Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
CONVICTED BY SUSPICION -- WHY SCOTT PETERSON MAY BE INNOCENT
by J. Neil Schulman, guest contributor.[November 30, 2004]
[HollywoodInvestigator.com] Scott Peterson may or may not have murdered his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. But the Redwood City, California trial that has just convicted Peterson of murdering Laci with premeditation was a kangaroo court in which none of the elements necessary to achieve a murder conviction were offered, much less proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The first element that needs to be proved in any murder trial is that a murder has occurred. There was never a determination by any California medical examiner that the cause of Laci Peterson’s death was homicide. No medical examiner was able to determine the cause of Laci Peterson's death, nor even prove to a medical certainty in what week beyond her disappearance on Christmas Eve that she died.
A thorough examination of the residence where Scott and Laci Peterson lived together, by teams of detectives and forensic experts, uncovered no evidence whatsoever that a crime had occurred there.
No crime scene was ever found.
No forensic evidence was found in the Petersons’ motor vehicles lending any foundation to the suspicion that she had ever been transported in one of them -- alive or dead -- to the place where, months later, her body was found.
No weapon was ever produced with any evidence that it had been used to cause Laci Peterson’s death.
No witness was produced who had seen or heard Scott Peterson argue with Laci near the time of her disappearance, much less any witness who had seen Scott Peterson fight with his wife or kill her.
The only forensic evidence produced in court that even presumptively linked Scott Peterson with the death of his wife was a strand of hair that DNA analysis showed to be Laci's, in a pliers found in Scott Peterson’s fishing boat. A police detective interviewed a witness who had seen Laci in the boat warehouse where Scott stored that boat. Even in the absence of this witness statement to a police detective, the rules of forensic transference indicate that transference of trace evidence between a husband and wife who lived together is common, and not indicative of foul play.
No witness ever saw Laci in that fishing boat, nor did any witness ever testify to seeing Scott Peterson bringing a corpse-sized parcel onto his fishing boat. Thus, the fishing boat never should have been allowed into evidence, nor should prosecution speculation into his dumping her body using that boat have been permitted.
Nor was any evidence offered in court showing that Scott Peterson had engaged in any overt activities in planning of a murder. He was not observed buying, or even shopping for, weapons or poison. Police detectives found no records in his computer logs that he was spending time researching methods of murder. No evidence was offered that he ever considered hiring someone to kill her.
No evidence was offered in court indicating that Scott Peterson had any reasonable motive for murdering his wife, such as monetary gain, or to protect great marital assets that he’d lose as an adulterer in a divorce in California, a no-fault community-property state, or because Scott had some basis to believe he had been cuckolded.
So in a case without an ME’s finding of homicide or a known time of death;
without a single witness to a crime having occurred;
without a crime scene;
without a murder weapon;
without any indisputable forensic evidence linking the defendant husband to his wife’s death;
without an obvious motive;
without the prosecution presenting conclusive direct or circumstantial evidence overcoming every single exculpatory scenario by which Laci Peterson might have otherwise come to her death;
in summation, without the prosecution demonstrating that Scott Peterson and only Scott Peterson had the means and opportunity to murder his wife and transport her alive or dead to the San Francisco Bay in which her body was found ... how is it possible that Scott Peterson has just been convicted of a premeditated murder with special circumstances warranting the death penalty?
It comes down to this: Scott Peterson was having an adulterous affair at the time of his wife’s disappearance, and Scott Peterson is a cad and a bounder.
Scott Peterson repeatedly lied to everyone around him – including his new mistress – to further the pursuit of this affair. This pattern of lying was established by audio tapes of his phone conversations with his mistress that were played in court. But these tapes were played before the jury without any foundation for their playing being offered, since their playing spoke to no element required for conviction in the crime with which he was charged. And these tapes -- which were more prejudicial than probitive -- destroyed Scott Peterson's credibility to appear as a potential witness in his own defense. They served only to make the jury hate Scott Peterson.
Scott Peterson found himself at the center of a media circus, and his attempts to change his appearance and escape being followed can equally be interpreted as either avoidance of the media who were stalking him or avoidance of police who were tracking him.
The bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child were discovered in close proximity to the location where Scott Peterson said he had been fishing at the time of her disappearance. But those bodies were found after months of all-media publicity in which Peterson’s alibi was broadcast and published, and if Laci had been murdered by some third party, the murderer would have easily had both means and motive to dump her body at that location to convict Scott and end pursuit of themselves for that murder.
In any case where more than one explanation of a fact can be offered, the judge’s charge instructs the jury that the explanation suggesting innocence is the one they are legally required to adopt in their deliberations.
Scott Peterson was convicted at trial of murder possibly leading to a death sentence in which the trial judge allowed prosecutors to speculate in front of a jury on how Scott Peterson might have murdered his wife. Anyone who’s watched a single episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order knows the judge is charged with forbidding such speculation unless there is a foundation of facts in evidence.
