• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scott Peterson

Most murderous criminals are idiots and narcissistic to the point of delusion. Trying to apply these kinds of "rational actor" arguments is the job of a skilled defense attorney, no one ever buys it for good reason... Anyway, most people, including the woman he was most likely plotting to kill, are convinced of it. I mean, why did he need a map to her workplace? And the shovel? Honestly? And he's in jail, and it will never be overturned, so, yeah I'm just pointing out that the only evidence is not that he went fishing there How about the research on currents re: where a body would float to? He just happened to be doing some research due to his interest in oceanography? You're misstating the facts of what he was convinced by the jurors on... anyway...
 
katy_did said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two items
1. San Fransisco Bay is a big place and there is only a very specific area where the body could be placed where they would wash up where they are found. That basic area is where Scott Peterson fished. If Laci's body was found in the southern part of the bay or the northern western "spur" of the bay, it also would destroy the argument of location
2. Distance is also an issue. It would be like Meredeth's body was missing and later found washed ashore in Fano Italy and Amanda and Raffaele went on a drive to that town. While they might not have killed her if the DNA evidence showed somebody else, I would argue that it would be pretty damning that they were involved in the disposal of the body.
 
Joey McGee said:
Most murderous criminals are idiots and narcissistic to the point of delusion. Trying to apply these kinds of "rational actor" arguments is the job of a skilled defense attorney, no one ever buys it for good reason... Anyway, most people, including the woman he was most likely plotting to kill, are convinced of it. I mean, why did he need a map to her workplace? And the shovel? Honestly? And he's in jail, and it will never be overturned, so, yeah I'm just pointing out that the only evidence is not that he went fishing there How about the research on currents re: where a body would float to? He just happened to be doing some research due to his interest in oceanography? You're misstating the facts of what he was convinced by the jurors on... anyway...
Click to expand...

I just find it very difficult to believe that, knowing he was under police surveillance, he decided the best course of action would be to murder his girlfriend (or ex-girlfriend) for no reason in particular. Did he think he was going to get as far as using the shovel?! It all sounds completely implausible to me.

As for the research on currents, from what I can gather he was doing that a month or so earlier at the same time as he was looking into buying the boat; I'm no fisherperson, but I assume there are plenty of innocent reasons why someone looking to go fishing would need to know about tides. If he'd been googling "best place in San Francisco Bay to dispose of a body", you might have a point.

Plus, it doesn't seem like this research helped him in any way, given that the bodies were found a few miles from where he went fishing.

I'm not saying he's innocent - as I said before, I think he's almost certainly guilty - but I do think a lot of the circumstantial evidence is pretty weak.
 
Desert Fox said:
Two items
1. San Fransisco Bay is a big place and there is only a very specific area where the body could be placed where they would wash up where they are found. That basic area is where Scott Peterson fished. If Laci's body was found in the southern part of the bay or the northern western "spur" of the bay, it also would destroy the argument of location
2. Distance is also an issue. It would be like Meredeth's body was missing and later found washed ashore in Fano Italy and Amanda and Raffaele went on a drive to that town. While they might not have killed her if the DNA evidence showed somebody else, I would argue that it would be pretty damning that they were involved in the disposal of the body.
Click to expand...

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:

The body of Laci Peterson may have been dumped near where her husband said he went fishing the day she disappeared. That's according to a tidal expert who testified today in the Scott Peterson murder trial. But the U-S Geological Survey scientist says he can't be absolutely certain. He could only say it's the "highest probability" that Peterson's body was dumped near where Scott Peterson went boating in San Francisco Bay. The defense quickly attacked the findings as conjecture.
Click to expand...
As I said though that's just from a quick search, so maybe there's more testimony about that which I haven't read.

The second point is stronger, I grant you, although I disagree that if the DNA pointed to someone else it would be enough to convict them (i.e. Amanda and Raffaele) of involvement. I think you'd need something else except that they went for a drive to that town.

I'd also say the fact that Laci's body was found 90 miles away from where she lived is evidence in itself that whoever killed her had some connection to the area, and so didn't want to dispose of her body close to home. So that would also point to her husband or someone close to her (well, assuming of course that she wasn't driven there and then killed, which would complicate things).

I'm thinking out loud a bit, but yes, the fact he was "fishing" in the area her body was found is dodgy for sure, and possibly enough to convict on its own. Whether it would still be enough to convict with the existence of another suspect in the hypothetical scenario I described, I'm not sure, but I'm still inclined to think probably not. The rest of the evidence for the most part seems flimsy (e.g. the hair could easily have been transferred by Peterson).
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
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:


As I said though that's just from a quick search, so maybe there's more testimony about that which I haven't read.

The second point is stronger, I grant you, although I disagree that if the DNA pointed to someone else it would be enough to convict them (i.e. Amanda and Raffaele) of involvement. I think you'd need something else except that they went for a drive to that town.

I'd also say the fact that Laci's body was found 90 miles away from where she lived is evidence in itself that whoever killed her had some connection to the area, and so didn't want to dispose of her body close to home. So that would also point to her husband or someone close to her (well, assuming of course that she wasn't driven there and then killed, which would complicate things).

I'm thinking out loud a bit, but yes, the fact he was "fishing" in the area her body was found is dodgy for sure, and possibly enough to convict on its own. Whether it would still be enough to convict with the existence of another suspect in the hypothetical scenario I described, I'm not sure, but I'm still inclined to think probably not. The rest of the evidence for the most part seems flimsy (e.g. the hair could easily have been transferred by Peterson).
Click to expand...

I think the defense is trying to play a game here. . . . .There is always some uncertainty but just because the location is not absolutely perfect does not mean that the body could have been dropped anywhere in the San Francisco Bay. Let us say that the body was not within the quarter mile he things it is, maybe it is within half a mile instead.

I also read what is written in the Appellate Brief:
Doctor Ralph Cheng, a senior research hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, testified as an expert in hydrology and fluid dynamics as it concerned the processes underlying the movement of water in San Francisco Bay, including the ways in which the tides and currents affected objects in the Bay. (100 RT 18858, 18866.)
Dr. Cheng explained that on April 12, 2003, the day before Conner’s body washed ashore and two days prior to Laci’s body coming ashore, there was a major wind event that created a great deal of energy in the water in the Bay. (101 RT 18897.) Dr. Cheng also explained that in the spring, the low tides around the Bay shoreline were exceedingly low. (101 RT 18895.) In fact, a very low tide occurred right after noon on April 12 in the area where Laci’s and Conner’s bodies were recovered. (101 RT 18896.) The water level in that area was very shallow and would rise to no more than about two to five feet. (101 RT 18902-18903.) In Dr. Cheng’s view, the energy generated in the water by the strong winds on April 12 had sufficient force to move bodies from shallower areas of the Bay, if they were not weighted down. (101 RT 18904-18905.)
The Modesto Police Department asked Dr. Cheng if he would be able to work backward from where Laci’s and Conner’s bodies were recovered to help determine where in the Bay Laci’s body had been deposited. (101 RT 18900-18901.) Using equations derived from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Handbook, and calculations of hour by hour movement of the Bay waters based on wind drift, Dr. Cheng concluded that
the location where Laci’s body was likely deposited was within a quarter mile square area that lay between the Berkeley Marina and Brooks Island. (101 RT 18912-18915; People’s Exh. No. 284.) Dr. Cheng pointed out that his calculations were based on the highest probabilities and were not conclusive determinations. (101 RT 18914, 18930-18931.) Dr. Cheng also noted that if Laci’s body had been placed in deeper water, it would have washed out to the ocean or, perhaps, behind Angel Island. (101 RT 18916-18917.)
Dr. Cheng was able to estimate a trajectory for the movement of Conner’s body to shore, but not Laci’s. (101 RT 18925.) This was because of the difference in size of the bodies, as well as the possibility that Laci’s body may have been weighted down initially, which would have caused her body to behave differently in the water. (101 RT 18913, 18942-18943.)

I would argue that does not give the wiggle room the defense is trying to argue.

I am never 100% sure of anything and that is one reason why I don't like the death penalty. Still, the issue is not "no doubt" but "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't see your argument of somebody else disposing of her body in the bay right where her body was found.
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
I think the defense is trying to play a game here. . . . .There is always some uncertainty but just because the location is not absolutely perfect does not mean that the body could have been dropped anywhere in the San Francisco Bay. Let us say that the body was not within the quarter mile he things it is, maybe it is within half a mile instead.

I also read what is written in the Appellate Brief:
Doctor Ralph Cheng, a senior research hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, testified as an expert in hydrology and fluid dynamics as it concerned the processes underlying the movement of water in San Francisco Bay, including the ways in which the tides and currents affected objects in the Bay. (100 RT 18858, 18866.)
Dr. Cheng explained that on April 12, 2003, the day before Conner’s body washed ashore and two days prior to Laci’s body coming ashore, there was a major wind event that created a great deal of energy in the water in the Bay. (101 RT 18897.) Dr. Cheng also explained that in the spring, the low tides around the Bay shoreline were exceedingly low. (101 RT 18895.) In fact, a very low tide occurred right after noon on April 12 in the area where Laci’s and Conner’s bodies were recovered. (101 RT 18896.) The water level in that area was very shallow and would rise to no more than about two to five feet. (101 RT 18902-18903.) In Dr. Cheng’s view, the energy generated in the water by the strong winds on April 12 had sufficient force to move bodies from shallower areas of the Bay, if they were not weighted down. (101 RT 18904-18905.)
The Modesto Police Department asked Dr. Cheng if he would be able to work backward from where Laci’s and Conner’s bodies were recovered to help determine where in the Bay Laci’s body had been deposited. (101 RT 18900-18901.) Using equations derived from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Handbook, and calculations of hour by hour movement of the Bay waters based on wind drift, Dr. Cheng concluded that
the location where Laci’s body was likely deposited was within a quarter mile square area that lay between the Berkeley Marina and Brooks Island. (101 RT 18912-18915; People’s Exh. No. 284.) Dr. Cheng pointed out that his calculations were based on the highest probabilities and were not conclusive determinations. (101 RT 18914, 18930-18931.) Dr. Cheng also noted that if Laci’s body had been placed in deeper water, it would have washed out to the ocean or, perhaps, behind Angel Island. (101 RT 18916-18917.)
Dr. Cheng was able to estimate a trajectory for the movement of Conner’s body to shore, but not Laci’s. (101 RT 18925.) This was because of the difference in size of the bodies, as well as the possibility that Laci’s body may have been weighted down initially, which would have caused her body to behave differently in the water. (101 RT 18913, 18942-18943.)

I would argue that does not give the wiggle room the defense is trying to argue.

I am never 100% sure of anything and that is one reason why I don't like the death penalty. Still, the issue is not "no doubt" but "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I don't see your argument of somebody else disposing of her body in the bay right where her body was found.
Click to expand...

You said that there was only a very specific area where the body could've been placed and washed up where it did, but I don't get anything that specific from reports of the testimony.

TBH the whole thing strikes me as pretty inexact, given that he doesn't know for sure when Laci's body was disposed of, whether it was weighted down, if it was weighted down when it broke free, when Conner's body came free, and so on. Aren't those the sorts of things you'd need to know to be able to "work backwards" to find out where her body was left? Seems like common sense.

Plus, the defence got him to admit he'd never done these calculations with anything as large as a human body before, nor in relation to San Francisco Bay.

Anyway as I said before, the proximity of Peterson's "fishing trip" to the locations where the bodies where the bodies were found does seem like the strongest evidence against him, though the rest of it seems a bit rubbish. Well, the fishing trip and the absence of another suspect combined.

If they did find good evidence of another suspect, do you think his conviction would stand? I think they'd have to acquit him for sure, as they don't have anything directly tying him to the murder (something on a level with, say, Guede's bloody handprint).
 
katy_did said:
You said that there was only a very specific area where the body could've been placed and washed up where it did, but I don't get anything that specific from reports of the testimony.

TBH the whole thing strikes me as pretty inexact, given that he doesn't know for sure when Laci's body was disposed of, whether it was weighted down, if it was weighted down when it broke free, when Conner's body came free, and so on. Aren't those the sorts of things you'd need to know to be able to "work backwards" to find out where her body was left? Seems like common sense.

Plus, the defence got him to admit he'd never done these calculations with anything as large as a human body before, nor in relation to San Francisco Bay.

Anyway as I said before, the proximity of Peterson's "fishing trip" to the locations where the bodies where the bodies were found does seem like the strongest evidence against him, though the rest of it seems a bit rubbish. Well, the fishing trip and the absence of another suspect combined.

If they did find good evidence of another suspect, do you think his conviction would stand? I think they'd have to acquit him for sure, as they don't have anything directly tying him to the murder (something on a level with, say, Guede's bloody handprint).
Click to expand...

I will actually address your last point first. Let us say that we had Guede's bloody hand print but the body was found in Fano Italy, being that Guede does not have a car, I might consider him the murderer but somebody helped dispose of the body. If it just happened that Amanda and Raffaele drove to Fano, I would consider them most likely to be involved.

