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.
The fact that Scott evaded police at the time of the arrest is not evidence of murder. Why would that information be in the trial transcripts? Why would anyone assume that facts unrelated to the act of committing murder, and therefore not in trial testimony, are no longer facts?
All of the arresting officers testified at trial as to what exactly took place at the time of the stop. And without exception, their testimony supports what I've said. I'll save you the trouble and offer one exchange from the transcripts:
GERAGOS: Okay. When they activated the light or siren, how long did it take from activating the light and the siren and him pulling over?
JUBRAN: I wasn't there because we came in directly behind Limon.
GERAGOS: Well, is it fair to say that you heard in radio traffic they were going to pull him over and you approached within a couple of minutes and he had already pulled over?
JUBRAN: Yes. It was less than a couple minutes.
GERAGOS: Would you say less than 30 seconds?
JUBRAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. There was never any indication that once he had a light or siren turned on him that he tried to flee, correct?
JUBRAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: In fact, all indications are that as soon as the light or siren is activated, you let it be known that you were law enforcement, he immediately pulled over, correct?
JUBRAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. When you saw the car that immediately pulled over, did it pull over and park next to a curb?
JUBRAN: I recollect stopping -- there's a stop sign; kind of stopped at the stop sign, a little bit forward of the, there's a dip usually where there's a limit line. That's what I recall.
GERAGOS: Okay. And immediately and didn't resist and didn't run away and didn't flee, as far as you know, correct?
JUBRAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Didn't run towards the border?
JUBRAN: No, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. At any time did you see him head to a border checkpoint during these days that you were behind him?
JUBRAN: No, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. At any point did you see him head for Nevada, or anyplace like that?
JUBRAN: No.
I just don't know how much more clear this could be. You're simply wrong.
Regarding the fifteen thousand dollars that Scott Peterson had in his car, I see no reason to assume that the money has something to do with being an "avid outdoorsman". I also don't assume that $15,000 in cash is meaningless when the man with the money is evading police who intend to arrest him for murder.
I never said(nor asked you to assume) it had anything to do with his being an outdoorsman. I stated clearly that it was the result of a bank snafu, one that was documented and covered at trial. Repeating: Read the transcripts....(and the thread)
I can discuss the case, but I'm not interested in typing the trial evidence into a forum.
What is the explanation for Laci's hair entwined in the plyers in Scott's boat?
There was a hair found on/in the pliers when collected by the detective. It was not entwined, entangled or wrapped around the pliers. It was never conclusively found to be Laci's, but let's presume it was. We know she had visited the warehouse a few days earlier and had seen the boat in which the pliers were stored. A stray hair in a place she was known to be is hardly unusual. Moreover, these "extremely rusted"(State's characterization) pliers were never shown to be connected to Laci's death in any way.
I can discuss the case, but I'm not interested in typing the trial evidence into a forum.
What is the explanation for Laci's hair entwined in the plyers in Scott's boat?
No one testified that the hair found in the needle nose pliers was Laci's hair. In fact, the trial record establishes that the prosecution misrepresented the hair as such.
To wit:
"24 THE COURT: All right. This is the case of
25 People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the
26 defendant is present with counsel. The jury is in the jury
8528
1 box along with the alternates.
2 Record should reflect that we had an in-chambers
3 conference on the record with respect to the issue of the
4 ruling that Judge Girolami made in Modesto. After discussing
5 it with counsel, I'm going to sustain Mr. Geragos' objection
6 now. And I'm more well-advised what the ruling was. I'm
7 going to ask the District Attorney to clear it up so this
8 will be more accurate in accordance with Judge Girolami's --
9 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
10 MR. DISTASO: I'll do that. Can we dim the lights
11 a little bit?
12 THE COURT: Sure.
13 MR. DISTASO: I think I had said when I was
14 talking about the -- I believe -- I think what I said was,
15 regarding the hair that was found in the boat, I think I said
16 it matched microscopically. You are going to hear in that
17 regard the Mitochondrial DNA, it's much more complicated than
18 match or non-match. I used the word "match" to try to
19 simplify and move things along. That really wasn't the
20 appropriate term. I should have talked to you about in terms
21 of the statistics that experts used. Not going to do that
22 with you right now.
23 Suffice to say, you are going to have experts come
24 and talk about the statistics, what they mean. What they are
25 going to tell you is the hair excludes Scott Peterson. It
26 does not exclude Laci Peterson. And they are going to talk
8529
1 to you, statistical analysis they do, to whether that falls
2 in the vein of whether it matches or not. That's what they
3 are going to talk about.
4 But moving on."
Further, Distaso tried again in his closing argument to represent the hair as being Laci's hair; however, he was again taken to task by Judge Delucchi, and Distaso apologized to the jury, which is reflected in the trial record as follows:
"There's really no dispute that Laci Peterson's hair was found in those pliers. It matches microscopically. You heard that from Rod Oswalt and from the FBI expert. I think her name was Karen Reubush. It matches her mitochondrial DNA. "
MR. GERAGOS: Objection. There's a stipulation -- there's already been an admonition that he cannot say that matches mitochondrial DNA. Same issue --
THE COURT: I don't believe he said he matched. It was consistent.
MR. DISTASO: That's fine. I apologize."
Still further, needle-nosed pliers are commonly used for a variety of tasks around a household. Tasks such as, cleaning out vacuum clogs, cleaning out plumbing clogs et al -- and hair could easily be found in a pliers after such tasks.
Net, the hair found in the needle-nose pliers (the infamous multiplying hair) was anything but dispositive evidence or even highly reliable inculpatory evidence.
Having answered your question, I now ask you to respond to my last request; i.e., "please cite the highly reliable evidence that you maintain proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci.
I rely on the evidence presented at trial to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson is guilty of murder. I have no intention of listing the trial evidence here - which should not be interpreted as an absence of evidence. It's one thing to discuss a case, it's something entirely different to demand that all valid trial evidence be provided on a forum in the same way that it was presented in the courtroom. I doubt that anyone is going to provide that service for you.
The source for my understanding of Scott's objection to his conviction is the contents of his appeal, where he argues that his 8 month fetus was not alive, therefore he, Connor, could not be murdered.
I am citing to the Appellate Brief in this case filed by Peterson's legal counsel. An appeal is pending before the California Supreme Court. If you simply review the table of contents, you will see that many mistakes were alleged by his counsel. Of course, this doesn't mean that (1) the court actually erred; or (2) that the case should be reversed if there were some technical error. However, this deflates your statement in which you suggested that the only argument Scott made against his conviction was that an "eight month old fetus" is not a person.
Scott's counsel raised many arguments both procedural and based on the substance of the law of murder why the conviction should be reversed.
I have said in prior posts that I believe Peterson is guilty. However, both convicting someone of that crime and sending him to the death house is overdoing it. The problem with a case like this is that none of us are safe when someone can be condemned to death based on case which is very flimsy and relied largely on "dog scent" evidence.
There was a hair found on/in the pliers when collected by the detective. It was not entwined, entangled or wrapped around the pliers. It was never conclusively found to be Laci's, but let's presume it was. We know she had visited the warehouse a few days earlier and had seen the boat in which the pliers were stored. A stray hair in a place she was known to be is hardly unusual. Moreover, these "extremely rusted"(State's characterization) pliers were never shown to be connected to Laci's death in any way.
Is that what Scott said? He spent New Year's Eve in Paris too.
No one testified that the hair found in the needle nose pliers was Laci's hair. In fact, the trial record establishes that the prosecution misrepresented the hair as such.
To wit:
"24 THE COURT: All right. This is the case of
25 People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the
26 defendant is present with counsel. The jury is in the jury
8528
1 box along with the alternates.
2 Record should reflect that we had an in-chambers
3 conference on the record with respect to the issue of the
4 ruling that Judge Girolami made in Modesto. After discussing
5 it with counsel, I'm going to sustain Mr. Geragos' objection
6 now. And I'm more well-advised what the ruling was. I'm
7 going to ask the District Attorney to clear it up so this
8 will be more accurate in accordance with Judge Girolami's --
9 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you.
10 MR. DISTASO: I'll do that. Can we dim the lights
11 a little bit?
12 THE COURT: Sure.
13 MR. DISTASO: I think I had said when I was
14 talking about the -- I believe -- I think what I said was,
15 regarding the hair that was found in the boat, I think I said
16 it matched microscopically. You are going to hear in that 17 regard the Mitochondrial DNA, it's much more complicated than 18 match or non-match. I used the word "match" to try to 19 simplify and move things along. That really wasn't the 20 appropriate term. I should have talked to you about in terms
21 of the statistics that experts used. Not going to do that
22 with you right now.
23 Suffice to say, you are going to have experts come
24 and talk about the statistics, what they mean. What they are
25 going to tell you is the hair excludes Scott Peterson. It
26 does not exclude Laci Peterson. And they are going to talk
8529
1 to you, statistical analysis they do, to whether that falls
2 in the vein of whether it matches or not. That's what they
3 are going to talk about.
