I agree. I thought he would walk. To me, circumstatial evidence doesn't fit the test of beyond a resonable doubt. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence that someone else did it, too. I don't know if he did it or not, but to me this is a failure of our justice system.

 

I wish he would confess what happened that day.

It would make the victim's family more at rest.

I would hate to not know how my daughter died... Was it in pain? Torture? Last words?

I saw the E! True Hollywood Story on him... He never shed a tear.

He also tried escaping which ultimately led everyone to believe that he was guilty.

I think we should give him the death penalty... And for the last meal give him a lunchable cracker.

 

I'm curious as to how they can charge him for the murder of an unborn child, yet still allow abortions...

I know that the time frame is different (eight month old fetus versus less than three months for an aborted baby) but have they now decided what time frame does/does not constitute a fetus becoming a "child" or "person", that is, someone with legal rights?

Seems to me that they're setting a double standard. It's all bull, but still, some continuity would be nice.

 

Your facts are messed up. They convicted him because apparently Connor had already been born prior to the murder per the scientific evidence.

 

Sorry, Raj, but you're wrong. He was convicted of 2nd degree murder in the death of his *unborn* child. Take another look at the media reports.

I too think this is strange, but I've already had that conversation in the politics forum, so I won't discuss it here.

 

CNN.com can't get thier story straight.

"The defense attorney said that debris found on the fetus was not kelp, as the prosecution had said, but electrical tape. "It's a man-made material and the baby's ear is folded over," Geragos said.

He added that the fetus' umbilical cord had been cut. "This baby was born alive -- take a look at the umbilical cord."

Baby born alive.

 

Geragos wanted to prove the baby was born alive, because that would be good for the defense. According to the coroner, however, the baby was still in the womb when Laci was dumped in the water.

Autopsy

Regardless, the jury thought the baby was unborn, and that's what really matters in this discussion, that they were able to convict him of a double murder.

 

I've been lead to believe that, although the defense contended that the baby WAS born before it died, the prosecution successfully maintained that the baby was unborn. Thus, my question.

Any comments from anyone?

 

VoIPA, you are probably right. WHat I don't see is why JonBoy feels he needs to get on his soapbox and start talking about abortion.

 

well, does it really matter whether the child was born or not? Abortion is a medical procedure, murder is unlawfully taking a life. Not the same thing at all. A pregnant woman is murdered, and the prosecution chooses to argue that the life of her unborn child was ended as well. In this case, there is clearly a life taken against the will of all parties. When a woman has an abortion, you could call it induced miscarriage. There are numerous reasons to have an abortion, from concern for the health of the mother to concern for the health of the fetus. There are no acceptable reasons for killing a pregnant woman. Suggesting a doctor giving a woman an abortion is the same as Scott Peterson killing his wife is ignoring, at the very least, context and intent.