Well, this is what you would expect, but I think there is still some room for a “within the range of normal” person to behave differently. Let’s assume that he is innocent for a moment, in which case, presumably, the fact that he was having an affair did not necessarily mean that he would prefer for his wife to be dead. Here is this person who he has shared his home with, who is carrying his baby, and she disappears, then turns up brutally murdered. This is so “outside the range” of what most people expect in their lives that it would be pretty damn shocking. Next, he finds himself accused and on trial for the murder. For weeks on end, his affair is all over the news and everyone is talking about him as if they knew that he killed his wife.
The situation is pretty unimaginable for me, and if I were in it, I think I would have a hard time thinking of it as “real”. Knowing that you’ve been exposed as someone who will lie, and knowing the negative picture that most of the public has of you, what would you say on the witness stand, other than, “This can’t be happening. I can’t believe this is happening.” Your alibi has already been publicized. That doesn’t really leave too much for you to say on the stand beyond “I didn’t do it. Honest.” Plus, when you testify, you’ll have to answer very pointed questions about your love life.
I can see where you might feel that opening your mouth might do more harm than good.
On the other hand, it’s possible that you’re right and he is guilty and doesn’t want to trip himself up by lying on the stand. Either way, I don’t think we can quite say he is out of the “range of normal” just based on what we know.
Thousands of everyday Germans were in support of Hitler’s Final Solution. A cursory review of history will tell you that not every person associated with the Holocaust was a raving, cloven-hooved, sociopath. There have been a number of books written on the subject, actually.
No. But like I said earlier, I can’t conceive of eating putrefied bull dicks, either. However, plenty of “normal” people do, given right the cost. My point is, just because you and people like you can’t imagine committing brutal murder doesn’t make Scott a sociopath.
To answer your question…about OJ being a sociopath…my answer is yes.
Face. those involved in the Holocaust didn’t have cloven hooves and certainly were not raving maniacs…No, I’d say that they were on the surface pleasant, grumpy, likeable just like OJ and Scott Peterson. Bundy appeared to be a nice guy.
I maintain that a normal, healthy brained person would weigh all the “misfortune” he must endure, realize the consequences of performing 2 murderous acts and divorce her, pay the child support and continue to breathe fresh air
From what I understand about the lack of real evidence at the trial, were I on that jury I would not have convicted him. Maybe I have an unrealistic view of the powers of investigation from watching Forensic Files all the time, but from this chair the state didn’t meet its burden. I do think he did it, though. I can see conviction without a body if there is forensic evidence, a scene where a murder likely occurred, etc, but a murder conviction that has a body but no forensic evidence? I don’t know. The prosecution’s absurdly long case was like a dog and pony show. I’m really disappointed with the whole affair.
Generally, though, I think many people would kill if the situation were right. In fact, I’d probably consider them not normal if they never had such a thought cross their mind. I’ve known people who contemplated suicide rather than face a divorce, sometimes you just feel trapped in your own designs and the mind thinks strange things. I look at it more as a crime of opportunity than a strictly premeditated murder, though in this case, given his proximity and access to the victim, some premeditation would easily go along with it. I doubt it was planned in a Lex Luthor sense, but rather his relationship with the victim afforded him more leeway in planning.
Overall, a scummy guy, but I doubt he has any kind of disorder.
So you think there is an organic reason behind his crime? Is there any reason why you think this might be other than because he did something unconceivable to you? If that is all it takes to make someone a sociopath then that would probably make most burglars, vandals, arsonists, shoplifters, and rapists sociopaths as well. And yet I haven’t heard of any study showing that most of these criminals have brain chemistries signficantly different from the law-abiding.
You’re basically saying that on the surface Scott, Bundy, and those involved with the Holocaust might have looked normal, but they had an underlying disorder that enabled them to do what “normal” people consider to be unthinkable. I disagree that it has to be like that. To me, it looks like your reasoning is an attempt to reconcile the actions of a seemingly “normal” person with a heinous murder(s). It may be a hard reality to face, but regular average Joe’s can do majorly fucked up things, too.
The problem with that approach is where do you draw the line? Most “normal” people can’t imagine participating in the Abu Gharib prison scandal, but are we to conclude that those who did participate all have personality disorders? What are the odds of that many sociopaths working together like that?
> Folks, it seems like at least once a week there’s a story on the news about a
> man killing his wife, whether it’s a murder-suicide, a man hunting his wife down
> at choir practice where she was the organist, then leading the police on a
> chase, or a respected school principle being killed by her husband because she
> wanted a divorce.
The single most common sort of murder is a husband/boyfriend killing his wife/girlfriend/ex-wife/ex-girlfriend. Most murders are acquaintanceship murders: husbands/boyfriends killing (ex-)wives/girlfriends, wives/girlfriends killing (ex-)husbands/boyfriends, parents killing children, children killing parents, friends killing friends, etc. If I recall correctly, 65% of murders are acquaintanceship murders, 30% are murders committed in the act of another crime, and 5% are everything else. I’m not qualified to make a judgment on guilt in the Peterson killing, but if it happened as described by the prosecution, there’s nothing new or interesting about the case. This is the ways murders have always been.
They followed up numerous leads, in addition to interviewing hundreds of sex offenders. They also interviewed and gave lie detector tests to a pair of robbery suspects operating out of that neighborhood. So I have to ask, got other suspects?
The juror that took copiuos notes, asked to be removed. Rather than deal with the rest, can you be more detailed? Having been bombarded with coverage all day long for months, perhaps I could clear a few things up.
I think you’re confusing sociopaths with serial killer.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People commit criminal acts all the time without getting caught.
He didn’t just lie to his wife, he lied to: His mother, his father, his friends, the police, Barabara Walters, various news reporters… All documented on various subjects.
Got me there.
Depends on how you define irresponsibilty if you ask me. There’s been plenty of anecdotal evidence that his parents have bailed him out of financial difficulties.
Let’s see a newly married Scott Peterson is caught having an affair. Then is having yet another affair while said wife is missing. Sounds like indifference to feelings to me. Oh here’s another. Your wife is missing do you a) Help lead the search efforts or b)throw your fliers in a dumpster and proceed to have a conversation with your girlfriend. Just to save you time Scott Peterson chose b.
Ok help me out here. You’re setting out to frame Scott for murdering Lacy. Why on earth do you weigh down the bodies? It would have been a slam dunk if said conspiritors had simply dumped her in the Bay, Lacy washes up in a week, Scotts in Jail by Easter. Yet said conspirators did exactly what someone not wanting to be caught (say a significant other) would have done. Part two ot this supposition; someone is pissed enough with me that they’re framing me for murder. Now me, I tend to notice when I’ve upset people enough to flip me off in traffic, I’m certainly going to remember that I pissed off someone enough to murder my family. I also think I’d certainly be able to point the police at them.
Geragos has paraded the following people in front of the jury:
-two of Scott’s HS buddies
-his parents
-two friends of his from college(one from his golf team)
What is all this supposed to do? They are all saying that Scott was a “really nice guy”. Is this supposed to make the jury feel guilty?
Personally, geragos should have used the insanity defense…portraying Scott as a normal guy who just went stark, raving mad for a few days, would make more sense!