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 ...
Gary Gauger, who spent 3-1/2 years on death row in Illinois for the murder of his parents. In 1996, he was exonerated. He had been convicted by "Circumstantial evidence"
I just did a more thorough search on this case.
He had his mom's car.
He lied about his whereabouts.
He had strands of their hair in his house
he had strands of hair in his car.
He had latex gloves found in his house.
Found guilty because of the above "Circumstantial Evidence" some of that is similar to the Peterson case.
Goes to show, anybody can lie about their whereabouts. Actually, I dont think that would be hard to do. If my wife went missing, Im sure I would be a little mixed up as to what all i did that day and where i was at an exact moment that day.
Someone started it by asking sarcastically if an unidentified killer waited until he knew that Scott had gone fishing in the bay and that it was being searched then went and dumped it in EXACTLY the right place.
Someone else (howlin I believe) said that that hypothetical person would have had to know EXACTLY where to dispose of the body.
My point has been almost 100% the same as yours, no one could know EXACTLY where the body would emerge.
I also contended that if I, not Scott had murdered Laci, and had later learned of the search in the bay, I would have retrieved the body and dumped it in the pay.
I would have done this to insure that the trail led away from me, too bad about the implication of Scott.
Gary Gauger, who spent 3-1/2 years on death row in Illinois for the murder of his parents. In 1996, he was exonerated. He had been convicted by "Circumstantial evidence"
I just did a more thorough search on this case.
He had his mom's car.
He lied about his whereabouts.
He had strands of their hair in his house
he had strands of hair in his car.
He had latex gloves found in his house.
Found guilty because of the above "Circumstantial Evidence" some of that is similar to the Peterson case.
Goes to show, anybody can lie about their whereabouts. Actually, I dont think that would be hard to do. If my wife went missing, Im sure I would be a little mixed up as to what all i did that day and where i was at an exact moment that day.
Forgot one more point. The guy was at the crime scene the same day it happened, similar to Peterson being at the Docks..People saw him at the crime scene that same day! wow. He was convicted for being at his parents house that day...
what is paypay? I am looking for more computers, if you have one or know where I can get a good deal, point me to it. We need one High Speed, with lots of Ram and Hard Drive Space.
You are missing the point I believe.
Again, you keep repeating just a few bits of evidence. With Scott, there were pages of things that pointed to his guilt. Read back through all the posts...each person brings up something else that was presented to the jury. After a certain point, it sounds like a broken record...he did it, he did it, he did it.
He is guilty. He has already been tried and convicted. Too late now for any new evidence. Fry him.
Perhaps you've never lost a loved one to a cold-blooded murderer. I lost a 17 year old brother when I was only 9. It affected my entire family for the rest of our lives. I think being sadistic and vengeful is good therapy. Fry Scott Peterson!
And another coincidence -- they found Scott Peterson's computer had been frequenting a site where he was studying the currents in San Francisco Bay. Fry Scott Peterson!
I agree there is alot of circumstantial evidence here no doubt. But Once again it doesnt always prove guilt.
Being at a crime scene doesnt always prove guilt.
Samplings of hair doesnt always prove guilt, etc etc etc.
The guy I wrote about above was convicted the same way. Lots of circumstantial evidence. Apparently there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict him. If there had only been a few pieces, than most likely he would have never been found guilty.
He was and then he was exonerated. Im sure if we were discussing the case I wrote about above, howlin and the others would be pointing out that there is too much circumstantial evidence for him not to be guilty similar to what yall are saying about the Peterson case.
Good that someone was honest enough to keep looking into that particular case.
any fisherman such as myself studies the currents to know the best time to go fishing, more circumstantial evidence.
OK....
But I believe that the evidence in the Peterson case is very strong. Maybe the strongest being that Scott has never once pleaded his own case in his own words.
As for not convicting innocent people, it will happen. I don't believe it has happened here. As for those pleading Scott's innocence, they remind me a whole lot of those pleading OJ's.
Now I dont believe he is innocent. I just dont believe he had a fair trial and that all evidence from BOTH sides was heard.
There was alot less evidence used to convict Scott than there was in the OJ case and he got off...remember OJ ran, OJ Lied, OJ held a gun in his mouth, etc etc etc...
Okay, that's two; you only have 398 more to go!
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.