peterson penalty verdict will be announced at 4:30

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:49 pm

court tv and Fox will carry penalty verdict. the gag order is lifted and there will be an interesting press conference afterwards.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:45 pm

Has reached a verdict in the penalty phase... the verdict will be read at

1:30 p.m. Pacific Time...

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:55 pm

hi Valerie...i posted a similar thread, maybe they could be merged... if the jury comes back with death, the judge can over-ride and sentence to life. and i wonder if he will be sentenced immediately. i think so, since there are only two options.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:56 pm

valerie wrote: Has reached a verdict in the penalty phase... the verdict will be read at

1:30 p.m. Pacific Time...

Okay! Let's start a quick poll.

What do you think the veridct will be?

Life in prison or Death penalty?

My predictions: I have no idea. :p :p :p

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:04 pm

lady cop wrote: hi Valerie...i posted a similar thread, maybe they could be merged... if the jury comes back with death, the judge can over-ride and sentence to life. and i wonder if he will be sentenced immediately. i think so, since there are only two options.

My apologies, LC, I shoulda looked before I leaped!

And I think they voted for "Life".

I don't know if the judge would go against the jury... he would hafta have

quite a lot of personal fortitude, I think. But maybe he does!!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:08 pm

not a problem Valerie!

if it's death he will be taken asap to san Q. and immediately placed on death row. if it's life he will spend 90 days at a facility where a determination will be made as to best prison to meet his needs. he will have to be in protective custody for a long time.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:52 pm

jury has said DEATH. sentencing Feb. 25. he can reduce sentence to life. Laci's mom crying, scott stone-faced, juror 9 sobbing, scott's family looked "broken".

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:55 pm

Well I don't know if any of the rest of you were able to watch but a local

channel for us broadcast press conference of the jurors in its' entirety.

I was very, very impressed with the 3 jurors who spoke. Man what a

difficult job... one that they all took seriously.

And as I was watching Court TV before the verdict came in, I changed my

mind on what it would be when I heard what the jurors had asked to see

that morning... photos. Very sad.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:56 pm

Well, it's over finally..!!

I didn't think they would give him death, since they were taking so long to come to a verdict..!! They did what they had to do. We know there will be appeals.

Now the families can move on. I know SP's parents must be in shock. I do feel for them. Unfortunately their son killed LACI & CONNER.. Now he must pay with his life, how ever long that will take.

Has the GAG order been lifted ??? Will we start hearing from the Juror's?? It will be interesting to here what they have to say..!!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:52 pm

hi Carla...the jurors were interviewed, i am sure you will catch excerpts on your local news. and the gag order is lifted. hey...happy holidays sweetie, i love you! :-4

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:53 am

CARLA wrote: their son killed LACI & CONNER..

Was that really the verdict? What was the charge? If this is so, it is really a very interesting one.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:54 pm

BILL SIKES,

Scott Peterson was found guilty of First degree murder on all charges for the death of his Wife Laci, and unborn son Conner on Christmas Eve 2002. The penalty phase of the case was just decided. SP received the DEATH PENALTY..!! I for one, think he got what he deserves..!! In my eyes he is one evil man...no soul, or remorse..!! Very strange person..!!

Was that really the verdict? What was the charge? If this is so, it is really a very interesting one.

Laci, Conner bill is law

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/ ... 5282c.html

President Bush kisses Sharon Rocha, mother of Laci Peterson, after Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Sharon Rocha watches as President Bush signs the Unborn Victims of Violence Act during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Thursday. Standing behind Rocha is her husband, Ron Grantski. The legislation makes it a federal crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

By MICHAEL DOYLE

BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU

Last Updated: April 2, 2004, 07:17:00 AM PST

WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed Laci and Conner's law on Thursday, giving Laci Peterson's loved ones some statutory satisfaction.

Her mother, Sharon Rocha, and stepfather, Ron Grantski, looked on as Bush took the last step on legislation that recognizes fetuses as separate victims during violent federal crimes against pregnant women.

A top priority of the abortion opposition lobby, the new law goes further than comparable laws in states such as California.

"Anytime an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection and each deserving justice," Bush said in an East Room ceremony at the White House. "If the crime is murder, and the unborn child's life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law."

The House and Senate passed by relatively easy margins what is officially called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Congressional approval, though, came only after the bill stalled on Capitol Hill for several years.

Advocates credit the Peterson case with helping ignite momentum.

"It's great," Rocha said of the bill.

"It's been a long time coming," Grantski added.

He reported his stepdaughter missing on Christmas Eve 2002, soon after her husband, Scott, said he returned to an empty house in Modesto after a day of fishing on San Francisco Bay.

The bodies of mother and unborn son washed ashore in the bay in mid-April. Police arrested Peterson a few days later.

Under California law, he is being prosecuted on two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for their unborn son.

Now, with Laci and Conner's law, the federal government has a similar fetal homicide statute for deaths associated with other federal crimes, such as those committed on federal property.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:48 am

Carla, Lovemama, as a couple of Californians tell me how will Arnie being governor affect the DP.

When a DP falls into disuse in a state who actually resurrects it ? is it the governor, as I understand it the Gov has to sign the Death Warrant, will Arnie do it and why does California still have it on the statute if they never use it ?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:09 am

AmericanGirl wrote: What was the charge.???..what have you been under a rock??????

Hi, AmericanGirl, I'm not from the 'States - I don't know what the charge was. What was it, exactly?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:12 am

Hi Bill...read Carla's post above....2 counts murder. Laci was murdered on Christmas Eve while 8 months pregnant.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:15 am

CARLA wrote: BILL SIKES, Scott Peterson was found guilty of First degree murder on all charges for the death of his Wife Laci, and unborn son Conner on Christmas Eve 2002.

OK, it doesn't really matter what the charge was if that is the result! It does give rise to a number of points which I guess deserve clarification in law. I wonder how long it will take.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:24 am

Bill, I'm not sure what you mean. The charge was first-degree murder for the wife, and second-degree murder for the unborn baby. He was found guilty on both counts.

The jury also confirmed the special circumstances that makes the death penalty possible in CA - premeditated murder with multiple victims.

Not sure if that helps.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:23 am

A Karenina wrote: Bill, I'm not sure what you mean. The charge was first-degree murder for the wife, and second-degree murder for the unborn baby. He was found guilty on both counts.

That's it - murder of the unborn baby. I bet this is being discussed all over the place. It is murder because he killed the mother as well - had he only killed the unborn child, it would presumably not have been murder.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:08 am

Bill Sikes wrote: That's it - murder of the unborn baby. I bet this is being discussed all over the place. It is murder because he killed the mother as well - had he only killed the unborn child, it would presumably not have been murder.
I see what you're getting at. Bush recently signed a law into effect. Here's a link that provides a quick overview of both "sides" - http://www.sba-list.org/news_uvva.htm

I haven't had time to go and read the actual law myself, so I withhold opinion until I do.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:01 am

A Karenina wrote: I see what you're getting at. Bush recently signed a law into effect. Here's a link that provides a quick overview of both "sides" - http://www.sba-list.org/news_uvva.htm

I haven't had time to go and read the actual law myself, so I withhold opinion until I do.

I've had a brief look, no pun intended. A google for "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" a huge outpouring of - well, hysteria, I suppose - by people afraid that it will impinge on "a woman's right to choose". It is written into the law that it is not so - but it does not stop the whining! This law seems to me to have no relevance to abortion, at all. Anyway, all that aside, I note that there is no distinction of foetal age - this law applies at any stage of development. What happens when a woman is killed who *may* have contained (clumsy wording) a zygote? What happens when a woman miscarries after an attack and it is found that for some reason a miscarriage was inevitable? These look like a difficult questions, to me.

See http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s146.html

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:34 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: I've had a brief look, no pun intended. A google for "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" a huge outpouring of - well, hysteria, I suppose - by people afraid that it will impinge on "a woman's right to choose". It is written into the law that it is not so - but it does not stop the whining! Bill, thank you for posting the link to the law. I appreciate it

The hysteria about abortion was turning me off as well, and I'm pro-choice. I'll post a related thread shortly on how fanatical certain segments of the women's movement is becoming.

Bill Sikes wrote: This law seems to me to have no relevance to abortion, at all.The law specifically states that women obtaining abortions with their consent, or from medical necessity (and implied consent) will not be prosecuted. The part I didn't like is:

c) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Hmmmm, what's that all about? Is it designed to protect alcoholics who drink all through their pregnancy, or heavy drug addicts? Bloody hell, go ahead and prosecute them. It's endangerment, isn't it?

If you choose to go ahead with a pregnancy, then it seems to me you have a responsibility towards protecting and nurturing that child from the moment you know of its existence. It's not as if we are unaware of the effects of these things.

Bill Sikes wrote: Anyway, all that aside, I note that there is no distinction of foetal age - this law applies at any stage of development. What happens when a woman is killed who *may* have contained (clumsy wording) a zygote? What happens when a woman miscarries after an attack and it is found that for some reason a miscarriage was inevitable? These look like a difficult questions, to me.The law states that the attacker who causes harm to an unborn child does not need to know of the unborn child's existence. It never specifies if the mother needs to know. But whether she had knowledge of the baby or not at the time of the attack, she will know about it eventually (from medical treatment, I presume). So I *think* this is addressed in the law. Regardless of anyone's knowledge of the baby, if the baby is harmed or dies, it's an offense.

It does get sticky if she was attacked on her way to see an abortion doctor, for instance. If I were on that jury, the law would still stand...though it does seem rather unfair, doesn't it? I'll need to think on it more. I'm sure future cases will shed new light and new arguments on this. Though this has the potential to become as ugly as rape cases. "Well, she had sex before so naturally she is a slut and it's impossible to rape a slut." `(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided for that conduct under Federal law had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

To my mind, this means that IF a miscarriage takes place as a result of the attack, then there are two counts of the offense. If it is later found that the woman would've miscarried anyway, the implication is that it would be reduced to one count.

But that's a "what if" scenario. How could a lawyer ever prove whether or not a miscarriage would have occurred regardless of an attack? Our medical knowledge is not to the point where we can say with absolute certainty that a child would have died anyway. They may be right the majority of the time, but is that enough to let the death go unpunished? And the opposite is true as well. If the child might have died anyway, is it ok to prosecute the attacker without absolute proof of it? Mmmmm, I'm kinda leaning towards yes, because frankly the guy attacked a woman bad enough to cause serious harm to her...How picky should we be about this part?

Tough one, I agree. Very interesting thoughts. Thanks!

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:50 pm

BOTHWELL,

Excellent question, to which I don't have a good answer. We the citizens of California ask ourselves the same question. I for one hope Arnold will have the power to cut through the crap, and get this DP issue resolved..!!

Carla, Lovemama, as a couple of Californians tell me how will Arnie being governor affect the DP.

When a DP falls into disuse in a state who actually resurrects it ? is it the governor, as I understand it the Gov has to sign the Death Warrant, will Arnie do it and why does California still have it on the statute if they never use it ?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:54 am

A Karenina wrote: Bill, thank you for posting the link to the (unborn victims of violence) law.

A quick look at the BBC just now reveals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4111875.stm

Woman charged over 'womb theft'

A US woman (Lisa Montgomery) has appeared in court accused of strangling to death a heavily pregnant 23-year-old and cutting the baby from her womb.

This is quite horrible.