Witnesses: Jury Wrongly Convicted Peterson

foxnews.com ^ | Tuesday, December 07, 2004 | AP

[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.

[najida]

The only evidence you have mentioned was the boat. As for Scott, I feel his is just as compelling if not more so than OJ.

So what else is missing that would "sway a jury" and is not bogus?

[theconservativerepublican]

wonder why the Police never found were Scott supposedly cut this body up? No blood or remains found at the house, no blood or remains at his storage rental, surely not enough blood or remains in his truck to suggest that the body was cut up in his truck.

[theconservativerepublican]

The Boat in my mind would have put lots of doubt in that jury's mind.
That old lady that saw Laci walking the dog the day of her disapperance would have swayed the jury some.

[Howlin]

Nope; only when ask does anybody say "Oh, he was excited."

[theconservativerepublican]

read the article, that 100! far from 2...Your the one that acted as though people arent unfairly convicted from circumstantial evidence. I proved it to you that it does happen, rather its 1 or 1,000 I proved it happens.

[Howlin]

She couldnt--she died before the trial started.

Bogus; she was interviewed by both the prosecution AND the defense and her testimony, along with others, was completely discredited.

[najida]

The boat was mentioned, just not the demo like you wanted. Jurors did get to sit in the boat and view it out side the courthouse.

As for the woman, she wasn't considered credible and would have hurt more than helped.

Really, I am believing this is more about you and your blog than any concern for justice darlin' ;)

[Howlin]

I would bet my dollar to your penny that there was no surveillance, let alone "heavy surveillance" of the shores of the bay

And you would lose.

I contend that anyone could have dumped anything into that bay without being observed

Not unless they knew the EXACT spot where Scott had been fishing; that spot just happens to be the exact spot you needed to dump a body for it to come to shore where it did.

...even Scott Peterson.

Well, there in lies the problem with your theory: he WAS seen, which is why he had to admit where he really was.

[TChris]

Perhaps you've never lost a loved one to a cold-blooded murderer...It affected my entire family for the rest of our lives.

Actually, I have. I think the second part of the excerpt above demonstrates one of the reasons why forgiveness is so powerful. Letting the hateful act of another ruin the lives of you and your family is just handing a further victory to those who are evil.

Please don't misunderstand me; it is very painful and heartbreaking to lose a loved one, especially to murder. I'm not pretending that it doesn't hurt like hell. But inviting seething hatred into your heart and the hearts of your family is simply adding fuel to the fire and prolonging the pain. It does nothing to the criminal, except give some of them a perverse sense of satisfaction when they see it.

I've found peace through the plain truth: Murderers cannot be punished completely for their crime(s), no matter how horrible that punishment may be. What they have taken cannot be restored by the actions of men. Hating and wishing vengeance upon them accomplishes absolutely nothing. God knows all and is perfectly just. He will make certain it all evens out in the end.

[Howlin]

What Amber really is, would be a marriage busting tramp massage parlor maid.

Nobody ever said Scott had good taste in "tail," did they? That being said, she proved truthful -- and has evidence to back up her story.

Who is going to cash in on this, big time.

I hope you remember that remark when the Petersons write THEIR book.

[theconservativerepublican]

Look it up Howlin--The woman died before the Trial Started.

[Howlin]

Tell me how if it is found that a person could potentially gain financially, how could it not be?

With every post, you prove how clueless you are about this case and the law.

She has an attorney; Allred, whatever you think of her, isn't going to let anything her client does jeopardize this case.

[theconservativerepublican]

If the Petersons write a book, atleast they waited until after the trial. She started during the trial which proves she had a financial motive in the case. Bet my life, if this case "Is" successfully appealed, her testimony will NOT be allowed in the next trial...

[Howlin]

You have never heard of a senseless murder?

Most of them, including this one, are senseless; he could have just gotten a divorce -- but then that would have cost him money and everybody would think he wasn't perfect.

Charles Manson ring any bells.

For all I know, he's one of the children Jackie Peterson gave up for adoption, just like Searching4Justice said earlier.

[theconservativerepublican]

I guess Allred knows everything her client was doing?

Actually im not all that clueless. Im working on my PHD in Political Science and then going on to law school. We have studied this case in one of my classes for months now. More than 80% of our class thinks he is guilty(as I do) but did NOT receive a fair trial.

[Howlin]

Did you hear her say this?

You didn't hear the tapes, did you?

[Howlin]

And if so, what is the point of the personal attack you wage to discredit it?

You may consider the fact that SOME of us on FR deal in facts to be a personal attack, but most of us don't.

He said it; let him back it up; or have you learned nothing being on here for 4 years?

[Howlin]

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.

Goodness, have you not being paying ANY attention? The tide charts PROVE that where he said he was fishing is the EXACT spot where the bodies would have had to have been dumped for them to come ashore where they did.

It's a SCIENCE, you know.

[theconservativerepublican]

Question; In the case I quoted above with all of that circumstantial evidence, where do you stand? Do you think he is still guilty after being exonerated? I mean with all of that circumstantial evidence such as lying to police, having his moms car, having hair strands, being at the scene of the murder, etc etc etc..How in the world was he exonerated if circumstantial evidence "ALWAYS" proves guilt. There was lots of circumstantial evidence in this guys case, why was he exonerated?