Scott Peterson

[Desert Fox]

Perhaps slightly closer, but it's not as if he had somewhere he could fish five minutes away. It seems like the "he drove 90 minutes just to go fishing" talking point is moot if there wasn't anywhere significantly closer to go anyway.

I think the location of the body evidence is also a bit weaker if where it was found is where anyone wanting to dispose of a body at sea would've left it. It's not as if you're going to drive around looking for the prettiest marina, you're just going to choose the most convenient one, so the closest. That's probably what Peterson did, but it's likely what anyone would've done if they wanted dump a body at sea. Seems like it's more the method of disposal that's significant (at sea) rather than the location.

Agreed that disposing of a body far away might indicate someone close to the victim, but there again it could just indicate someone who had a boat, probably not all that rare in the San Francisco area.

I would argue that it is more the timing than specifically fishing. He goes fishing and the same day his pregnant wife disappears. Months later, their bodies are found in basically the same area where he went fishing with every evidence being that they were in the water for months.

If we try to argue that it might have been somebody else who owns a boat, you have to ask yourself why. Boats are expensive both to own and operate. Some garden variety criminal is not likely to own a boat. In addition, few have any real motivation. With no ties to her, just dump her in the dumpster or bury her in a local park.

I have the Catherine Crier book about the case from the library and plan to read through it over the next few days.

 

[gerdbonk]

Well, I don't know how I feel about this:

Los Angeles Innocence Project takes up Scott Peterson's case

 

[Darat]

Well, I don't know how I feel about this:

Los Angeles Innocence Project takes up Scott Peterson's case

That’s a turn up for the books. Should be interesting to see what happens.

 

[wasapi]

The creature is guilty. I am disappointed with the Innocence Project. Peterson is where he belongs. And, he can burn in Hell.

 

[ahhell]

Well, he and I graduated from the same college, he must be innocent.

Edit to add, he's probably guilty unless someone was trying to frame him which never really happens.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who goes out fishing on Christmas eve or day or whenever it was? Then the bodies wash up after they decompose enough to slip out of the anchor. The anchor, wan't that missing from somewhere?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who goes out fishing on Christmas eve or day or whenever it was? Then the bodies wash up after they decompose enough to slip out of the anchor. The anchor, wasn't that missing from somewhere? [Yes, from Scott's boat.]

I read through the thread, here are some key points for review starting with current news.

From current news, USA Today: Murder of Laci Peterson: Timeline as Scott Peterson's case picked up by Innocence Project

Scott told police he had last seen Laci around 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 24, before he left their Modesto, California home to go fishing.

Was there evidence this guy was an avid fisherman? Did he go to relieve tension? Was there any reason whatsoever given why he would have gone fishing on the 24th of Dec? I don't recall this odd behavior was ever explained.


From the thread:

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

Curious.

... The strongest evidence against him is really the absence of other suspects; the circumstantial evidence is all pretty weak.

I don't find the circumstantial evidence weak at all.

... 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 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.

No other suspect was ever suggested, no specific person trying to 'frame' Peterson ever identified.

... but it basically rests on him going fishing in the same area in which her body was discovered - suggestive, certainly, but not rock solid.

Riiight, not more than suggestive.

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?...

The bit about the "murder kit" in the car as Peterson headed to his girlfriend's house is a sidetrack I don't recall. But I do recall he acted quite oddly after Laci disappeared.

On the first point, is the highlighted bit accurate? I've only done a quick google, but the tidal expert person seemed to be much less definite about it:

Which is how scientific evidence is always reported.

...Scientists never like to talk in certainties so part of what the defense caught was the caution that scientists always throw into their statements.

Exactly.

...This statement was signed by both Dr Wecth and Dr. Lee their opinion was Scott did not get a fair trial. I concur and always have.

Right, the infamous Dr Lee who didn't think OJ got a fair trial.

 

[wasapi]

So WHY is this guy getting another chance?!!! It doesn't make sense!

 

[bagels]

The physical evidence against Peterson was pretty flaky but he lied about where he was, which is where the body turned up.

The burglary across the street the same time as the disappearance was a pretty substantial coincidence, but not quite enough on its own to ever raise reasonable doubt in my mind. If they had anything solid to connect that burglary to Laci or the Peterson home, though, that would have definitely been enough for reasonable doubt.

The main thing I remember about that case was how unexpectedly big it blew up in the media. I live in the area and it was just massively big news. Peterson was probably expecting one blurb once on the 6 o'clock news when he factored in his master plan. He got Michael Jackson levels of stardom. It was some sort of perfect storm of news bait and timing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The physical evidence against Peterson was pretty flaky but he lied about where he was, which is where the body turned up.

