On the Pelosi case, which has been tabloid fodder in NY for some time (all the principles were gorgeous and outspoken):
"Capping an eight-week trial that made headlines with tales of adultery and family betrayal, a Long Island man was convicted Monday in the savage beating death of his lover’s estranged husband as he slept in his $10 million East Hampton mansion. The jury of nine women and three men deliberated about 23 hours over three days before finding Daniel Pelosi guilty of murdering investment banker Theodore Ammon. The defense had argued that Ammon’s estranged wife, Generosa, was a more likely suspect. Pelosi and Generosa Ammon were having an affair at the time of Ammon’s slaying.
The 52-year-old victim was struck more than 30 times in the head with a blunt object and suffered numerous broken ribs. The predominantly circumstantial case against Pelosi included the testimony of three people who claimed he confessed the slaying to them – including a girlfriend who slept with the blue-collar Lothario at the same time he was involved with Generosa Ammon. A fourth witness, a former co-worker, testified that Pelosi had told him a year earlier about his plans to get Ammon’s money by romancing his wife and then killing him. “I’ll bash his brains in while he’s sleeping,” Pelosi allegedly said. Generosa Ammon died of cancer last year."
Oh dear god, multiple mistakes. Might as well correct a few.
Who said the jury convicted him based on his demeanor? Obviously the prosecution had to have some sort of case beyond, “Look at Scott, he’s not sad, give him the death penalty”.
One day I’m really going to start paying attention to details.
OTOH, the long string of appeals is supposed to help prevent the innocent from being executed, as I’m sure you appreciate.
AND, it’s kind of poetic justice, in a way. Peterson wanted to live a live unencumbered with a wife and child, and to have sex with new and different people. Being the young, sweet-cheeked thing that he is, what do you think his chances of fulfilling that dream in prison are, which is where he’ll be for the next 15 - 20 years, with some other murderers?
Television took particular interest in this case for two main reasons, one, it is a lot more interesting than a woman murdering her husband and whether or no he should be charged for the murder of that child which would affect abortion laws.
Yeah I know, and I’m really not picking on you. It’s just that, working from home, I spend all day watching the various talking head programs (including Courtv thanks to Mrs. Stuffy), so if I missed any details of his hearings I’d be very surprised. Funny thing is if this had been some kind of family law thing, I’d be the one sulking and yelling “Fix” as California Family Court is totally fucking biased.
As far as I’m concerned, the prosecutions case was shyte. Most of it was circumstantial. The only thing that they really proved was that he lied and that he was an asshole. I’m not saying that I think he’s innocent. I think he did it simply due to a lack of other options. I just don’t think the prosecution did a good job on it.
But if the jury thought he was guilty, then a death penalty was the next logical step.
Has the media hit the point where they start reporting on the media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial? That’s always my favorite part of the process. :rolleyes:
No, we’ve scheduled that for sometime in March, after the official verdict comes down on Feb. 25th, during a lull in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial :rolleyes:
To justify my initial point, look at the difference in coverage between Pelosi and Peterson. There’s tragedy, pathos, and good looking people in both cases. One involves a millionaire, and the accused marrying the widow of the deceased! But only one happened during that critical “nothing going on” period during the Christmas holidays.
I have yet to hear one person in conversation around the water cooler or anywhere else make the slightest reference to the Scott Peterson trial. Yet the damned thing is on 24x7 on both Fox and CNN (Some blogger or other opined that Gretta Van Sustren will have to retire now that it is over).
Presumably, the networks think that the coverage will get good ratings, but who the hell is actually watching?
Feh, Scott Peterson will die of old age before they execute him anyway.
I’ll bet the Crazed Killer-Stalking Gals are lined up to marry him already! The Menendii have each been married and divorced, what, three times each by now?
The word “circumstantial” is often misused by people to mean “not good evidence” which is not true. Circumstantial evidence is anything besides eyewitness testimony, including things like plaster casts of tire tracks, hair and fiber evidence, etc. Circumstantial evidence is actually the strongest kind, much more reliable than eyewitness testimony.
Using shite to describe this case may be accurate, but a blanket denigration of circumstantial evidence is not.
I’ve always been intrigued by the term “homewrecker.” First of all, it always seems to imply that the third party is somehow more to blame for the situation than the married person who is stepping out, which i’ve never understood. In this case, it was Scott Peterson who was the homewrecker, IMO, both in the general sense and, as it turns out, in a literal sense.
Also, it’s interesting that i’ve never heard the term “homewrecker” applied to a man who sleeps with a married woman. The term seems to be reserved exclusively for women. Wonder why that is?
Just as a side note, Cats has changed his opinion and thinks one appeal and no motions should be allowed. Then you can be taken outside and exterminated.
