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 ...
How did the autopsy prove that if it could not even determine a date or cause of death? Was the medical examiner able to determine that various parts were severed at different times? If so, how could he do this but not estimate a date of death?
I think the anchor ropes severing the limbs is a plausible explanation for their missing. However, if it is correct, and the expert testimony regarding where the body washed ashore is valid, then investigators should be able to locate the anchors. Absent physical evidence to corroborate I cannot exclude the possibility that the body was dismembered prior to being submerged.
BINGO!
It was his behavior that drew attention to himself.
He should have clung to LE, never called Amber, gone to work every day as normal. But he did not do what he should have done & I am glad about that!
Nancy Grace said if someone is at Brooks Island, no one at the boat launch could see anything going on at the island.
This would have given SP plenty of time to get the body into the water and not capsize the boat.
One other thing, I do think he got his clothes soaked along the line, b/c the first thing he did when he got home was to wash his clothing. Those that know, say SP has never done laundry, ever.
Hey Liz, I am finished responding to Poodlebrain.
I should have kniown better just by the screen name.
Did you watch Abrams?
Had Gerry Spence defended Snott,
the trial would still be going on...
endlessly on.
That guy is a colossal bore and he talks sooooooooo slow.
"Oh, but he did............he told them EXACTLY where he went fishing......LOL......see, you don't know the facts!"
According to you, the experts testified and science determined that her body washed ashore in the exact location it did because it was dumped where Scott Peterson told police he was fishing. Therefore, the experts are claiming that the body was dumped where Scott Peterson said he was fishing, and Scott Peterson led the police to the exact location he disposed of the body.
Why weren't the police able to find the body or anchors if they knew the exact location to look? I find it amusing that you believe the prosecution theories and expert witnesses to be conclusive with no corroborating physical evidence despite your assertion that Peterson told them exactly where to find such evidence. That doesn't trouble you in the least?
But Scott needed something different....An unusual alibi and a means of pulling this horendous deed off....all at one crack. He didn't have to explain anything to Amber or Laci...just a bunch of "loyal" relatives and a few cops. No biggie...he's been lying for years.
He must have thought about it for a long time and I'd guess it would go back to when Laci first got pregnant. Why way back then? Because of the video of Laci waving and smiling in a video. "Why the video?", asked Laci. "I want to send it to Usama bin Laden. Let him eat his heart out". What a very, very strange thing to say....because Usama can only equate to "murder on your mind".
Have you been on this thread all day? Whew!
On and off, between cleaning the house, wrapping presents,ordering presents, and taking my mom to the doctor. :-)
I think he got the clothes somewhat wet....but he washed them because he had concrete brushmarks all over them from handling the dumped anchors. I'll bet you he also used plastic hooks in the anchors to avoid metal detection.
I asked because I was here this morning and there were about 50 posts. Now there's 570! Not a record, but I was impressed anyway.
I think the firestorm of media interest in this case took Scott quite by surprise. I didn't think so at first but I now believe the murder was premeditated. Scott expected to be able to handle the local missing woman case, but wasn't prepared for national scrutiny.
SP told LE "where" he went fishing, never dreaming Laci's body would ever surface. SP COUNTED on her body washing out to sea, never to be found.
I tried to debate the facts and conclusions with Howlin and Onyx but they resort, virtually immediately, to personal invective.
They are not interested in debating, they have made up their minds and anyone who questions their conclusions is labeled dense and uninformed.
It's a pity because they have apparently devoted an unhealthy amount of their time and attention to this case.
Funny but it doesn't seem to bother them that one of the jurors was dismissed for apparently having made up her mind and was therefore unwilling to debate with the other jurors during deliberations.
I don't recall who it was that first speculated it, but it is very possible that he didn't toss her overboard. He could have placed her near the boat at the shore and then towed/rowed her out.
What kind of man leaves his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife to go fishing 100 miles away on Christmas eve?
Please put him in general population with Bubba his new husband......
Regardless, if the bodies hadn't surfaced, he'd be "Scott free".
Betcha he said that phrase a million times under his breath: "I'm Scott Free" and he meant it two ways....free from jail and free from his wife and baby.
"Did he already HAVE a chainsaw?"
It would have to be completely unknown to anyone else or its absence would need an explanation.
"Why would we tow that boat to it?"
See reply #521 for a time line in which all of your actions had to occur. He would have had to unhitch the boat trailer and leave it where it would not likely be spotted and then retrieve it without attracting attention. So it would be more practical to tow the boat to the crime scene.
"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."
Again see reply #521 since it establishes known whereabouts for Peterson which are not subject to change.
"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?"
The plastic tubs were suggested as a storeage medium. Why wouldn't the plastic tubs, head and limbs wash ashore in a location near where the body eventually washed ashore rather than out to sea?
"At the car wash? Why would a guy washing his car be something to remember?"
Well it was Christmas Eve so it would have been a self-wash type place most likely and there wouldn't likely be any witnesses. Again, I raised this as a matter of time and location for conducting the activity. And a freshly washed and shampooed vehicle would have been obvious to the police when they first questioned Scott Peterson, but it was not noted as such.
"The point is that it ain't all that complicated."
I guess we'll have to disagree on what constitutes reasonable doubt. Even though we were working in hypotheticals I would hope that you would see that there were enough unanswered questions to cast doubt as to whether it was even possible for Peterson to conduct the activities we contemplated much less practical given the other facts we know.
And in the real life trial there were unanswered questions that should have been easily answered if all of the prosecutions theories and expert testimony were correct. Yet, the prosecution was unable to provide any physical evidence to corroborate its theories. I'd be troubled by that.
Divers said the water in the bay is not only murky and impossible to see your hand in front of your face, BUT! The water swirls like a whirlpool. That kept her body from washing out to sea. SP did NOT know that. (He does now.)
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.