Who killed Laci?

Divorce, did someone say divorce? He had a $250,000 life insurance policy out on Laci. Can't collect on divorce.

True, Goldie.

But he also had one on himself.

And it was a whole life policy.

Nobody buys whole life when they are gonna off their spouse.......

They get term.

Max
Never say no one. No one would commit a crime where all the evidence led directly back to them. It was either poor planning, spur of the moment or shear stupidity.

Everybody knows the answer to this 'mystery' except for the Modesto Police. c.i.

I'm pretty sure the Modesto police know it as well. They just don't have the luxury of discussing it openly, like we do.

c.i.
Knowing it and proving it are two different animals.

au, true in a divorce he wouldn't be able to collect the 250 thou', but if he's the owner of the policy and it were not included in the terms of the divorce, if he out lived her, he'd be able to collect the money. Of course, since she was so young, he'd have to wait quite a while !

Max, re: term life--there's a contestability period (usually two years), whereby if a claim is presented the only payment made is return of the premiums paid. Of course there are some exceptions such as an automobile accident. But Scott may have 'accidentally' tied a concrete block around her body in hopes of making it 500 thou' !

I've been out of the industry for almost 5 years now, so I'm only quoting laws on the books at the time I had to be well versed on this subject.

I know--'innocent until proved guilty'--but the rest of that statement is 'in a court of law.' We're not a court of law on this forum, so I say the dude is guilty!

This article was written in a Christian mag, but the facts in the article are accurate-- The National Org for Women is taking a stand against the double murder charge, afraid if the Peterson's baby is recognised as a murder victim, it will erode their stance that babies in utero are not alive and therefore not capable of being murdered.

Interested to know: Do you think Scott should be charged for killing the baby?

CRIMENETDAILY
Laci's unborn baby
in abortion debate
NOW fears pro-life ammunition,
opposes double-murder charge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 21, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The California deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son are sending shock waves across America as the issue of when human life begins has been reignited.

Laci's husband Scott was arrested last week following the discovery of what prosecutors say is Laci's body and that of their "biological child."

Scott Peterson, who was booked on two counts of murder hours after his arrest in San Diego, is scheduled for an arraignment hearing today. If charged and convicted of double homicide, he could face the death penalty.

Already, some pro-choice groups including the National Organization for Women are voicing their opposition to the double-murder charge, saying it could become part of the pro-life lobby's arsenal.

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark told the Daily Record of Parsippany, N.J.

"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging [Peterson] with a double-murder."

"[The boy] was wanted and expected," Stark added, "and [Laci] had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent."

But pro-life groups are defending the two murder charges.

"Obviously, [the child] was wanted by the mother," Marie Tasy of New Jersey Right To Life told the Record. "Clearly, groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion."

More than two dozen states have fetal homicide laws on the books, but they vary widely.

According to Court TV, "In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" - when movement is first felt in the womb - occurs. In Pennsylvania, where a woman was convicted [last month] of murder for causing a romantic rival to miscarry her 15-week-old fetus, the 1999 law applies to any stage of pregnancy."

The lack of a singular standard in the law has weighed heavily on the minds of many.

In a letter to the editor of the Modesto Bee published March 29, weeks before Laci's body was discovered, Father Joseph Illo of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto wrote:

"California law defines a fetus as human after eight weeks' gestation if you kill his or her mother. If the mother kills the fetus, then California law changes its mind to say, in that case, the fetus is no longer human. Is a human fetus human or not? If the Laci Peterson case is a 'double' homicide, then any abortion after eight weeks in this state is a 'single' homicide. That is why I've been praying at abortion clinics these last 10 years - that we will come back to our senses."

As much as conservatives are maligned for our supposed "departure from reality and the way things really are" on numerous issues, this issue in particular really brings the progressives out with their "if you could just suspend your logic for a second, I think you'll follow this" explanation as to why the killing of the: wanted by the mother, viable fetus is not in fact a killing.

What they fail to realize is that this is the flip side of the Roe v. Wade decision giving the woman complete and absolute autonomy over her body.

It appears that the National Organization of I don't know what kind of Woman has stepped into it once more.

This is remarkable - I would never have thought that this case could come to have anything to do with that debate. I have ambivalent feelings and ideas about abortion. I kinda wish this Petersen debacle could have stayed separate.

I remember reading about a pregnant woman, who was mugged a few years ago. The assailant punched her in the stomach and caused the baby to die. He was charged and convicted of aggravated assault resulting in death. Crack mothers are jailed for killing their unborn babies due to drug use.... I have heard these mothers being charged and jailed for neglect of a child resulting in death and child abuse resulting in death.

This issue needs to be addressed and resolved honestly, IMO.

And, the Pro-choice lobby is right. Late term abortions are under attack and will be brought to an end. I can't believe they've gotten away with it as long as they have. The practice of abortion needs to be HIGHLY regulated. As it is now, they don't even count them.

Interesting re: the California law on the subject. At eight weeks gestation, it is called murder if anyone kills a baby in utero-- but it is called choice if mom does it.

With all this pretrial publicity and Peterson being tried and convicted in the press the question is can he get a fair trial. Can a jury be seated that has not been influenced by the press and all the talking heads on TV?

au--

I don't understand the phenomena of having to change venue.

I could discharge my duties honestly, were I to sit on the jury. Couldn't you? Even if people have heard about the case, and have come to a 'feeling' about guilt or innocence-- can't they put that aside and listen to the case as presented by defense and prosecution????

Interested to hear who could/could not be a juror...

The debate on murder/abortion of a fetus is interesting. Like snood, I wish this hadn't come up at this time, yet I suppose it's a given that it would. The laws are murky and need to be addressed much more clearly, as you suggested, Sofia.

As for being a juror in this case (not that I would want to be), I feel like I could put aside whatever feelings I have and listen carefully to what goes on in the courtroom. Since the bodies have been found and all that's happened after, I certainly do think Scott could be guilty. But he's not until it's proven in a court of law.

I agree, Chat.
Reasonable people should be able to listen and decide.

Nice to see ya.

All indications are that this won't get to trial for a long, long time.

That should cool heads down a bit.

In order not to understand the reasoning for change of venue, one would have to consider themselves exempt from human frailties like bias. To answer your question, I would have a bias as to his guilt/innocence, but whether I could serve or not would depend on whether the attorneys spotted the bias during jury interview.

snood--
It is sad to see there are people, who once they have made up their own mind, are too hard-headed to accept any other information on the subject. It is a riot that you have been so desperately trying to pin 'closed-mindedness' on me, when you are the one who admits to being so opinionated and biased, you wouldn't listen to the facts in a court of law.

This sorta kills your credibility in all quadrants-- You repel any and all reason, because you have your mind made up. The facts might upset your view of things.

No, you definitely shouldn't serve on any jury.

I am exempt from thinking my opinion must stand, no matter what evidence is presented to me.

Step back for a minute and take a breath, Sofia.

I was explaining why there are already in place procedures for changing venues in cases such as this, where there is a high liklihood of jury prejudice.
You, on the other hand, see my explanation of the reason for those procedures being extant, and using myself as an example, as an indictment of you. You asked a question - I answered it, and gave you the reason for my answer. I stand by my assertion that, for someone to claim they "don't understand the phenomena" of change of venues, they would have to had exempted themselves from the possibilty of human frailties (very natural for most normal people) like bias in the face of such an intense media onslaught.

as an indictment of you...
----------------------------
Hence, your problem. You are too busy trying to indict me, you got yourself tangled in your words.

I believe reasonable people can suspend their own opinions, and listen to facts and make an honest judgement. I believe this, because I can do it.

I think you believe it can't be done, because you can't do it.

However, this conversation should not be about us--

This is what happens when members make their comments personal, rather than addressing the subject. Why don't you stop doing it?