Scott Peterson - on death row in California - this was a weird one (case, murder)

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor

I'm not foolish enough to believe that juries are infallible. History has shown us that juries convict innocent men with alarming frequency. Again, just cite for me one piece of reliable evidence that shows Scott murdered Laci. You can't do it.

It's been done. You just choose to ignore it. You want the "smoking gun" of blood evidence, or video proof. Murder cases don't work that way.

[LillyLillyLilly]

Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor

OK, well in that respect, we totally agree. You're absolutely right. Circumstantial evidence requires putting pieces together in order to frame a plausible narrative. Absent physical evidence, it can be just as powerful, if not moreso. The problem in this case is that the entire narrative is nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that Scott killed Laci, put her in his truck, took her to his warehouse, put her in the boat, drove her to the marina and dumped her in the bay. None of this scenario is supported by a single piece of evidence, be it direct or circumstantial. None of it. Do you see what I'm saying?

It's just not enough to say he could've done it this way, or he might've done this. Convictions require evidence, not mere speculation.

By those standards, no one would ever be held responsible for her murder. Ahem, her disappearance since the body was too badly decomposed to determine cause of death.

There was no forensic evidence to support that Scott murdered her, and none to support that anyone else did it either. No evidence at all that she was even murdered.

So, should the detectives have just closed this case knowing there would never be justice for Laci, no justice for the unborn baby, no justice for the survivors? Tell her parents sorry, we found her too late to determine for certain whether she was murdered, so we have to give all suspects the benefit of the doubt and assume she walked into the bay and drowned herself?

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly

By those standards, no one would ever be held responsible for her murder. Ahem, her disappearance since the body was too badly decomposed to determine cause of death.

There was no forensic evidence to support that Scott murdered her, and none to support that anyone else did it either. No evidence at all that she was even murdered.

So, should the detectives have just closed this case knowing there would never be justice for Laci, no justice for the unborn baby, no justice for the survivors? Tell her parents sorry, we found her too late to determine for certain whether she was murdered, so we have to give all suspects the benefit of the doubt and assume she walked into the bay and drowned herself?

I know you didn't ask me, but your questions intrigued me.

Detectives don't close cases that haven't been solved - so no, this wouldn't have been "closed". It would remain an open murder case.

Convicting a husband wrongfully CERTAINLY isn't "justice" for the survivors, if that's what's happened here. And yes, tell her parents "sorry, we're still working on this, there isn't enough evidence here to convict".

BTW, I don't think anyone thinks the Laci Peterson case isn't a murder case. She certainly was murdered, and dumped there in the bay. She didn't drown herself, that much is clear beyond a reasonable doubt. So everyone is on that page.

I've just seen cases where it seems obvious "who did it" - Jacy Dugard's stepfather lived under a cloud of righteous suspicion for her disappearance until she was found alive many years later. By the standard used to convict Scott Peterson, Jacy's stepfather would be rotting in prison or maybe would have even been executed by the time she was found alive.

Christina Moore, here in Central Texas, was a young pregnant wife when she was brutally murdered in her home. Her husband was the obvious suspect - but police held off because in fact, there WASN'T enough evidence (only that it seemed obvious he was the killer) to convict him. Sure enough, he's innocent. Michael Moore (no relation) broke into her home and strangled her to death a short time before her husband came home to "check on her" in the middle of the business day. I mean, really?? Who checks on his wife in the middle of the business day? The jury would have convicted him, had law enforcement not held off and then a ring of hers brought this case to a close, a stranger burglary murder.

You don't convict someone and sentence them to death because looking at the evidence, it seems most likely this guy is the murderer, and we don't want this case to appear unsolved to the grieving family. Police had one agenda from the time she was reported missing, and that was to find evidence to convict Peterson, and reject any evidence that pointed away from his guilt.

[LillyLillyLilly]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I know you didn't ask me, but your questions intrigued me.

Detectives don't close cases that haven't been solved - so no, this wouldn't have been "closed". It would remain an open murder case.

BTW, I don't think anyone thinks the Laci Peterson case isn't a murder case. She certainly was murdered, and dumped there in the bay. She didn't drown herself, that much is clear beyond a reasonable doubt. So everyone is on that page.

Yes, you're right, they don't close cases that are unsolved.

I was referring directly to MB's standards. If they can't bring a case without the forensic evidence that MB wants, (and there IS NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE in the Laci Peterson case), then they might as well close it, right? Using MB's standards for convicting someone, a case could never be brought against anyone.

Your second paragraph, no everyone is not on that page. Some are insisting that there is NO evidence she was even murdered. And that is true. No one in their right mind would think she got into the Bay any other way, but the fact is, there is no forensic evidence that proves she was murdered.

IIRC, Jacee's stepdad was not caught in a bunch of lies. He didn't have anything to cover up. The only thing they had against him was that he was the last one to see her alive. Very different from Scott Peterson.

[The Mysterious Benefactor]

Originally Posted by ringwise

So what bank snafu was proven by the bank slips. And I don't believe anything his mother says. She would lie to save her son. That's a fact.

OK, so let's convict Jackie of perjury, without any evidence, simply because ringwise believes she would lie to save her son, as a matter of FACT. Read the testimony, given under oath.

Originally Posted by ringwise

You've gone and changed the goal post here. First he "needed" to buy a truck because of work. Now there are all sorts of (unnamed) reasons to sell the car. I'll give you the big one: he knew Laci was dead because he killed her, and sold her car because he knew she'd never use it again.

No, the goalpost hasn't changed or moved. You have no idea why Scott sold Laci's car. I offered a very reasonable explanation as to why he might have, but you're hellbent on trying to convince us that it could've ONLY been because he killed her and knew she was dead. Again, it's a moot point; selling your wife's car is not evidence of murder.

Originally Posted by ringwise

You STILL have answered the question of why you are so bent on defending this murderer.

Maybe you missed it, but I've answered it already. Again, I reject your entire premise that Scott is a murderer. I'm not defending Scott as much as I'm defending the system; one that declares a man is innocent until proven guilty, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite being given several opportunities, you STILL haven't offered any evidence that Scott killed Laci. Are you going to do so, or not?

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly

Yes, you're right, they don't close cases that are unsolved.


Your second paragraph, no everyone is not on that page. Some are insisting that there is NO evidence she was even murdered. And that is true. No one in their right mind would think she got into the Bay any other way, but the fact is, there is no forensic evidence that proves she was murdered.

Ok, Well, we're both willing to dismiss those who think she wasn't murdered.

I think there might be forensic evidence, somewhere, that she was murdered by someone besides Peterson. It hasn't been discovered obviously.

Her head has not been found, and as I recall, neither have her arms. But again, that may be a result of her being weighed down by her head and arms when she was dumped in the bay.

SOMEONE killed her, that I believe completely, I just don't know who.

And IMHO there is nothing conclusive to point to Peterson.

[The Mysterious Benefactor]

Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly

By those standards, no one would ever be held responsible for her murder. Ahem, her disappearance since the body was too badly decomposed to determine cause of death.

There was no forensic evidence to support that Scott murdered her, and none to support that anyone else did it either. No evidence at all that she was even murdered.

So, should the detectives have just closed this case knowing there would never be justice for Laci, no justice for the unborn baby, no justice for the survivors? Tell her parents sorry, we found her too late to determine for certain whether she was murdered, so we have to give all suspects the benefit of the doubt and assume she walked into the bay and drowned herself?

There was no evidence that she was murdered, and no evidence that Scott did it; forensic, circumstantial or otherwise. I believe it's a fair assumption that this was a murder. Not for a moment do I believe that Laci put herself in that bay. That being said, I think the detectives should have objectively followed the information available that would have led them to the killer/s. The Medina burglars should've been very strong suspects in this case and were essentially ignored.

Understand, I want justice for Laci and Conner as much as you or anyone. I want their killer to die and rot in hell, whether it's Scott or whoever else. But justice includes convicting and condemning the right person. There's no way Scott could've done this as outlined by the prosecution.

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by The Mysterious Benefactor

This is not correct. All criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance. Look, I understand how circumstantial evidence works, but it has to actually be evidence. That is, it has to be reliable and must tie the defendant to the crime. Having an affair(or lying about it), not acting "right", appearing narcissistic, buying a boat, selling a car, using the wrong fishing lure, dying one's hair, having four cell phones, etc. etc. etc. might be actions which appear suspicious to some, but are NOT evidence of murder.

I've asked repeatedly for this [singular] evidence, and the response has been lots of speculation and innuendo, but no one has yet listed any evidence at all that ties Scott to Laci's death. How about a single drop of blood or bodily fluid at any of the five different alleged crime scenes? One incriminating statement? How about a single witness who saw Scott doing anything suspicious that day? Like wrapping a dead body in a tarp, removing it from his home, putting it into a truck, taking it to a warehouse, transferring it to a boat, driving 90 miles to a busy marina, dumping it into a bay...There's not a single shred of evidence to show that Laci was even murdered, let alone who may have done it.

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.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

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.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, we are still left with the unreasonable doubt of people who weirdly embrace the contrary positions on the most clear-cut of cases. Scott "I'm Obviously Guilty" Peterson could allocute in minute and verifiable detail, and some would still insist that he's innocent.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, we are still left with the unreasonable doubt of people who weirdly embrace the contrary positions on the most clear-cut of cases. Scott "I'm Obviously Guilty" Peterson could allocute in minute and verifiable detail, and some would still insist that he's innocent.

It's not unreasonable doubt, Unsettomati. It's actually quite possible Peterson was where he said - fishing or boating - on Christmas eve, and while he was there his wife, who had planned to walk the dog that morning was taken. It's quite possible.

Her mother for some reason knew that Laci had planned to walk the dog that morning due to their very very close communication relationship. Peterson apparently did not know of Laci's plans to walk the dog when he left, except she planned to do some preparation for the Christmas Eve dinner they planned to attend at Sharon Rocha's home (Laci's mother).

And so Laci's dog was found in the backyard with his leash on, because a neighbor had seen him wandering the street with his leash on, and placed him in the backyard.

Doesn't that give you pause? Laci planned to walk the dog in the morning, Peterson did NOT know about that plan, and sure enough, the dog was found apparently having been walked but Laci was missing.

There are so many more pieces that are reasonable doubt, to me, especially the Croton watch being in the possession of the DIL of the man in the tan van. Reasonable doubt all over that, IMHO.