Prosecution: Peterson ordered porn channels after wife's disappearance

[Kadie]

I know everyone is sick of this case, but I find this interesting. I have to agree with Geragos, this is just to inflame the jury. I don't see where it really has any bearing on whether or not he killed his wife, but I guess we will have to wait and see. Do you think the judge made the correct decision on letting the jury here this information?


Prosecution: Peterson ordered porn channels after wife's disappearance

Stacy Finz and Diana Walsh, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 3, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Three weeks after Laci Peterson disappeared her husband added two hard-core pornography channels to the programming on his satellite dish, the prosecution in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial said this morning.

The defense fought mightily to keep the jury from hearing the information, saying it was more prejudicial than probative.

"It is as greater form of character assassination as I don't know what," argued Peterson's lawyer Mark Geragos outside of the jury's presence.

But Judge Alfred Delucchi, who is presiding over the case in Redwood City, disagreed, deciding to allow it to come in as evidence -- possibly as early as today.

more....
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/03/PETERSON03.TMP

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. could be a way to mourn

<sarcasm>

[rfranklin]

2. Evidence that he needed a distraction?

That he was missing his wife? He was so dedicated to her that, instead of heading out to a bar in search of companionship, he sat at home and pleasured himself alone, maintaining his fidelity?

Gee whizz, this is really relevant!

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. It is relevant.

It tells me he wasn't expecting her to come back. I don't know many wives who are too thrilled to find out their husbands watch pornography.

[DrWeird]

5. Not expecting her to come back?

Guys will look at porn while they're wives are in the shower, for crying out loud.

[markses]

13. Of course they do

Backlash's statement is onme of the most bizarre I've ever seen on DU. Perhaps we don't all live on the same planet.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Oh, dear. They found me out. I'm not a liberal!

Actually, most women I know despise pornography. They think it's degrading to women. But, hey, go on with your little fantasies. It's only the 12 juror's opinions that matter.

[mongo]

39. Maybe they are just not talking about it

And perhaps you should check out some of Candida Royalle's work. She is a female producer of porn specifically marketed FOR Women.

Talk about your little fantasies.... How much porn have you watched?

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Non squirter. (er...sequitur -- it's the spell checker's fault!)

How much porn have I watched? Are you serious? How can you get away in this day and age without seeing some form of graphic porn on the internet? It's statistically impossible. And are you suggesting that watching pornography will always result in arousal? That is a very naive expectation.

I find it a very sad reflection of the human spirit.

[mongo]

50. NO....

What I am suggesting is that your asertion that women find all porn disgusting and degrading to women is not true.

There are many, many, women that enjoy watching porn. And seeing a "graphic image" is not the same as watching a movie. And I am also suggesting you are condemming a whole genre of movies without any knowledge of it.

And no - watching porn will not always result in arousal. There are some really bad movies out there. And there are some movies that are degrading to women. But the major adult studios produce movies that are aimed at the couples market - and are not degrading. Unless you think that sex in general is degrading - in which case I can't help you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. Many problems with your commentary.

First, I never asserted "that women find all porno disgusting and degrading to women." Just the women that I personally know. They're moms, they're conservative...and frankly, I don't have anyone I would call liberal in my social circles.

Secondly, why is it so difficult for you to accept that someone could despise pornography, and still enjoy a wonderful sex life?

Why would my opinion threaten yours? Can't you accept someone having a different perspective than you do?

[mongo]

71. Honestly - because it threatens my livelyhood

Saying that porn is degarding to women is no different than saying homosexuality is an abomination or white people are smarter than black people.

It is the same old tired crap that could put my ass in jail.

Saying that Scott ordering a porn channel three weeks after his wifes dissappearance is evidence that he may be a murderer is prejudicial.

I suppose that since Kobe Bryant's accuser had sex sometime after her rape makes her a lier too.

And I never said anything about your sex life...