The burglary across the street the same time as the disappearance was a pretty substantial coincidence, but not quite enough on its own to ever raise reasonable doubt in my mind. If they had anything solid to connect that burglary to Laci or the Peterson home, though, that would have definitely been enough for reasonable doubt.

The main thing I remember about that case was how unexpectedly big it blew up in the media. I live in the area and it was just massively big news. Peterson was probably expecting one blurb once on the 6 o'clock news when he factored in his master plan. He got Michael Jackson levels of stardom. It was some sort of perfect storm of news bait and timing.

My biggest red flags were the day Peterson went fishing and the missing anchors. What was Peterson's reason for fishing alone on Xmas Eve day? I don't recall what he said the reason was.

And did the defense ever explain why he happened to go fishing in that area where the bodies were eventually found? I don't know the area but it was quite a distance from their home. Along with the missing anchors that circumstantial evidence weighs very heavily against Peterson.

The other evidence really can't overcome this IMO.

 

[Suddenly]

The physical evidence against Peterson was pretty flaky but he lied about where he was, which is where the body turned up.

The burglary across the street the same time as the disappearance was a pretty substantial coincidence, but not quite enough on its own to ever raise reasonable doubt in my mind. If they had anything solid to connect that burglary to Laci or the Peterson home, though, that would have definitely been enough for reasonable doubt.

The main thing I remember about that case was how unexpectedly big it blew up in the media. I live in the area and it was just massively big news. Peterson was probably expecting one blurb once on the 6 o'clock news when he factored in his master plan. He got Michael Jackson levels of stardom. It was some sort of perfect storm of news bait and timing.

Peterson was convicted by circumstantial evidence while being ruthlessly demonized in the media. It's the sort of case that the innocence project should look into.

Just that there are a ton of people who are so emotionally involved in believing he is guilty that this threatens them. It would be traumatic for them if the innocence project somehow found proof he didn't do it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Peterson was convicted by circumstantial evidence while being ruthlessly demonized in the media. It's the sort of case that the innocence project should look into.

Just that there are a ton of people who are so emotionally involved in believing he is guilty that this threatens them. It would be traumatic for them if the innocence project somehow found proof he didn't do it.

Virtually every single case which ever goes as far as trial is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

There's still a huge level of misunderstanding - among public, media and (it would appear) many law enforcement officers - as to what circumstantial evidence is, and what is not circumstantial evidence.

Basically, there are two types of evidence in this context: direct and circumstantial.

Direct evidence is the following:

1) A reliable confession from the accused.

2) An eyewitness who witnessed the crime itself being committed (note: an eyewitness who, for example, witnessed the accused running away from the scene but did not witness the actual crime itself being committed, is circumstantial and not direct).

3) An audio/visual recording of the actual crime being committed.


Everything else is circumstantial evidence. All DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. Matching the murder bullet to the suspect's gun is circumstantial evidence. A knife fight where a puddle of the suspect's blood next to the victim's body, together with a big wound on the suspect's arm, is circumstantial evidence. A t-shirt found on the kitchen floor of the suspect's home drenched in the victim's blood is circumstantial evidence.


Now obviously, there can be weak circumstantial evidence and strong circumstantial evidence. But to suggest that a case - or a conviction - might be weak simply because it's based entirely upon circumstantial evidence.... is fallacy, If there's direct evidence of any decent reliability in a case, there's most usually a guilty plea before trial - as I said, the vast majority of cases which actually proceed to trial are entirely circumstantial cases.


In this particular case, I'd argue that the cumulative weight of the circumstantial evidence was easily sufficient for a safe verdict of guilt. And as others have also pointed out, the "if not him, then who?" factor was also a strong piece of circumstantial evidence pointing at his guilt: his wife was not involved in the sex or drugs trade, and what would be the odds on a random other person murdering her and then dumping her body in the very area - many miles away - that Scott had provably visited on the probable day of her murder?

 

[wasapi]

My biggest red flags were the day Peterson went fishing and the missing anchors. What was Peterson's reason for fishing alone on Xmas Eve day? I don't recall what he said the reason was.

And did the defense ever explain why he happened to go fishing in that area where the bodies were eventually found? I don't know the area but it was quite a distance from their home. Along with the missing anchors that circumstantial evidence weighs very heavily against Peterson.

The other evidence really can't overcome this IMO.

And, for me, the Amber Fry connection also provided some powerful circumstantial evidence.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

To be more specific, the LAIP is requesting discovery, some of which is the police report from the 12/24 burglary across the street from Laci’s house and police reports from a suspicious van fire on 12/25 wherein a mattress with possible blood stains was located.

Attorneys are requesting a total of 15 categories of evidence, labeled “A” though “O” in court documents, for their investigation:

A. Medina Burglary Investigation Reports

B. Lt. Xavier Aponte Reports

C. Laci Peterson’s Missing Croton Watch And Pawn Shop Investigation

D. Incendiary Van Fire In Airport District the Morning of December 25, 2002

E. Eyewitnesses Who Reported Seeing Laci Peterson On Or After December 24

F. Eyewitnesses Who Reported Seeing the Petersons’ Dog Alone

G. Missing Bates Pages

H. Gene Ralston Reports, Videos, And Other Data Related to Bay Searches

I. All Reports, Videos, And Other Data Related to Bay Searches

J. Computer Forensics Evidence Related Time Mr. Peterson Arrived At His Office

K. Scent Dogs Reports, Including Water Cadaver Dogs Employed In Bay Searches

L. MPD & SCD Policies Governing Disclosure Of Conflicts of Interest

M. New Reports & Leads

N. Audio And Video Recordings Of MPD Interviews With Scott Peterson

O. Tracy Tip P. Current Evidence/Property & Chain Of Custody Logs For All Evidence Items

 

[ahhell]

So WHY is this guy getting another chance?!!! It doesn't make sense!

I'm pretty sure he's guilty but he should get another chance as long as its not my dollar. When it comes to life in prison or death, I think the conficted should get as many chances as possible to prove their innocence. We've been wrong about it too many times to not offer them that.

And in this case, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence but not much physical evidence. He seems like a low key psychopath but that doesn't mean he killed his wife.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

P

Just that there are a ton of people who are so emotionally involved in believing he is guilty that this threatens them. It would be traumatic for them if the innocence project somehow found proof he didn't do it.

A whole lot of poison in that well, there.

That being said, convictions are often looked at for improper procedure. You can say "Hey, I believe the guy is guilty, but he was railroaded." Challenging the system helps keep it in order for the next people caught in the legal pipeline, some of whom may not be guilty.

I won't be crying any tears when he finally croaks in prison.

 

[ahhell]

A whole lot of poison in that well, there.

That being said, convictions are often looked at for improper procedure. You can say "Hey, I believe the guy is guilty, but he was railroaded." Challenging the system helps keep it in order for the next people caught in the legal pipeline, some of whom may not be guilty.

I won't be crying any tears when he finally croaks in prison.

OJ comes to mind. Granted he wasn't convicted but the LAPD were trying to frame a guilty man.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no witness

It is a little odd that no one saw Scott with Lacie's body as he was going to the boat, but perhaps the launch area was unpopulated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is a little odd that no one saw Scott with Lacie's body as he was going to the boat, but perhaps the launch area was unpopulated.

Scott had the boat on a trailer, he didn't put the body in the boat at the marina. It was already in the boat, easily covered up by a tarp.

 

[angrysoba]

Is this one of those situations where two things can be true?

a.) the suspect is guilty

AND

b.) the prosecution/police cut corners or otherwise broke the rules about securing a conviction?

I ask because although I remember it being big news, I never looked into the case.

My thinking is that something similar happened in the Adnan Syed case, where it seems to me highly likely he did the crime while there were some irregularities which interested the Innocence Project.

Also, does the Innocence Project tend to only take on cases where they are convinced the person convicted was actually innocent or do they tend to take on cases where there were some procedural errors?

 

[Suddenly]

Also, does the Innocence Project tend to only take on cases where they are convinced the person convicted was actually innocent or do they tend to take on cases where there were some procedural errors?

Generally the former, although "convinced" really isn't a thing. Suspect or have reason to believe is closer. They did and probably still do ask their clients to pinky-swear their innocence. Which strikes me as adorable naivete, but they are doing the Lord's work so no judgment there.

There is also that post conviction law is a mess so every case is going to be a combination of these two. Often you have legal error and you are looking to show factual prejudice, or you have great factual evidence and are looking for a way to get it to matter to a court. Seldom both. Usually neither.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

It is a little odd that no one saw Scott with Lacie's body as he was going to the boat, but perhaps the launch area was unpopulated.

It's a reasonable question. Easy to answer if you are a dedicated fisherman.

