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)