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 ...
Even you can't be as dense as you appear.
Tidal experts correctly charted the vicinity where
a body dumped at the location Scott said he fished,
would likely wash ashore... and she did. Both of them.
This is not rocket science, just science.
When Jackie Peterson heard police were searching the San Francisco Bay again, she told her son that no one — "not even you, Scott" — would be stupid enough to dump bodies in the very location of their alibi.
I've been working in a 100' x 300' cemetery for 5 years. We still haven't found all the stones which lie under two feet of dirt. Imagine if it was sludge and the stones were getting moved around a little every day. AND I'M WORKING & OBSERVING ABOVE GROUND!!
Ouch.
Laci's "thing" that day was to be at home, baking.
Her car was in the driveway; her purse was in the house; she's eight months pregnant.
Would you still have taken the time to shower off and call the cops around 10 that night?
I have already tried to point out to hehaw,
that the bottom of San Franciso bay is comparable
to a city dump. It would cost a fortune to try
to locate cement anchors or any other discarded item.
Like I said, you'll never get into law school.
The experts charted the tides from the location where he "fished" to the shore AFTER she was found.
Tight observation immediately AFTER Laci disappeared
but NOT after Scott was under 24/7 police observation.
BTW, Scott went back to the marina a couple of times
in a rental car. Returning to the scene of the crime?
LOL well atleast we know they went to different schools together !
Gotta say that my insistence on precision is in responce to Howlin saying in an earlier reply that another killer would have to know "EXACTLY" where Scott went fishing in order to dump the body so that it(they) would wash ashore "EXACTLY" where they did. My point is that Howlin is wrong about that.
"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"."
Clearly Scott's logic would be faulty and this faulty logic would not indicate that he dumped Laci in the bay.
Again, I repeat, I do not hold the opinion that Scott is innocent. I do hold the opinion that the evidence with which I am familiar does not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said that, and not being familiar with all of the evidence presented in the trial, it occurs to me that the "preponderance of the evidence" may point to Scott, the preponderance of the evidence is usually sufficient in a civil trial but not (as I understand it) in a criminal trial (especially for a capital crime, I would think).
Too bad for Scott that the bodies surfaced. He was a free man until then.
Please ping the person you talk about.
It is a courtesy here.
You're still claiming that you can dump anything into the bay anywhere and it will wash up at any place?
Experts disagree with you.
You seem so certain that Scott Peterson is innocent. Are you really Scott's mother, or his incompetent attorney?
He was conviscted of murder. All his other wrongs stand separate. If we said fry'em to every adulterer, every liar, every mean or cruel person, the penalty would be cruel and unusual....and they aren't legally punishable anyways.
Even I? You don't know me. I may be denser than I appear, are you as shrewish as you appear?
"Tidal experts correctly charted the vicinity where a body dumped at the location Scott said he fished, would likely wash ashore... and she did. Both of them."
Pardon me Your Highness of Intelligence, but were the law enforcement personnel sitting by the bay waiting for the bodies to wash ashore...for surely if they knew where, from all of this tidal data, they would also have know when.
I wonder too, when exactly did these "experts" make these predictions. Was it before the bodies washed up or after?
What was Scott's declaration of his fishing expedition? Did he say that he went to spot X, fished then returned to the marina, or did he say that he trolled around aimlessly for hours hoping for a bite? I think the latter is what I would have said to the police if I were questioned and had indeed done the crime.
Says you. :)
"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."
Depends. Did he already HAVE a chainsaw? Buy it from Kmart in S. Francisco? Steal it? Plastic Bags? Why would anyone question that? I'd get rid of sales receipts, but that's just me.
"Where is your isolated spot that allows a boat to be towed to it,"
Why would we tow that boat 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? "
Why does it have to be on a path to the marina? Let's talk mountains and streams. No problem. Plenty of options in N. California.
"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?"
I have no idea. I was putting forth a possibility of how he could have delimbed his wife as a response to your post. Personally, I think he's guilty and am not obsessing over it. You tell me... does it fit or doesn't it?
What happened to all of the plastic material you used to store and transport the body pieces?
I'd throw it in the ocean with the body. But that's just me.
How do you remove the air from the plastic material to prevent the body parts from floating when you dump them?
Same way you get air out of a balloon. Allow it to deflate.
Was said plastic found with the body?
Doesn't matter...... She's dead and didn't fall in the ocean and delimb on impact. No murder weapon found with the body, but I'm guessing there is one.
"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? "
I would think so, so I wouldn't do it.
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.
Why is that? A. Don't really need tubs. B. Why would the tubs remain where they were instead of floating neatly out to sea with the head and arms?
Where is the evidence of the vehicle and boat being washed, much less shampooed without any witnesses to said event?
At the car wash? Why would a guy washing his car be something to remember?
Absent evidence of the vehicle being washed is there evidence of recent driving on dirt roads (to the dismemberment site)?
At the car wash?
The point is that the more complicated you make a crime the more difficult it is to eliminate or conceal evidence of the crime.
The point is that it ain't all that complicated.
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.
Don't really care, no offense. The MSM's attempt to glorify this case and amp readership/viewership and put money in their pockets by presenting construed coverage slanted to show that the prosecution didn't do it's job is ridiculous. Have we ever seen them do that before? He's guilty and he will fry (no pun intended) case closed.
Aren't you the one who admitted cheating on not one, but two wives?
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.