Posted on 09/21/2004 4:37:21 PM PDT by granite
Trial Entering Final Weeks
POSTED: 6:19 am PDT September 21, 2004 UPDATED: 3:44 pm PDT September 21, 2004
LOS ANGELES -- The lead detective assigned to investigate Laci Peterson's disappearance had "about 41 reasons" why police thought her body was in San Francisco Bay, he testified Tuesday.
Modesto police Detective Craig Grogan ticked off the list in rapid succession, providing jurors with the first detailed narrative of the murder case heard to date in the 17-week trial. As he laid out the case, he suggested that police had more than enough reason to suspect Scott Peterson was involved.
Prosecutors allege Peterson killed his 8-months pregnant wife on or around Dec. 24, 2002, in their Modesto home, then dumped her weighted body into the bay. Her remains -- and that of her fetus -- washed up in April 2003, not far from the Berkeley Marina where he launched his boat on Christmas Eve for what he claims was a solo fishing trip.
Defense lawyers maintain someone else abducted and killed Laci. But Grogan's account had jurors leaning forward in their seats, scribbling notes.
He explained each point...
(Excerpt) Read more at nbc4.tv ...
Apparently there is no evidence in the house...I think he drugged her...put in the truck and dumped her body while she was still alive...leaving no evidence at the house. He's a slug....
Ping!
He might have strangled her could he have?
It's looking more and more like all we need do
is wait for the jury to deliberate and come
back with that "guilty" verdict. I am not sure
if the jury will vote for the death penalty. I
just have a feeling they won't.
I live in Sacramento and at the time the story broke...right after Christmas...the media here reported how Peterson had said he was fishing in Berkeley when his wife went missing. The Modesto Keystone Cops *refused* to check out the Berkeley marina and it was the Berkeley & Emeryville Police who finally searched the area. The Modesto cops all but called Peterson a liar and made it pretty clear that they were convinced he'd dumped her body at New Melones or Comanche resevoirs. They even searched the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota canals for her.
The witnesses who saw Peterson in Berkeley were called liars by the Modesto cops. The witnesses who saw Laci in town when Scott was fishing were called reliable and their statements "proved" Scott wasn't in Berkeley. Right up until the bodies washed ashore in the Bay did the Modesto cops keep saying Scott was lying about being in Berkeley.
Then they flip-flopped and said he WAS in Berkeley! The witnesses they'd called liars were now reputable and the reputable witnesses were now liars!
They even covered up the fact that Laci KNEW about the boat and had been to the warehouse to see it!
Frankly, I don't know if the guy is guilty or innocent, but I sure as hell don't want to see him convicted on this BS standard of crocked-up 'evidence' the Modesto PD has conjured. By their standard of 'proof' *anyone* could be proved 'guilty' of the crime.
Scott is a piece of work, no doubt, but he DID tell the Gospel truth about where he was right from the start. The Modesto PD chose to construct a case where what we now know as the truth was debased as a lie.
The Modesto PD has lied more than Scott has since the crime occured, and they are proving that in court every day. Iron Feliks from the KGB would have been proud.
"If he didn't do it, HE'D BE ON THE STAND SCREAMING THAT! ! !"
He does not have to prove himself innocent, the prosecution has to prove him guilty. He does not have to say a word in his own defense and the judge will instruct the jury not to consider his lack of testimony as evidence of guilt or innocence. That nasty old Fifth Amendment, you know.
I totally agree this guy is crap. That does not make him guilty of murder especially when exculpatory evidence is being covered up by the prosecution. The judge in the case came very close to a contempt citation against the prosecution for a number of exculpatory gaffes:
1) The 'molds' for the concrete weights they said held Laci in the Bay? Wrong size.
2) The single strand of hair 'found' in the pliers on Scott's boat was 'evidence' so long as Laci had no knowledge of the boat. So the prosecution and the cops *forged* new police reports to exclude the fact that they KNEW Laci had seen the boat at the warehouse at least once.
3) The GPS cellphone records that proved Scott had used his cell phone from Dublin, CA (probably while driving on I-580) had been suppressed until the bodies washed up.
My point is that no matter what the evidence says, the cops and the prosecutor were going after Scott.
Don't be surprised if he walks free and sues the Modesto cops and the DA for lying about him.
(1) If [Petersen] didn't do it, HE'D BE ON THE STAND SCREAMING THAT! ! !
