Yes, oh guru of all things legal, I note you have zip on your profile.
I am just a casual observer of these proceedings, but in the reports I have read, I have seen NO hard evidence the police had prior to the questioning on the phone by Frey. Maybe you are aware of such evidence, and would be willing to share it with us? It is my understanding that the prosecution has absolutely NO concrete evidence linking Peterson to this crime, other than a hair found on his fishing boat, which could have stuck to his clothes when he left the house. Everything else is related to motive, and subject to interpretation. Even the concrete anchor question was not satisfactorily explained by either side.
Further, I HAVE been questioned by LE about a crime, but I was NOT in custody. They had to Mirandize me nonetheless, as I was a suspect by dint of mere association with the victim.
By-the-by, where did your get your law degree? I got all my knowledge of this from my Connecticut State Policeman father. But I guess you know more than him...
And further, where do you get the idea that I am a middle-aged 'bully'? At 33 years of age, I am hardly middle-aged, and I fail to see in my previous posts where I 'bullied' you, unless you consider disagreement with you as bullying?
It is my understanding that the prosecution has absolutely NO concrete evidence linking Peterson to this crime.
Interesting choice of words. "Concrete".
You want me to give you a rundown of all the "hard evidence" that's accrued to date? First, let me know the legal meaning of that terminology: "hard" evidence. I don't recall having run across that phrase in law books. The word "evidence", yes, but the phrase "hard evidence", um, not really.
The "hair" turned out to be two hairs, and it was not, as I previously thought, that one hair split into two pieces. Testimony showed that it was two distinct hairs. On one of them was found a small, cut blade of a very common CA grass. Coincidentally, this same grass very likely was found on the Petersons' lawn, and the grass had been cut just about 2 days before Laci disappeared, before Laci was somehow magically transported from her house (where her car was still safely parked in the driveway), to San Francisco Bay.
They had to Mirandize me nonetheless, as I was a suspect by dint of mere association with the victim.
Are you sure they "had" to Mirandize you--or could it be that they did it out of caution? Or did they tell you they "had" to? They could have been lying, you know. As I tried to point out to you, cops can tell a person any number of lies while interrogating him, and the interrogation will not fail to be admitted due to the lies.
Everything else is related to motive, and subject to interpretation.
I'll go you one better, and say that the presence of the hair in the pliers is also subject to interpretation. That's what circumstantial evidence is: evidence which must be interpreted. It is not evidence which tells the jury directly what happened, as an eyewitness would recount an event. But I hope you are aware that in the majority of such crimes, there is no eyewitness. I don't know why, but people who commit serious crimes have this tendency to not do them where people can see what they're doing.
I shouldn't do this... I should insist that you read up on the evidence yourself before pontificating, and not take so much time doing it for you. But--and I have no illusions that this will make you say you are convinced--try just some of the known facts on for size:
Laci was last seen (other than by Scott) wearing tan maternity pants and a patterned top. Scott helped the FBI put together a poster with what he said he last saw her in: black pants and a white top. When the remains were found, they were wearing tan pants and no top.
The remains were, however, clad in bra, panties, and the remnants of the tan pants. But no top.
So where was the top? Well, a police picture taken about Dec. 27 shows it hanging out of Scott's hamper, at the house. When the police returned on Feb. 18, the top was found balled up in the back of a drawer.
Scott left his home on Dec. 24 at just about 10:06 a.m. We know this because the cellphone towers (as usual, he was on the phone) show that he was proceeding between his home and his warehouse a minute and a half after 10:06, going in the direction of the warehouse.
Scott said Laci was alive and well, and going to walk their dog, when he left. He said she was then wearing black pants and a white top.
At 10:18, the next-door neighbor found the dog wandering in the street, in front of the house, with his leash on. She took the dog up to the back gate--which was standing open--and put him in the Petersons' backyard and closed the gate.
Scott told everyone that apparently Laci was abducted in the park while walking the dog.
Okay, well, if it happened that way, then it MUST have happened between 10:08 and 10:18 a.m. Laci was accounted for before that time, and the dog was accounted for after that time. Twelve minutes for her to change her outfit(and remove her shirt, since she must've gone out without a shirt), put on shoes (Scott told one person she was barefoot when he last saw her, and they seem to have had a custom of removing their shoes while in the house), get the dog's leash on, then bound down the street like a beach ball, pulled by a Golden Retriever, past the neighbors many of whom were home for Christmas Eve Day, and get abducted, w/o anyone ever seeing or hearing a single thing.
Much testimony was adduced that proved that during that period, Laci had had dizzy spells while walking out, had been advised not to walk at all or not till late afternoon, and had finally accepted this medical advice.
Laci and Scott had gone to a Disney park in about Sept., and she had been at the point where Scott had to put her in a wheelchair and wheel her around. Laci's "maternity yoga" teacher said that days b/f Laci disappeared, Laci had had to be helped to her car.
Scott told Amber's friend on Dec. 6 that he had "lost" his wife, b/c the friend confonted him about dating Amber while being married. Scott then told Amber the same thing on Dec. 9--that he had "lost" his wife. But Laci was alive at the time.
Scott was laughing and joking at the vigil in Modesto for Laci, a missing person, one week after the disappearance, on New Year's Eve. He also called Amber then and told elaborate stories about how he was near the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the celebrations were really exciting and beautiful. You can listen to his voice if you want. He sounds very happy and carefree.
No one really knows what Scott was doing the night of Dec. 23. The only person who could give him an alibi is, sadly, dead.
Lest you think she was abducted from inside the house, let me tell you that $10,000 worth of diamond jewelry (she was one of the named heirs to approximately $2.1 million) was left sitting on the dresser in plain sight, cash was left in her purse, and Scott's fairly extensive gun collection was still right where he had left it.
Oh, and then there's Scott's escapade when they finally arrested him down in San Diego. He had $10,000 of camping equipment and $15,000 cash in the car with him. He had bought the car in his mother's name, telling the salesman with a straight face that his name was Jacqueline Peterson. The bodies had washed ashore days b/f Scott's arrest. He was in San Diego, or Ocean Beach, CA, when the word came out that they'd washed ashore in northern CA. Did he rush up to where they'd been found? Nope. His only reaction appears to have been to get his sh** together quickly so he could get the hell out of Dodge. With his family's help. (Why didn't they say, "Scott, you have nothing to hide! Don't run away! How dare they accuse you of this! We'll sue their sorry behinds!")
Ha ha, sorry, the 30's qualifies as middle-aged. Been there, done that.
I'm a bit disappointed, truth be told. I have to admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for the hypothetical "old" (they seemed so at the time) guy who is sitting in front of the TV with a beer, in his undershirt and an old pair of pants, telling off the damned politicians, and haranguing anyone who doesn't agree. I remember when my Uncle Bob couldn't resist yelling out the window to a longhaired teenager, "Get a haircut!!!" Those irascible old guys, seriously, you gotta love 'em.
Have you ever heard of circumstantial evidence??
It has the same weight as direct evidence, according to the law.
LOL.....