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 ...
SP! He had a new love and lovelife goin' on. Couldn't be bothered with a living pregnant wife. She would ruin his future with the new lady or ladies, he was going to seek out.
I find it amusing that you appear to have no common sense at all.
You have been told repeatedly on this thread that the bottom of that bay is like a junk yard -- and just in case you don't know, CEMENT doesn't show up on sonar.
Gotcha!!! Signed...God!!
Agreed.
Actually, we've given you the facts, chapter and verse; it's you who seems to have an agenda and won't give any credence whatsoever to what was testified to in court.
I'm not surprised you agee with Poodlebrain though; people who are misinformed usually congregate together.
Actually, when I heard the bodies washed up, I thought they were saying, "Gotcha! Snotty boy."
Do you realize how many people on this forum read these threads -- and have been reading them all along?
Do you realize how silly you look when you continue to misstate facts, not to mention completely distort the known facts?
My hypothesis was purely a mental exercise. Personally, I think sharks got the body, plain and simple. I think it went in whole, and the sharks ate the extremities. I think good old Scott either suffocated her or broke her neck and shoved/dragged her into the ocean. Because he wanted to fool around. A woman and her innocent baby are dead. And I can't get the mom's anguish out of my head. I hope he gets life with Bubba the 500 pound love bunny.
You mean if he only made one trip to the marina?
Most people think he made two.
LOL! Oh, that's rich...:-)
Shame on you. I just got this new keyboard.
Considering that the conversation took place about December 6th, that would mean Laci died after Thanksgiving Holiday...which was November 28th (That's 8 days before his statement). Yeh, real sad about his loss wasn't he?
The circle near Brooks Island is the path Scott told the police he took.
The time in stamp on the receipt is 12:58 P.M., or something close to that.
He did all that and left the marina at 2:12 P.M. according to cell phone tower records.
One hour and 14 minutes from boat launch to arrival back at the dock doesn't leave time for even wetting his line. Wasn't there also testimony that he had not even opened the packages of hooks or whatever he had w/him? And didn't Laci's step father also say at one point that Scott didn't have a history of liking to fish....had only been once w/his father-in-law? Correct me if I'm wrong on either of these points.
It has not come to light, if it exists.
I don't think he really thought he had to rush. Most murders seem to take their time, especially when they know they're quite safe in doing so.
Didn't he phone his dad or his dad phoned him, while he was in the bay, or was that when he was heading home?
I believe Scott called Laci twice...If he knew she was home, why didn't he wait for her to pick up the line instead of just leaving a message? Ohhhhh, I think I know.
I know he called Laci & left a message, but when he spoke with his dad around the same time, has escaped me.
LOL!
Not "all" day.
I did manage to Christmas shop on line
and even won my first ebay auction!
What he didn't know was that the dog made it home in record time.
Interestingly, the dog didn't go to the door of the house or in the backyard (the gate was open) but was hanging around "in the street" in front of the house....kinda like where Laci's trail ended with the policedog.
Memo to you: you have not debated one fact. In "fact" you have not mentioned one idea that hasn't been tediously reviewed and dismissed during the course of the trial.
They are not interested in debating, they have made up their minds and anyone who questions their conclusions is labeled dense and uninformed.
Just folks like you who wish to try my patience by your uninformed comments. Had you read transcripts or at least the daily log, you would know that your theories have been proven false in court.
It's a pity because they have apparently devoted an unhealthy amount of their time and attention to this case.
Yes, being informed is unhealthy, so please go on about living your life in ignorant bliss.
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.