• 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

angrysoba said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!!!
 
?

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.
 
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.
 
Suddenly said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
little doubt

Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wasn't there some evidence about a concrete weight that Scott made?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
It is difficult for me to grasp why this murderer gets a new trial! He deserves the DP!
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom