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.
Aren't you the guy who maintained O.J. was innocent? .......and even wrote a book about it?
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.
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.
He's guilty. Give him the big needle and be done with it.
Yes Mr. Geragos, I'm a writer too and I use a pen name both here on FR and in print.
Are you a Raelian?
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
Great article. And I think he did it.
Is this guy series?
Dumping a body weighed down by cement anchors is plenty proof of a murder having occured to me.
Only in Hollyweird can several mistresses, debt,and an insurance policy be no motive.
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
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.
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?
Your high opinion of yourself is unwarranted by any analysis appearing in this article.
Does this guy post on the DU?
All this claptrap masquerading as "reasonable doubt" is just a bunch of happy horse****. Give me a break.
I think he stuned his beeber once too often.
His alibi stunk and he seemed happy to see her and Conner out of the picture.
His alibi stunk and he seemed happy to see her and Conner out of the picture.
Did John F. Kennedy commit suicide?
This is just a blatant advertisement, moron. Go peddle your crap somewhere else.
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.
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.
Maybe not, but he sure is a moran.
Are you a Raelian?LOL!
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...
Isn't against policy to advertise on FR?
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.
If the glove doesn't fit; you must acquit!
I agree with you 100% on both premises, CF.
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.
OJ did it...
And in this author's fantasy.
So, you're just going to post your article, and not defend it? If so, you're trolling.
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.
Your credibility = zero.
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.
Nah, he's advertising his book.
What a steamin' pile o' poo!!