No such foundation was presented indicating a method of murder in the murder trial of Scott Peterson.
In other words, Scott Peterson looked and acted guilty, and in the age of 24-hour -a-day TV news networks that have to fill up those hours with ratings-producing subjects, Scott Peterson’s trial and conviction was the perfect storm of Guilty by Suspicion.
Scott Peterson may very well have been convicted of a murder that he committed. If so, he was convicted in a case that under our system of justice – in which the presumption of innocence may only rightfully be overcome by evidence that is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt – never should have been allowed into court, much less handed over to a jury.
The jury that convicted Scott Peterson was a lynch mob inflamed by prejudicial testimony and their conviction of Scott Peterson qualifies as a hate crime. The verdict needs to be overturned on appeal. The judge brought out of retirement to preside over the case needs to be retired again. The prosecution needs to be brought up on civil rights charges to make sure this behavior is punished.
May God have mercy on Scott Peterson’s soul if he is, in fact, a psychopath who spent Christmas Eve murdering his pregnant wife so he could avoid the inconvenience of a divorce.
And may God have equal mercy on the prosecutors, judge, and jurors who have taken away Scott Peterson’s life – whether through a sentence of life imprisonment or death by lethal injection – if they have allowed their disgust for a deeply flawed man to whip them into a passion in which suspicion in the absence of any proof was sufficient to convict him.
Copyright © 2004 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.
J. Neil Schulman's book, The Frame of the Century?, presents as strong a case for a suspect other than O.J. Simpson in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson as was presented to convict Scott Peterson in the murder of Laci Peterson. Our sister publication, the Weekly Universe, has previously reported on Schulman's 'Vulcan Mind Meld with God' and his discovery of an eye drop that cures cataracts.
I'm going to Amazon and write a review of ALL your books, cautioning would be buyer's that you have a bad habit of NOT knowing the facts you're writing about.
She did NOT figure it out.
I remember quipping in law school "and if you don't have the law or the facts, run like hell."
That's laughable coming from you.
Yeah, that technical jargon...who needs it? LOL
You did not read the transcripts...did you?
.38sw wrote:
"*sigh* If this is an example of your ability to think and reason, then I won't be buying any of your books."
If your demonstrated skill is writing unsupported personal attacks, you have a future as a Democratic Party operative.
JNS
Please continue...
Impugn the fairness of the process and you're a Geragos shill.
Okay, this is both a personal smear and completely irrelevant to proving your case.
You have all the qualifications to have been on the prosecution team in the trial of Scott Peterson.
Personal smear? HA! Your writing speaks for itself.
I do not have a case to prove.
Your premise is bogus.
You have not made a legitimate arguement.
Your musings are simplistic.
They fail in the face of the massive circumstancial evidence.
You're trying to peddle your 'book.'
Ya know, I supported all of my statements. What I wrote is pretty mild in the real of "personal attacks". If saying that you make no sense and that I question your ability to think and reason because you aren't making any sense, then fine. Attack me by saying I belong in the Democrat party. You may as well report me to the mods while you're at it.
I think this poster wishes he were on SP's team. LOL.
Imagine, Geragos could have used ALL these marvelous arguements.
Silly Geragos, he must need a refresher course from this poster.
I remember quipping in law school "and if you don't have the law or the facts, run like hell."
Or write a book? LOL.
onyx wrote:
"You're trying to peddle your 'book.'"
That particular book came out seven years ago. Six more of my books have been published since, and none of them have anything to do with this topic. Neither does my next book.
I've already had one poster to this forum threaten to write bad reviews of all my books on Amazon.com for spite.
Yeah, that must be it. I came here to sell my old book.
JNS
Since when is the truth a personal smear?
Almost without exception, your posts are YOUR articles, with links back to YOUR sleazy web site.
I checked your forum posts.
All I found were articles penned by you.
THAT is what I call a self promoting use of FR.
I think this poster very well could be Mark Geragos.........LOL.
*FWEET*
Personal attack!! Smear!!
Flag on the field.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA!
Is it the sleaze?
It's the complete detachment from reality that is the big tipoff.
ROTFLOL!
Too funny.
Thanks, I needed a great laugh.
And the arrogance.
Geeeeeeeeeez.
How I ever managed to not cross paths with
this one, I will NEVER know!
LOL!
Velveeta wrote:
"[Quoting me] 'In the absence of a corpse, how are we to know that a murder has occurred?'
"Just one example, but there are many: Person X is missing and reported as such by her husband. The husband has replaced carpeting in the bedroom, but the blood stain is still illuminated with luminol. The area of the blood stain to the volume of blood loss can be calculated to determine that anyone losing that volume of blood would be dead."
Good example!
The trouble in this case is that nothing equally as inculpatory as a positive luminol reading exists.
JNS
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.
