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.

[Howlin]

He buys himself gag gifts from Laci? LOL.

And he spent $276 on that, yet had Laci hock some jewelry on the 14th of December (the day of his party with Amber Frey, when he rented a hotel room and bought champagne!).

[Quester]

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?

I don't believe that anyone's said that circumstantial evidence "ALWAYS" proves guilt.

What's been said is that circumstantial evidence is (for good reason) admissable in a court trial.

To repeat something which has already been stated previously in this thread ... circumstantial evidence is all evidence which does not depend upon an eye-witness testimony of a crime as it was being committed.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is all you have. Many crimes are committed where there is no eye-witnesses to the crimes. Criminals like it better that way.

The easiest way to define “circumstantial evidence” is by what it is not — it is not evidence that comes directly from an eyewitness or a participant.

Everything else is circumstantial evidence, which is simply anything that allows a jury to reach a conclusion by reasoning, as long as it is relevant.

Our legal system is based upon the presentation of allowable evidence (both direct and circumstantial) which may be used by either of the two sides of a criminal court proceeding (prosecution and defense) in an attempt to persude a jury of 12 individuals to accept their version of the truth.

In the Peterson case, a 12-person jury was presented with a prosecution scenario based upon mostly circumstantial evidence ... and that (final) jury of 12 persons unanimously agreed that, based on the evidence presented, ... Scott Peterson had killed his wife and unborn child.

Now ours is not a perfect system ... noone has a perfect system.

There have been and will continue to be misjudgements by juries as a result of of both, circumstantial and direct, evidence.

Such is the nature of any system predicated upon human judgement.

Sometimes we're right ... and sometimes we're wrong.

Disallowing circumstantial evidence won't change that. It would only take away one very powerful tool we have in ferreting out the truth.

[onyx]

For someone who lies as often and as much as he does,
he sure hasn't honed the skill:

lol -- gag gift from Laci.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

[Howlin]

Lord, look at this from court today:

Regarding victim impact statements after the penalty verdict ...
Garagos wants Jackie Peterson to be able to give an impact statement because she is a blood relative of Conner just as the Rochas are. Judge Delucchi said, "No".


Geragos also said: Jacie Peterson is as much a victim as Sharon Rocha.

[onyx]

Here's another nagging factoid:

Scott refused the polygraph,

BUT that drag queen who said Scott picked him up
in a gay bar and brought him home to Laci's bed, PASSED his polygraph.

[onyx]

THAT press release needed a barf alert.

Good Lord, the "Petersins" and Geragos have no scruples.

[Hi Heels]

oh, mannnn........

[Hi Heels]

I just assume whenever anyone refuses a lie detector, "yep, guilty".

[Age of Reason]

Anyone ever been on a lake in the same sixe boat as Peterson and tried throwing 100lbs of dead weight overboard?? Cant do it, without tyhe boat tipping.

1. I don't know what size boat he had but would it have tipped if he pushed her off the stern instead of over the side?

2. Maybe he never put her body in the boat, but put the body in the water and towed it out to sea and then sunk the body.

[Howlin]

You know what that is? An attempt once again to get Jackie to have the last word; trying to make the jury forget what Sharon is going to say.

[onyx]

Yes, I agree, but this won't fly with the jury.
I'll bet Jackie won't be able to stop herself from
spanking the jury... she'll say something to them
about their verdict being wrong.

[Hi Heels]

1, 2, 6, 9, 10...IMHO.

[onyx]

Yeah, me too.

[Howlin]

Well, I'm getting all my errands done EARLY you can bet that........LOL.

[Poodlebrain]

"THE FISH ATE THEM when the anchors pulled them off because of the "sway" of the currents."

Where is the evidence of this fact you assert? If the experts can determine exactly where the body would wash ashore from Peterson's fishing location why can't they backtrack and determine where the anchors are and retrieve them since they were dropped at the same time and location? It is either because the experts can't make so accurate a determination, or they are simply expressing their opinions that it was possible for the body to have been dumped in the vicinity where Peterson was "fishing".

How did the experts determine exactly when the "sway" of the currents pulled off the head arms and legs to free the body to float away? The experts would need to know the exact time the body began to float, how deep it started from and the rate of ascendancy to know which way the currents were flowing in order to calculate its path with the accuracy you claim, and I know for a fact the experts do not know the exact moment when the body began became free of the anchors, the exact depth from which it began floating nor the rate of ascendancy.

Additionally, if one accepts the argument the anchors haven't moved at all and they haven't been retrieved, then one can only conclude that the experts don't know the location where the body was actually dumped. Therefore and their testimony is certainly subject to challenge since they can't state with any certainty the start point for the path the body followed while being washed ashore.

Okay, so let's bring this whole experts thing down to a level that even one so dense as I can understand. The experts did not know the exact moment when the suspected severing was completed and the body began to be washed ashore, nor do they know more than a vicinity from which the path began. If they did not know when and where to begin the calculations for computing a path they could not know the weather and tidal conditions that initially had effect on the path. Accordingly, the experts could do no more than to make calculations based on hypothetical start locations and start times. The hypothetical start times would all be between Laci's disappearance and the discovery of her body, but the hypothetical start points should include those within the vicinity of Scott's fishing site and some remote from there to check the validity of the results. They would then compute the resulting paths and get a variety of locations where a body could wash ashore (and the locations would likely be expressed in kilometers of shoreline). The experts would then analyze the results and apply statistical methods to estimate the probabilities of any given point along the shoreline being the wash ashore point. If the calculated probabilities of the body to wash ashore within a given range of shoreline are high enough the experts would express their opinion that it was possible, or even likely, that the body was dumped from a given vicinity. However, they would never claim certainty if even one of their calculations gave a result to the contrary. As such, the expert testimony is nothing more than the professional opinion of the person giving such testimony, and it is subject to challenge by contradictory expert testimony.

As you have probably ascertained from your career as a court reporter, expert witnesses can be very expensive so they often go unchallenged. However, that does not change the fact that their testimony is nothing more than their professional opinion. I know this as I have been used as an expert witness on several occasions providing evidence as well as refuting other experts.

[Hi Heels]

That just ain't gonna happen. The jury hasn't even looked at a Peterson in the face. They look away..... Did you hear the pain in that woman's testimony? I couldn't even look at my daughter that night without thinking about it.

[Howlin]

So do I!! And I still believe what Polly Klaas' father says -- if you ARE innocent, you take that test!

[Howlin]

Your whole post is meaningless. You've got the facts confused, to boot!

I know this as I have been used as an expert witness on several occasions providing evidence as well as refuting other experts.

I'm Elizabeth Taylor.

[Types_with_Fist]

So do I!! And I still believe what Polly Klaas' father says -- if you ARE innocent, you take that test!

I've heard him say even more; that you should not only take the test but show up every day, cooperate in every way, provide every bit of evidence required (without necessitating warrants), provide DNA, blood and hair samples if necessary, answer every question, tell every secret (good or bad) and do everything you can possibly do to help the police clear you so they can find the real culprit.

Scott did the opposite on all of this.