Scott Peterson

[Desert Fox]

Might regret this but I wanted to bring this case up in what is actually a more neutral forum.

The usual position that I am against the death penalty.

I have had a number of people try to argue with me that Scott Peterson is innocent of murder of his wife. To be honest, every argument I have been able to counter.

In the end, I was effectively called stupid.

Anybody willing to argue that Scott Peterson is innocent in way to actually convince me? I will hit back however.

 

[David Sugar]

Might regret this but I wanted to bring this case up in what is actually a more neutral forum.

The usual position that I am against the death penalty.

I have had a number of people try to argue with me that Scott Peterson is innocent of murder of his wife. To be honest, every argument I have been able to counter.

In the end, I was effectively called stupid.

Anybody willing to argue that Scott Peterson is innocent in way to actually convince me? I will hit back however.

I am not that familliar with this case, but from what I read, I conclude he is probably guilty. I do have doubts about guilt, though, so I would probably have voted not-guilty on a jury.

He went fishing near where the body was found---that's a pretty big coincidence. He was cheating on his wife, and told her that his wife was dead--before she disappeared. Another bad coincidence.

I am a skeptic--it is very hard to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt if someone is innocent or guilty--I would be a prosecutors worst nightmare on a jury.

That being said, the number of cases I have looked into where the facts prove innocence to me, to my very high standard, yet the defendant remains in prison, sometimes for decades, convinces me there is something VERY wrong with the justice systems in some areas.

David

 

[Loss Leader]

Anybody willing to argue that Scott Peterson is innocent in way to actually convince me? I will hit back however.

Well, he was played by Dean Cain, if that's any help.

I could see some people who are against the death penalty wanting Scott Peterson to be innocent. Then he doesn't have to be on death row and they don't have to confront the difficult fact of just how terrible his crime was. That senator that said rape doesn't result in pregnancy wasn't stupid or ignorant of biology. He was just so pro-life that he wanted a difficult issue to go away. He wanted it so badly he actually tricked himself into believing nonsense.

Peterson is extraordinarily guilty.

I hear, however, that he's otherwise a really pleasant, likable guy. He did murder his pregnant wife, though.


*I am against the Death Penalty in all cases, even this one.

 

[Loss Leader]

I am a skeptic--it is very hard to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt if someone is innocent or guilty--I would be a prosecutors worst nightmare on a jury.

"Reasonable doubt" means a doubt for which you can articulate a reason. What reason do you have to doubt his guilt, other than your ideas about the justice system in general?

And yes, you wouldn't make it onto one of my juries.

 

[Desert Fox]

Remember I do not consider any of these arguments valid but some I have read:

Somebody else planted the bodies to implicate him. The area where the body was dumped is 60 to 80 miles away from their house.

They first argue that the boat can only support 500 lbs. I find that model with three adults in it with plenty of reserve buoyancy. Looked in no danger of sinking.

Morphs into that the boat would not allow him to dump a body due to stability. They used some guy which horrid balance and picked up the body in the worst manner possible. I talked to some divers yesterday and they thought that argument was ludicrous.

Argued that the body had barnacles on it, trying to argue that barnacles are intertidal in spite of the fact that barnacles are commonly as deep as 100 meters. Then they argue special San Fransisco Bay barnacles.

That the police searched the water for the body multiple times and did not find it and the water is shallow. They then admit that it was in the water when searches were performed. They seem to not get just so hard search the water is especially when there are several nautical miles of water to be searched.

Argue that the boat would be too slow to traverse significant distance to put the body pretty deep in the bay. It had a 15 hp motor which is pretty powerful for a small boat motor. Found some people on a forum claiming ~230 knots. Checked with those same divers and they thought that number was high but still a pretty powerful motor so maybe ~10 knots.

 

[David Sugar]

"Reasonable doubt" means a doubt for which you can articulate a reason. What reason do you have to doubt his guilt, other than your ideas about the justice system in general?

And yes, you wouldn't make it onto one of my juries.

I've read a defense argument that Peterson's story about fishing on the lake was all over the news just days after his wife's disappearance. The argument was that the real killer could have dumped the body there after hearing this to frame Peterson.

If it is true that Peterson's fishing expedition was made public, then this argument may be enough to raise doubt about his guilt.

David

 

[Wattson]

I've read a defense argument that Peterson's story about fishing on the lake was all over the news just days after his wife's disappearance. The argument was that the real killer could have dumped the body there after hearing this to frame Peterson.

If it is true that Peterson's fishing expedition was made public, then this argument may be enough to raise doubt about his guilt.

David

Is there evidence of another killer?

 

[Faydra]

I'm afraid I'm solidly in the guilty camp, so not much for me to argue about here.

It is a fascinating case, felt sorry for Lacey and Amber both.

 

[Samzilla]

I've read a defense argument that Peterson's story about fishing on the lake was all over the news just days after his wife's disappearance. The argument was that the real killer could have dumped the body there after hearing this to frame Peterson.

If it is true that Peterson's fishing expedition was made public, then this argument may be enough to raise doubt about his guilt.

David

I know nothing about this case other than news headlines. Naturally I figured he's guilty. There are certain names that come up often when reading about possible wrongful convictions, and Scott Peterson's isn't one of them. So I can't say I've spent time entertaining the idea that he's innocent. Reading your post, the first questions that came to mind were:

-So the real killer was hanging on to the body for days taking his (or her) time deciding how to dispose of it? Is that common for murderers to hang on to a body for days? You'd think disposing of it the sooner the better.

-Or was the body disposed of somewhere else and then moved once the ability to frame up Peterson came along?

I know there are cases of people hanging on to bodies, but usually they keep them for a reason (like a real crazy person keeping a trophy) and it seems in those cases they never had an intent of disposal.

What would help is if you know how soon the first report came out about the fishing trip after the disappearance. Was it within 24 hours, 3 days, 5 days?

 

[Desert Fox]

I've read a defense argument that Peterson's story about fishing on the lake was all over the news just days after his wife's disappearance. The argument was that the real killer could have dumped the body there after hearing this to frame Peterson.

If it is true that Peterson's fishing expedition was made public, then this argument may be enough to raise doubt about his guilt.

David

I have to ask if you could ever convict anybody?

 

[David Sugar]

I've read a defense argument that Peterson's story about fishing on the lake was all over the news just days after his wife's disappearance. The argument was that the real killer could have dumped the body there after hearing this to frame Peterson.

If it is true that Peterson's fishing expedition was made public, then this argument may be enough to raise doubt about his guilt.

David

Is there evidence of another killer?

I don't think there is. I believe it is likely Peterson is guilty. (I would estimate maybe 80% likely to be guilty). To me, the strongest evidence of guilt is that he went fishing where the body was found. I think it was a mistake for the police to reveal where he went fishing to the public. That allowed the defense to raise this possibility, which may result in some doubt of guilt.

There was also no forensic evidence found on the boat to indicate there may have been body on it.

David

 

[David Sugar]

I have to ask if you could ever convict anybody?

Yes, if I am 95% sure of guilt, I would vote to convict.

I would have voted to convict Casey Anthony. I estimate likelihood of guilt around 95%.

I would also have convicted Jodi Arias. This one I am very certain of guilt: 99%.

David

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

And yes, you wouldn't make it onto one of my juries.

derail, but how would you go about determining that you would want David Sugar recused?

 

[David Sugar]

And yes, you wouldn't make it onto one of my juries.

derail, but how would you go about determining that you would want David Sugar recused?

Good question. I have never been called to serve on a jury, so I don't know what type of questions they ask. Are they allowed to ask how easy you can be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

David

 

[Wattson]

I don't think there is. I believe it is likely Peterson is guilty. (I would estimate maybe 80% likely to be guilty). To me, the strongest evidence of guilt is that he went fishing where the body was found. I think it was a mistake for the police to reveal where he went fishing to the public. That allowed the defense to raise this possibility, which may result in some doubt of guilt.

