Posted on 11/12/2004 4:47:48 PM PST by LouAvul
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) - It was circumstantial evidence that led jurors to decide that Scott Peterson planned the killing of his wife. They agreed it was premeditated, first-degree murder even though prosecutors didn't prove where, how or exactly when Laci was killed.
The jury did so, legal analysts said, because of the cumulative weight of all the circumstantial factors that pointed to Peterson - not least his alibi about going fishing in San Francisco Bay the day she disappeared from her home in Modesto, more than 85 miles southeast.
When her body and that of her fetus turned up four months later not far from the marina where Peterson launched his brand new boat, that alibi became some of the strongest evidence against him.
"Just the fact that her body was found in a place where he put himself - that alone is overwhelming evidence," said Pete Kossoris, a retired attorney who prosecuted murder cases for 27 years.
Kossoris said the defense didn't present a "reasonable alternative" to the prosecution's theory of the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
The "circumstances" equate to "murderer."
"cumulative weight of all the circumstantial factors"
I guess I missed this part of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' instruction.
Lots of people are guilty of lots of crimes under this standard of evidence.
We could burn witches based on this standard.
There was not a reasonable doubt left.
It looks as if he did it, but put someone away for life because of what it "looks" like? How many people get put behind bars who are innocent? Pretty many when you look at all the stories of people sitting in jail for years and then being set free on DNA evidence... I'm not sold on his guilt even though it appears he did it... prove that he did it... they did not.
Not sure if this was argued or even possible, but it's a plausible explanation for her being in the bay that doesn't involve Peterson.
That bugged me too. If I wanted to dump her, I would go right to the bay, where they said Peterson was. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that he was guilty as Hell.
Peterson is a monster and thank God the jury found him guilty.
</I>
This is a monumental victory for justice. In California, "beyond a reasonable doubt" usually means that the defendant has confessed to the crime. Anything less, he goes free.
99.9% of ALL MURDERS are committed without a witness and the perpetrator NEVER CONFESSES.
Without "circumstatial evidence", we could all be DEAD MEAT for anyone who got us alone somewhere.
iinocent until proven guilty. I don't see how you prove someone guilty with no evidence of a crime.
No Crime? Laci's bound body didn't just wander to the SF bay...she was murdered. Rarely is there a murder and video tape of the crime to show in court. Circumstantial evidence is more prevalent than you probably realize.
Breaking News!!!
This just in!!!
Young boy trips over sqirrel. Squirrel is dead.
SWAT team called in to capture the perp. CINCPAC and other gov't resources are involved in tracking the whereabouts of the 11 year old boy.
Stay tuned for further news at 11....
I agree....... Thank God they found him guilty.
That isn't how it works.
I saw a post on yahoo(yuck,I went there to gawk at the idiots-sorry)that made some sense.It pinned this murder on Amber.She was ticked about his lying.She figured he was hers for the long haul and a dad to her daughter.She gets revenge and does this on her own knowing Peterson was at the Bay that day.The only tough part is how did she dump the body by herself?....
I agree a crime was committed. I just think if your going to put some one in jail for life or execute them, you should have rock solid evidence and be darn sure you have the right person. No matter how much it appears he did it, it does not make it so.
If you think about the OJ trial, the evidence was mostly circumstantial. Nobody saw him kill the victims.
Finally, consider a husband whose wife finds that his shirt smells like perfume, his pants have lipstick smeared all over the front, there are blonde hairs in his undershirt, and finally little bite marks on his stomach. No direct evidence he was fooling around (unless she broke into the hotel room or found the videotape), but the wife most likely will find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm only speaking generally, as I'm not familiar with all the details of this case.
good examples, but I feel the evidence in this case was not the best. But I was not on the jury. It appear that the 2 jurors that disagreed were booted so they could get the conviction. Hardly a slam dunk case... I'm glad I am not Scott Peterson. I can enjoy the debate from my freeper chair.
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.