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 ...
In the Peterson trial, perhaps it was procedural and not the same situation. But, if a juror was holding out by refusing to deliberate until their case was heard by the rest of the jury, then that should be within proper bounds and not grounds for a juror to be dismissed.
For instance, that juror might say, "You think there is evidence in this case and want me to vote guilty, okay, let's go over it. All of it. And when we find one concrete piece of evidence that points directly to his guilt, then I will vote for first degree murder as all of you want. Otherwise, I don't want to hear any more about it. I'm not voting for first degree murder. Talk all you want."
Is that the case with the removal of the one juror? And if so, was it right for that juror to be removed?
Yes, I have.
But I've never heard it discussed that they can go out and do their own investigations, have you?
Nor have I ever heard of a judge keeping a juror on the panel who refuses to DELIBERATE, have you?
Could it have been a little less than 100 pounds since the head, arms and legs were removed?
Scott's boat, Laci's and Connor's body and SCOTT'S CONTENTION that Laci was walking the dog along with his proof....someone found the dog running around.
"See Spot", said Scott. "See Spot Run". "See Laci walk". "See Scott fish."
"Where's Laci hiding". "Not at the bay", said Scott. "I was there alone and she was home". "In the Park, of course," said Scott.
"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."
Great Point! I like your logical thinking to see both sides like I try to do. Unfortunately, some on here dont try to look at both sides, some would still say Scott is guilty if another man came forward and admitted guilt.
She couldnt--she died before the trial started.
What makes you think the "framer" needed to buy a boat?
Anybody find any anchors yet?
What makes you think a "cooler" would be necessary? According to tv the body was badly dismembered and decomposed.
The waters near the marina were being searched. The bay is large...I would bet my dollar to your penny that there was no surveillance, let alone "heavy surveillance" of the shores of the bay...I contend that anyone could have dumped anything into that bay without being observed...even Scott Peterson.
Take the lawyer out too.
Amber was just another piece of tail to Scotty boy. He was living the life of Riley with a secret concubine.
If there was motive at all, it would have been to protect his reputation, which is why I believe the Hacking case steered this one.
Amber herself was not motive, even though Gloria did one fine job,even under a gag order to prove otherwise.
What Amber really is, would be a marriage busting tramp massage parlor maid. Who is going to cash in on this, big time.
I'm not sure I get your point.
Yes it is. Tell me how if it is found that a person could potentially gain financially, how could it not be?
If it can be proven that Amber was in the position to possibly make thousands--then her testimony will be in question. If thats the case--then the Defense has the argument that she had a MOTIVE.
So said Scott's sibling.
You have never heard of a senseless murder? Charles Manson ring any bells.
There are more than 400 people that have been exonerated over the last 5 years from death row because they were convicted because of circumstantial evidence--what do you say about that? hmmm...
Later the real criminal was found guilty. I guess all of you all will say the Judge, the Prosecution and law enforcement had nothing at all to do with those fellows serving time in jail for something they didnt do?
When they were found guilty---people were saying exactly what yall are saying now--too much circumstantial evidence points to guilt.
So, why then--were they exonerated if circumstantial evidence proves guilt?
Ah hah....you missed the point...Some working dudes at the Marina saw him. He couldn't say something else at this point.
"No one could have been that dumb--not even you, Scott."
and,
"Deny, deny, deny."
Hearsay. Did you hear her say this? Who did you hear say that they heard her say these things?
Nevertheless, one wouldn't have to be a mental giant to not announce that he was at the remote scene where the body was disposed of.
Also he would have to be really stupid to not deny that he had done something he hadn't done. Denying is not an indication of guilt.
You're forgetting that SCOTT HIMSELF said Laci was walking the dog and the dog on the loose was the proof of it.
Howlin, that is BS. If he provides a source then you judge the source, not the person that provided it.
His (his/her) point is that people have been convicted and received the death penalty only to be found innocent later. Is this true? And if so, what is the point of the personal attack you wage to discredit it?
'Splain that one to me like I was a third grader. Your statement doesn't make sense to me. I suggest that if you drop something that floats into deep water weighed down and it somehow becomes disengaged from the weights at some later time after currents and tides have changed multiple times, you would have no idea where that object might surface.
Thanks for the compliment!
Sometimes I'm a little too analytical and logical. It gets me into trouble! (Also I start to feel a little like Spock)
I have noticed that very few of the responses to your points have been anything other than "he did it". Lack of substantial arguement happens around here sometimes. Luckily, there are a lot of very bright, articulate FReepers too!
At least they haven't tried to zot you yet!!
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.