Posted on 06/02/2004 9:13:42 PM PDT by BerniesFriend
Peterson Defense Attacks Case As Flimsy
1 hour, 22 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By KIM CURTIS, Associated Press Writer
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Scott Peterson (news - web sites)'s lawyer said Wednesday that prosecutors have a flimsy circumstantial case against his client — and he can show Peterson didn't kill his pregnant wife because the fetus she carried was born alive.
AP Photo
AP Photo Slideshow: Laci Peterson Case
Peterson's Mother Defends Her Son (AP Video)
That assertion highlighted the two-hour opening statement of defense lawyer Mark Geragos, who told jurors the boy whom the couple intended to name Conner didn't die in the womb, as prosecutors assert.
Geragos indicated he will call experts to testify that the fetus was older than it would have been if it died at the same time as Laci, and that the umbilical cord was cut in such a way that the child must have been removed from Laci Peterson (news - web sites) while still living.
Prosecutors have said their experts will testify that the fetus was expelled well after Laci Peterson's corpse was dumped into San Francisco Bay.
Prosecutors allege Peterson killed his 8-months-pregnant wife on or around Dec. 24, 2002, then disposed of her body during what he tried to disguise as a fishing trip.
"If this baby was born alive, clearly Scott Peterson had nothing to do with this murder," Geragos said. "The evidence is going to show that (Laci) was alive on Dec. 24 when Scott went to the marina."
It was the first formal glimpse inside a strategy to clear Peterson by suggesting that somebody else was the killer. Peterson, 31, could face the death penalty or life without parole if convicted in the trial that's expected to last six months.
Prosecutors have portrayed Peterson as a lying cheat who killed his wife because he was having an affair with massage therapist Amber Frey — and because he wasn't ready to become a father.
Geragos countered Wednesday that while the former fertilizer salesman had a mistress, it doesn't mean he killed his wife.
"He's not charged with having an affair. ... The fact of the matter is that this is a murder case and there has to be evidence," he said.
Geragos downplayed Peterson's interest in Frey, saying they only went out on two dates, and characterized him as a giddily expectant father who accompanied his wife to all her doctor's appointments.
During his opening statements Tuesday, prosecutor Rick Distaso didn't promise jurors they would hear about a murder weapon or an eyewitness to the crime, and Geragos seized on the circumstantial nature of the case.
Authorities in the couple's hometown of Modesto secured more than 100 bags of material from Peterson's home, car and warehouse, and state crime lab scientists analyzed the evidence exhaustively, Geragos said.
"What did they get out of all those tests? Zip, nada, nothing," he said.
In fact, Geragos said, at least three eyewitnesses saw Laci Peterson after her husband left to go fishing on the bay.
Geragos then tried to aim suspicion at vagrants who live in a park near the couple's home where Scott Peterson said his wife was going to walk their golden retriever on the morning she vanished.
He called her a "spitfire" and said she often confronted transients who ventured into the neighborhood. One neighbor, a local judge, even warned Laci to stop doing so because it wasn't safe, Geragos said.
Geragos mentioned witnesses who reported seeing a suspicious van in the Petersons' neighborhood around the morning Laci Peterson disappeared, again raising an alternative to the prosecution's theory. He said another witness saw her being shoved into a dark colored van days later.
Geragos has offered a series of explanations for the crime, including that members of a satanic cult abducted Laci Peterson. Instead of pursuing other leads, authorities "turned his life upside down" as they single-mindedly pursued Peterson, Geragos said.
Prosecutors said Peterson used a recently purchased boat to ferry his wife's body to San Francisco Bay from a marina in Berkeley. Her remains and that of the fetus washed ashore in April 2003, near where Peterson says he took the solo fishing trip the previous December.
Prosecutors also have said that Laci Peterson didn't know about the boat, but on Wednesday Geragos insisted she had seen it Dec. 20 — and that people saw her at the warehouse where the boat was stored.
The day closed with testimony from the first prosecution witness — the Petersons' housekeeper, Margarita Nava. Nava testified in Spanish that she cleaned the home's kitchen floor Dec. 23.
Prosecutors contend also Peterson cleaned and mopped his kitchen after killing his wife, and have seized the mop as evidence.
___
Associated Press Writer Kim Curtis contributed to this report.
If the prosecution's circumstantial evidence can't stand up to critical examination, Scott Peterson deserves to be acquitted if there is reasonable doubt he could have done it. If we're going to sentence a man to death for murder, the state's evidence must be more than simply good enough. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
A guy who is cheating on his 8 month pregnant wife drives 90 miles to "go fishing" with no bait at 11 AM on Christmas Eve is innocent?
When I first heard this, I said something is not right.
I doubt Peterson's innocent. But that doesn't mean squat unless the prosecution can show he committed the crime. And they have put on their case in court first and it has to survive cross-examination from the defense.
I doubt he is innocent either - but this is California and California juries are often on another planet.
Obviously, you are not a fisherman.
I have an open mind on the issue of guilt or innocence.
But I do think that the absence of ANY blood evidence ANYWHERE, on the floor, in the car, on the mop, in the boat, ANYWHERE, is not only supportive of the presumption of innocence, but is positively exculpatory.
I am delighted to see that there are still a few people in this country who actually want to see some evidence before they write someone off as guilty.
Why blood?
Try Strangulation...
Asphixiation.......
Blunt-force trauma...
Poison............
Drugs.....
I don't beleive these are part of the prosecutions theory of the case.
Keep an even strain on all lines. If this were the UK, Scotty Boy would have walked a long time ago because of the media hype. He may walk still.
Scott Peterson is not a sympathetic figure and he will not get OJ justice. If the prosecution has a good case he will fry.
I think he's probably guilty, but I don't think I could condemn a man to death on the strength of the evidence I've seen so far.
He is definitely looking good for it, no doubt. But supposedly the State has got to show us a bit more than that.
He bought the boat 3 weeks before she died. First boat he ever had. He could go fishing a lot closer to home. Claimed he was fishing for sturgeon. Boat was too small and there are no sturgeon near where he said he went. Recently heard that the poles he had were never used. When the cops asked him what bait do you use for sturgeon, he said "I don't know"
Who goes fishing at 11 AM? You go at the break of day.
I don't know about you, but on Christmas eve, Im busy as hell running around getting things set up for that night or Christmas day. And since Laci wsa 8 months pregnant, wouldn't he be sticking close by to do the running around for her?
Just like OJ this guy is aas guilty as hell.
I hope the State has something solid on him, cause in my heart I think he's as guilty as can be. But right now, if I'm on that jury, my vote is NOT GUILTY. :-(
All of that may be true, but so what?
So, he just bought the boat? So what? So he was an inexperienced fisherman? So what? So his behavior doesn't conform to your expectations. So what?
All of this can't possibly add up to a murder conviction.
The prosecution had better have something better than the case they outlined in their opening or this is going to be an hugely embarrassing failure for them.
Based on the opening, I think the prosecution is in very deep doo doo.
having a bunch of 85 iqs on the jury certainly help the defense.
Aassume scott peterson is innocent. what would he do? Go to the fbi headquarters and take a lie detector test. Since he didn't do this-
is a proof that he is guilty.
Unfortunately our legal system is wonderful for enriching lawyers, not so good at other things.
Gosh, you're right. There's no way to kill somebody without having blood all over. Heck, even if you strangle someone, the blood gets everywhere. The prosecutors should just give up now. (/sarcasm)
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.