-2003, 01:13 PM

I feel so sorry for the adopted girls -- Margaret and Martha. They have now lost THREE parents. What a horrible thing to go through. They obviously have trusted and loved this man. Poor things.

Peterson was sentenced to life in prison without opportunity for parole. How did the sentencing happen so fast??

The prosecution says that of course it will appeal.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 01:20 PM

Jeana, are you shocked that the jury wasn't hung or because you think he didn't do it?

Cypros

10-10-2003, 01:31 PM

Apparently word around town was that people feared there would not be a guilty verdict because they did not believe the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, the jury thought otherwise. The reporter was saying that the most compelling evidence for her was the amount of blood -- not consistent with a fall down the stairs -- the blood UP Peterson's shorts which meant he had to have been standing over her when it was splattering, and the lack of blood in her mouth which contradicts Henry Lee's theory that she was coughing up a lot of blood. I am eager to hear what the jury has to say.

I am sooooo happy to know that Lee's ridiculous theory was not accepted. This gives me hope for Scott Peterson's future trial. Geragos must be quivering in his shorts right now...:banghead:

Jeana (DP)

10-10-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
Jeana, are you shocked that the jury wasn't hung or because you think he didn't do it?

I think he probably did do it, but there were some problems with the trial. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a first class creep, but I was surprised at the verdict!

Silver Dollar

10-10-2003, 01:40 PM

Great! I had been praying for justice, whichever it went. I feel he is guilty of 3 murders - Kathleen, Elizabeth and George.

Doyle

10-10-2003, 01:44 PM

from courttv.com
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/guilty_ctv.html

I am really surprised he was convicted... I also felt he was guilty, but thought he would get off.

Casshew

10-10-2003, 01:45 PM

I am glad he was found guilty... when I heard about his "last wife" who died pretty well the same way. :rolleyes:

Also what kind a guy surfs the net to set up dates for anal sex at 150.00 an hour and then claims to have a great marriage? I wonder how long that stuff was going on?

Cass...

Cypros

10-10-2003, 01:48 PM

I think it is important that the prosecution was able to get a guilty verdict WITHOUT a known weapon. They had theorized about a missing blowpoke, but then the blowpoke turned up during the trial and that had to be disregarded. I guess the jury didn't care WHAT he killed her with.

Again, this gives me hope regarding Scott Peterson's case as no cause of death has yet been determined.

Jeana, IMO the blood evidence was compelling, plus the fact that the same thing had happened to Elizabeth Ratliff 18 years ago. too much coincidence,

MrsMush99

10-10-2003, 01:51 PM

I cannot believe it! I totally forgot that they were on verdict watch! I'm surprised that he was found guilty. I think he did it. Just surprised that he was found guilty.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Casshew
Also what kind a guy surfs the net to set up dates for anal sex at 150.00 an hour and then claims to have a great marriage? I wonder how long that stuff was going on?

Cass...

The same kind of guy who has affairs and then claims that his marriage is "glorious"?!:dontknow:

sariebell

10-10-2003, 01:59 PM

I am glad that the jury could see past the blunders of the prosecution and stay focused on the evidence. Apparently the kicker was the visit to the residence to see the stairwell. The jurors seemed to think there was just way too much blood and it was so high up on the wall. I guess that was a defensive backfire!

Rudolph did an outstanding job, and the prosecution left much to be desired. I believe he did it. The nurses on the jury and the rest of the jurors used logic and paid attention to the evidence. I am glad that justice was served.

magpie

10-10-2003, 02:02 PM

Yep, this is a just verdict. It gives me hope too for Sp's trial, this jury didn't buy Henry Lee's "show" that he put on in the courtroom. I think Mr. Lee has damaged his credibility. I'm kind of thinking Geragos won't put him on in SP's trial, think I read that Lee's findings didn't jive with MG's theory anyway.

I think not only did he kill his wife Kathleen, but he killed E. Ratliff in Germany also. It is suspicious about George Ratliff, but I don't know much about George's death.

Glad the jury was able to reach a decision. Life without the possibility of parole!

magpie

Jeana (DP)

10-10-2003, 02:06 PM

I agree the blood evidence was compelling. I don't know anything about this sort of thing, but even I thought the blood was too high up on the stairs.

As for the sentence, the jury had no discretion on it. But I'm glad he's in for life.

nanandjim

10-10-2003, 02:09 PM

One (Peterson) down; one to go. This guy was as guilty as sin. I believe his wife wanted a divorce from this free loader, so he killed her. Hell, this guy wouldn't even buy her a headstone for her grave even though he had life insurance worth millions. What a great guy...

Cypros

10-10-2003, 02:30 PM

Peterson's lawyer is being interviewed on Court TV right now. He seems to think that bringing the "missing" blowpoke into the court should have created enough reasonable doubt for the jury. He also thinks that the jury was heavily swayed by the repeated references to Peterson's "alernative" lifestyle during the closing arguments. I am willing to bet that the jury will say this played no part in their decision -- other than maybe to show that Peterson was looking elsewhere for sexual pleasure -- and that the blood and other forensics were key for them.

Casshew

10-10-2003, 02:35 PM

Well at least Peterson will get his anal sex for free now :p

Cass...

Cypros

10-10-2003, 02:41 PM

Yeah, Cass! He may have been hoping for a guilty plea! He won't have to pay for his lovers now. :blowkiss:

MidnightMyst

10-10-2003, 02:42 PM

:laugh:

Originally posted by Casshew
Well at least Peterson will get his anal sex for free now :p

Cass...

Wudge

10-10-2003, 04:08 PM

This was, by far, the most stunningly unskilled decision I have ever witnessed, a new level of jury incompetence was reached with this verdict. Their decision begs for the need for professional jurors.

Casshew

10-10-2003, 04:21 PM

Wudge.. what did you think of the OJ Simpson Jury/verdict?

Cass...

Ntegrity

10-10-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Wudge
This was, by far, the most stunningly unskilled decision I have ever witnessed, a new level of jury incompetence was reached with this verdict. Their decision begs for the need for professional jurors.
Exactly the response I expected from you, Wudge :razz: Your idea of justice seems to be that all murderers go free. Well, thank God these jurors were able to look at the evidence and render justice for a victim who wasn't able to speak for herself. Er ... make that two victims!!

Wudge

10-10-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Ntegrity
Exactly the response I expected from you, Wudge :razz: Your idea of justice seems to be that all murderers go free. Well, thank God these jurors were able to look at the evidence and render justice for a victim who wasn't able to speak for herself. Er ... make that two victims!!

ntegrity...the jurors found premeditation existed without even a clear, much less a compelling, motive, without a murder weapon and without even a clear murder scene. Both of which is true for the death of Mrs. Ratliff as well. This was a stunning display of reasoning from the point of view of guilty versus reasoning the evidence to see if it took them over the reasonable doubt hurdle. It went far beyond gross jury incompetence; this was obscene jury incompetence.

Casshew

10-10-2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Wudge
and without even a clear murder scene.

Wudge.. did you think all that red stuff was paint?

By the way - you didn't answer my question about OJ

Cass...

Toth

10-10-2003, 05:40 PM

Does this mean he won't have a third woman who falls down a flight of stairs?

Wudge

10-10-2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Casshew
Wudge.. did you think all that red stuff was paint?

By the way - you didn't answer my question about OJ

Cass...

Casshew.. She died of bleed out; blood, en masse, means nothing as far as evidence, and reasonable doubt is all about evidence.

I have often spoke of the OJ verdict , and my stance has always been that LAPD framed a guilty man.

Given that: EDTA was found in several of the blood evidence samples, perjury by a detective, the juries make-up and the infamous glove, then the verdict was understandable and expected.

I have never said a courtroom is a place where you will find justice or truth.

Ntegrity

10-10-2003, 06:20 PM

Does this mean he won't have a third woman who falls down a flight of stairs?

Only if the Wudges of the world have their way.

Casshew

10-10-2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Wudge
I have often spoke of the OJ verdict , and my stance has always been that LAPD framed a guilty man.

Interesting wudge, does this mean (to you) that justice was served? or should a guilty man be aquitted because of questionable police practices?

Cass...

Wudge

10-10-2003, 06:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Casshew
Interesting wudge, does this mean (to you) that justice was served? or should a guilty man be aquitted because of questionable police practices?

Cass... [/QUOTE

Casshew ....I repeat, a courtroom was never designed to be a place for truth or justice; it was only designed to have a vedict rendeded via a process that is supposed to reason from the available, and non poisoned, evidence to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Grace

10-10-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
Apparently word around town was that people feared there would not be a guilty verdict because they did not believe the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Cypros,

I have also heard that, one of the local news stations interviewed an alternate juror several days ago to get her opinion of how the jury would rule. She thought he was guilty but did not believe the jury would come to that decision.

I think he is guilty and feel the jury made the right decision based on evidence and common sense. I feel terrible for the family, it's heartbreaking to see their pain.

Jeana (DP)

10-10-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Casshew
Interesting wudge, does this mean (to you) that justice was served? or should a guilty man be aquitted because of questionable police practices?

Cass...

Um, in a word - yes. If there's reasonable doubt - no matter how that reasonable doubt was set in play, the jury has to render a not guilty verdict. Now, do they always do this? No. However, that's an error on their part.

Wudge

10-10-2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Grace
Cypros,

I have also heard that, one of the local news stations interviewed an alternate juror several days ago to get her opinion of how the jury would rule. She thought he was guilty but did not believe the jury would come to that decision.

I think he is guilty and feel the jury made the right decision based on evidence and common sense. I feel terrible for the family, it's heartbreaking to see their pain.

Grace...cite the evidence that proved premeditation?

Cypros

10-10-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Grace
Cypros,

I have also heard that, one of the local news stations interviewed an alternate juror several days ago to get her opinion of how the jury would rule. She thought he was guilty but did not believe the jury would come to that decision.

I heard that too. I am glad that the jury took their time to go over all of the evidence and came to a logical conclusion.

I don't think that showing up with three blow pokes claimed to have been in the house all along provides REASONABLE doubt.

tthoman

10-10-2003, 08:19 PM

FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!! Am so glad justice was done and am so happy for Kathleen and her family.....What a senseless, devious, and brutal way to die....

I wish I could have seen it all today on CTV......

Tragic for those Ratliff girls, but sooner or later, they would have had to face the truth, as MP is a serial murderer....

A victory for their mother, (AND their father, Captain Ratliff, who loved his wife so much......) as MP took FULL advantage of Elizabeth's helpless situation after Captain Ratliff's untimely death.......

I have read that the German authorities have re-opened Elizabeth Ratliff's case.......Let's hope so!

This is a victory for Caitlin, as well. .......And God bless the Prosecutorial Team!

Cypros

10-10-2003, 08:33 PM

Wudge, the prosecution claims that there were two beatings. There is blood splatter on top of blood that had been wiped up. They argue that he beat her, attempted to clean up the blood, then he beat at her again -- perhaps she moaned or made an effort to get up and he made sure that she would never do anything again. Whatever you want to think of the initial beating, that second beating falls under premeditation.

tylin

10-10-2003, 08:34 PM

Best news I' ve heard all day!

Justice is served!

Wudge--just think,you will hear another guilty verdict at the SP trial in a year or so. ;)

Wudge

10-10-2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
Wudge, the prosecution claims that there were two beatings. There is blood splatter on top of blood that had been wiped up. They argue that he beat her, attempted to clean up the blood, then he beat at her again -- perhaps she moaned or made an effort to get up and he made sure that she would never do anything again. Whatever you want to think of the initial beating, that second beating falls under premeditation.

Cypros, they never proved two beatings or even one. Those bozos could not even produce a murder weapon. The whole case and verdict was reasoned from a fantasyland dreamscape.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 08:45 PM

Well, Wudge, they may not have proved it to you, but they proved it to many others, including the very important jury panel.