[The Backlash Cometh]

78. Once again, non sequitur.

You're taking this far too personally. There are people that like porn and those who don't. Accept that and respect it. There are plenty of ACLU people out there that will run to protect your right to sell porn, long before they'll take the time to help me fight the white connected crooks in my county. So you're the lucky one.

The question is not whether people SHOULD like porn or not. That's a given fact. Some people do, and some people don't. And if the wife turns out to be the kind that hates it, then the evidence becomes very relevant. That's the point of this discussion.

[DrWeird]

54. How do you feel about the Kobe Bryant case?

You know, letting the jury hear about the supposed victim's sexual history?

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. Non sequitur.

Victim's sexual history vs husband decision to get porno channel are not similar.

[smirkymonkey]

28. So why didn't he have the porn channels already then?

Backlash's point is relevant in my opinion. The fact that he subscribed (which usually means for a longer term than just renting a porn flick or using pay-per-view).

[jdj]

9. It tells me he wasn't mourning.

That's about it.

[Bluebear]

14. Mourning is a process, not a 24 hour a day dirge.

I guarantee you a 30 year old man will feel sexual in any given 3 week period of time no matter what the circumstance.

[markses]

16. Correct

This evidence is prejudicial and appealable.

[kath]

29. except for my husband. (sadly)

[markses]

15. It doesn't even tell me that

Pornography could just as easily be sign that the man needed a distraction from intense grief as that he wasn't in mourning. There is no one-to-one relationship between "watching pornography" and "doesn't expect her back" or "wasn't in mourning." In fact, I can't see any reason to weigh in on any causal explanation at all.

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. The man ordered a porno channel. It's not just that he was

looking for a distraction. He actually made a decision to order a cable channel that in all probability, his wife would not have approved of. That's how I see it. And I guarantee that's how some of the jurors will see it.

[Donkeyboy75]

79. In all probability?

No, they have to establish this. You have no idea what Laci Pederson's attitudes towards pornography were. None. That's why it is irrelevant. Jurors will make a leap in judgement that they shouldn't.

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. Character witnesses would be advisable.

Absolutely agree with you. Going back to court proceedings, the prosecutor needs to establish Laci's attitude toward pornography in order to make a salient point.

[Donkeyboy75]

84. And I would agree with you then.

Wow, an agreement on a discussion board.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. That's my reaction too.

[GreenPartyVoter]

57. Welp, hubby agrees with the folks that it isn't really indicative

of anything.

[markses]

11. LOL

Please. Your obvious prejudices are precisely why this evidence is prejudicial. The fact of watching pornography does not signal very much at all, either with respect to the crime/events in question or the defendant's state of mind vis-a-vis the crime/events in question. There is no signification here that is material. Only when people bring severe prejudices to this fact does the fact itself take on any meaning, and that meaning has more to do with the prejudice than the fact. By prejudice I do not mean "cumulative experience that aids in judgment," but previous value judgments that lead to particular interpretations of facts. This is a bad legal ruling.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. Excuse me, but I have just as much right to despise pornography

as you have a right to like it. It's not prejudice, it's preference. Heck, I'll even agree with you that it's a value judgment. Now be a good liberal and live and let live. I can still have a bad opinion of married men who oogle nekkid girls and still manage to respect their comfort zones, as long as our worlds never collide.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

51. Whether you like pornography or not isn't the point.

It's whether him ordering the channel is relevant to this case. Most of us feel it is not.

[The Backlash Cometh]

64. Follow the thread, please.

Your response is off-tangent. Follow the thread to see who I was responding to.

The subject of whether it was relevant or not is covered elsewhere.

[markses]

68. The fact that you despise pornography

(Which is not a prejudice - and I never said it was) may prejudice you with respect to the trial. That's where the prejudice lies, not in whether you like or dislike pronography (much less whether I do, another non-issue, and another thing I never posted, despite your backhanded and dishonest accusations).

