Replies

To answer your question...yes, I think it is a problem if the only piece of evidence that we have is eyewitness testimony. As a juror, I would much rather have a good circumstantial case than a case that hinges on what someone "saw". Although, encoding and correctly storing a novel, shocking event is different than an event that is routine and not novel. However, I would guess that we have more than eyewitness testimony in most cases. In this case we would look at the totality of the evidence - if the police have some evidence that she didn't walk her dog in the park that evidence may be given more weight than what a group of eyewitnesses say. All evidence (including eyewitnesses) needs to be scrutinized in a court of law. In this case I am just as skeptical about witnesses who claim they saw Scott at the marina (or anywhere else for that matter).

Oct. 14th National Enquirer (Courtesy Rickamorti from Purgatory forum)

Scott Peterson Planned Escape

Accused killer tried to buy car on sly

picture: copy of waiver of liability on form also ad for car

by Don Gentile

synopsis

The Enquirer has uncovered shocking new proof Scott Peterson was getting ready to run from the law just days before his wife Laci and unborn son Conner were found.

Shortly before his April 18 arrest, Scott Peterson bought a used car in San Diego near his parents home and told the seller his name was "Jacqueline Peterson."
"I asked him whether he was French or something," substitue teacher Mike Griffin, who sold Scott the 1984 Mercedes coupe, told the NE.

Peterson replied: "It's a name my parents hung on me, kind of a boy- named Sue type of thing." Continuing his lie, Scott added that people just called him Jack. Jacqueline Peterson is the name of Scott's mother.

San Diego criminal attorney David Bartick called Scott's attempt to hide his identity a strong indication he was getting ready to flee the country.

Why is he not revealing his identity? It is the type of evidence that can be used by prosecutors to show there was an intent to flee," Bartick told the NE. "he doesn't want to be associated with that car, so there would be no official trace to him."

As the NE previously reported, Peterson had discovered a global-positioning device police secretly installed in his truck. He knew cops were tracking him. "Authorities believe that's the reason he purchased another vehicle- one he could escape in," disclosed a police insider.

Peterson bought the Mercedes from Griffin on April 12- the day before the body of Scott's unborn child Conner washed up in San Francisco Bay and 2 days before Laci's remains came ashore a mile away.

Griffin did not recognize Scott when he showed up at his San Diego condo to answer an ad he'd placed. Scott took the car for a test drive, then bargained to get a good price- $3,600. He left, then returned only two hours later with 36 hundred-dollar bills.

Griffin had already filled out and signed the Notice of Transfer and Release of Liability form that California requires for sale of a used car.

Scott printed, "Jacqueline Peterson" in the boxes on the form for the buyers name and had 10 days to register the transfer with the state.

Suspecting something amiss, Griffin asked Peterson if he had a drivers license. "He never showed me one but gave me a number - J0880056- and said it was a Florida driver's license that expired on Oct. 24, 2004 (Scott's birthday), Griffin told the NE.

Clearly, the devious murder suspect had made up that number! Florida licenses have a letter followed, by 12 digits.

The fertilizer salesman from Modesto had messed up- trapping himself in his own growing web of deceit.

We can talk about eyewitness testimony, you guys, but we must not forget that that's something we DON'T HAVE in this case! There is no known eyewitness to Laci's murder, other than Laci and the person who killed her.

Before we agonize too much over whether the eyewitnesses are accurate or not, let's remember that whether or not Laci was seen walking the dog on Dec. 24 is NOT proof positive of anything at this point.