The Changing Tide in the Defense Of Scott Peterson:

Findlaw.com ^ | June 10, 2003 | Jonna M. Spilbor

[Devil_Anse]

They're filing every motion they can think of--and some that haven't been thought of--apparently. That way they can attempt to make the denial of these cockamamie motions into some sort of grounds for appeal when they LOSE.

As for the wiretaps, I only know what was in the pleadings that RB posted a while back. But I fail to see how the inadvertant collection of some calls from Scott's attorney would render all the other intercepted calls--which had NOTHING TO DO with Scott's attorney--inadmissible. I still have a lot of hope that the intercepted calls will be admitted. I have seen nothing that seems to indicate they might be excluded.

Could there be calls in there, from the evening of the 24th on, in which Scott sounds jubilant and carefree, while calling Amber or someone else? How does one explain such a thing? I mean, suppose there's a call in there, say, on Dec. 26th, in which he's, like, calling the video store to see if a particular DVD is in? Or calling to make reservations at a restaurant that week? Or making yet another hair appointment? I mean, suppose that that week, btw Christmas and New Year's, suppose he had the usual volume of calls about everyday things, that one would have if one's wife weren't missing? How could that not seem very strange? Hearing his voice, say, two days after the big Disappearance, calling a salon and saying something like, "Is Diana in? I want her to give me a shave and a pedicure."

All of the foregoing is just me speculating; none of the speculation about his calls is culled from news reports. But, what if?

[MEG33]

I googled cicumstantial evidence .They have a good explaination of the definition.

[sport]

Yeah, just like the murderer of o.j.'s wife.

o.j. even removed the mirrors from his house so that he would not see him as he searched for him.

[CurlyDave]

It isn't a "popular recreation spot" on Christmas Eve.

Very few murders involve dumping the body hours a way from where they are taken.

The problem with this line of thinking is that LE has no indication that Laci was dumped in the bay on Christmas Eve. After months of decomposing it is safe to bet that they might, maybe have a two week window for the dumping. I would bet that a month is more likely.

Once someone hears that Scott was on the bay it becomes the perfect place to dump the body.

The other problem I see is that there really doesn't seem to be much blood in the house.

While I have never dismembered a person, I have butchered several hogs in the 150-300 lb weight range. This is not a job which an inexperienced person could do in darkness. If Scott set up a light he would be visible for miles.

Somewhere there is a place where Laci was dismembered. It is either inside a building or in dense vegetation, hidden from passerbys. There is/was a lot of blood at that location and probably bits of flesh as well.

[Devil_Anse]

Those things you listed are circumstantial evidence, if you're listing them in relation to a murder case.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. One often-used example is: You are in your house one night, asleep. You come out the next day and see snow on the ground--snow which wasn't there before. The snow on the ground is circumstantial evidence from which you can infer that snow fell from the sky during the night.

You find a bullet in the body of a dead person, say, and there's no gun anywhere near the body. You COULD infer that the bullet was shot by some other person. Then they do the ballistics tests on the bullet, and match it to a gun. The gun is found in the possession of Mr. X. You COULD infer that Mr. X shot the bullet that killed the dead person. Notice that there is room for mistake here. So there'd also have to be some proof to refute Mr. X, if he shows proof that he didn't HAVE his gun at the time the now-dead person was shot. And on and on, making logical inferences.

You find, say, Laci's blood in the kitchen of the Petersons' former home. You can infer that Laci was in the kitchen, and that she was bleeding while she was in there. Just a piece of the puzzle; doesn't prove the whole case.

You find, say, Scott's fingerprints on some duct tape that was found attached to Laci's body. You can infer that Scott handled the duct tape at some point. Once again, this one thing will not prove the case. But it will give rise to that inference at least. This might lead to an inference that it was Scott who put the duct tape on Laci's body.

You find a hole in Laci's abdomen, and it looks like a knife wound. You can infer that someone stabbed her. This doesn't prove that Scott was the one who stabbed her. But suppose you found Scott's fingerprints on a knife which was in a dumpster, and the knife's blade seems to fit the wound? You can infer that Scott has at some time handled a knife which fits the wound in Laci's abdomen. Another building block.

Fiber evidence: Say you find fibers on a murder victim's body, and the fibers match those of a blue carpet in Mr. X's car. You COULD infer that the now-dead person was lying on the floor of Mr. X's car at one time. Why the heck would someone be lying on the floor of a car? You could infer that they were incapacitated or dead at the time.

Direct evidence: Someone comes forward and says, "I saw Laci come running out of the house, and Scott came after her, and he grabbed her by the neck and pulled her inside. Then I heard her screaming, but suddenly her screaming stopped. I was there. I didn't know what to do, etc." Actually, I guess there's even an element of circumstantial evidence here--if this imaginary eyewitness didn't actually see Scott murder her.

[CurlyDave]

As the findlaw article points out one of the more interesting parts of this case is the fact that Modesto PD allowed the Rochas to get away with a televised burglary and grand theft of Scott's property.

The fact that they have plenty of evidence and the Rochas even admit to the crime, but have not been charged indicated that MPD is strongly biased against Scott.

Whether we like him or not, it was his property, and before it was disturbed he did have the right to an independent examination of the house & its contents.

How does the court balance taking away his best chance to come up with evidence of his innocence? Clearly the MPD was prejudiced against him & might not have even bothered to collect anything exculpatory.

Gettiing a fair trial in this circumstance could be very hard to prove.

[cgk]

Can't find the story posted... MSNBC (during Scarborough) says the dumpster remains Greta keeps bringing up are NOT Laci's... is there a link on FR somewhere where I can read up on it?

[cherry]

curly dave......how would the cops know that it was not the business of the Rochas to be there taking their dead dtrs stuff....afterall, it was done in broad daylight..hardly a criminal's method....

it is a civil case imo....

fair trial?....you kidding?.......they had bumper stickers on their cars down in San Diego about westerfield....

and how do you think SLC is going to treat the two Smart (not so smart) kidnappers???:

its tough out there but we can't move every big trial ......

[CurlyDave]

Those things you listed are circumstantial evidence

From a theoretical viewpoint, I suspect you are right.

However I, like most of the population, make a distinction between forensic evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

For instance, suppose my business rival was shot in Chicago last week.

My plane ticket to Chicago on the day before would certainly be circumstantial evidence. However a balistic report tying a revolver I own to the bullets recovered would not be just circumstantial evidence, but also forensic evidence.

Neither proves I shot him, but the ballistic report is much stronger.

So far, all the public has seen is evidence of Scott being in various places at various times.

We do have direct evidence of an affair, but if every man who ever had an affair killed his wife, we would have very few living wives.

[CurlyDave]

how would the cops know that it was not the business of the Rochas to be there taking their dead dtrs stuff

1. They should know the law in a case like this--the stuff belongs to the husband until he is found guilty. That is part of their training and to earn their pay they should remember it.

2. In a high-publicity case like this one they should know what court orders have been made.

3. They certainly know right now that the removal of belongings was unauthorized and therefore a theft. If they were not biased against Scott, the Rochas would be in the greybar hotel by now.

For crying out loud, if they watch a bunch of looters pull up to a store and start carrying stuff out on TV don't they have an obligation to at least go down to the store and ask what these guys are doing?

[Porterville]

I think SP is too dumb to pull this off and I think, in general, many of the police in the Central Valley are incompetent.

[CurlyDave]

this raised a red flag, because there would be no plausible explanation of why this individual would be at a fishing -- a place where he went fishing and should have no other significance

The fact that every Radio, TV station and newspaper in the entire state was reporting that the police were searching for his dead wife in that location isn't a "plausible reason" for him to be there?

Guilty or not, if they were searching in a very public way for my dead wife I would go out and watch.

[DB]

Or you do it in the garage or in the house on a hard floor on a large tarp(s) that Scott was known to have had with gloves and throwaway cloths. Then strip off everything and roll it up.

Put the rolled up tarp in the boat.

No mess.

[joyce11111]

http://www.casshew.com/movieoftheweek.htm

[Devil_Anse]

I realize that the public is dazzled by forensic evidence, especially given the fairly recent developments with DNA, and many other wonders, such as insect life cycles. But it's STILL not direct evidence! It is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

We could find Scott's blood mixed with Laci's in that kitchen. That would still not be direct evidence of a bloody battle! It would be circumstantial evidence that Scott and Laci both shed blood in the kitchen, and from that we COULD infer that they had a bloody fight in the kitchen.

Direct evidence is, essentially, eyewitness testimony. There will always be exceptions, so I will not say that direct evidence is ALWAYS eyewitness testimony. But it is an "I was there" sort of thing.

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. It can tell us a lot about the person or thing which left it. However, that information will not point to the solution without the necessary links of inferences.

[Devil_Anse]

And CD, it's not just from a theoretical viewpoint--it's what the judge will instruct the jury!

In your example about your shot business associate, the ballistics tying the bullet in him to your revolver might be quite impressive--unless you proved that your revolver was in a shop being repaired while you were in Chicago. In that case, the plane ticket placing you in the same city with him would become the stronger circumstantial evidence. The ballistics findings might be wrong, but you might still be a suspect due to knowing him and being in the same city when he was shot.

If your business associate was shot in Chicago, and ballistics indicated that it was a revolver owned by you which shot him, that would still not be much if it were proved that YOU were far away from Chicago while he was in Chicago.

So the forensic (ballistics) evidence would not necessarily be the stronger circumstantial evidence in every case.

The public has seen and heard more than just evidence of Scott being in various places at various times. We've heard of things he DID and SAID, and of his manner. Some of his mannerisms and mood, not too long after the "disappearance", can be directly seen by us in videotapes of him being interviewed. These are very telling. No, not enough to convict him, on their own, but very telling.

And call me optimistic, but I don't think the MAJORITY of married men have affairs. Therefore, even if all the men who had affairs ended up killing their wives, still, the majority of wives would not have been killed by their cheating husbands.

[blondee123]

I disagree. Frequently there is forensic evidence. Bullets in the body, knife wounds, fiber samples, blood with DNA evidence, footprints and fingerprints all come to mind.

And, the prosecution may have some of those that you mentioned, none of us know what they have as yet!

[blondee123]

Whether we like him or not, it was his property, and before it was disturbed he did have the right to an independent examination of the house & its contents. How does the court balance taking away his best chance to come up with evidence of his innocence?

It was reported that Scotts own mother admitted to going into the house & cleaning it up with her husband, previous to the Rochas going in, so the site was disturbed or tainted by them already!

[IrishRainy]

They should know the law in a case like this--the stuff belongs to the husband until he is found guilty. That is part of their training and to earn their pay they should remember it.

It becomes his sole property when the death certificate is issued. Since it was issued AFTER the so-called robbery took place, it was still community property at the time.

Plus, the Peterson family had been in and out of the house regularly, even swimming in the pool, so the scene of the crime had been contaminated long before the Rocha family set foot in it.

[Poohbah]

Most murder cases are entirely circumstantial, because very few people kill another person in the presence of third parties.

I disagree. Frequently there is forensic evidence. Bullets in the body, knife wounds, fiber samples, blood with DNA evidence, footprints and fingerprints all come to mind.

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence, because it isn't the testimony of an eyewitness.