If the evidence has no probative value, and merely plays into the bad feelings of people like you, then it is prejudicial WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIAL, in that it's reminder of bad feelings outweighs its value as evidence of anything. This is a fairly simple distinction, though you pretend here not to understand it.

Nothing in any of my posts has anything to do with whether you have "the right" to dislike pornography (of course you do). The question is whether the prosecution violates a defendants rights by introducing material that does nothing but stir up the PRE-EXISTING BAD FEELINGS of the jury, without offering substantive or material information to judge the case on its merits. That's what's at issue, not the precious right to be an obnoxious moralist, which you certainly have, and which I am more than happy to respect.

[The Backlash Cometh]

80. Yes, but what if the wife shared the same morals that I do?

And what if it can be proven that she has the same disgust for pornography that I do? That's what I've been trying to get across. The conservative women I know don't need it, nor want it. They're offended by it because it plays no significant role in their lives. Why can't they, in this free country, be allowed to their opinion without being referred to as obnoxious moralists? Why are you threatened by this? And in turn, is this why conservatives are so threatened by you all?

Getting back to the point, let's put this into perspective. The woman was murdered. I think that's reason enough to get personal as it gets, and if the prosecutor knows from character witnesses that she hated pornography, the husband's actions then become very relevant.

[Warpy]

12. Whether or not he was expecting her back, this is irrelevant

Most guys order porn while the wife is upstairs reading the kiddies their bedtime stories. I don't think this says anything about the man one way or another.

No, most wives are none too thrilled about it. However, they consider it a little better than having him jump on the babysitter.

[markses]

19. LOL

Great post.

I would add: "Or jump on her after she's finished reading to the kiddies"!

[Ripley]

31. Here we go again, as if there isn't enough female bashing today.

So that's it for the married man huh? Either jerk off to some porn or jump on the babysitter. Gee, if you guys aren't getting enough from your wife, maybe you should look in the mirror before blaming her.

And if "most guys order porn while the wife is upstairs reading the kiddies..." then I live on another planet than you do.

[mongo]

32. I know many wives that watch porn with their husbands....

They come in and pick it out together.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. But do you know all married couples?

I doubt it. And the question is, what kind of person was the deceased woman? If the defense can't paint her sexual proclivity for visual stimuli as liberal as her husband's, the evident becomes ever more relevant.

[mongo]

59. How in the world is it relevant.

If he watched porn before his wife's disappearance (with her or by himself) does that make it relevent?

If they watched porn together before her disapperance - it is not relevant?

If he never watched porn before - presumably because his wife was "keeping him pure"? Is it relevent then?

I think your posts show that this evidence is more about prejudice against pornography than about any relevance it may have in the case.

I suppose if my wife dies I should never masturbate again?

[The Backlash Cometh]

67. Stick to the point.

The point is not if he masturbated, but that he made a decision three weeks after her disappearance that suggests to me that he didn't expect her to return. Try to stay on point.

[mongo]

34. I know many wives that watch porn WITH their husbands

Them come in and pick it out together.

[mongo]

35. I know many wives that watch porn WITH their husbands

They come in and pick it out together.

[hang a left]

4. I don't see how it is more probative than prejudicial.

It probably will be appealable as well. That is pretty sad if this is the kind of stuff the prosecution has on SP. I have this feeling that he killed his wife, but these guys sure seemed to fuck up their case. Just shows to go ya what some money and a good attorney can do for ya. Parents must have mortgaged everything to the hilt.

[markses]

8. Absolutely correct

There is no probabitve value to this evidence. I find the guy creepy as hell, but I also find trials by Network Morning Show and prejudicial evidence even creepier.

[markses]

6. Completely prejudicial

Bad decision, and probably grounds for appeal. It says nothing about state of mind, and is certainly not pertinent to the fact pattern of the crime. All it does is paint the defendant as a kind of person that the jury will (outwardly!) profess to find distasteful.

A very bad ruling.

[jdj]

7. Can this get any grosser.

Why do they think we want to know this.

Is it any of our business?

