Skip to comments.Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
CONVICTED BY SUSPICION -- WHY SCOTT PETERSON MAY BE INNOCENTby J. Neil Schulman, guest contributor.
[November 30, 2004]
[HollywoodInvestigator.com] Scott Peterson may or may not have murdered his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. But the Redwood City, California trial that has just convicted Peterson of murdering Laci with premeditation was a kangaroo court in which none of the elements necessary to achieve a murder conviction were offered, much less proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The first element that needs to be proved in any murder trial is that a murder has occurred. There was never a determination by any California medical examiner that the cause of Laci Petersons death was homicide. No medical examiner was able to determine the cause of Laci Peterson's death, nor even prove to a medical certainty in what week beyond her disappearance on Christmas Eve that she died.
A thorough examination of the residence where Scott and Laci Peterson lived together, by teams of detectives and forensic experts, uncovered no evidence whatsoever that a crime had occurred there.
No crime scene was ever found.
No forensic evidence was found in the Petersons motor vehicles lending any foundation to the suspicion that she had ever been transported in one of them -- alive or dead -- to the place where, months later, her body was found.
No weapon was ever produced with any evidence that it had been used to cause Laci Petersons death.
No witness was produced who had seen or heard Scott Peterson argue with Laci near the time of her disappearance, much less any witness who had seen Scott Peterson fight with his wife or kill her.
The only forensic evidence produced in court that even presumptively linked Scott Peterson with the death of his wife was a strand of hair that DNA analysis showed to be Laci's, in a pliers found in Scott Petersons fishing boat. A police detective interviewed a witness who had seen Laci in the boat warehouse where Scott stored that boat. Even in the absence of this witness statement to a police detective, the rules of forensic transference indicate that transference of trace evidence between a husband and wife who lived together is common, and not indicative of foul play.
No witness ever saw Laci in that fishing boat, nor did any witness ever testify to seeing Scott Peterson bringing a corpse-sized parcel onto his fishing boat. Thus, the fishing boat never should have been allowed into evidence, nor should prosecution speculation into his dumping her body using that boat have been permitted.
Nor was any evidence offered in court showing that Scott Peterson had engaged in any overt activities in planning of a murder. He was not observed buying, or even shopping for, weapons or poison. Police detectives found no records in his computer logs that he was spending time researching methods of murder. No evidence was offered that he ever considered hiring someone to kill her.
No evidence was offered in court indicating that Scott Peterson had any reasonable motive for murdering his wife, such as monetary gain, or to protect great marital assets that hed lose as an adulterer in a divorce in California, a no-fault community-property state, or because Scott had some basis to believe he had been cuckolded.
So in a case without an MEs finding of homicide or a known time of death;
without a single witness to a crime having occurred;
without a crime scene;
without a murder weapon;
without any indisputable forensic evidence linking the defendant husband to his wifes death;
without an obvious motive;
without the prosecution presenting conclusive direct or circumstantial evidence overcoming every single exculpatory scenario by which Laci Peterson might have otherwise come to her death;
in summation, without the prosecution demonstrating that Scott Peterson and only Scott Peterson had the means and opportunity to murder his wife and transport her alive or dead to the San Francisco Bay in which her body was found ... how is it possible that Scott Peterson has just been convicted of a premeditated murder with special circumstances warranting the death penalty?
It comes down to this: Scott Peterson was having an adulterous affair at the time of his wifes disappearance, and Scott Peterson is a cad and a bounder.
Scott Peterson repeatedly lied to everyone around him including his new mistress to further the pursuit of this affair. This pattern of lying was established by audio tapes of his phone conversations with his mistress that were played in court. But these tapes were played before the jury without any foundation for their playing being offered, since their playing spoke to no element required for conviction in the crime with which he was charged. And these tapes -- which were more prejudicial than probitive -- destroyed Scott Peterson's credibility to appear as a potential witness in his own defense. They served only to make the jury hate Scott Peterson.
Scott Peterson found himself at the center of a media circus, and his attempts to change his appearance and escape being followed can equally be interpreted as either avoidance of the media who were stalking him or avoidance of police who were tracking him.
The bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn child were discovered in close proximity to the location where Scott Peterson said he had been fishing at the time of her disappearance. But those bodies were found after months of all-media publicity in which Petersons alibi was broadcast and published, and if Laci had been murdered by some third party, the murderer would have easily had both means and motive to dump her body at that location to convict Scott and end pursuit of themselves for that murder.
In any case where more than one explanation of a fact can be offered, the judges charge instructs the jury that the explanation suggesting innocence is the one they are legally required to adopt in their deliberations.
Scott Peterson was convicted at trial of murder possibly leading to a death sentence in which the trial judge allowed prosecutors to speculate in front of a jury on how Scott Peterson might have murdered his wife. Anyone whos watched a single episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order knows the judge is charged with forbidding such speculation unless there is a foundation of facts in evidence.
No such foundation was presented indicating a method of murder in the murder trial of Scott Peterson.
In other words, Scott Peterson looked and acted guilty, and in the age of 24-hour -a-day TV news networks that have to fill up those hours with ratings-producing subjects, Scott Petersons trial and conviction was the perfect storm of Guilty by Suspicion.
Scott Peterson may very well have been convicted of a murder that he committed. If so, he was convicted in a case that under our system of justice in which the presumption of innocence may only rightfully be overcome by evidence that is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt never should have been allowed into court, much less handed over to a jury.
The jury that convicted Scott Peterson was a lynch mob inflamed by prejudicial testimony and their conviction of Scott Peterson qualifies as a hate crime. The verdict needs to be overturned on appeal. The judge brought out of retirement to preside over the case needs to be retired again. The prosecution needs to be brought up on civil rights charges to make sure this behavior is punished.
May God have mercy on Scott Petersons soul if he is, in fact, a psychopath who spent Christmas Eve murdering his pregnant wife so he could avoid the inconvenience of a divorce.
And may God have equal mercy on the prosecutors, judge, and jurors who have taken away Scott Petersons life whether through a sentence of life imprisonment or death by lethal injection if they have allowed their disgust for a deeply flawed man to whip them into a passion in which suspicion in the absence of any proof was sufficient to convict him.
Copyright © 2004 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.
J. Neil Schulman's book, The Frame of the Century?, presents as strong a case for a suspect other than O.J. Simpson in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson as was presented to convict Scott Peterson in the murder of Laci Peterson. Our sister publication, the Weekly Universe, has previously reported on Schulman's 'Vulcan Mind Meld with God' and his discovery of an eye drop that cures cataracts.
"Almost without exception, your posts are YOUR articles, with links back to YOUR sleazy web site."
I've made my living as a writer for over three decades. Most writers won't let you read a word they write without getting paid by a publisher.
Now I'm a sleaze because I let people read some of my articles for free.
There's some Biblical advice regarding being careless with pearls, but I just can't remember it right now.
Skip the jury; Would have a trial before the Bench rendered a different verdict?
It provides substantial circumstantial evidence to that effect. A dead body would generally float and wash ashore within a fairly short length of time unless something was weighing it down. The state of decomposition when the bodies washed ashore would suggest that either Ms. Peterson entered the water some considerable time after death, or else that when she entered the water her body was weighed down by something substantial. While it would be vaguely conceivable that she might have died of accidental or natural causes and then had somebody decide to dispose of her body at the bottom of the bay, such a notion would stretch credulity to the breaking point.
I'm not the least bit surprised you can't remember it, among other things.
Facts and references don't seem to be "your thing."
And nobody has complained one bit about your "letting" anybody read your crap; we're complaining because you're trolling for hits.
Somehow or other, I get the impression you're not Tom Clancy. I've read THIS article and see enough misinformation and out and out distortions to know I don't need to read the rest.
Since the body was literally torn limb from limb (no arms, no legs, no head), I think we can safely affirm there was a murder weapon unless Scott used his bare hands. There was evidence of cover up and evidence of blood in the bedroom. Lots of it. So, murder weapon(s)...plenty of evidence. We just don't know what the weapon was.
I've heard a lot about the lack of evidence in the case, but I think that's overblown. Shades of OJ and MSM sensationalism. Makes a better story if it appears the prosecution has made a bad case. The facts are that there was certainly enough evidence for the jury to find unanimously that this man killed his wife and baby. Then made every appearance that he was going to run to boot.
After hearing about the agony of the mother's testimony tonight and feeling her pain as a mother myself, I'm going to write her a letter of sympathy. I've followed the case, and IMHO, I would have convicted, too. I think it's a great victory for right and justice, and it's about time, too. The mom suffered enough, in her own right, that I think he should face the chair just for THAT alone.
As there was no head and the neck bones were missing..strangulation could not be proved..but as there was no blood, it or suffocation can be implied..You are mistaken about "lots af blood"..that was all media hype.
The body was probably missing limbs and the head because of the weights and ocean movement along the bottom..She broke loose from the silt because of a storm and the baby finally emerged from a hole in the top of the uterus...The uterus was the only almost intact organ left in her body.
There was no disturbance of the house and her expensive jewelry was on her dresser...He left the neighborhood(trace by cell tower) at 10:08..at 10:18 the dog is discovered by a neighbor dragging its leash..Laci was "mopping" in black pants according to Scott when he left..She washed up in tan pants..He lied..and 10 minutes does not give enough time for her to mop, change clothes, put on and tie her shoes;leash the dog and be kidnapped.
Dear sir...Check out the Globe as an outlet for your writing..Too many posters here know the case,read the transcripts and know the law.
Wish you could have been here earlier. :)
Onyx ..my first post was #8...I have also provided three sources for the definition of reasonable doubt..something some just don't get..
I cannot believe some of these posters lack of knowledge of the facts of the case and the false rules of law they present as fact!!..
I have access to excellent writers every day, any hour of the day on the internet and my library enables me read books of fiction for free.
You're a smart girl, Meg.
"[Quoting me]: 'There's some Biblical advice regarding being careless with pearls, but I just can't remember it right now.'
"I'm not the least bit surprised you can't remember it, among other things.
"Facts and references don't seem to be 'your thing.'"
I was trying to be civil: It's Matthew 7:6.
"I have access to excellent writers every day, any hour of the day on the internet and my library enables me read books of fiction for free."
My novels and short-story collection have had reasonably good library sales over the last 25 years. Look me up in yours.
If someone was trying to frame Scott, who is it? There was never any evidence brought up that he had enemies just waiting to frame him, there was never a ransom note demanding money, so who is this stranger that must have been the guilty one, if Scott didn't do it????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.