REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — In tearful testimony, Scott Peterson's (search) family and friends pleaded with jurors to spare his life, contending that he
was mistakenly convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci.Posted on 12/07/2004 6:15:31 AM PST by crushelits
Witnesses: Jury Wrongly Convicted Peterson
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — In tearful testimony, Scott Peterson's (search) family and friends pleaded with jurors to spare his life, contending that he was mistakenly convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci.
Defense witnesses have already testified that Peterson sang to seniors on Sundays, distributed food and clothes in Tijuana and that he was a good friend and loving son.
On the fifth day of the trial's penalty phase, Peterson's relatives questioned the jury's verdict.
"I don't believe he's guilty," said his uncle, John Lathamke to see him die. It would tear our family apart."
But jurors showed no expression, some even looking away or toward the ground as Latham spoke.
Testimony in the seven-month-old trial's penalty phase was set to continue Tuesday and run into the next day before closing arguments. Jurors were expected to begin deliberating Thursday whether to sentence Peterson to life without parole or the death penalty.
Peterson was convicted Nov. 12 of one count of first-degree murder in the death of his pregnant wife, Laci, and one count of second-degree murder for the killing of her fetus.
Prosecutors say he smothered or strangled Laci Peterson (search) in their Modesto home on or around Christmas Eve 2002, then dumped her body into San Francisco Bay. The remains of the victims were discovered about four months later a few miles from where Peterson claims to have been fishing alone the day his wife vanished.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How many articles have I started personally to promote my site??? Maybe 2 or 3??
Maybe you ill at me, cause since I made valid points, instead of attacking my points, you would rather attack me??
Yea, well, you told your mom you were going shopping and then at then changed your mind and when to the movie. This is the most ridiculas bit of "evidence" to come up in the entire trial. But then, everything in the trial was circumstantial.
He likely is guilty. But with the evidence that was presented, there is no way he should get the death penalty. That is not just for his protection, that is for everyone's protection.
How many posts have you made here in total?
Before your comments on this thread... maybe 12?
Because he had decided the case without hearing the evidence
Well all the jurors should have been kicked off, because they certainly didnt hear all of the evidence. Just the evidence the Judge wanted them to hear.
Try 300
You have yet to make an informed, valid point.
Still waiting.
Then you don't know the facts.
I too believe that Scott was convicted using 100% circumstantial evidence.....
And? What's the problem with that?
You do realize, don't you, that you don't even need a BODY to go to trial, right?
You don't need to PROVE how she was murdered or WHERE she was murdered, period.
What the heck does that have to do with it? You think if soemone framed him that they would only know where he was going to be if they had read it in the newspaper.
I think the guy is probably guilty but there is no evidence is this case that is so solid that anyone can be certain.
It's almost like Geragos is doing everything he can to make sure Scott GETS the death penalty. This jury is convinced he is guilty, and by having witness tell them they are wrong, Geragos is probably sealing old scotty boys fate.
There, I fixed it.
One wonders what the outcome would have been had she been plain as a mud fence.
The same. He did it.
Prove to me how that boat didnt tip, although Fox News had experts saying it would tip.
Prove to me why Lacy's Hair in her OWN house should be used to convict Scott. Anybody with a Wife with long hair spots hair all over the house. Does this prove I murdered my wife although she is still alive?
Yea, well, when I came back from the movie, a woman and her baby weren't missing and feared dead.
It was a simple question: "Scott, where were you yesterday." The fact that he couldn't keep his story straight within hours of her "disappearance" was only the beginning of his lies.
This is the most ridiculas bit of "evidence" to come up in the entire trial.
It's part of the foundation of the multitude of lies that man told in the first 24 hours.
But then, everything in the trial was circumstantial.
And?
Well, if he gets life, there's no appeal, right? Perhaps he's holding out hope some liberal judge will overturn this case.
What is your opinion. Is he guilty or innocent? And were you in the court everyday?
Interesting. It seems that info should have been allowed in. Couldn't he have foreseen that would be a difficulty and planned around it?
I've always thought he has something in his past too. He had gone to college in Arizona or N Mexico where a girl he had known went missing. As I recall there was a body of water there too. Police wanted to talk to him (along with many others) but he left and went back to California! He has such souless eyes and I found it wierd he sat thru the trial without any emotion EXCEPT yesterday when he realized his a-- was grass because none of the jurors seemed interested in what his family was saying.
If we started convicting everyone by circumstantial evidence(you seem not to have a problem with) than about everyone could be proved guilty.
Example: My wifes hair in our house, 2 weeks before she was murdered I cheated on her, 3 weeks before she was murdered someone saw us arguing. All circumstantial evidence and something alot of men has done....Oh boy--we will all be in jail soon
It has everything to do with it; they had to know EXACTLY where he went fishing so they coudl "throw" the body in the bay so it would come ashore at the exact point to make him the perfect frame.
You think if soemone framed him that they would only know where he was going to be if they had read it in the newspaper.
How else would they know? You think they followed him around all day that day AFTER they took Laci? Who were they? Why did they take her?
>>The last guy kicked off was interviewed on Fox News and said he was leaning toward NOT GUILTY <<
Good ole' Justin Falconer was kicked off the jury for breaking the law--speaking to the victims brother-
Pay attention to the facts before you start forming an opinion, and you may have a better chance of being correct.
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.