He probably had a tarp over the body and concrete weights, and that would indeed be odd to see for someone there launching at the same time.

But even harbors that are pretty busy don't have many people standing around unless the pier itself is a great fishing spot. If someone were launching or pulling out, he would have waited until the coast was clear. Some kinds of fishing are heavily dependent on tides so the traffic is very light off-tide.

 

[wasapi]

Scott had the boat on a trailer, he didn't put the body in the boat at the marina. It was already in the boat, easily covered up by a tarp.

This.

I just watched a show about this case. I am still leery of the Innocence Project. I know they have a good reputation, but WTF!

Guilty Guilty Guilty!!!

 

[wasapi]

?

Is there anyone here who honestly believes Scott could be innocent? Anyone who really has doubts? (Excluding Samson).

I have studied this case since day one. I just don't see the evidence that supports innocence, but much supporting guilt. I know it is yet to be seen what the Project may have that's new. But it would have to be pretty damn compelling to change my perspective.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The Innocence Project has been hoodwinked before; Jeffrey MacDonald is the classic example.

 

[Suddenly]

I guess the main reason I see this hand wringing over the innocence project as a bit silly is that I do the exact same work the innocence project does. My state gives - more or less - a convicted person the right to have their case re-examined and the state pays my law firm (which is me in a spare bedroom) to do this. There isn't much of a hurdle here; the inmate just has to file and maybe make a straight faced argument they were screwed over and I get an appointment letter.

The innocence project mostly just poaches the more promising cases which is probably for the best because I don't have a squad of law student volunteers.

In the end, the Scott Peterson case was one of circumstantial evidence. However strong circumstantial evidence is it can also pretty much by definition be rebutted by direct evidence. Which the IP is almost certainly not going to find in this case. This sort of work has an extremely low success rate. But if they prove that this is all a hoax and Lacy Peterson is alive or conclusive proof that OJ killed her, then, well, sure.

 

[wasapi]

I guess the main reason I see this hand wringing over the innocence project as a bit silly is that I do the exact same work the innocence project does. My state gives - more or less - a convicted person the right to have their case re-examined and the state pays my law firm (which is me in a spare bedroom) to do this. There isn't much of a hurdle here; the inmate just has to file and maybe make a straight faced argument they were screwed over and I get an appointment letter.

The innocence project mostly just poaches the more promising cases which is probably for the best because I don't have a squad of law student volunteers.

In the end, the Scott Peterson case was one of circumstantial evidence. However strong circumstantial evidence is it can also pretty much by definition be rebutted by direct evidence. Which the IP is almost certainly not going to find in this case. This sort of work has an extremely low success rate. But if they prove that this is all a hoax and Lacy Peterson is alive or conclusive proof that OJ killed her, then, well, sure.

Thanks for that analysis. It makes more sense now and it is not so worrisome. Scott hopefully will continue to do his time. He is blatantly guilty.

I must admit that I am curious if Scotty continues to get mail from female fans?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

little doubt

Scott had the boat on a trailer, he didn't put the body in the boat at the marina. It was already in the boat, easily covered up by a tarp.

I am imagining that the top of the boat was completely covered when it was on the trailer, but some point he would have had to remove this and perhaps use it to cover Lacie's body. That is what was on my mind when I wrote my previous comment. It is the only aspect of the case that gives me a wisp of doubt, but I am interested in what the Innocence Project turns up.

 

[wasapi]

Wasn't there some evidence about a concrete weight that Scott made?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Anchors or driveway repair

From NBC News: "Peterson told police he made only one anchor and used the rest of the 90-pound bag of cement to repair his driveway. A prosecution witness testified earlier that the concrete samples taken by police from Peterson’s driveway were not from the same mix as the anchor. But Steven Gabler, a concrete expert asked to examine samples taken from Peterson’s driveway by the defense, testified Monday the samples matched the anchor." See also this link. One has to be cautious in interpreting words or phrases such as "consistent with" or "matching." There is not enough information than is found in these news articles to come to a strong conclusion.

 

[Suddenly]

Given the media atmosphere at the time I'd be very skeptical of anything outside of the court pleadings/transcripts. Lots of BS floating around then and now.

 

[wasapi]

It is difficult for me to grasp why this murderer gets a new trial! He deserves the DP!

 

[ahhell]

If there is anything that can be said about the US justice system(and probably every there justice system) it's that we don't always get it right. And that is even more true of the media. He's almost certainly a jerk, I think he's probably guilty, but since my opinion is based on news reports, I'll give him another shot at a trial.