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.

[Sacajaweau]

"Oh, Lord, dont let me become one of them".

Interesting line....sounds like something a 20 year old female would say....not a 32 year old male, law student.

I think running is a good idea....far, far away.....

[theconservativerepublican]

that was a joke. I was trying to lighten the mood some last night. Too bad you dont see that.

[Poodlebrain]

"Sonar can't pick up ANYTHING covered with silt, which any anchors certainly would be by now."

How do treasure hunters locate shipwrecks? They use sonar to locate objects buried under sand and silt, sometimes for thousands of years. In a prior post I mentioned the use of various sonar frequencies. One of the reasons for this is that the sound waves at certain frequencies will penetrate the silt yet still echo off of other solid materials. So there shouldn't be that great a problem with penetrating the silt in the Bay where the search for the anchors should be.

Even if the anchors are covered with silt by now, were they covered by silt when Scott Peterson led them to the exact spot your expert witnesses claim the body was dumped?

"Do you think it looks like the bottom of an aquarium down there?"

This is where your argument contradicts itself. On the one hand you claim silting is occurring fast enough to cover objects in a matter of weeks or months as would be the case for the anchors being buried. But at the same time you claim the bottom looks like a junkyard, which can only happen if the objects on the floor have not been silted over. Unless people have been going out and dumping additional objects in the search zone after the dumping of the anchors, one of your claims has to be false.

If you claim that people have been going out and dumping objects after the police searches began, then any evidence retrieved from the area is going to be tainted since the police did not secure the crime scene and the evidence could have been planted after the fact. I'm sure you're aware of the tainted evidence issue given your legal career, but I wanted to mention the matter for any less knowledgeable readers who might be following this discussion.

[Fitzcarraldo]

and then dumped her in the bay??? Agreed this is preposterous - how would the hypothetical killers know that Scott didn't have an ironclad alibi and risk visiting the bay, an area crawling with cops and searchers.

This is a common sense case.

[Poodlebrain]

"Notice the request for a mistrial was denied but legal experts(not including howlin) say it is strong grounds for an appeal, which it will be."

One needs to consider why the judge made his decision. A practical judge will likely declare a mistrial only when an error so obvious has occurred that it absolutely prevents a fair trial. They do this because they realize that minor procedural errors occur in many trials, and they will be the subjects of appeals upon the conclusion of the trial. If mistrials were granted for every minor error most cases would be tried several times and the administration of justice would be greatly impaired.

The judge in the Peterson case, realizing the problem with the jurors in the boat is going to be the subject of an appeal, most likely decided to deny the mistrial request for reasons of expediency. They were already too far into the trial to just say lets start over. Let's conclude the matter, and let the appellate judges decide if we should retry the case.

[Sacajaweau]

How can you equate the size of a shipwreck witht the size of an anchor? Use your brain.....

[Poodlebrain]

"Refusing to take a lie detector test doesnt prove guilt."


"No, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it."

Do you believe in the presumption of innocence? Do you believe in the rights listed in the Fifth Amendment?

Scott Peterson is under no obligation to defend his behavior under our legal system. It is the obligation of the state to prove he committed the crimes that he was charged with. According to the verdict in his trial the state met that burden.

However, Peterson has the right to appeal that errors were made that resulted in an unfair trial. The only possible errors I'm aware of that would warrant such a decision are the jurors rocking the boat issue and the removal of jurors. (One juror was removed for conducting her own investigation, how is that materially different than the other jurors rocking the boat? Both were intended to gain information that was not entered into evidence at the trial.)

I think Peterson's trial was as fair as a trial could be given the media attention. I do not think he got very good counsel for his money, as you can tell from the issues I've tried to raise.

I wasn't a juror, and I'm aware of facts not entered into evidence. I think Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn child. Despite that, and with the information unknown to the jurors, I couldn't vote to convict him with the evidence presented at trial because I don't think they proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It all goes back to the presumption of innocence.

[theconservativerepublican]

He isnt equating an anchor with a shipwreck. Someone on here said that Sonar couldnt locate material under silt, which is untrue. He stated a fact. And yes, sonar has located anchors.

[Poodlebrain]

In the first place one has to consider the target search area relative to the size of the target. The search in the Peterson case has already been localized so we are talking about a search for smaller objects in a smaller area than is usually the case with shipwrecks. The precision of the search can be increased due to the limited scope.

In the case of wooden ships sunk centuries ago there is often little or no organic material, wood, remaining after decomposition and micro-organisms feeding off of them. The wrecks are located because of non-organic materials such as anchors, ballast stones, pottery jars used to store food and water and metallic objects left behind. These items are much smaller than the ships themselves, yet they are found.

Is that adequate brain work to answer your question?

[Sacajaweau]

Ever see the raising of LaSalle's "Belle" in Matagorda Bay? Pretty amazing photos of the wood hull intact. You just keep making things up.

[theconservativerepublican]

Poodle--You know your science buddy!

[Poodlebrain]

For a fascinating scientific discussion about the decay of wooden shipwrecks you might enjoy the following link. I know I found it enlightening. The Vasa's New Battle

[onyx]

LOL!
Yeah, we were here a little late,
and although I managed to get up
early this morning, I missed JP's
testimony because I had to play
receptionist at husband's office.

[Sacajaweau]

The Belle is much more interesting. And if you ever get a chance, go to the Mariner's Museum in Virginia and you can see some extraordinary finds "live". There's also a place in Newport news where you can see some interesting old boats and actually watch a small ship (reproduction) being built.

How long did it take you to find Vasa on the web? Couldn't find the Belle? Look at the NOVA site.

[onyx]

Just so you'll know it cuts both ways!

http://www.courttv.com/news/2004/1208/alford_ap.html

[Poodlebrain]

"How long did it take you to find Vasa on the web?"

My response was within an hour and ten minutes. It's not like I hang around here all day. You took almost one hour to respond to my post; is that how long you spent reading about the Vasa and the scientific basis for wooden shipwrecks disappearing in salt water? Does the science involved back my earlier assertion that wooden shipwrecks will eventually disappear or not? Please answer my question rather than changing the subject.

As an aside, I read about the Vasa a few years ago in a military history magazine. I did a Google search on Vasa and found the site in about two minutes. Of course you'll have to take my word for that, but I won't be hurt whether you do or don't.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

If you weren't such a "Perry Mason" and could read you would know that I am not defending Peterson but attacking the prosecution's case.

Why would you attack the prosecutions case....they got him conmvicted didnt they?

[loveliberty2]

From CourtTV.com web site:

"Jackie Peterson told her son to "deny everything" when talking to detectives, prompting one investigator to conclude his parents "know more about what really happened to Laci Peterson."


"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."

And -


"Modesto Police Department report on the wiretap: "On January 26, 2003, at 1828 hours, Scott called home and talked with his mother. Scott told his mother that Detective Grogan called him today and told him police were back searching again in the bay. Scott's mother asked if Det. Grogan was crazy and asked why he called him. Scott replied that he thought Det. Grogan was just trying to get a reaction from him. Scott's mother said, 'I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to say they went fishing in the Berkeley Bay after having committed a crime there. I mean not even you Scott.'"


"Investigator Steve Jacobson wrote this report after listening to a phone call Jan. 17, 2003, a few days after reports of Peterson's mistress surfaced in the press: "On January 17th Scott receives a voice mail from his mother. His mother tells him he should 'deny, deny, deny' and that she was told that years ago by an attorney. His mother tells him his sister Susan (Caudillo) needs to get a yes or no answer from him. His mother thinks that may not be a good idea. His mother said he must deny 'anything.'"

[Positive]

Thanks for showing me these reports.

An investigator thinks the Mom knows something - that is a logical inference - after all why would Mom need to tell Scott to deny something he didn't do?

On the other hand she may have meant that he should deny other things, like having affairs, having arguments, confidences he may have shared with his mother about how happy his marriage was and his state of mind about becoming a father, things that might be damaging but not incriminating, etc.

Meanwhile the "even you Scott" dig does seem to indicate that she thinks Scott is stupid.

So Mom gives lawyerly advice to her stupid son...is this evidence that the son is a murderer? Not to me.

Let me reiterate one of the observations I made in this thread, I have read elsewhere that a preponderance of the evidence is considered sufficient to rule in a civil case. In a criminal case the requirement is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Mom's comments certainly are sufficient to raise suspicions but are they conclusive?

I have read many comments here that Scott should fry. I debated with folks assuming the prespective of a juror, not a "Monday morning quarterback." To say he is guilty when one's say will result in life imprisonment (even if his life ends by lethal injection) or freedom is a lot different than a meaningless opinion.

[theconservativerepublican]

Last week someone on here told me I didnt know what I was talking about when I said an appeal would be filed if it was found out that Amber was negotiating a book deal during the trial.
Well Guess what--That is something Geragos is working on now.
Alred must have NOT known what her client was doing.
Being that the book will be published on Jan 4, 2005 either Amber Frey will write a whole book in record time or she had started writing during the trial which means that the book deal would have been negotiated during the trial.

Thursday morning on Fox and Friends 1st, Fox's Judge was talking about the exact point I made about an appeal.

Under California law, that is a NO NO. If the appeal is heard and approved. Then the next trial will have NO Amber and NO tapes that she recorded and was played in the first trial.
Maybe that was why Scott was laughing at the sentencing phrase.

On the other hand, some of the Jurors have came out and said his demeanor had alot with them convicting him. No emotion, but we all know that Defense Attorneys will tell their client to display no emotion as it can hurt the client either way. So when Scott showed no emotion during most of the trial, was it him or was it Geragos that told him not to?