All you have seen so far is the prosecution's "case." Petersen has not had the opportunity to be on the stand, nor is he obligated to take the stand.
(2) "Reckon Garigos (or whatever the defense lawyer's name is) will journey to Russia to defend the Belsen assassin.
Mark Geragos is a smart lawyer. Lawyers like him don't take on losing cases. He has run circles around the prosecution so far.
This says nothing about the potential guilt of his client. But the prosecution has the obligation to prove the charges. Just listing suspicions does not provide evidence of guilt.
Good analysis. We must have been typing at the same time.
Sitting in the jury box, even five days seemed too long and it was difficult to remember which witness said what. As a lawyer who tries civil cases it was the most educational experience I have ever had. Get your witnesses on the stand, get what you absolutely need, and get them off of the stand, as quickly as you possibly can.
I cannot imagine sitting in a jury for over 17 weeks. There is no chance, none, that any of the jurors are still paying attention. They are all brain dead by now.
"Just listing suspicions does not provide evidence of guilt."
And that about summarizes the case the prosecution has presented so far.
With this standard of evidence as judicial precedent for any man to be convicted of murdering his wife all she needs to do is just walk away from home. The police will find her purse and belongings on site and will immediately focus on the husband as the killer. Then, even without a body, we can expect the poor bastard to go to jail for a murder he didn't commit.
Try this one on for size: I had the San Diego County DA come after me for back child support some years ago. They cleaned out my bank accounts and simultaneously issued an arrest warrant for me to the Sacramento County DA. Fortunately, I know a lot of people at that office and one of them called me about it. This was a big surprise to me at the time as I had *never* been in San Diego before. My wife was also a bit peeved.
The evidence on which my assets were seized and a warrant was issued for my arrest and extradition? I and one other guy in San Diego share a name up to our middle initials. The middle *name* is different.
Oh, that and I was 32 and he was 56. The Social Security numbers and Driver's License numbers were no match...not in the least.
If not for being politically active and acquainted with some good folks my butt would've been extradited to San Diego where I'd be butt-monkeyed until I *proved* I wasn't the guy they wanted.
My bank was kind enough to replenish my accounts after a terse letter from my then-attorney who made it clear they'd illegally enforced someone else's warrant against me.
This was just over child support.
I love our system, but I don't trust the government workers who staff it.
"BTW - Did anyone ever know Scott Peterson to ever go fishing even once ever at all in his whole life?? Either this life or even a previous existence? All that tackle and the boat were brand new..."
So? He owns a used boat and new tackle. Sounds like a guy who wanted to go fishing to me.
First time I went fishing I went out with a new pole, new tackle, and a new net. Maybe I killed Laci based on this...after all...why did I have new fishing gear if I wasn't going to kill someone?
Oh, yes. I was 38 the first time I went fishing. Older than Scott is now. No one *ever* knew me to go fishing before that and most people who know me are surprised to hear that I go fishing once in while. Truthfully, I drop a baited line in the water and feed the bait to the fish. I'd catch more fish at the supermarket and spend less money doing it, too.
"It worked for OJ"
Hmm. What really got OJ off was the jury's fear of riots a la Rodney King were they to convict.
I have read all of your other posts on this thread and agree with you on those points. However, surely you can't be serious about that above statement, can you?
The O.J. jury had their minds made up the very first time they sat in the jury box and it didn't have anything to do with fearing a riot. Black man kills white woman, that's ok in their book. They were "balancing the scales" for all of the "injustice" shown to black men by the evil white man.
BTW, I have to assume that you and JATO are relatively new to the Peterson threads. Better have your flame suits on. :-)
"It would seem that only a guilty defendant could be "tripped up" by taking the stand."
Unproved and unprovable. The prosecution has the burden of proof. As in the case of the Kobe Bryant trial, he never had to say a word, except possibly, "Not guilty."
When the jurors were interviewed after the case, several of them stated that the prosecution did not prove that OJ had enough time to have committed the murder - in other words the facts of the timeline as presented by the prosecution provided sufficient reasonable doubt. The timeline instructions were the very first ones presented to the jury by Judge Ito.
This is not to say OJ did not participate in the homicides. I don't know, and neither does anybody else except OJ, and possibly and other person who may have been part of the crime. What it does say is that the burden remains squarely on the prosecution - which is the way it should remain, in OJ's case, Petersen's case, or any other criminal case.
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.