There was also no forensic evidence found on the boat to indicate there may have been body on it.

David

There was a hair in the teeth of a pair of pliers that was consistent with Laci's (not a smoking gun by any means).

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't think there is. I believe it is likely Peterson is guilty. (I would estimate maybe 80% likely to be guilty). To me, the strongest evidence of guilt is that he went fishing where the body was found. I think it was a mistake for the police to reveal where he went fishing to the public. That allowed the defense to raise this possibility, which may result in some doubt of guilt.

There was also no forensic evidence found on the boat to indicate there may have been body on it.

David

Because you can hose a boat down and nobody thinks the wiser of it, a boat is one of the best places to carry a body. It also does not mean that he did not wrap her in a tarp.

If he strangled her at home and then the head and hands were lost due to scavenging, the amount of evidence left would be minimal. Even a .22 would might leave minimal blood.

Yes, if I am 95% sure of guilt, I would vote to convict.

I would have voted to convict Casey Anthony. I estimate likelihood of guilt around 95%.

I would also have convicted Jodi Arias. This one I am very certain of guilt: 99%.

David

I wanted to be clear, I am not trying to be nasty. You do seem to have a very high standard as far as guilt. Would you ever convict based on pure circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial evidence is an uphill battle for me but not impossible.

Interestingly, one of the people who I argued with also argues for the innocence of Jodi Aris.

 

[David Sugar]

Yes, if I am 95% sure of guilt, I would vote to convict.

I would have voted to convict Casey Anthony. I estimate likelihood of guilt around 95%.

I would also have convicted Jodi Arias. This one I am very certain of guilt: 99%.

David

Because you can hose a boat down and nobody thinks the wiser of it, a boat is one of the best places to carry a body. It also does not mean that he did not wrap her in a tarp.

If he strangled her at home and then the head and hands were lost due to scavenging, the amount of evidence left would be minimal. Even a .22 would might leave minimal blood.

I wanted to be clear, I am not trying to be nasty. You do seem to have a very high standard as far as guilt. Would you ever convict based on pure circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial evidence is an uphill battle for me but not impossible.

Interestingly, one of the people who I argued with also argues for the innocence of Jodi Arias.

Circumstantial evidence can be strong or weak. If evidence places a defendant at the murder scene at the time of the murder, that circumstantial evidence is very strong, and without a really good explanation, I would likely find it enough to convict.

But I would have a problem convicting on a string of multiple weak circumstantial evidence. It is too easy to pick out facts, behaviors or actions of a defendant and argue how these make the defendant look guilty while ignoring exculpatory facts, behaviors or actions.

The circumstantial evidence in the Scott Peterson case is quite strong---but I am not sure it is strong enough.

David

 

[Wattson]

Circumstantial evidence can be strong or weak. If evidence places a defendant at the murder scene at the time of the murder, that circumstantial evidence is very strong, and without a really good explanation, I would likely find it enough to convict.

But I would have a problem convicting on a string of multiple weak circumstantial evidence. It is too easy to pick out facts, behaviors or actions of a defendant and argue how these make the defendant look guilty while ignoring exculpatory facts, behaviors or actions.

The circumstantial evidence in the Scott Peterson case is quite strong---but I am not sure it is strong enough.

David

Is there any exculpatory evidence?

 

[marplots]

Is there any exculpatory evidence?

He says he didn't do it.

 

[Desert Fox]

He says he didn't do it.

One poster has tried to blame Edward Edwards on this (and every other murder in the Country)

 

[Faydra]

Interestingly, one of the people who I argued with also argues for the innocence of Jodi Aris.

Who are these people you are arguing with? 3rd graders?

I don't see how anyone could believe Jodi Arias is innocent.

 

[Loss Leader]

derail, but how would you go about determining that you would want David Sugar recused?

There are some easy questions:

"Do you agree that our justice system is fair?"

"If the evidence showed that the defendant were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be able to vote to convict him?"

"What do you think of our courthouse?"

Without being insulting, I think "social justice" people are pretty easy to pick out. They tend to volunteer their opinions with little prompting.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm totally against the death penalty. And Scott Peterson is totally guilty.

I'd also have convicted Jodi Arias.

The Casey Anthony case is extremely problematic. I've not the slightest doubt she's guilty of something. She almost certainly killed her child. The question is whether it was accidental, intentional but not premeditated, or premeditated. I could easily have convicted her of manslaughter, probably of second degree murder, but not of the capital murder she was charged with. Thanks to the incompetence of the police and prosecution, they simply didn't have the evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

Who are these people you are arguing with? 3rd graders?

I don't see how anyone could believe she is innocent.

There is a large Jodi Arias innocence crowd. . . . . They claim he threatened her.
In her case, I think it is cute women syndrome. Yes, there is a bit of that with Amanda of course.

I bring up an old cop named Jim Barton and nobody is even interested.
I plan to be moving within a couple of months but plan to get a post office box so I can mail him when I get settled. I am not going to use a home address to mail to a prison.

So you know who I am talking about
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scared-to-death/

 

[Minoosh]

I would like to see the death penalty abolished but as long as it's on the books, some people should be sentenced to it. As a prosecutor I would limit it to serial killers, torture killers and people who kill in prison.

There was a guy in my town who kept two small children locked in a dark closet all day. The older sister (4 or 5) starved to death first and her little brother was left with her rotting remains until he also died of starvation.

If you are going to have a death penalty, that's where it should be invoked. If this guy isn't sentenced to death then the death penalty shouldn't be on the books. But if that guy isn't executed I'm OK with it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I'm totally against the death penalty. And Scott Peterson is totally guilty.

I'd also have convicted Jodi Arias.

The Casey Anthony case is extremely problematic. I've not the slightest doubt she's guilty of something. She almost certainly killed her child. The question is whether it was accidental, intentional but not premeditated, or premeditated. I could easily have convicted her of manslaughter, probably of second degree murder, but not of the capital murder she was charged with. Thanks to the incompetence of the police and prosecution, they simply didn't have the evidence.

In the cases of Arias and Scott Peterson, I would personally have no problem injecting the stuff or pulling the switch or whatever.

Casey Anthony most certainly killed Caylee or she died as a result of Casey (perhaps not intentional, perhaps leaving her in the car or trunk) but what is fascinating about this case is the fabulous defense Jose Baez put forth. I watched the entire trial, including jury selection and when Baez gave his opening argument I knew it was as close to a perfect defense as was possible.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I don't think there is. I believe it is likely Peterson is guilty. (I would estimate maybe 80% likely to be guilty). To me, the strongest evidence of guilt is that he went fishing where the body was found. I think it was a mistake for the police to reveal where he went fishing to the public. That allowed the defense to raise this possibility, which may result in some doubt of guilt.

There was also no forensic evidence found on the boat to indicate there may have been body on it.

David

In fact there was forensic evidence missing from the boat - the concrete anchors! I wonder what happened to them...

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

There is a large Jodi Arias innocence crowd. . . . . They claim he threatened her.
In her case, I think it is cute women syndrome. Yes, there is a bit of that with Amanda of course.

I bring up an old cop named Jim Barton and nobody is even interested.
I plan to be moving within a couple of months but plan to get a post office box so I can mail him when I get settled. I am not going to use a home address to mail to a prison.

So you know who I am talking about
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scared-to-death/

Is this the one with the recording about "Phelps" or someone like that?

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

In fact there was forensic evidence missing from the boat - the concrete anchors! I wonder what happened to them...

The police tried to plant evidence on them, but bungled it so badly they made them disappear rather than send to the crime lab for processing.

 

[Desert Fox]

Is this the one with the recording about "Phelps" or someone like that?

Yes. . . . . .He actually has a parole hearing this month according to the Ohio prison department.

Do you think he is guilty?

 

[KatieG]

There is a large Jodi Arias innocence crowd. . . . . They claim he threatened her.
In her case, I think it is cute women syndrome. Yes, there is a bit of that with Amanda of course.

I bring up an old cop named Jim Barton and nobody is even interested.
I plan to be moving within a couple of months but plan to get a post office box so I can mail him when I get settled. I am not going to use a home address to mail to a prison.

So you know who I am talking about
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scared-to-death/

I would never have voted guilty in Barton's case.

 

[Joey McGee]

That senator that said rape doesn't result in pregnancy wasn't stupid or ignorant of biology. He was just so pro-life that he wanted a difficult issue to go away. He wanted it so badly he actually tricked himself into believing nonsense.

I don't think this is how the brain works. More likely, his belief system tells him that God wouldn't make it possible for a woman to get pregnant by rape, the same way he wouldn't make it possible to for us to destroy the planet by burning stuff we found in the ground that he probably put there for us to use.

 

[Desert Fox]

I found a way that skepticism interacts with this case is an interesting manner.
The defense is trying to make a big deal about the limbs and head were not attached to her body

How many have heard of the Salish Sea human foot discoveries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea_human_foot_discoveries
Decomposition may separate the foot from the body because the ankle is relatively weak, and the buoyancy caused by air either inside or trapped within a shoe would allow it to float away.[5] According to Simon Fraser University entomologist Gail Anderson, extremities such as the hands, feet, and head often detach as a body decomposes in the water, although they rarely float

 

[katy_did]

While I think Peterson is very likely guilty, one thing that does bother me is that if a new piece of evidence turned up tomorrow - say, an item of Laci's bloody clothing with another man's DNA on it - there wouldn't then be anything to tie Peterson to the crime. The strongest evidence against him is really the absence of other suspects; the circumstantial evidence is all pretty weak.

 

[Desert Fox]

While I think Peterson is very likely guilty, one thing that does bother me is that if a new piece of evidence turned up tomorrow - say, an item of Laci's bloody clothing with another man's DNA on it - there wouldn't then be anything to tie Peterson to the crime. The strongest evidence against him is really the absence of other suspects; the circumstantial evidence is all pretty weak.

Can you think of another crime where there is an actual circumstantial case this solid where you then find DNA evidence (that is not contamination) which points to an alternate suspect.

Lacy Peterson was last seen alive in Modesto California with the last person known to see her alive being her husband.
That same day, Scott decides to go fishing 90 miles away and 1.5 hours away from his home. He spends only about a hour fishing.
Laci and Conners body is found washed ashore a few months later in the same body of water which he was fishing and according to a NOAA scientist, the currents would have drawn their bodies from where he was "fishing" to where they were found. The bodies are consistent (there might be some wiggle room on the exact date) to when she disappeared.
There are more minor details that further cement the case.

The alternative is that somebody else murdered Laci the same day or within a few days and ditched her body in the same water as Scott was fishing. In this situation, pretty much somebody has to be trying to frame him.

 

[katy_did]

Can you think of another crime where there is an actual circumstantial case this solid where you then find DNA evidence (that is not contamination) which points to an alternate suspect.

Lacy Peterson was last seen alive in Modesto California with the last person known to see her alive being her husband.
That same day, Scott decides to go fishing 90 miles away and 1.5 hours away from his home. He spends only about a hour fishing.
Laci and Conners body is found washed ashore a few months later in the same body of water which he was fishing and according to a NOAA scientist, the currents would have drawn their bodies from where he was "fishing" to where they were found. The bodies are consistent (there might be some wiggle room on the exact date) to when she disappeared.
There are more minor details that further cement the case.

The alternative is that somebody else murdered Laci the same day or within a few days and ditched her body in the same water as Scott was fishing. In this situation, pretty much somebody has to be trying to frame him.

