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.

[onyx]

Do you have any idea at all how much crap lies on the bottom of San Francisco bay?

[najida]

But there was a 50 minute time lapse between the time Scott got home and called Laci's mom.

A bit much for someone with a missing, almost at term wife.

[BJungNan]

So you're saying that any evidence that might have proved that somebody else did it will only come out in the future?

Maybe I am reading your reply to literally, but that would seem obvious, wouldn't it? Yes, if evidence does come out, is revealed, that proves someone having been found guilty is after all innocent, then it would come out in the future, not in the past.

[Poodlebrain]

Okay, I'm game. Your actions would leave a trail forensic and circumstantial evidence behind, and I'll point out some missing pieces.

Okay, where did you obtain the chain saw? Wouldn't it be reasonable to locate the sources of the chain saw, the plastic bags and other equipment? You know sales receipts, or sales clerks testimony that they sold such items to Peterson.

Where is your isolated spot that allows a boat to be towed to it, a gas powered chain saw (otherwise a generator would be necessary) operated without attracting attention, sufficient water to clean up any evidence and cooperative weather to help rinse away the crime scene all on the path from the Peterson home to the marina? We have time ranges to operate in based on the cell phone tracking of Peterson's movements, so what searches have been conducted of potential locations?

What happened to all of the plastic material you used to store and transport the body pieces? How do you remove the air from the plastic material to prevent the body parts from floating when you dump them? Was said plastic found with the body? If body parts were removed from plastic before dumping wouldn't that have been messy, i.e. require additional washing and clothes changing by you? Surely any plastic tubs should have turned up near the body or been found in proximity if a constant search of that portion of the Bay was being conducted.

Where is the evidence of the vehicle and boat being washed, much less shampooed without any witnesses to said event? Absent evidence of the vehicle being washed is there evidence of recent driving on dirt roads (to the dismemberment site)?

The point is that the more complicated you make a crime the more difficult it is to eliminate or conceal evidence of the crime. There are complexities to this case that were not addressed to my satisfaction, and the more complexities you attempt to introduce the more uncertain I become.

[TommyDale]

"Have you followed this case closely enough to sentence him to death with a clear concience?"

You betcha!

[onyx]

Pssssssssst.
This thread is really not about you.
Thus far, we know more about you than any other poster here.
To wit: your unfaithfulness, your many one night stands,
your age, your internet advice to another poster, your personal habits regarding your laundry, your stint in the Navy, and your penchant for inserting your personal projections into nearly every post.
I'm sure there's more, but I have made my point.

[TommyDale]

You know what we never hear about any more? Scott Peterson dated a girl in college (Arizona) and she disappeared and was never found. Why did the press stop mentioning that?

[Sacajaweau]

Sorry....Tides are a science. But there are variables. Get over it. You're just looking for precision...a GPS location on a pinpoint drop and a pinpoint pickup and overlooking the BIG PICTURE...

which is Scott saying Laci went missing while walking the dog while Scott was fishing 90 miles away....which leaves the impossibility of Laci being found in the Bay......"According to Scott".

[Howlin]

1) Scott certainly did not give the police the exact location of where he dumped the body.

Oh, but he did............he told them EXACTLY where he went fishing......LOL......see, you don't know the facts!

[Sacajaweau]

Betcha he had a few Charo's in Tijuana, too.

[EllaMinnow]

[onyx]

He did NOT dismember Laci.
Her autopy proved that!

[texasbluebell]

What a great post! I'll bet the songs you write are just as good!

[najida]

But he expected her to be at home (according to the phone message he left).

As for concern for a pregnant wife. My broter and SIL just had their first baby last week. It was a difficult pregnancy and the last 6 weeks or so, there wasn't a minute of the day he didn't know where she was.

[Positive]

"Oh God."
"You have NOT paid attention to the evidence presented TO THE JURY. The dumping spot and the spots where she and her baby finally managed to wash ashore, is exactly where the experts had predicted and anticipated."

No I have NOT paid attention to the evidence presented TO THE JURY. (Why do you and Howlin have to YELL?)

Your own words say that "experts" predicted exactly where the body was dumped and where the bodies washed ashore.

I say that unless someone told these "experts" the exact coordinates of where the body was dumped - the "experts" could not possibly determine "exactly" where the bodies would wash ashore. In fact your very use of the word spots with respect to the two bodies proves that there is no exactitude in this prediction.

Of course, maybe Scott did offer evidence as to the exact location that he dumped the body...if this is so, I could theoretically be wrong.

Then again, with the use of 20-20 hindsight, I assume that a paid "expert" might be able to "predict" anything accurately...I personally predict that Dallas will win last night's football game for example...check it out on Yahoo sports...how did I do?

[Howlin]

Not if it's covered up with silt. Geez.

[Howlin]

What explains the complete lack of ANY questionable evidence that MIGHT point to somebody else in this case at THIS TIME?