And Peterson was sentenced to death...

[conuly]

Why? Because the evidence was so compelling?

No.

He didn't show enough emotion during the trial.

(Thanks, rpeate)

Okay, youse guys can now talk about how horrible it is, because I'm too cold to do so.

Comments

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

The CNN article is seriously slanting that for some reason... Quote directly from the SF Chronicle today in How They Decided He Should Die (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/14/MNGL7ABKFJ1.DTL):

"The evidence was circumstantial from the start, but the jurors said a few simple truths stood out. The bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn son washed up near where Scott Peterson said he had been fishing the day she was reported missing. Peterson told a web of lies to those around him. And his odd behavior -- including continuing to woo his secret girlfriend as police, family and total strangers were looking for his missing wife -- were not the actions of a man who had been wrongly accused.
...
The jurors said that they had finally concluded that death was the right sentence for Peterson because he had betrayed the woman closest to him and the unborn son whose name the couple had already chosen."

I have no idea why CNN over-emphasized the "emotion during the trial" aspect, as the jury was fairly clear that it was a number of factors, particularly his *actions*, that drove them to conclude that he was guilty (and later that he deserved the death penalty).

[conuly]

Hm. See, *that* makes sense. Gah. And I usually trust CNN too! *grumbles annoyedly*