Let the jury decide.

But we gotta cover over the fallout from the three year old terra alerts.

[mountainvue]

10. The Playboy Channel?

How desperate is the prosecution? There's no way he will be found guilty.

[mandyky]

17. Was Scot P a shitty husband? YES

Did he murder his wife and unborn child?

They are trying to get the jury to convict him of the murder by proxy of the shitty husband proof.

While I think there is a good chance he may have murdered her, they would have to prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt - no matter how many affairs he had or his TV viewing habits...

[Xithras]

18. Umm, I have 4 porn channels. Does that make me a murderer, or just kinky?

Probably more than you wanted to know about me, but I had to make the point ;)

[markses]

21. According to some people

You will only watch porn after you've killed your wife, because her getting upset that you watch porn will ruin everything! The exquisite reasoning of these judgments is, well, medieval in its nuance. :eyes:

[Xithras]

30. My wife upset? She watches it WITH me!

How would they react to THAT?!?! :evilgrin:

[progressivebydesign]

43. Thanks for sharing..

.. but do you really think you'd fire up the porno three weeks after your beloved, pregnant spouse disappeared and is presumed dead? That's not how the mind works....

[Xithras]

53. As a male the same age as him, I can say that I probably WOULD.

It's a simple, well established psychological fact that men suffer from depression at half the rate of women, and this has a lot to do with the fact that men have a tendency to bury trauma rather than deal with it. Peterson seems like the typical guy in many respects and I'm personally not that suprised to hear that his life was normalizing after a few weeks of her being gone. Depression is normal from time to time. The type of all consuming depression that keeps you down for weeks on end, even if triggered by a major loss, isn't normal and is actually fairly uncommon in men.

[Pithlet]

73. "that's not how the mind works"

You cannot base a murder conviction on that. Not everyone thinks, feels, grieves, thinks of porn the same way. A lot of this case seems to hinge on the fact that Scott Peterson didn't act the way "normal" people should. I don't know if he killed his wife or not, but if that is all the prosecution has, then they have a pretty weak case, indeed. It scares me, because I think a jury might just fall for it anyway. It's one of the major weaknesses of a trial jury.

[Devil Dog Dem]

20. I don't think it is UNDULY prejudicial as evidence (the actual standard)

so if the prosecution can argue that it shows that he wasn't in mourning (or whatever theory they have) they can get it in as its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value.

Peterson's lawyers are free to argue that it is BS and shows nothing.

Even if the ruling was wrong, I doubt it will be enough to get a new trial on appeal.

[troublemaker]

24. The probative value is zero, so the modifier is irrelevant

[markses]

26. I disagree

Because the evidence itself has almost no probative value, and a great possibility of prejudicing the jury, the prejudicial far outweighs the probative in this case. I understand your point that the decision about the evidence should be left to the jury, and that the defense can make the counter-argument; I would even agree with you if the evidence wasn't so completely devoid of any conclusions, and so completely fraught with cultural values from outside the case. The fact of ordering the porn does not - even in the larger fact pattern - indicate anything at all, yet the negative value of porn casts the defendant in a negative light. The prejudicial effect far outweighs the probative value in this case.

[Devil Dog Dem]

62. We'll have to agree to disagree.

While I wouldn't give it too much weight as a juror, I can certainly see probative value it allowing it in.

[markses]

70. What's the probative value?

n/t

[Devil Dog Dem]

76. I'd argue that this isn't a guy who was acting like most innocent men . .

would act in a situation when their wife is missing and they have no idea where the wife is.

He didn't sit around the house waiting for the phone to ring praying that it was his wife. Sitting in the house, not having showered, slept, or ate in days, like most innocent husbands would have done.

Instead, this guy couldn't wait to get on with his new life without his wife (who he knew was dead because he killed her). Indeed, he couldn't wait to sell her car, go golfing, watch porn, date other women, etc. (or whatever other facts they have to show a man who didn't seem to care that his wife was missing).

The defense can counter with the fact that he needed a distraction, or that his wife didn't care that he watched porn and therefore he would have ordered it without her, or that she wanted him to sell the car, or that he was in shock and what he did was normal for a man in shock, or ask "who is to say what is 'normal' in this type of situation", or whatever else they want to argue.

The jury can believe it or disregard it, but the point is, it is up to the jury to decide, not the judge when a party has relevant evidence that is not UNDULY prejudicial.

The judge was not in error allowing this evidence in, in my view.

[Devil Dog Dem]

77. This guy didn't act like a man who was distraught over his wife's . . .

disappearance.

He didn't sit around the house waiting for the phone to ring praying that it was his wife. Sitting in the house, not having showered, slept, or ate in days, like most innocent husbands would have done.

Instead, this guy couldn't wait to get on with his new life without his wife (who he knew was dead because he killed her). Indeed, he couldn't wait to sell her car, go golfing, watch porn, date other women, etc. (or whatever other facts they have to show a man who didn't seem to care that his wife was missing).

The defense can counter with the fact that he needed a distraction, or that his wife didn't care that he watched porn and therefore he would have ordered it without her, or that she wanted him to sell the car, or that he was in shock and what he did was normal for a man in shock, or ask "who is to say what is 'normal' in this type of situation", or whatever else they want to argue.

The jury can believe it or disregard it, but the point is, the evidence is probative and it is up to the jury to decide, not the judge when a party has relevant evidence that is not UNDULY prejudicial.

The judge was not in error allowing this evidence in, in my view.


ON EDIT: Sorry about the double post, I thought my first one didn't post and recomposed it and posted it before I rezlied the first post DID go through!

[markses]

27. I disagree

Because the evidence itself has almost no probative value, and a great possibility of prejudicing the jury, the prejudicial far outweighs the probative in this case. I understand your point that the decision about the evidence should be left to the jury, and that the defense can make the counter-argument; I would even agree with you if the evidence wasn't so completely devoid of any conclusions, and so completely fraught with cultural values from outside the case. The fact of ordering the porn does not - even in the larger fact pattern - indicate anything at all, yet the negative value of porn casts the defendant in a negative light. The prejudicial effect far outweighs the probative value in this case.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. Oh I agree...not sufficiently prejudicial to be grounds for appeal

Hell...a look at case law puts MOST prejudicial evidence outside that threshhold.

[sandnsea]

23. It's prejudicial

I don't think it's any kind of evidence that he killed his wife. He ate pizza and ordered pornography. That just doesn't seem to be terribly important in whether or not there's evidence linking him to his wife's dead body.

[Devil Dog Dem]

63. All evidence is prejudicial, otherwise it wouldn't be relevant, hence . .

inadmissible.
The question is is the evidence UNDULY prejudicial.

The standard (as posted by another DUer) is:
evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that it will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

[sandnsea]

65. undue prejudice

There, that better? Ordering a porn channel has no purpose except to make the guy look like a sleeze.

[Devil Dog Dem]

74. Much better. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, but many people get it wrong.

"That evidence will prejudice the jury and kill that guys case and make him look guilty"

NO DUH!!! That's why it should be allowed in!

I kid you not, I've even heard lawyers say words to that effect.

[depakid]

25. The general standard under the California Evidence Code

allows the judge to exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that it will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.

I can see the arguments on both sides here, and I suspect that it was a tougher call than some think, since it was probably introduced as part of a patten of behavior as opposed to an isolated incident.

Maybe someone more familiar with the case has better a take on that.

[TNOE]

37. A character issue

I guess could be argued -

Jury's seem to no longer make decisions based upon evidence alone - ala OJ Simpson - jury's tend to go more on their "feelings" these days.

No question he was a lousy husband and a cad. But it may fit into everything else he did after his wife's "disapperance". Selling her car, talking with his girlfriend, watching porn, etc.

I honestly don't believe that a man who is missing his wife and soon to be child would do the above - and I'm sure that's their point. You would think "sex" would be the last thing on a grief stricken man's mind. The point is "obviously he wasn't".

[AngryAmish]

44. I have to respectfully disagree

TV makes certain cases seem like the standard when they are in no way representative of the judicial system. The OJ case is perfect example. The jurors were not going on feelings in the criminal case. In the interviews afterward they could point to evidence (the gloves for example) which gave them reasonable doubt.

I have the opportunities to speak with many jurors after trails. They try to look at the evidence and work extremely hard the vast majority of times. They can see though BS. They will look at all the evidence. And believe it or not the arguments of the lawyers do not sway them all that much. The Judge is another matter. He is the authority figure and can easily sway the jury through their actions.

There is an article in the Arizona Law Review (I think) this month based on taped jury deliberations. The results are very interesting.

[Bluebear]

47. My jury experience was horrible.

We had two older gents who would not budge, in fact one said "if the guy was arrested the police had a good reason". That was enough for them to convict.

During a Larry King call-in a viewer said that there was no evidence that Laci Peterson was cooking anything to bring for Christmas at her folks and as EVERYONE knows, EVERYONE cooks treats to bring for Christmas so Scott must be guilty.

[TNOE]

52. I respectfully disagree also

although I see what you are saying. Not too long after the OJ trial A&E did a special on it - and the overall consensus was (although I watched pretty much all of the trial myself, but this special was good):

1) the jury was not intelligent or intellectual enough to understand the DNA evidence, which was pretty much proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) it was a verdict AGAINST the LA PD who most african americans despised.

3) the lead juror (when shown the evidence of Nicole's safety deposit box with a picture of her beaten up - and the message that if anything happened to her - OJ did it) STATED that that did not belong in a criminal court - it belonged in a Domestic Court.

Yea, the glove thing was a mistake, but the DNA evidence was overwhelming.

I read a law report that in West Virginia when during a coal miners strike a company brought in scabs and many of the activists for the coal miners wound up dead. The way the company screwed the coal miners destroyed much of their little town in West Virginia. BUT when the case was brought to trial, the company won and the jurors were crying saying they wished that their case could have been proven, but it wasn't and they had no recourse. Sorry, but I don't believe that would happen today. Although I do agree with your point that jury's do indeed try for the most part, but I think "feeling" plays into it now, whereas once I think people totally relied on the law.

Many executives/business types get out of jury duty. That leaves Seniors, unemployed and undereducated.

If the prosecution doesn't do a better job with Scott Peterson, in reality he should walk, even though MOST people feel he is guilty.

[AngryAmish]

56. Very hard to get out of jury duty in Cook County

Unless you just ignore the summons. Responsible people show up for jury duty, so the pool is slightly more educated than the populace as a whole (plus prisoners are not in the pool). Judges, doctors, business executives, minor local celebrities - all on the jury.

People are very cynical about the jury system because of trials like OJ and an extremely effective PR campaign by insurance companies to turn people against lawyers and people making claims. However, if one sees the system close up it really does work.

[TNOE]

58. I see what you are saying

and Thank God its that way in your part of the country! It isn't that well thought of around here - although those of us who work at law firms are very much "encouraged" to serve, while the norm seems to be you're a loser if you have to serve. I have wanted to serve on a jury FOREVER, well at least since I was 16 which was 29 years ago!! And still have never been called. One day perhaps, I can't wait to be a part of the process.

[chookie]

46. Kinda weird to be diddling one's self when wife is dead

I don't think the porn order proves anything.

It is a sad fact that a wife's pregnancy makes some guys go a little wacky as they deal with the decreased sexual access to her, the physical changes (some love them, some are repulsed) and the idea of one's life changing dramatically and a little being surplanting one's own central place in one's home. Some guys will have affairs for both sex and to try to forget about the major change occuring in one's life.... As a lot of people have pointed out here, some guys just LOVE porn and ordering it is not a big deal.

