Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
The Hollywood Investigator ^ | 11/30/2004 | J. Neil Schulman

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.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: evidence; fresnoda; innocentmyass; laci; murder; peterson; scott; trial; trials
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-395 next last
To: J. Neil Schulman
If he is innocent---
Why didn't he testify on his own behalf?
Why didn't he go to pieces when the bodies of Laci and Conner were found?
Why did he sit in that courtroom day after day looking like he didn't give a horses A@@ about his dead wife and child?
Why didn't he demand, demand and DEMAND his chance to get on the stand and cry his heart out at his terrible loss?

The argument of his innocence is saying is that if you kill right and dispose of the body correctly, then all the other evidence doesn't count. Even if every frigging' arrow in the universe is pointing at you. It just says "Hey guys, do it right and you too can kill!"

We got that from OJ, I resent like hell it being OK'd again.
41 posted on 11/30/2004 10:51:55 AM PST by najida (Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

Peterson could have gotten away with it had the bodies not washed up where he dumped them.

It was a close call. Nobody has ever been arrested for the murder of Chandra Levy.


42 posted on 11/30/2004 10:52:15 AM PST by BenLurkin (Big government is still a big problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher
Do you know that the murderer is ALWAYS the father of said pregnancy? Really, truly, ALWAYS?
43 posted on 11/30/2004 10:52:41 AM PST by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
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

Your credibility = zero.

44 posted on 11/30/2004 10:53:19 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
without an obvious motive

What more obvious motive do you need? He was broke, he wanted to sell Laci's stuff, and he wanted to shack up with another woman.

45 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:15 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
If so, you're trolling.

Nah, he's advertising his book.

46 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:20 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
It doesn't matter whether he did it or not. He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore he is not guilty and a great injustice has been done, regardless of what actually happened.

I swear some people on Free Republic are bloodthirsty. From members condoning prison rape to unjustly throwing people into jail for the rest of their life.
47 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:22 AM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Conspiracy Guy

What a steamin' pile o' poo!!


48 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST by Laura Earl (1/2way290)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speed_addiction
Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.

Me too.

49 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Laura Earl

I posted. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291267/posts?page=23#23


50 posted on 11/30/2004 10:55:46 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: speed_addiction

Speed, I beg to differ. What we are being asked to believe is that
1) Laci and Scott had an argument (about Amber)-
2) Scott left and went fishing by himself.
3) McKenzie the dog left and went for a walk by himself.
4) Laci (8 mos.pregnant) waited a few minutes and then walked 90 miles to the Bay, tied weights/anchors to her wrists and ankles and threw herself in the water.

Makes sense!


51 posted on 11/30/2004 10:55:56 AM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

Don't hold back! ; )


52 posted on 11/30/2004 10:57:30 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Sir, with all due respect:

This article proves you are neither lawyer or logistician. Most of us don't get our legal advice from watching old "Perry Mason" shows.

Your article on "Miracle Eye Drops that Cure Cataracts" demonstrates that you are neither physician nor practical. (Just a hint: Phacoemulsification and aspiration, the surgical procedure to emulsify then remove cataracts does not involve the retina nor its blood supply.)

I'm just wondering, as I wait with baited breath to read your "article" on Vulcan Mind Melds," will you soon be selling such Mind Melds on late night TV?

PS, Karl Hess was not the originator of Senator Goldwater's "Extremism...." line.

So far, you're 0 for 3.
53 posted on 11/30/2004 10:57:46 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt

I guess you didn't hear the verdict.

54 posted on 11/30/2004 10:58:39 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Well, it's a sad commentary on human nature, but I once sat on a jury where the accused, a street punk, thought it was a good strategy to give the jury "Attitude" looks. After an hour, the jury lost patience, and began giving the looks back.

And so terrifying were the looks of the average citizens, homemakers, grandmothers, Joe Sixpacks, that the Accused panicked and plead "Guilty".

Little Blue-Haired old ladies wanted to take him out and string him up from the nearest lampost.

Maybe if Richardson had adopted a more humble or contrite attitude, things would have gone differently. Nobody wins anything by having the knack of making people hate them, and a trial is a particularly wrong place to do that.

55 posted on 11/30/2004 10:59:28 AM PST by Gorzaloon (This tagline intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

This man proves the truth of Califormia Drug Rule #1: "Never Buy Drugs by Price Alone. Cheap Is Not Always Good!"


56 posted on 11/30/2004 10:59:56 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: FoxPro
He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore he is not guilty and a great injustice has been done, regardless of what actually happened.

Huh? Not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt? What does that mean? Apparently the jury believed that there wasn't any reasonable doubt.

57 posted on 11/30/2004 11:00:40 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

It's such a coincidence that Scott visited the crime scene 5 times in the 2 weeks she went missing even though it was a 2 hour drive away. It's coincidence that when he was arrested he had his brother's passport, $10,000 in cash and died his hair blonde. It's coincidence that he tried to sell his wife's car just one week after she went missing...and tried to sell their home just weeks after she went missing. Give me a break!


58 posted on 11/30/2004 11:02:24 AM PST by sonserae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher
No, it was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe.
59 posted on 11/30/2004 11:02:42 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

I love a good "gang up on the lunatic" thread.


60 posted on 11/30/2004 11:02:50 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-395 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson