Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
The Hollywood Investigator ^ | 11/30/2004 | J. Neil Schulman

Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman

 
 
 
 
 

CONVICTED BY SUSPICION -- WHY SCOTT PETERSON MAY BE INNOCENT

by 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 Peterson’s 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 Peterson’s 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 Peterson’s 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 he’d 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 ME’s 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 wife’s 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 wife’s 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 Peterson’s 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 judge’s 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 who’s 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 Peterson’s 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 Peterson’s 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 Peterson’s 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.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: evidence; fresnoda; innocentmyass; laci; murder; peterson; scott; trial; trials
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-395 next last

1 posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:52 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Aren't you the guy who maintained O.J. was innocent? .......and even wrote a book about it?


2 posted on 11/30/2004 10:29:47 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Of course it was a mere coincidence that her body, and the baby's body, just happened to wash ashore at a place within yards of where this animal went fishing. Too coincidental, and that is enough to convince me that he did it. I couldn't care less what the prosecutor proved. He is a cold blooded, lying, womanizing killer -- a heartless animal.


3 posted on 11/30/2004 10:30:03 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
?

Best I can tell this guy is resting his thesis on the notion that "no crime scene was found".

That's what happens many times when you murder someone out in the Bay ~ doggone crime scene just moves around like water, and fritters away. Guess everybody who ever did that ought to be turned loose ~ can't find no kinda' crime scene FUR SHUR.

4 posted on 11/30/2004 10:30:09 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

He's guilty. Give him the big needle and be done with it.


5 posted on 11/30/2004 10:31:02 AM PST by cowboyway (My Hero's have always been cowboys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Yes Mr. Geragos, I'm a writer too and I use a pen name both here on FR and in print.


6 posted on 11/30/2004 10:31:24 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (Santorum 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Are you a Raelian?


7 posted on 11/30/2004 10:32:04 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

The jury heard all the evidence, saw all the evidence , looked at the witnesses and heard their testimony...They found ..........

SCOTT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT


8 posted on 11/30/2004 10:32:31 AM PST by MEG33 ( Congratulations President Bush!..Thank you God. Four More Years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Great article. And I think he did it.


9 posted on 11/30/2004 10:32:50 AM PST by countess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Is this guy series?


10 posted on 11/30/2004 10:32:50 AM PST by Michael.SF. (Well, Kerry did win the exit polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.


11 posted on 11/30/2004 10:32:53 AM PST by speed_addiction (Ninja's last words, "Hey guys. Watch me just flip out on that big dude over there!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Only in Hollyweird can several mistresses, debt,and an insurance policy be no motive.


12 posted on 11/30/2004 10:32:56 AM PST by TASMANIANRED (Free the Fallujah one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Good article- I could not believe he was convicted for exactly these reasons- but until now I had no clue garagos was this stupid.

Either that or he is betting the farm on appeal


13 posted on 11/30/2004 10:33:50 AM PST by Mr. K ((this space for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Good post.

I disagree with the authors take on the Simpson trial but he is exactly right on the Peterson trial.

Peterson was convicted legally for murder but it based on his guilt as a liar and an adulterer as no evidence was given to support a case that he killed his wife.


14 posted on 11/30/2004 10:33:59 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
You forgot: No evidence was every presented showing that Scott bopped Lacy over the head with a bowling pin, nor was any evidence presented that Peterson ever owned a bowling pin, or for that matter had been to a bowling alley any time in the last ten years.
15 posted on 11/30/2004 10:34:16 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (Santorum 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Do you know that MURDER is the #1 cause of death for pregnant women? Do you know that the murderer is ALWAYS the father of said pregnancy?

So, are you going for the aliens from Mars theory? The One-Armed Man? How about Johnny Cochran's glove theory?


16 posted on 11/30/2004 10:34:58 AM PST by Dashing Dasher (Bush/Cheney -- Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Your high opinion of yourself is unwarranted by any analysis appearing in this article.


17 posted on 11/30/2004 10:36:34 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Does this guy post on the DU?


18 posted on 11/30/2004 10:36:40 AM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Only a schmuck thinks that Scott Peterson is innocent.

All this claptrap masquerading as "reasonable doubt" is just a bunch of happy horse****. Give me a break.

19 posted on 11/30/2004 10:37:00 AM PST by Prime Choice (I like Democrats, too. Let's exchange recipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Is this guy series?

I think he stuned his beeber once too often.

20 posted on 11/30/2004 10:38:07 AM PST by Prime Choice (I like Democrats, too. Let's exchange recipes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

His alibi stunk and he seemed happy to see her and Conner out of the picture.


21 posted on 11/30/2004 10:38:15 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

His alibi stunk and he seemed happy to see her and Conner out of the picture.


22 posted on 11/30/2004 10:38:15 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Did John F. Kennedy commit suicide?


23 posted on 11/30/2004 10:38:40 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Hee hee.


24 posted on 11/30/2004 10:39:00 AM PST by CAWats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Well it wouldn't be the first time that someone was rigthly convicted for the wrong reasons. Regardless, he was still convicted. The outcome was right, even if the path to it was wrong.

With OJ it was the wrong verdict for the wrong reasons. Mark Furmen, not OJ, was the defendant for the majority of that trial. And Cochrane and Scheck were accomplices to the crime of the century in my opinion.
25 posted on 11/30/2004 10:41:25 AM PST by SSG USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

This is just a blatant advertisement, moron. Go peddle your crap somewhere else.


26 posted on 11/30/2004 10:41:34 AM PST by elbucko (Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

There are too many points in this to address each one, however, not finding any evidence of a purchase of say poison - Scott's work took him to Mexico frequently-he very well could have purchased wahtever there-also he could have smothered her and there would not have been blood etc. Common sense and logic bring you to the only conclusion that he did this horrible thing.


27 posted on 11/30/2004 10:41:45 AM PST by LYSandra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Yikes! It does make one think, doesn't it?

I didn't follow the trial, except to constantly tune-out that Chubby Fox News Babe, who prattled on endlessly about it, so I don't know all the nuances and fine points of the unfolding circumstantial evidence.

Part of me still believes that he didn't do it, but he's never protested his innocence or defended himself, that I'm aware.


28 posted on 11/30/2004 10:42:15 AM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Is this guy series?

Maybe not, but he sure is a moran.

29 posted on 11/30/2004 10:43:10 AM PST by semaj ("....by their fruit you will know them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Are you a Raelian?
LOL!
30 posted on 11/30/2004 10:43:13 AM PST by bikepacker67 ("This is the best election night in history." -- DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe 11/2/04 8pm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

I think you and I agree... Part of me thinks he may have done it, or is not unhappy that it happened, but another part of me is kinda surprised regarding the "evidence" they convicted him on...


31 posted on 11/30/2004 10:44:45 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (01010010 01001111 01010100 01000110 01001100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Admin Moderator

Isn't against policy to advertise on FR?


32 posted on 11/30/2004 10:44:55 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Of course Laci killed herself and dumped her own body in the bay with concrete anchors attached. Just goes to show as we know that ignorance is Blix.


33 posted on 11/30/2004 10:45:22 AM PST by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
"Aren't you the guy who maintained O.J. was innocent? .......and even wrote a book about it?"

If the glove doesn't fit; you must acquit!

34 posted on 11/30/2004 10:46:19 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks

I agree with you 100% on both premises, CF.


35 posted on 11/30/2004 10:46:41 AM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Good post. I am not familiar with your stance on OJ, nor do I care. If you ask me if Scott is the likely killer, the answer is yes. If you ask is it beyond a reasonable doubt, the answer is no. Even in conjunction, all of the circumstancial evidence is far from 'beyond a reasonable doubt'

I thought your point about Scott's fishing alibi being public for a long time before the body showed up puts a big ding in the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' of the biggest piece of evidence.

I know most murder cases are not cut and dried and rely on circumstancial evidence to a significant degree....but this is far too circumstancial for my taste. I think he was convicted of murder on proof he was a jerk.


36 posted on 11/30/2004 10:47:20 AM PST by blanknoone (The two big battles left in the War on Terror are against our State dept and our media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SSG USA
I guess Scotty should have hired Cochrane!
37 posted on 11/30/2004 10:48:26 AM PST by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

OJ did it...


38 posted on 11/30/2004 10:48:33 AM PST by ApesForEvolution (You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TASMANIANRED
Only in Hollyweird can several mistresses, debt,and an insurance policy be no motive.

And in this author's fantasy.

39 posted on 11/30/2004 10:48:42 AM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

So, you're just going to post your article, and not defend it? If so, you're trolling.


40 posted on 11/30/2004 10:50:42 AM PST by Judith Anne (Thank you St. Jude for favors granted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
If he is innocent---
Why didn't he testify on his own behalf?
Why didn't he go to pieces when the bodies of Laci and Conner were found?
Why did he sit in that courtroom day after day looking like he didn't give a horses A@@ about his dead wife and child?
Why didn't he demand, demand and DEMAND his chance to get on the stand and cry his heart out at his terrible loss?

The argument of his innocence is saying is that if you kill right and dispose of the body correctly, then all the other evidence doesn't count. Even if every frigging' arrow in the universe is pointing at you. It just says "Hey guys, do it right and you too can kill!"

We got that from OJ, I resent like hell it being OK'd again.
41 posted on 11/30/2004 10:51:55 AM PST by najida (Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

Peterson could have gotten away with it had the bodies not washed up where he dumped them.

It was a close call. Nobody has ever been arrested for the murder of Chandra Levy.


42 posted on 11/30/2004 10:52:15 AM PST by BenLurkin (Big government is still a big problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dashing Dasher
Do you know that the murderer is ALWAYS the father of said pregnancy? Really, truly, ALWAYS?
43 posted on 11/30/2004 10:52:41 AM PST by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
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

Your credibility = zero.

44 posted on 11/30/2004 10:53:19 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
without an obvious motive

What more obvious motive do you need? He was broke, he wanted to sell Laci's stuff, and he wanted to shack up with another woman.

45 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:15 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
If so, you're trolling.

Nah, he's advertising his book.

46 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:20 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
It doesn't matter whether he did it or not. He was not convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore he is not guilty and a great injustice has been done, regardless of what actually happened.

I swear some people on Free Republic are bloodthirsty. From members condoning prison rape to unjustly throwing people into jail for the rest of their life.
47 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:22 AM PST by FoxPro (jroehl2@yahoo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Conspiracy Guy

What a steamin' pile o' poo!!


48 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST by Laura Earl (1/2way290)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speed_addiction
Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.

Me too.

49 posted on 11/30/2004 10:54:53 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Laura Earl

I posted. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291267/posts?page=23#23


50 posted on 11/30/2004 10:55:46 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (This space is available to advertise your service or product.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-395 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson