Another mini rant sparked by what else...the Peterson case !!

I don't want to make this too long...so I won't post the entire article...just snippets.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1037c.html (the article I am referring to)


"In interviews held after announcing that convicted double murderer Scott Peterson should receive the death penalty for the deaths of his wife and unborn child, jurors said they wished the California man would have shown some remorse over their brutal deaths."

"The lack of emotion then, and throughout the trial, was a turnoff, jurors said"
"No emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words," Nice said. "Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Conner's daddy -- the one person that should have protected them."


There are two issues here...why didn't he testify and why didn't he show any emotion?

It is an interesting question...Why don't people testify during their trial? It was always been my understanding that their attorney's always advise against it. It is also advised that they don't show a reaction to any of the testimony....like no head shaking or expressions on the face...etc...

As for the "emotionless"/"reactionless" state the accused assumes...it is most definately not uniqe to the Peterson case. I have read time and time again...that "the accused showed no emotion or no remorse".

Something to think about...my sweetie and I were exchanging surveys...you know where you ask a bunch of silly questions. Well one of them was "what is your most embarassing moment"...his answer was MY TRIAL!!!! I think that speaks volumes. I mean imagine sitting in a court room...think about who's in the courtroom? Your loved ones, the victim's family, the media, lynch mobs, your looming fate. Then think about what's being said about you? Every detail of your life is being exposed. EVERY DETAIL. Then having to remember over and over again the crime which most likely you wish would just go away? Or listening to things that just aren't true!!! I am sure on the inside the emotions are high.

Then think about the possible reactions a person can have...

crying ? wouldn't that make the jury think you were guilty
laughing? certainly there will be some absurd things said...that would make you seem slightly insane
smiling? maybe they'd think you were enjoying the process a bit too much
anger? it would make you seem aggressive and out of control
etc...

I think the only choice is really a "catatonic" type state...where there are no emotions and no one can misread your expressions. But then again that isn't true because then they think you have no remorse.

My question is...How do we want the accused to appear? how should they carry themselves? What emotions are appropriate?

Ice these are excellent points. I couldnt even imagine what would go through there minds, guilty or innocent. Yes, during trial, they bring out the WORST in you, even like, oh yeah, you were 15 and drunk and we picked you up (just an example) their whole juvenille history comes out, everything... the good and bad. I have talked about this alot with my man in Texas, he wasnt allowed to testify, neither was a friend of mine in NC. As I said in another post, when polling the jury, they stated one of the reasons they found guilt by death, was because they showed no remorse. And yes, if they laughed, they would be oh, they are not remorseful, if they cried, it would be, well, they dont want to be put to death, they are "putting" on a show for the jury, if they smile, as you said, they are sick, (and the jury would state enjoying it all). What kind emotions is there to show? I would say the same as you, you sit there "catonic". I think fear would play a major factor as well.

I agree to a point but..


My question is how can you sit there looking at YOUR teeny tiny newborn thrust into this world before his time, lying naked and dead on the cold beach. That little helpless baby forced out of his mother's womb to early and laying there at the mercy of stray dogs, birds or whatever prey like a piece of rotting drift wood. How could you look at what is left of your wife..no head, no arms, and hear the heart wrenching sobs in the court room yet keep such a flat affect. Wouldn't you gasp or muffle a groan, wouldn't you be out of your mind imagining what happened to her head and limbs. If you are innocent I think rage and anger would feel you. Emotions aren't tuned with on on/off switch. You would be burning to set this right and have them find the real killer. I think a guilty person who felt the guilt would be sobbing with the rest. The shame of his crime on the projector and everybody talking should bring him to tears.


The only thing I can come up with is he must of been on an anti-anxiety drugs (perhaps Xanax) or he is such a psychopath he has no conscience. Just my 2 cents.

Ice, I dont have the answer to your last three questions, however, as far as not taking the stand most lawyers advise against this because they feel there client would not be able to represent him or herself in good light under the scrutiny of the Prosecutor.

Often times if alcohol and/or drugs played a role, the client will change their testimony and it doesn't sit well with the jury whether they are innocent or guilty.

Some clients are just too emotional to take the stand also.

There are many reasons for not taking the stand and very few who are able to do it, seem to be able to carry it out with ease.

As a whole the entire courtroom wants to hear from the defendant to find out the answer to that question - Why. And if a defendant honestly believes innocence then there is no way to answer the Why.

Just my opinions of course.

Demi ~ fair enough.

My question then is...what if he cried and didn't do it? Wouldn't the jury interprete that as guilty? And if he is guilty and crying do you think it would envoke any sympathy from the jury (ie LWOP vs DP)? Or as Kyla mentioned...do you not think that it would be seen as "putting" on a show or a ploy for sympathy? And I am not talking about only Scott Peterson...I mean overall....

I just think it's a lose lose situation. It doesn't matter how the accused reacts....they are going to be criticized for their reaction or lack there of.

I've seen "he was not allowed to testify" in this thread and others. That is not true. An attorney can advise a defendant until he is "blue in the face" not to testify, but if the defendant wants to testify, he is "allowed" to do so...it is the defendant's decision, not the attorney's. I am sure whoever is saying he wasn't "allowed to testify" probably had a smart lawyer who advised him to stay off the stand.

About Scott Peterson...it was pointless for him to show any emotion. Through his own behaviors prior to trial, he had already proved that he could "cry on demand" so if he was experiencing any kind of emotion, people would have dismissed it as "crocodile tears". I wonder what was going through his mind as he looked at pictures of Connor washed up on the shore.

A true psychopath would probably have been wondering what he was being served for lunch.

I've seen "he was not allowed to testify" in this thread and others. That is not true. An attorney can advise a defendant until he is "blue in the face" not to testify, but if the defendant wants to testify, he is "allowed" to do so...it is the defendant's decision, not the attorney's. I am sure whoever is saying he wasn't "allowed to testify" probably had a smart lawyer who advised him to stay off the stand.

About Scott Peterson...it was pointless for him to show any emotion. Through his own behaviors prior to trial, he had already proved that he could "cry on demand" so if he was experiencing any kind of emotion, people would have dismissed it as "crocodile tears". I wonder what was going through his mind as he looked at pictures of Connor washed up on the shore.

A true psychopath would probably have been wondering what he was being served for lunch.
I agree.

I think it was Laci's Mother who helped cement his death penalty by getting close to the jury. She really seemed to bond with them well.

Even though this was a very emotional case for her she stayed strong through it all and finished the trial accomplishing what she sat foot out to do from the start of the trial. I admire her for that.

Of course my heart aches for Scott's Mother as well. I am sure she didn't want to even believe in her son's guilt, no matter what testimony was or wasn't given.

Just my opinions of course.

Maybe he showed no remorse because he didn't do it. Even though a jury says he did, I still think there's a chance he didn't. That would explain his lack of remorse. I just don't think the ol' boy is a smart enough cookie to pull it off.

Ok, Sunny, let me play Devils' Advocate. Someone kidnapped and brutally murdered your wife and unborn baby and you are being unjustly accused. Wouldn't you be shouting from rooftops that you want her murderer found and wouldn't you feel something/anything looking at pictures of their decomposing bodies in court?

I absolutely would!! Which is what he did immediately after her disappearance. Even though he was carrying on a sleezy affair, he did express his concern over his wife and baby. And we don't know that he didn't feel something looking at those pictures. Only he knows what he felt or didn't feel. Some people don't show emotion as outwardly as others. It's not a crime to feel things inside that you don't show on the outside.
I know that a Guilty verdict means that he is guilty. Ok, so he was found guilty. I get that--I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.
I still don't believe he deserves to be put to death.

Now this is where I have to disagree with Sunny..."he expressed concern over his wife and baby"...expressed concern?? One would "express concern" when the dog can't be found..not when I can't find my eight-month pregnant wife. When did he express concern? When in his interview with Diane Sawyer, he referred to the still missing Laci as "she was...is...amazing". In the interview with Gloria Gomez, he turns the phone ringer off...because he doesn't want the interview interrupted, with perhaps...news of his missing wife. When he surreptiously drove 90 miles to the Berkeley Marina to keep on eye on the police divers searching for her body? How? Between phone calls to his mistress at his missing wife's candlelight vigil, selling his missing wife's car and playing golf? He was found guilty, I believe that he killed Laci and their son.

However, since this is a circumstantial case, I would not have recommended the death penalty.

I do agree, he didn't play the part of a grieving husband very well. I never disputed that. But he also didn't act like someone who had just killed his wife and child, either. He did some pretty off the wall things which I can't explain and am not going to try to. But like you said, with as little evidence as there was, none of it being physical, I just don't believe he should be put to death. There is no question about whether or not he did it. 12 people said he did--so he did. It doesn't matter whether or not I think he did--I wasn't on the jury. The issue now is the death sentence. I DO NOT agree with it. And I wouldn't agree with it if he had been caught in the act. I don't believe in murdering people to teach others that murdering is wrong.

I know it was reported in the paper that my honey showed "no emotion," the DA was quoted as saying that. He didn't know what was going on in that man's head and heart, and I do. "No emotion" is totally wrong.

Ice,

My opinion is if Scott had of truly cried real tears all through his trial, and shown appropriate emotions towards evidence presented it may have raised a suspicion of doubt to his guilt. Perhaps it may have ended in a hung jury even in the face of all of the circumstancial evidence.

I also think he would have probably gotten Life if a pregnant Laci had of been pulled out of the water rather than two separate bodies.

And, I think the media circus hurt him.

I know Attorney's may not want their client to testify because they are
concerned the opposing party will tear them up on the witness stand. However,
Scott needed to respond. He is not new to press and being interviewed and would not be as intimidated by the prosecution as most people would.

An "innocent" Scott would have ended in a hung jury.

A guilty but remorseful Scott (throwing himselfon the mercy of the court) would have probably gotten Life. Not to mention he would have spent hours being prepared by one of the most known lawyers in the United States.

The jury really wanted him to give them something that would lead to doubt. I know we can't hold it against him for not taking the stand but if he were innocent it would have been to his credit to get up there and say If you people find me guilty they will never find who did this to my wife and baby. An innocent Scott would have insisted on taking the stand, especially in hopes of diluting the power of Laci's mothers testimony.

Personally, I do believe in the death penalty for the worst offenses. There are some I could personally pull the plug on, shoot on the head, inject (whatever) and it wouldn't phase me a bit. However, I think Scott should have gotten Life.

I think that no matter how someone in Scott Peterson's situation acted it would be used against them by the prosecution and the press. Not that I think that Peterson is innocent by any means. Frankly though, I think a guilty person would be just as likely to beccome unglued by crime scene photos as someone who is innocent. Similarly, I think that a guilty or an innocent person could be overwhelmed to the point of numbness. It's really all speculation saying how someone accused or murder is supposed to act. Each of us tries to imagine what we would feel like if it were us. The fact is that each of us is different, and none of us truly knows how we would feel, and hopefully we will never find out.