Well, if evidence emerged against someone else, the fishing would have to be a coincidence. I don't think framing is necessary. You say "a circumstantial case this solid", but it basically rests on him going fishing in the same area in which her body was discovered - suggestive, certainly, but not rock solid.

My issue is just that if there were a plausible alternative suspect, the evidence against Peterson wouldn't need explaining. It would just fall away. While I think he's almost certainly guilty, the ease with which the case against him could be turned upside down does make me a bit uncomfortable.

Compare that with, for example, Guede. I find it very hard to imagine any way in which he could be exonerated - at most, new evidence could show that someone else was with him, but it could never exonerate him, because the existing evidence ties him too closely to the crime.

 

[Joey McGee]

When he was arrested in a disguise and a with a murder kit near his girlfriends house with a map to her workplace after selling his wife's Range Rover (why would you sell it unless you knew she wasn't coming back) that was only the final nail in the coffin of "circumstantial evidence".

it basically rests on him going fishing in the same area

No.

 

[katy_did]

When he was arrested in a disguise and a with a murder kit near his girlfriends house with a map to her workplace after selling his wife's Range Rover (why would you sell it unless you knew she wasn't coming back) that was only the final nail in the coffin of "circumstantial evidence".

How he behaved when he knew he was under surveillance and about to be arrested means little to me, and would be very weak evidence of guilt, if evidence at all (had he fled immediately after Laci's disappearance, now, that would be different).

To see that as evidence of guilt, as you apparently do, you would have to also believe innocent people having nothing to fear from being arrested.

No.

Feel free to enlighten me. To me it seems that's the strongest evidence against him.

ETA: Um, a "murder kit"? You think he was planning on killing some more people? Well this certainly puts a different spin on things... (spin, I suspect, being the operative word)

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes, most people assume the reason that he had rope and a shovel and knives and a map to his estranged ex-girlfriends workplace is so he could kill her.

What kind of sick **** would sell his missing wife's vehicle in order to buy himself a new truck?

There was of course, more to the evidence against him. I'm not going to try to change your mind, I'm getting bored of that in life.

You're more uncomfortable that there wasn't more direct evidence against him than you would be in a society that would let someone get away with something like that because there wasn't more direct evidence? I'm sure all of the jury members sleep soundly at night.

 

[katy_did]

Yes, most people assume the reason that he had rope and a shovel and knives and a map to his estranged ex-girlfriends workplace is so he could kill her.
What kind of sick **** would sell his missing wife's vehicle in order to buy himself a new truck?

There was of course, more to the evidence against him. I'm not going to try to change your mind, I'm getting bored of that in life.

You're more uncomfortable that there wasn't more direct evidence against him than you would be in a society that would let someone get away with something like that because there wasn't more direct evidence? I'm sure all of the jury members sleep soundly at night.

From this article:

Authorities issued an arrest warrant for Peterson late Thursday, a day before investigators had positively identified the badly decomposed remains. Modesto police, the California Highway Patrol and federal agents had been watching the husband for months, using wiretaps, vehicle tracking devices and direct surveillance. They said Friday that they feared Peterson might flee, perhaps to Mexico.

"We started to worry," California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said in an interview on CNN's Larry King Live.

"He was aware of surveillance teams, was waving at them and being, you know, kind of a smart aleck, and so they finally decided that they ought to just pull him in."

So your theory, I take it, is that Peterson intended to evade the cops he knew were tailing him, and to head over to his girlfriend's workplace to murder her because... Well, just because? I see.

Funnily enough, yes, I do think the beyond reasonable doubt principle is generally a good thing. Regardless of what I think, that's the way the law works, or should do.

I have little interest in spending more time sifting through factoids to get at any scintilla of truth that might exist in them, so I agree there's little point in you posting more evidence if it's on a par with that in your previous post. I'm interested in a balanced discussion, not sensationalism.