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 ...
I agree with both of you. From the moment Peterson was arrested and people started saying he was guilty because he dyed his hair, my first thought was "Of course he was going to run. He's in California. The judicial system there is so screwed up, I'd run too."
Did he kill her? Most likely, just on the odds. Did I see any evidence in the trial? No. The trial as a whole was disturbing. I know there was pressure on the judge to prevent an OJ-type trial, but it did seem that he tied the hands of the defense and let the prosecution get away with a lot. The most disturbing parts where the exclusion of the boat video (which, to address another poster, may have been a guess, but the entire prosecution case was a guess) and the final jury dismissals. It makes me very uncomfortable to know that it was a hung jury after days of deliberation. the judge removes 2 jurors, and HOURS later a guilty verdict comes back. Whether it was intentional or not, it gives the impression of fixing a verdict.
Hey, I think I know who it could have been. My sister-in-law and her husband live near there. In fact, the police and volunteers were searching the river two blocks from their house. I remember my sis-in-law speculating that it was the husband (Scott) that did, before there was any evidence that Laci was dead. So I'm sure she must have had something to do with it. Probably have a secret affair with Scott, and wanted to off the wife. Then, her husband got wind of it, and planted the body in the bay to frame Scott! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Scott's BIG mistake was that he literally tracked himself for the cops via cell phone.
No darn.
I am 500 miles away and
I can account for my activities. LOL!
Circumstantial evidence is much misunderstood. There's nothing particularly weird or non-conclusive about it. It doesn't mean lack of any evidence or lack of any physical evidence, it just means that there is no eyewitness. It's always been around, because criminals tend to avoid committing crimes in the presence of witnesses. And circumstantial evidence can be quite damning. The classic example is the kid's in the kitchen, the chair's been dragged over to the cookie jar, the lid's off, the cookies are gone, and there are crumbs all over the kid's face. Nobody SAW him take the cookies . . . but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence.
Oh, NOW you tell us!
LOL!
I don't know if he is guilty or not, the circumstantial evidence considered. If the evidence had shown even the slightest propensity toward violence against women or brought to light a argument or past history of same, it would have been different. But to my knowledge there was nothing......nothing at all.
I don't think however, that the prosecution proved anything that passes the doubt test. They also had no manner of death, no murder location and/or even a very good motive.
All they had was the bodies in proximity to the fishing trip. To add to that there was the public knowledge of the fishing location within days of her disappearance.
They could not even say for sure he made more than one anchor and that they were missing. It was all just supposition from multiple concrete stains on a bench. Had they found the anchors to prove the supposition it would have made a difference, but they did not and they tried very hard to do so. I certainly would not want to turn a guilty murderer loose, but to convict a innocent man is far worse.
The idea that someone had to be brought to justice and it was most likely Peterson who did it is nothing more than mob justice.
That is unfortunately what I believe occurred here and I hope they revisit this when the emotional climate cools. This may well be a tragic lynching, and frankly, if there is this possibility the case must be retried.
I think that it is a great blow to justice if someone is jailed for a crime not committed by them, but it is far more than a blow if someone is executed for same. It would be a huge tragedy.
Justice can never be perfect, but it must error, if error is made, on the side of the defendant.
I firmly believe it was the effects of the Hacking case that may well have determined or guided the verdict in this case.
This case should be a text book appeal case and I hope they revisit it. In the defense of logic, when you have eliminated the suppositions and unproved theories, what ever is left, no matter how improbable or unlikely it may seem, it is very often the truth.
In this case, I believe the jury felt obligated to find him guilty if solid evidence did not lead to someone else.
This is not the way justice is served.
The prosecution could have countered with video of that. The original defense video should have been shown.
Yeah, I forgot that!
The 'fake' phone call!
Not exactly. Remember that Laci's body was never fully recovered and the time and cause of death were never determined. If the murderer buried the body in his back yard then learned of the search, removing it to the bay would tend to frame Scott.
Now look at it another way...So you're saying that Scott killed Laci then dumped her in the bay 90 miles away then came home and told everyone that he had gone fishing in the bay 90 miles away?
I don't know how smart Scott is, but he is a college grad, and it would not take a lot of smarts to say that he had gone fishing somewhere else...like in the opposite direction from where the bodies were found.
Scott doesn't impress me as smart. I just has gotten away with everything in life and probably believed it was the natural state of affairs.
This case should be a text book appeal case and I hope they revisit it.
Name the text book.
Appeals are based on trial error...
legalities unfulfilled. This judge
has not made errors.
I believe it was on Court TV that something was alluded to about the circumstances surrounding his exit from college, but that it was not allowed.
First, I don't think anyone framed Peterson. It looks to me like he was guilty. But, there is not enough evidence to give him the death penalty.
That said, what does anyone have to frame someone? It is a correct assumption on your part to say a frame job would be up close and personal.
As to who would benefit from Laci's death, you are not suggesting that every murder is for someone's benefit are you?
When circumstaintial evidence fits so neatly together, you can draw three conclusions I think. Either the person did it, they were framed or they were in all the wrong places at the wrong time. Are there any other possibilities?
Does your sister-in-law drive a tan van? If so, Geragos is looking for her! ;-)
I don't, to this day, know where the "Berkeley Marina" is. Is that the right name? If it is, I just googled it and I got a map and driving directions.
Not to mention the fact that flotsam and jetsam have been know to appear hundreds, even thousands of miles from their points of origin.
Doesn't seem like a big problem to me.
No I didn't follow the case closely...is that a bad thing?
Which of my arguments are full of holes?
What part of my post is nonsense?
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.