Wudge

10-10-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
Well, Wudge, they may not have proved it to you, but they proved it to many others, including the very important jury panel.

Cypros, yes, sadly true. This verdict represents the reason why I want to give a defendant the choice of having a jury composed of professional jurors who have proven intellectual and reasoning skills or selecting their jury from a pool of lay people as in this trial.

boody

10-10-2003, 09:02 PM

I heard something from the lead detective today on CTV. He said M. Peterson continued to live in the house & NEVER did clean up all the blood. Now that's creepy.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 09:02 PM

Well, the law states that Michael Peterson should be tried by a jury of his PEERS. There is nothing to indicate that a jury composed of people with "proven intellectual and reasoning skills" could be considered as PEERS to Michael Peterson -- nor to the majority of murderers out there.

tthoman

10-10-2003, 09:21 PM

WUDGE: GIVE UP ON THIS ONE!

Wudge

10-10-2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE: GIVE UP ON THIS ONE!

No thanks, I like my position that this verdict represents obscene incompetence, because it does.

tylin

10-10-2003, 09:41 PM

wudge,
why are you ignoring the evidence that was persented in court?

Do you really believe she died from a bleed? Peterson hit her in the head.The blood splatters on the wall were over 24".
Come on....

Cypros

10-10-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Wudge
I like my position that this verdict represents obscene incompetence, because it does.

Thus Peterson had the perfect jury of his peers! The crime scene suggests the obscene incompetence of a man trying to pass his wife's murder off as an accident.

Wudge, did you really buy into that ridiculous defense story that Kathleen Peterson fatally injured herself -- with multiple lacerations to the back of her head, and her hair pulled out by her own hands, and blood splattered everywhere (including UP her husband's shorts), and his footprints on her back -- as an accidental fall down a few steps? Now THAT is incompetent thinking!

Wudge

10-10-2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
Thus Peterson had the perfect jury of his peers! The crime scene suggests the obscene incompetence of a man trying to pass his wife's murder off as an accident.

Wudge, did you really buy into that ridiculous defense story that Kathleen Peterson fatally injured herself -- with multiple lacerations to the back of her head, and her hair pulled out by her own hands, and blood splattered everywhere (including UP her husband's shorts), and his footprints on her back -- as an accidental fall down a few steps? Now THAT is incompetent thinking!

Cypros... you are begging the question, which in circumstantial evidence cases is the supreme flaw. Obviously. you do not understand the burden of proof that is required in circumstantial evidence cases. And, in my mind, this jury did not have the intellectual capacity necessary to apply those standards, which say that each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstances upon which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to he defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt.

Even worse, the mere fact the jury thought they might be able to use the prosecutor's opening statement as evidence proves the jury, in its entirety, did not even understand what constitutes evidence.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 10:17 PM

I'm not begging the question, Wudge, just playing with you. The jury has spoken -- Michael Peterson was found guilty -- apparently in their minds there was only one reasonable explanation. I certainly didn't see any evidence of any other reasonable explanation for what happened to Kathleen Peterson. Did you?

tthoman

10-10-2003, 10:28 PM

WUDGE:

You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em..........you are TOO SMART to stubbornly hang on like this when we all know he did it!!

Wudge

10-10-2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
I'm not begging the question, Wudge, just playing with you. The jury has spoken -- Michael Peterson was found guilty -- apparently in their minds there was only one reasonable explanation. I certainly didn't see any evidence of any other reasonable explanation for what happened to Kathleen Peterson. Did you?

The choices were murder or accident; it is that simple. And to convict him, the jury had to reason that it could not have been an accident. For if it could have been an accident, then reasonable doubt obviously applys. It is that basic.

Wudge

10-10-2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE:

You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em..........you are TOO SMART to stubbornly hang on like this when we all know he did it!!

That is what I heard for years about Sam Sheppard.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Wudge
... to convict him, the jury had to reason that it could not have been an accident. For if it could have been an accident, then reasonable doubt obviously applys.

So, what's your point? The jury concluded that the injuries sustained by the victim and the other circumstances surrounding her death indicate that it could not have been an accident. Seems logical -- and simple -- to me.

tthoman

10-10-2003, 10:51 PM

DEAR SMART AND VERY WISE WUDGE:

MP IS NOT SAM!!!!!!!!!! MP DID THE DEEDS! I know it is hard to accept....but it is the truth.....

Wudge

10-10-2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
So, what's your point? The jury concluded that the injuries sustained by the victim and the other circumstances surrounding her death indicate that it could not have been an accident. Seems logical -- and simple -- to me.

Cypros... It is insane to think that Kathleen Peterson who had been suffering severe headaches and who had fallen before and who had recently lost her vision and who had taken valium and alcohol that very night could not have fallen, gotten up and refallen. And if you want to say otherwise, you better have something more than rank speculation.

Cypros

10-10-2003, 10:54 PM

Is that a threat?

Wudge

10-10-2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by tthoman
DEAR SMART AND VERY WISE WUDGE:

MP IS NOT SAM!!!!!!!!!! MP DID THE DEEDS! I know it is hard to accept....but it is the truth.....

TThoman... I never pretend I can divine whether someone did "it" or not, I only assess the evidence to see if the Not Guilty presumption holds when measured against the reasonable doubt standard.

Wudge

10-10-2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Cypros
Is that a threat?

Cypros...you need some time off..lol

River

10-10-2003, 11:06 PM

Wudge! Seriously, do you think that the 12 people on the Jury are less qualified than you? They sat there during the ENTIRE trial and listened to every bit of evidence. They watched Peterson, etal. Do you ever think that anyone is guilty? Just curious. :waitasec:

I'm just glad he's convicted. I really thought he'd get off.

Wudge

10-10-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by River
Wudge! Seriously, do you think that the 12 people on the Jury are less qualified that you? They sat there during the ENTIRE trial and listened to every bit of evidence. They watched Peterson, etal.

I'm just glad he's convicted. I really thought he'd get off.

River... I absolutely do. I watched this trial daily. And I lived in Raleigh previously , and I know the area well and, sadly, this jury lacked basic reasoning skills and suffered an intellectual capacity overload.

Wudge

10-10-2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by River
Wudge! Seriously, do you think that the 12 people on the Jury are less qualified than you? They sat there during the ENTIRE trial and listened to every bit of evidence. They watched Peterson, etal. Do you ever think that anyone is guilty? Just curious. :waitasec:

I'm just glad he's convicted. I really thought he'd get off.

River, I split this reply because I thought it best I do so. When you say you thought he would get off, but you are glad he is convicted, it not only sounds poor, but, to me, that means you had conflict, which, in turn, means reasonable doubt.

As for "Guilty" people, of course. However, this trial was a true travesty regarding our American jurisprudence concept of reasonable doubt.

Now, if you will go back in this forum, you will find how I have called other trials, and you will also see how I measure Kobe's case.

tthoman

10-10-2003, 11:47 PM

WUDGE: I know you are a very intelligent and a very thoughtful person......but I am too.

Are you allowing any hostilities for North Carolinians to cloud your objectivity?

Wudge

10-11-2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by tthoman
WUDGE: I know you are a very intelligent and a very thoughtful person......but I am too.

Are you allowing any hostilities for North Carolinians to cloud your objectivity?

TThoman...I know you are intelligent.

Nonetheless, this was a savagely offensive verdict to people who truly place the reasonable doubt standard on high ground.

As for your question, nope, not at all, there are some wonderful people there. However, there are a good number of people you would never ever want to see in the jury box, and, in some locales, there are a ton of such people. And, again, in some locales, there are a lot of people who have severe class and race bias -- along with some very old scores they would like to settle.

It's just the way it is.

If it were me, I would never want to be on trial in Durham,NC, it is very different than Raleigh or Wake Forest in its make-up. And, no matter where I might be, I would always choose a professional jury if I had that option, always. .