Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent

The Hollywood Investigator ^ | 11/30/2004 | J. Neil Schulman

[DK Zimmerman]

Not tough at all. Only providing a keener awareness that the checks and balances are only as good as the people (all humans) participating, and their ability to do so intelligently and objectively.

Too many are not: some at all, others in the "wrong" situation. I don't presume this prosecutor set out to screw up or provide a poor case, but at the end of the day, I believe he did.

[sodpoodle]

I have learned from your experience.

Thank you

[F.J. Mitchell]

I get the feeling that you are not taking the author very series.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

I loved how Scott told his mistress he was a widower - weeks before Lacy was missing. He must have been psychic!

[J. Neil Schulman]

>Third, there are repeated references in the comments to Laci Peterson having been weighted down by anchors. No anchor attached to her body was ever offered as evidence, nor were any cement anchors recovered from the bay where her body was found ever entered into evidence. Laci Peterson's body having been weighted down by anchors of the type Scott Peterson made was simply more prosecution speculation without any evidentiary foundation whatsoever.

>So she stayed under water for weeks how exactly?

That's precisely the point.

The prosecution speculates that Laci's body was dumped in the bay on Christmas Eve when Scott Peterson claims he was fishing. The prosecution then, to support its unproved assumption, further speculates that her body must have been weighted down.

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation in the absence of any anchors being recovered: that her body was dumped at a later date -- and the ME's autopsy does not tell us how long her body was in the bay, thus never eliminating this as being the simplest explanation.

Since Scott Peterson at such a later date was already being tailed by police, Occam's Razor is exculpatory.

JNS

[sandbar]

>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 think the big statement here is IN YOUR OPINION. 12 people (who matter) obviously disagree with you.

[spiralsue]

Duoy! The term used in law is REASONABLE doubt, not insano unrealistic crazy a** tiny itty bitty shadow of a doubt. For a jury to find REASONABLE doubt, they MUST be able to concoct a REASONABLE alternative explanation of how the crime COULD have happened under a scenario other than the accused having done it. To say a satanic cult kidnapped her or whatever is NOT REASONABLE. Anyone can tell that Ben-Affleck-look-alike is guilty. He acts guilty, which is evidence. It is called "consciousness of guilt." How would YOU act if your 8-months pregnant wife disappeared? Would you testify in your own behalf? Would you beg, plead, cry for justice? Or would you just sit with a stone face acting as if the proceedings do not affect you. He's guilty and should get the death penalty. What a waste of time this is. You pulled me in with the idiocy of it all. Dummy me.

[Laura Earl]

I used to know a guy who was fond of telling the ladies that he and his wife were separated. He would act all sad about it..the truth was they were separated because she was at home in Atlanta with their kids, and he was on a business trip here in Birmingham. Scum!

[Michael.SF.]

I made a tongue in cheek response earlier, not realizing that you are in fact the author of this book and one on the OJ case.

Having read one side of the OJ case (Bugliosi's) I would be curious about something regarding OJ and would wonder how you would respond to it. Specifically: During OJ's initial interview with the police at Parker Center, after his attorney left, Bugliosi stated that OJ said the blood on the Bronco was his ( 'I bleed a lot, cut easily and such' or similar words). Bugliosi stated he could have convicted OJ on that basis alone.

Given the above, how would you content that OJ would be innocent?

[ApplegateRanch]

I KNEW I shouldn't have added that last line.

Like some of Scott's initial stories that he later changed, it inadvertently gave me away.

DARN, shucks, and golly!

[Michael.SF.]

oops

how would you content contend that OJ would be innocent.

[DK Zimmerman]

Perhaps a lawyer will find it necessary to correct me, but no, you have it backwards.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" refers to the requirement for the prosecution to PROVE exactly how, why, and when the alleged crime took place, by the alleged criminal. There are elements of each crime, which the prosecution must prove, BARD. If all are not present, i.e. one or more are mere supposition, coincidence, or unprovable, then a jury is supposed to acquit. That is their job. That is why a jury that convicts in such circumstances is dangerous.

Remember, our system is supposed to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Not to be confused with us "civilians" out here. We're free to say kill the sucker, he's gotta be guilty. Those folks entering deliberation in the jury room must be held to a higher standard.

[sandbar]

Let's not forget him checking out the currents and tide positions in the bay several weeks before his trip. And telling people his wife was dead. You don't have to have a smoking gun to prove murder.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Good farce.

LOL! I totally missed that last line, how I don't Know.That line is sarcasm in it's purest form. Very good.

[DK Zimmerman]

Certainly not if the victim was knifed. But if you can't even prove murder was involved, a smoking gun is not only irrelevant, the presence of a crime is uncertain.

[Baraonda]

"My point is that when inflamed prejudice replaces reason in criminal trials, the system is broken and criminal justice appropriate to a free and civilized society is replaced with the law of talon."

Amen to that.

Moreover, I'd like to add the cult of personality that was created regarding Laci's good looks, smile and the fact that she was pregnant at the time of her death.

She was young, yes, but she was not beautiful. I, too, saw her smile and didn't think was genuine. In fact, reading her background, I came to the conclusion that she was not a saint herself, and her smile was a phony and despicable one. But this is no reason for killing her.

Maybe Scott did kill her, but the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard was never met.

[iconoclast]

I'm SORRY ... it was a half-a$$ed post ... Here's how it SHOULD have appeared:

Nobody has ever been arrested for the murder of Chandra Levy.

What evidence was there that she was murdered?

[BenLurkin]

http://www.courttv.com/archive/news/2002/0528/levy_ap.html

[sandbar]

>But if you can't even prove murder was involved, a smoking >gun is not only irrelevant, the presence of a crime is >uncertain.

WHAT? So I suppose you have a good explanation as to why a body is found in the bay decomposed, without limbs or head? And had been in the water a while, but yet did not wash up earlier. Hey, maybe she just went for a swim after walking for several hours (it's a 2 hour DRIVE). Ridiculous and you are grasping at straws.

[spiralsue]

I can't stop myself. I regret even reading this crapola. But I have to respond...

"So in a case without an ME’s finding of homicide or a known time of death;"

IMMATERIAL -- time of death is helpful but not necessary for a murder conviction.

"without a single witness to a crime having occurred;"

Eye witnesses are extremely unreliable. Circumstantial evidence gets a bad rap but is actually much more convincing than an eye witness.

"without a crime scene;"

IMMATERIAL. There is nothing in the law that says you must have a "crime scene" before prosecuting a murderer. Some murderers are sitting in jail and there was no dead body. That argument is just silly.

"without a murder weapon;"

IMMATERIAL. She is dead. The manner of death cannot be determined after someone is in the ocean for a few months. Does that mean if no one sees me push someone overboard and they don't find the body that no crime occurred? Who says you even need a weapon. A pillow can be a weapon. A string. Again, this is just silly.

"without any indisputable forensic evidence linking the defendant husband to his wife’s death;"

No forensic evidence? Were you on the jury? Did you see and hear all the evidence? There was blood and hair found. Even I know that is forensic evidence. There were also carpet fibers from his boat or truck. The cement anchors... oh, yeah, that was Scum's hobby. It is just a wild coincidence. Sheesh.


"without an obvious motive;"

So now the motive has to be "obvious"? Insurance money is a motive; fooling around on her is a motive; his "obvious" lack of concern for his unborn child and his wife is not a consideration? Besides, prosecutors have no obligation to prove 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"

Oh, yeah, the satanic cults. Or maybe it was aliens from Mars. Yeah, or maybe she offed herself and framed him from the grave. Wait she didn't have a grave. Her death and the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding it are conclusive direct evidence that does overcome any exculpatory scenario because none of them are REASONABLE. Given all the evidence, which no one heard unless they were on the jury, the conclusion of a prudent and REASONABLE person would be that Scum Peterson murdered his wife. Give me one reasonable scenario that would fit all the evidence. Just one...

The witnesses in this crime are Laci and Connor. They have both clearly pointed their fingers straight at Scumbag Peterson as their killer.

Are you working on pulling off the perfect crime or do you really believe the junk you wrote?

Now that you've cleared up the Peterson case, why don't you defend that Vang guy who massacred six hunters? I'm sure there's some exculpatory scenario a creative mind like yours can come up with.