As a woman -- well, I think our brains are wired a little differently and we get turned on *somewhat* differently, although I think that watching sex as a aphrodiasic is probably more common a activity than people imagine, given our closely-dwelling "communal troop" or tribal past, and the fact that primates (and other critters) learn how to have sex by watching others....

While I don't think the porn proves anything, I can only hope that Scott was diddling himself because he was freaking out with powerful emotions and normal young male testosterone production independent of grief over his missing wife (let us remember the old adage that "Men have 2 brains" and that their penises can work quite independently from their minds) -- and not that he is such a cold-hearted sociopath that he could diddle himself knowing that his wife was dead, killed by his own hand. If so, that would indicate some pretty serious psycho-sexual issues FAR beyond extra-marital straying.

[progressivebydesign]

42. Shows that he's an unsympathetic pig.. pretty much.

I think of my relationship with my husband. If EITHER of us was missing, presumed dead.. neither would order porn movies 3 weeks after the disappearance. Sounds like OJ looking for Nicole's killer on L.A.'s finest golf courses. It's not normal behavior. Judging from the responses here, you all don't have much faith in how your own spouses would respond to such a tragedy. Sad.

[Bluebear]

45. Cali, there is a big difference between a porno & OJ golfing

Golfing is not a physical need. I am not a Scott apologist and he was a crappy husband, but saying that a 30 year old man looking at porno is not acting normally is just not accurate. A lot of juries get hung up on assigning what they would do in a situation and it's not the same for everyone.

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. I thought the same thing, til I asked my husband

if he would consider ordering porn 3 weeks after I went missing.

"Do you want the real answer or the one you want to hear?"

:P

[put out]

82. Normal to whom? To you?

If I were missing for three weeks, and presumed dead, this is what I would not expect from my mate:

I would not expect my mate to go hungry. If ordering pizza is the best idea at the time, get some pizza. Get something. Not eating will make you sick.

I would not expect my mate to sit by the phone constantly, jumping every time it rings. Constant vigilance when there is no resolution will make you sick.

I would not want my mate to refuse distractions offered by friends and family. Sitting and ruminating about a terrible situation will make you sick.

I would not expect my mate to resist selling assets of ours if that could keep the wolf from the door for a while, when my mate's life is going down the shitter, quickly.

I would not expect my mate to refuse to watch television to try to zone out for awhile, and I surely would not begrudge porn.

I think the man is a turd, make no mistake. Maybe he did this horrible murder; horrible.

But ordering cable porn? Big deal. Lots of people watch porn.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

48. It's three weeks later..I don't see it as evidence - it's prejudicial

After three weeks whether one is innocent or guilty, it's safe to say the other person isn't coming back. His internet habits prior to her death were far more an issue than his TV viewing habits after her death.

[Trajan]

55. IS the supposed motive ....

removing the obtsacle to his viewing of porn ??? ... or just an ad hominem in open court on an unrelated issue ? ...

GEEEZ: .. I DESPISE Scott Peterson, and will gladly watch that man d0o his frogmarch into forever .... But: Isnt Porn readiliy available on the internet ? .... one DOESNT NEED to pay a thin dime to see Porn these days .....

This is a shallow attempt to prejudice the panel, and should be rejected thusly ...

[mongo]

75. You have to pay to see decent movies.

On the internet

You can look at a choppy live image of a lady who will chat with you, and respond to your requests.

You can look at still images for millenia and not see them all.

You can sit around and wait 10 minutes for a 5 minute video clip to download.

But you CAN'T see a decent adult movie on the internet. You need pay-per-view or cable subscription, or an adult store.

[Sabriel]

69. Almost as bad as a country's leader reading a kid's book...

after learning the country is under attack.

[flamingyouth]

72. Shocking news! Man watches porn!

Call the cops!:eyes:

[shain from kane]

83. I'm betting that he was not watching men having sex with

pregnant women.