Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
IMO, he smothered her because there was no blood evidence in the home....or very little and none of it could be tied to her death.
He had motive and he ACTED like a guilty man who was in San Diego on the telephone with his brother having a "light-hearted" conversation the day the two bodies washed ashore instead of on the phone with the Modesto police to see if the bodies were those of his wife and unborn child.
He disguised his appearance and had ample money to cross the border and "get lost".
His parents' louzy defense testimony sealed his fate. Neither was believable.
I agree that law is supposed to be non-emotional.
But you have to accept that behavior can be evidence in itself. Sometimes you have to take three steps back and look at the forest. All evidence, events and behaviors added together are enough for me to believe he is guilty. His emotions (or lack thereof) are just a frame for the canvas.
Otherwise, Scott will have created the template for the perfect murder.
"This is the only loose end I see in this case---a cement anchor. If Peterson did the killing, why on earth would he keep one cement anchor? Why not dump them all while he's at it?"
He needed one to prove he had made the anchors. The whole reason he tried to use the fishing excuse was because it was a built in alibi. He never imagined the bodies would turn up WHERE HE SAID HE WAS WHEN SHE DISAPPEARED.
Like most murderers, Scott out smarted himself. One thing would have gotten him off scot free. If he had kept his mouth shut to the police. Thie is what provides the most breaks in criminal cases. Suspects lying to the cops. You can't change your story later without providing fodder that can be used to shred your ass in court. He probably broke another cardinal rule, though we will never know for sure. He probably lied to his lawyer. That is another quick way to find yourself led to the gallows.
Total & absolute agreement. Peterson was NOT convicted of killing his wife since there was no evidence to that effect. He was convicted and will be sentenced to death for being a schmuck.
In the meantime, there may well be a killer out there and the police, right from the get-go, decided to exclude anyone else from their investigation of Laci's disappearance.
This is NOT justice. No way.
It sets a dangerous precedent whereby police and prosecutors can accuse anyone of anything and get a conviction.
By this standard of evidence we can convict and execute *witches*.
Oh, sorry.
Look, I believe he is guilty, and you believe he is guilty. But the state didn't, in my opinion, prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think he committed a nearly perfect murder. But I do have a reasonable doubt (as the jurors did, IMHO).
That you, greta?
And I have even stronger evidence that OJ did it and started exibiting his guilt to others as soon as his plane landed in Chicago. J. Neil Schulman is a crock.
I didn't see Jimmy Hoffa disappear either, so I guess he's not missing... (You should put this all in a memo and send it to Dan Rather.)
Actually, there is lots of evidence that he did it. Like his motive, her body turning up right where he said he went fishing, the concrete anchor, his having the wrong fishing gear, his initial lying about his whereabouts on the day after her disappearence, his talking about his wife in the past tense before her body turned up. etc.
We may be related. ; )
I wholly concur there is evidence strongly suggesting he did it. But I even more emphatically charge that everything necessary was NOT proven, (which your response effectively confirms) especially not beyond a reasonable doubt. Coincidence is supposed to be insufficient.
I mean come on. Freshwater tackle? As opposed to saltwater? Damned good thing they don't check me out. I never use anything but drop lines. I grew up around small streams. If caught in the vicinity of a large river with my gear, does that make me subject to charges of genocide?
I understand the jury sat through a lot of details. But their job is to make the prosecutor prove his case. I do not believe he did and they didn't spank him for it. I've seen it on a grand jury I was on. I would ask for the elements of the crime, the prosecutor would dance around the subject and everyone wanted to know why I bothered asking.
Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas. Juries are supposed to have the intelligence to catch them at it and stop them. This one failed to do its job, IMO.
"Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.
Me too."
I agree. Except that no such anchors were found weighing down the bodies and what anchors were presented as "evidence" did not match the anchors that were made with the mold Scott used to make anchors. There is no evidence the bodies were weighed down at all. Being dumped in December they would not have needed any weight as decomposition gases would not have bloated the bodies in 40 degree water.
Not sure if that's the case. There are plenty of people who have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
I mean come on. Freshwater tackle? As opposed to saltwater? Meaningless by itself, but together with the other info suggests that he was lying about fishing that day.
I've seen it on a grand jury I was on. I would ask for the elements of the crime, the prosecutor would dance around the subject and everyone wanted to know why I bothered asking.
Same thing happened to me.
Prosecutors are human. To include, wanting to take the easy way out, tunnel vision, and having their own agendas. Juries are supposed to have the intelligence to catch them at it and stop them. This one failed to do its job, IMO.
What can I say.. If I was on the jury I would have convicted.
I beleieve that they were able to demonstrate the she was under water for weeks... proving that she was weighed down.
Sorry. I misunderstood your question as well.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/news/2002/0528/levy_ap.html
"Why didn't he testify on his own behalf?"
Because it is his right to not have to prove himself innocent. The accused has the right to be silent in this country and not contribute to his own prosecution.
PIFFLE
There was not enough evidence to convict, either circumstantial or tangible.
The trial was prosecuted at a emotional level. By that I mean that someone must have done it, and that someone is most likely the liar husband.
Most likely is not grounds to convict or more importantly to execute for a crime supposedly committed.
The trial was a sham. The jury was tainted and manipulated through a series of changes, and the decision should be vacated and a new trial commenced in a different jurisdiction.
I would also suggest a new defense lawyer, as this one has lost what little respect he once had.
Whether or not Peterson is guilty was not ever at issue in this trial. From the beginning, it was a struggle to prove he was innocent, and that is not the way our justice system is supposed to work.
Also,I continue to see errors in the purported evidence like anchors that were never found and never proved to be made in the quantities purported. These are all suppositions and not evidence.
The location of the bodies being the smoking gun can be easily overcome by the fact that the bay was announced as the probable location only days after her disappearance.
If I were going to dispose of a body, that is precisely where I would have placed it it implicate Peterson.
There are far more questions than answers created by this trial. Knowing what I know about it, I could not have arrived at a guilty verdict. I could not have said he was innocent, but that is not the point of a trial where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.