I'm glad he was found guilty.

Penalty phase starts Nov. 22. I hope he fries. (Although I think that if he gets the death penalty, it will be by lethal injection?)

California executes by lethal injection, using the old gas chamber at San Quentin as the death house.

It was a scary verdict, but I am not surprised by it.

Its a scary verdict because they basically put his "character" on trial not the evidence. IF he did it, he managed to leave less forensic evidence than a proffessional killer.

With OJ I told people it was a scary verdict because if OJ was innocent it took him millions to get of, a defense fund that you and I would not be able to raise.

With PEterson its scary because it says that in the absence of an obvious supsect the police will go after the husband like that and fry him based on him not being a "nice" person.

A major motivator in that court room was the fact he was having an affair, but if every man thqat cheated killed his significant other, there would be a serious drop in the female population.

i'm so glad that they found him guilty.

i'm not sure how i feel about him being charged with connor's death. i go back and forth on that since as far as i know they never really proved that he was alive on his own when he died. if he wasn't, that's a scary precedent to set. i have to read more on the case and then i'll come back and post more.

Actually it wasn't the fact that he cheated that convicted him. I watched CourtTV yesterday and two lawyers were talking about the verdict and both agreed to the fact that what probably convicted him was the timeline. According to Scott he was 80 miles away (in the exact spot where the bodies washed up) on Christmas Eve when Laci disappeared. Scott claimed that he watched Martha Stewart the night before and she said a particular thing, well the prosecution found out that the show he was talking about watching actually aired Christmas Eve at like 9am. Then there was something about a phone call he received at 10:08 and Laci "reportedly" went missing at 10:18. They (the lawyers) were saying that it is unlikely that Laci, who was what 7 months pregnant at the time, could 1) mop the floor, 2) get dressed (shoes and all) and 3) get the dog and put him on the leash in 10 minutes. Which I have to tend to agree with. It can take you 10 minutes to mop a floor (depending on how large it is). Plus pregnant, that far along, don't move very quickly. Plus, if their dog is anything like mine, she gets super excited when she sees me grab the leash it can take me up to five minutes just to get the leash on her because she is running around and barking and all excited that she gets to go outside on a walk.

They also said what also didn't help him was the fact that there were (I believe) recorded conversations that he had with Amber saying that he was 1) widowed 2) going to be spending his first Christmas without his wife 3) did not want any biological children of his own but being a step father to Ambers son was "okay".

I personally believe and have always believed that he is guilty as sin. He is a pathological liar and his alibi was crap.

As for the evidence being circumstancial and convicting him, I'm sure if we did research we would find cases where the person was convicted with far less circumstancial evidence. Also, there was FIVE months worth of evidence and not all of it was released to the public. Some of the evidence the prosecution and police had we will probably never know.

eh...why doesnt he just hang himself and save Californians the tax dollars?

Perhaps the start of the slippery slope? :confused: It does seem credible to believe that pro-life advocates maybe wanted this in order to push other pro-life initiatives...

Question: Are there any pro-choicers out there who agree that he should have been convicted of Conner's death? Please explain this to me. Do you think Conner was a human life? If Conner was a human life, then how come all the other babies out there that are aborted are not considered a human life? Any thoughts?

Well I've heard some people claim that it's different because she obviously wanted the child. It wasn't a willful termination.

i love BDD!!

I'm sure that there are people who feel this way, but not one-tenth as many as some people would say. I'm not going to be the one who turns this thread into a pro-abortion/anti-abortion debate.

I'm not trying to turn this into an abortion debate, either, there are plenty of those. All I'm asking is "Are there any pro-choicers who think that he should have been convicted of Conner's death?" and why.

I am pro-choice and I see it this way:

In California, if you miscarry after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a fetal death certificate is required. In this circumstance, you must name the baby and make arrangements for "disposal of the remains" via cremation or burial. Given those requirements, I can see the legality of charging someone who kills a woman who is pregnant beyond 20 weeks with murder of the fetus as well.

Dee

I see. I wasn't aware of that California law. Another question, do you see the unborn child as a life? I'm just having trouble grasping the concept of "it's a human life in this situation, but it's not a human life in this situation." I'm seriously not trying to start a big abortion argument thread, I'm just interested in the topic.

Thank you for that information. I'm sure it differs from state to state, but I'm afraid that I don't even know what the law is for PA or VA. I do know that, in PA, if the killer knows that the woman is pregnant (either visually or by personal knowledge), s/he can be charged with fetal homicide.

I looked up the law for California and knew from people I've known who had still births that there is a defined point where parents have to name the baby and have a funeral, etc. When arguing something like that in court, basing the decision on that law makes sense to me. It seems to be when the law defines the fetus as a human life.

I am personally of the belief that if the fetus isn't viable outside the womb, it's not yet human life. Lacey was 34 weeks pregnant, which is almost always viable outside the womb. BUT, keep in mind that pro-choice doesn't mean that you agree with abortion in any and all circumstances up until the birth either. Some pro-choice people believe that third trimester abortions are wrong except in medical emergencies. Some believe that second trimester abortions are wrong, except in medical emergencies. Some believe that all abortions are wrong, but that they shouldn't force their belief systems on someone else. Some simply recognize that abortions happen whether they are legal or not and that keeping it legal keeps it safer for the mother than back alley abortions. A pro-choice person can believe that it would never the right solution for them, but that they shouldn't make that choice for everybody else.

I'm not sure there is any way to avoid this being an abortion thread...

Dee