You might find it worth your time to look at some maps of the San Francisco Bay. I did this when I tried to address to see if there are any good arguments for innocence. I really want to give a fair shake.

I did not look at his report until later but looked up on weather underground and found out that there was a storm the day before Connor's body was found. Many of the conclusions that he came up with, I came up with on my own even if less precise.

If you look at the chart, the bodies were found in the Pt Isabel area.
http://www.sfbama.org/charts/Central_NorthBay.gif

Edit: I don't know if you watch Mythbusters but in the first season they did an escape from Alcatraz episode. There is a model of the San Fransisco bay which actually can be used to model tides and currents in the bay. As such, it is one of the best modeled bodies of waters in teh world. Scientists never like to talk in certainties so part of what the defense caught was the caution that scientists always throw into their statements.
 
Last edited:
I read 2 books about this-one was by Catherine Crier and basically Scott's lies convicted him in the minds of the jury.

I remember that right after Laci went missing, and everyone was searching in the park close to there home, Scott ask the detectives if they are going to use cadaver dogs?

What an idiot. She had been missing less than an hour.

Laci's hair found entwined in a pair of pliers in Scott's boat sunk him-or so they say.

I never really understood this case because Scott's plan never had a chance-how can anyone be that stupid to think they could get away this.
 
spooky24 said:
I read 2 books about this-one was by Catherine Crier and basically Scott's lies convicted him in the minds of the jury.

I remember that right after Laci went missing, and everyone was searching in the park close to there home, Scott ask the detectives if they are going to use cadaver dogs?

What an idiot. She had been missing less than an hour.

Laci's hair found entwined in a pair of pliers in Scott's boat sunk him-or so they say.

I never really understood this case because Scott's plan never had a chance-how can anyone be that stupid to think they could get away this.
Click to expand...

Obviously he is able to convince some people that he is innocent :boxedin:
 
The entire case was a disaster from the start. Scott did not get a fair trial-and all attempts to overturn the verdict are ignored-and always will be.

For instance at the park they held a rally for the searchers. Lots of prayers and tears and it was a very emotional scene. Scott, meanwhile said he was to upset to speak, and stayed in the crowd talking on his cell phone telling Amber the slut that he was in the observation deck of the Eiffel tower.

He was such a dickhead. Some of the evidence allowed in the trial-and the penalty phase is just a joke in the terms of a fair trial.

For instance Scott was under 24hour surveillance at his house. FBI agents-who had no business being there- reported that he subscribed to the porn package from the cable company. Then he put up blankets to cover up the windows so no one could see him. The FBI, using some kind of video devise watched him as he participated in "masturbatory excess"

And that was allowed in to the trial. I mean, give me a break, how could something like that be allowed for the jury to see.

But it was allowed to stand-and appeals are turned down for the simple reason-Scott was a dickhead, and an embarrassment to the human race.
 
spooky24 said:
The entire case was a disaster from the start. Scott did not get a fair trial-and all attempts to overturn the verdict are ignored-and always will be.

For instance at the park they held a rally for the searchers. Lots of prayers and tears and it was a very emotional scene. Scott, meanwhile said he was to upset to speak, and stayed in the crowd talking on his cell phone telling Amber the slut that he was in the observation deck of the Eiffel tower.

He was such a dickhead. Some of the evidence allowed in the trial-and the penalty phase is just a joke in the terms of a fair trial.

For instance Scott was under 24hour surveillance at his house. FBI agents-who had no business being there- reported that he subscribed to the porn package from the cable company. Then he put up blankets to cover up the windows so no one could see him. The FBI, using some kind of video devise watched him as he participated in "masturbatory excess"

And that was allowed in to the trial. I mean, give me a break, how could something like that be allowed for the jury to see.

But it was allowed to stand-and appeals are turned down for the simple reason-Scott was a dickhead, and an embarrassment to the human race.
Click to expand...

Do you think his conviction should be overturned because of an unfair trial?
I would not oppose it and I think with all of the good evidence, I think he would still be convicted.
 
The case will never be overturned because Scott was the best witness that put him in prison. He will never be executed either.

The trial was a sea of errors but his guilt has never been in question.

As the sentencing phase dragged on Mark Geragos found out that Amber was pregnant again! Turns out the father was a HVAC repair man that was doing maintenance on the units where she lived-she never found out his name.

Sounds just like a porn movie. A swanky slut sees a dude on the patio recharging the cooling units and invites him in for a'balling.

She was the major witness against him.

The media to frame her as sweet innocent girl that got trapped by a player like Scott. That never made it to the end of the trial.
 
I don't really care if she is a slut or not. . . . .It is her body and she can do what she likes. Granted, the state was looking for a conservative jury and conservatives pretend that they don't do that.

There are cases where I think the defendant is guilty but when the case is later overturned, I think there is good reason.

There was a hell of a media circus with regards to Laci Peterson. I tend to try to confine my arguments of guilt however to where he was, where the bodies were found, condition of the bodies, etc.
 
Undermining the credibility of a prosecution witness is standard defense ploy. It just didn't matter because Scott ended up being the only person who could have done it-thanks to his own stupidity.

There were some very odd things that came out of the second autopsy. I'll see if I can look some of that stuff up.
 
spooky24 said:
Undermining the credibility of a prosecution witness is standard defense ploy. It just didn't matter because Scott ended up being the only person who could have done it-thanks to his own stupidity.

There were some very odd things that came out of the second autopsy. I'll see if I can look some of that stuff up.
Click to expand...

Are you discussing the argument that Connor's femur was bigger than average for his age? The issue is both that size and age is often hard to get from the ultrasound and that the size is within the margins for his age as well.

Her body also is largely consistent. It largely turned to Adipocere, which is to be expected from the environment and time in the water.
 
I have several books by Dr. Cyril Wecht about medico/legal autopsy procedures and one of the cases is Laci Peterson-the second autopsy.

People have misconceptions about autopsy protocol due to the fact that it is something they have never seen themselves so they use silly TV shows as their guide. The crime scene shows are even dumber and, I hope, most people can see the difference.

It's always the same as the sexy 19 year old model/District Attorney ask the bad boy hunk from the wrong side of the tracks(they will be balling before the show ends of course) to find out about the key evidence from the attractive well dressed and healthy prostitute who then gets it from the black kid from the streets-who is of course a nice young man as well-that some drunk-played by washed up actor that this role comes naturally-that the Asian (always) lab technician has found the time of death was 10:30.45pm so the bad boy is off the hook.

My experience with time of death from pathologist is usually on the order of "sometime last week-maybe"

The case in Florida here mother was found innocent of killing her daughter even though the evidence was overwhelmingly against her. This was because of no time of death or cause of death could be determined despite 3 forensic examinations.

Same thing in the Peterson case. Dr Wecht, assisted by Dr. Henry Lee could never say for sure how she got to her death, what caused her death or when it occurred.The Mother in Florida had the sense enough to keep her mouth shut whereas Scott locked him self up with his lies and stupidity.

The duct tape found around the child's neck was so problematic and still is. It is impossible to come up with a plausible series of events in which a fetus in the womb could have gotten it so tightly around it's neck even after coffin birth. And the fact that the tape was found stuck together like it had been stapled just belays any notion that the fetus got this from-junk in the Bay regardless of how polluted it is.

I'm going to look up that examination again because there was other issues.
 
I know from marine animals found stranded, they are often wrapped (quite tightly) with various garbage.
 
That may be the case however the fetus exited the uterus within just a few hours of it being washed up. There were no indications of feeding from other marine scavengers. That is very very odd.

Biological material the proceeded the coffin birth would have attracted dozens of scavengers of all shapes and sizes and the fact that it even made it to the shore were 100-to 1 or a thousand to one.

Dr Henry Lee speculated that garbage might have covered the fetus on it's way to the shore, however, he also noted that was a thousand to one as well.

I don't know anything about the marine life in the bay however it would have been consumed quickly in any fresh water lake in the south.

Nothing about the skeletal remains were noted as far as the bone sizes by either report so I would guess that was rumor.

It is also problematic that all of the searchers down with penetrating radar did not pick up the body masses until after they washed up.
 
If you deal with the general skeptical community, you would know that odd things happen all the time. One in a million events happen all the time just because of the simple fact that millions of things are happening all the time. If these odd facts were not the case, other odd facts would be the case instead.

I have not see what Connor's body was like material by the time he reached the shore but Laci's body had largely transformed into what is called "Corpse Wax." I think it very likely that Connor's body had also transformed in such a state to be less appealing to scavengers.

One of the places where a body can transform in such a manner is underwater and there have been tests where this has happened with pig carcasses.

As far as searches, I actually spoke to divers including a police dive team leader, and they did not consider it particularly remarkable that the body was not found. Unless you have an exact location, it can be extremely difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom