Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True.
You continue to ask that someone produce a single piece of evidence that conclusively proves guilt, and refuse to look at the totality of the evidence.
having an affair(or lying about it) did not result in conviction,
not acting "right" did not result in conviction,
appearing narcissistic did not result in conviction,
buying a boat did not result in conviction,
selling a car did not result in conviction,
using the wrong fishing lure did not result in conviction,
dying one's hair did not result in conviction; and,
having four cell phones did not result in conviction.
We all know and agree that none of these facts, on their own, justify the conviction of Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife. Instead ... what was it Plato said ... look at all the pieces together and you will see the big picture: conclusive guilt.
I have considered the totality of the evidence. Again, none of these facts, singularly or collectively, represent evidence that Scott killed Laci. Evidence must provide some direct link or at least a reasonable inference that ties the defendant to the crime. It's not enough to simply say "Well, Scott once wrote a book in which a woman died on a Tuesday. Laci was killed on a Tuesday, so therefore he must've done it." Or "Scott hated tan pants and Laci was killed in tan pants, so he did it." You are taking facts which have no bearing whatsoever on the mechanics of the crime and using those to convict him of murder.
How about a witness or cctv footage showing Scott with an item wrapped in a tarp? A single indication of foul play at any of the five crime scenes? Keep in mind, this was an investigation that took place in 2003, by multiple agencies, including the FBI, using the most sophisticated equipment and investigative tools available. Scott told them exactly where he went that day and proved it by providing receipts and describing what he had seen. Despite months of searches, which began mere hours after Laci was discovered missing, not one single piece of incriminating evidence was ever found. No witnesses, no body, no anchor, no forensic evidence, no indication of clean-up, nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
Don't you find it odd that a man with a missing wife turns off his phone during an interview. Isn't he desperately hoping for a call from his missing wife? That's a piece of evidence that can be tossed in with all the other trial evidence, but on its own it does not imply guilt. Scott's behavior in this instance is baffling, or, using common sense, suspicious. Scott telling his girlfriend that his wife is dead, and then she is murdered, that's suspicious, or premonition.
Scott knew Amber wasn't interested in a married man, so he lied to her about his marital status, like many adulterers do. He could've said he was divorced, but that doesn't make him look very good. He could've said he had never been married, but at his age that might raise her eyebrows as well. He told her that he had lost his wife. I'm not excusing it, he was wrong to lie to her, but it's a common lie told by people who cheat on their spouse.
As to Scott's behavior in that interview, I do find it odd, and yes, even suspicious. Scott did act strange at times, we don't disagree on that, but that isn't enough to make him guilty of murder. You yourself keep mentioning the importance of considering the totality of the evidence, but honestly, you aren't really doing that. You're only considering those items that point to Scott's guilt. What about the exculpatory evidence? You still haven't offered any reasonable explanation as to how the plastic tape got tied(in two knots) around Conner's body. If Scott supposedly dumped a pregnant Laci into the bay, this simply isn't possible; your entire scenario falls apart.
True.
You continue to ask that someone produce a single piece of evidence that conclusively proves guilt, and refuse to look at the totality of the evidence.
having an affair(or lying about it) did not result in conviction,
not acting "right" did not result in conviction,
appearing narcissistic did not result in conviction,
buying a boat did not result in conviction,
selling a car did not result in conviction,
using the wrong fishing lure did not result in conviction,
dying one's hair did not result in conviction; and,
having four cell phones did not result in conviction.
We all know and agree that none of these facts, on their own, justify the conviction of Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife. Instead ... what was it Plato said ... look at all the pieces together and you will see the big picture: conclusive guilt.
Don't you find it odd that a man with a missing wife turns off his phone during an interview. Isn't he desperately hoping for a call from his missing wife? That's a piece of evidence that can be tossed in with all the other trial evidence, but on its own it does not imply guilt. Scott's behavior in this instance is baffling, or, using common sense, suspicious. Scott telling his girlfriend that his wife is dead, and then she is murdered, that's suspicious, or premonition.
Well said...a jury brings its collective wisdom into the jury room...it is not their duty to employ doubt without reason...to consider any and all scenarios possible under the sun would result in never being able to find anyone guilty in a circumstantial case...the amount of pure coincidences that would have had to happen to wrongly convict in this case would be mind boggling...
I have considered the totality of the evidence. Again, none of these facts, singularly or collectively, represent evidence that Scott killed Laci. Evidence must provide some direct link or at least a reasonable inference that ties the defendant to the crime. It's not enough to simply say "Well, Scott once wrote a book in which a woman died on a Tuesday. Laci was killed on a Tuesday, so therefore he must've done it." Or "Scott hated tan pants and Laci was killed in tan pants, so he did it." You are taking facts which have no bearing whatsoever on the mechanics of the crime and using those to convict him of murder.
How about a witness or cctv footage showing Scott with an item wrapped in a tarp? A single indication of foul play at any of the five crime scenes? Keep in mind, this was an investigation that took place in 2003, by multiple agencies, including the FBI, using the most sophisticated equipment and investigative tools available. Scott told them exactly where he went that day and proved it by providing receipts and describing what he had seen. Despite months of searches, which began mere hours after Laci was discovered missing, not one single piece of incriminating evidence was ever found. No witnesses, no body, no anchor, no forensic evidence, no indication of clean-up, nothing.Scott knew Amber wasn't interested in a married man, so he lied to her about his marital status, like many adulterers do. He could've said he was divorced, but that doesn't make him look very good. He could've said he had never been married, but at his age that might raise her eyebrows as well. He told her that he had lost his wife. I'm not excusing it, he was wrong to lie to her, but it's a common lie told by people who cheat on their spouse.
As to Scott's behavior in that interview, I do find it odd, and yes, even suspicious. Scott did act strange at times, we don't disagree on that, but that isn't enough to make him guilty of murder. You yourself keep mentioning the importance of considering the totality of the evidence, but honestly, you aren't really doing that. You're only considering those items that point to Scott's guilt. What about the exculpatory evidence? You still haven't offered any reasonable explanation as to how the plastic tape got tied(in two knots) around Conner's body. If Scott supposedly dumped a pregnant Laci into the bay, this simply isn't possible; your entire scenario falls apart.
I've been trying to assume that Peterson is innocent with one problematic piece of evidence.
What about the earrings. Weren't Laci's earrings with the rest of her jewellery on her dresser? Isn't it true that she didn't leave the house without her diamond earrings (per her half sister)?
If her earrings were on the dresser, and she didn't leave the house without her earrings, then she was killed in the house. BUT, let's suppose she wasn't killed in the house and somehow her jewellery was returned to the house after she was murdered elsewhere, why was there a 20 foot leash on the dog? The dog was found on the street with a leash, and if Laci took the dog for a walk, she would have been wearing her earrings. How did the dog end up with a 20 foot leash in the middle of the road?
The one piece of evidence that does not fit with Scott Peterson being innocent is Laci's earrings at home.
"Brooks said Laci Peterson told her that she was cleaning out her jewelry box and wanted to get rid of items she received from her grandmother. But Robin Rocha said that, when she inspected her niece's jewelry at the request of the police, she found only two pieces missing: a fancy gem-encrusted watch and a 2-carat pair of diamond earrings." http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/peterson.case/
Oops ... got that wrong. In fact the earrings that Laci always wore were missing, and not in the house at all. That means that she was murdered while wearing her earrings.
Do you think her murderer kept the earrings, or left them with her body at the bottom of the ocean? How do the earrings factor into suspects? The earrings are missing. They are valuable. Scott has always known this. Did a robber murder Laci while stealing her earrings? Were her earrings stollen after she was murdered for another reason - such as? Let's suppose she was dragged from her dog's leash, where are the earrings? Neither a robber nor rapist would pass up 2 carat diamonds.
I've been trying to assume that Peterson is innocent with one problematic piece of evidence.
Oops ... got that wrong. In fact the earrings that Laci always wore were missing, and not in the house at all. That means that she was murdered while wearing her earrings.
OK, so now that this one problematic piece has been explained, are you willing to assume he's innocent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
Do you think her murderer kept the earrings, or left them with her body at the bottom of the ocean? How do the earrings factor into suspects? The earrings are missing. They are valuable. Scott has always known this. Did a robber murder Laci while stealing her earrings? Were her earrings stollen after she was murdered for another reason - such as? Let's suppose she was dragged from her dog's leash, where are the earrings? Neither a robber nor rapist would pass up 2 carat diamonds.
My speculation is that her killer likely took them and sold them, but we can't glean anything from the earrings unless they're found or connected to someone in some way. Maybe, after all these years, an ex-girlfriend of one the Medina burglars will come forward to admit she received 2-carat earrings for Christmas in 2003.
OK well, earrings or a pendant either way, what you have is a question, not evidence. I'm curious about why Laci wasn't wearing the pendant as well, if that was her custom, but it's a whole other leap of logic to say it represents evidence that Scott killed her.
OK well, earrings or a pendant either way, what you have is a question, not evidence. I'm curious about why Laci wasn't wearing the pendant as well, if that was her custom, but it's a whole other leap of logic to say it represents evidence that Scott killed her.
The pendant was always worn by Laci, day and night. It was sitting on her dresser, but she didn't put it there because she never took it off. How did it get there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