4 But moving on."
Further, Distaso tried again in his closing argument to represent the hair as being Laci's hair; however, he was again taken to task by Judge Delucchi, and Distaso apologized to the jury, which is reflected in the trial record as follows:
"There's really no dispute that Laci Peterson's hair was found in those pliers. It matches microscopically. You heard that from Rod Oswalt and from the FBI expert. I think her name was Karen Reubush. It matches her mitochondrial DNA. "
MR. GERAGOS: Objection. There's a stipulation -- there's already been an admonition that he cannot say that matches mitochondrial DNA. Same issue --
THE COURT: I don't believe he said he matched. It was consistent.
MR. DISTASO: That's fine. I apologize."
Still further, needle-nosed pliers are commonly used for a variety of tasks around a household. Tasks such as, cleaning out vacuum clogs, cleaning out plumbing clogs et al -- and hair could easily be found in a pliers after such tasks.
Net, the hair found in the needle-nose pliers (the infamous multiplying hair) was anything but dispositive evidence or even highly reliable inculpatory evidence.
Having answered your question, I now ask you to respond to my last request; i.e., "please cite the highly reliable evidence that you maintain proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson murdered Laci.
The hair is a mitochondrial match, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Laci was aware of the fact that Scott had purchased boat. Furthermore, there is no logical explanation for her hair to be tangled in his pliers in his boat.
As I posted up-thread, "citing" the evidence that resulted in the conviction of Scott Peterson is equivalent to posting, with quotes, all the evidence that was presented at trial. You can continue to request that I provide this service, but it will not change my mind. It's not going to happen but, as I said, this does not mean that the evidence is not there. It means that no one is going to waste their time documenting the evidence of a murder trial on a forum because everyone has better things to do with their time.
The hair is a mitochondrial match, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Laci was aware of the fact that Scott had purchased boat. Furthermore, there is no logical explanation for her hair to be tangled in his pliers in his boat.
As I posted up-thread, "citing" the evidence that resulted in the conviction of Scott Peterson is equivalent to posting, with quotes, all the evidence that was presented at trial. You can continue to request that I provide this service, but it will not change my mind. It's not going to happen but, as I said, this does not mean that the evidence is not there. It means that no one is going to waste their time documenting the evidence of a murder trial on a forum because everyone has better things to do with their time.
In your post, you represented an assumption (the hair was Laci's hair) to be fact. That is not true, as established by the trial record.
An absence of evidence is not evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the state, always. Moreover, there is no evidence that Laci did not know that Scott purchased the boat nor that the boat was a secret, as the state alleged. All of the above is but pure speculation, and speculation is not evidence. Nor are jurors allowed to speculate.
As I said earlier, I have never seen anyone, anywhere, who could cite the required highly reliable inculpatory evidence that would support Scott's conviction. You are no exception.
Is that what Scott said? He spent New Year's Eve in Paris too.
It's in the trial transcripts. You should read them, it would save us both some time. But look, I'm not interested in silly banter, and you're clearly in over your head here. Turn off Nancy Grace, get yourself some facts, and get back to me if you'd like to have a serious discussion.
I am citing to the Appellate Brief in this case filed by Peterson's legal counsel. An appeal is pending before the California Supreme Court. If you simply review the table of contents, you will see that many mistakes were alleged by his counsel. Of course, this doesn't mean that (1) the court actually erred; or (2) that the case should be reversed if there were some technical error. However, this deflates your statement in which you suggested that the only argument Scott made against his conviction was that an "eight month old fetus" is not a person.
Scott's counsel raised many arguments both procedural and based on the substance of the law of murder why the conviction should be reversed.
I have said in prior posts that I believe Peterson is guilty. However, both convicting someone of that crime and sending him to the death house is overdoing it. The problem with a case like this is that none of us are safe when someone can be condemned to death based on case which is very flimsy and relied largely on "dog scent" evidence.
I'm surprised that you think Scott murdered Laci.
I might be wrong, but I believe earlier in this thread, you cited the twice-knotted twine that was found around Conner's neck that the ME had to cut off Conner (versus lifting it over his head).
Unless you think that Scott cut Conner out of Laci's body, the twine represents nothing less than exonerating evidence -- not exculpatory evidence, exonerating.
Last edited by Wudge; 05-03-2015 at 09:07 PM..
Reason: spelling
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.
