Scott Peterson Death Sentence Overturned

Scott Peterson's death sentence in murder of pregnant wife overturned by California Supreme Court
Laci Peterson and their unborn son, Conner, were killed over 15 years ago



The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned the death penalty sentence for Scott Peterson, convicted in the Christmas Eve murder of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.

The court's decision came more than 15 years after Laci, a Modesto, Calif., school teacher, was killed. Investigators said Peterson dumped his wife's body from his fishing boat into the San Francisco Bay in 2002. The bodies of Laci and Conner surfaced months later.

While the murder conviction against Peterson stayed in place, the court ordered a new penalty phase trial.


"Peterson contends his trial was flawed for multiple reasons, beginning with the unusual amount of pretrial publicity that surrounded the case," the court found. "We reject Peterson's claim that he received an unfair trial as to guilt and thus affirm his convictions for murder."

SCOTT PETERSON: 'I HAD NO IDEA' CONVICTION IN LACI PETERSON MURDER WAS COMING

However, the court ruled the trial judge in Peterson's case "made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson's right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase."

The court also agreed that potential jurors improperly were dismissed from the jury pool after saying they personally disagreed with the death penalty but would be willing to impose it per California law.

Peterson, now 47, also claimed on appeal that he couldn't get a fair trial because of the massive publicity that surrounded his case, even though his trial was held nearly 90 miles away from his Central Valley home of Modesto to San Mateo County, south of San Francisco.


SCOTT PETERSON: 15 YEARS LATER, A LOOK BACK AT A CASE THAT GRIPPED A NATION

Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager did not immediately say if she would seek the death penalty again.

Peterson has been housed on San Quentin State Prison's death row since he was sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2005.

Peterson's case grabbed national headlines and intense pressure was put on investigators to find her killer. They chased nearly 10,000 tips and considered parolees and convicted sex offenders as possible suspects.

On Dec. 24, 2002, Peterson called his mother-in-law, Sharon Rocha, in the early evening to ask if Laci was with her. He told Rocha he had returned from a day of fishing and when he got home, Laci's car was in the driveway and their dog was in the backyard with his leash on.


The call to Rocha around 5:15 p.m. would set off a chain of events that would move an entire community, which jumped into action to find the missing mom to be. As the days and weeks went on, the search for Laci, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant when she disappeared, became more desperate.

Peterson claimed she was home the morning he left for his fishing trip in the San Francisco Bay and that was the last time he saw her.



Laci's family went on television, pleading for her safe return and for any information to help find her.

"Please bring my daughter home," Rocha asked the public in one news conference.

Attention soon turned to Peterson who has maintained he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance.

One month after Laci's disappearance, police revealed her husband was living a double life, having an affair with a massage therapist who was living in Fresno by the name of Amber Frey.

SCOTT PETERSON MISTRESS AMBER FREY SUED OVER 'MEMOIRS OF A SEX ADDICT,' 'MYTHS OF THE FLESH'

Frey, a single mother, went to police once she became aware that the man she thought was her boyfriend was quickly becoming a prime suspect in a nationally televised case.

She eventually would go on to wear a wire and helped police record her conversations with Peterson, which would play a key role in the trial.


On April 13, 2003, the body of a baby boy was discovered along the shore of San Francisco Bay. The next day, the body of an adult female wearing maternity clothes was found nearby. The bodies were positively identified as those of Laci and her unborn son Conner.

Peterson was arrested in San Diego just days after the bodies were discovered.


He had dyed his hair blonde, grown a goatee and had many items in his car which led investigators to believe he may have been ready to run.

The double murder trial would take more than a year to begin, but at the end Scott Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his wife, and second-degree murder for killing Conner.

Peterson, who pleaded not guilty, has always maintained his innocence.


He had dyed his hair blonde, grown a goatee and had many items in his car which led investigators to believe he may have been ready to run.

The double murder trial would take more than a year to begin, but at the end Scott Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his wife, and second-degree murder for killing Conner.

Peterson, who pleaded not guilty, has always maintained his innocence.

Scott Peterson's death sentence in murder of pregnant wife overturned by California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned Scott Peterson's 2005 death sentence in the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci, but left the door open for prosecutors to try again for the same sentence.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Howell]

You know, in the interest of discussion and keeping threads open, I do agree it was a circumstantial case. I do know some don't see it. I am happy with the jury's decision and concur. You don't have to.

There is a ton of circumstantial evidence and he was stupid to get caught in obvious lies. As for clean-up who knows? It may not have been a violent death by any means. More that did not add up (and there is a ton) is that he named the show Laci was watching and it was on the wrong day... He had time.

That's not true, either. You need to learn the facts of this case. They spoke about "meringue" on the Martha Stewart show that aired on the 24th, just as Scott told the police. With the exception of his relationship with Amber, everything Scott told the police was found to be true. He told them everywhere he went that day and everything he did.

I will say I was worried through the trial of the verdict. The bodies floating up in some ways was a blessing although tragic. Without the bodies and Amber it is difficult to say what the verdict would have been, and of course Scott's own inconsistencies and many lies.

To me, when you have too many things you have to explain, I start weighing one way. There can be a few coincidences but when there are tons that have to be disputed, it is another story.

As I have said in other cases, I think your argument is with the system. A circumstantial case is not banned. I suspect you hate jigsaw puzzles with many pieces. When you fit together enough of them, they can create an entire picture or close enough to see the picture without that last missing piece.

However, it most definitely is a case of circumstantial evidence. It seems that is your issue.

That is not my issue. Circumstantial evidence is often more powerful and more convincing than direct evidence. My issue is the complete lack of evidence, of any kind.

The prosecution created this totally imaginary scenario where Scott killed Laci somehow, wrapped her body in a tarp and boat cover and put her in his truck. At this point he takes the time to do a few fake internet searches and watch a little Martha Stewart. After letting his dog loose somewhere in the neighborhood, he drove Laci's body to his warehouse, tied several uniquely identifiable anchors around it, then transferred it to the boat. After which he inexplicably spent 45 minutes responding to innocuous emails, looking up instructions and assembling a mortiser. He was in no hurry, I suppose... Then Scott decided to drive 90 miles to the busiest marina in northern California to put his boat in the Bay and go dump the body. For some reason, he took the time to unwrap the body and bring the tarp and cover back with him, as well as one homemade anchor which would directly link him to the others he just dumped in the Bay. He apparently was able to do all of this alone, without anyone seeing him do anything suspicious. No neighbors, motorists, boaters, fishermen, house boat residents, no one. Then he went home and immediately told the police exactly where in the Bay he dumped the body, describing the area precisely. Does that make sense to you? There's not a single shred of evidence to indicate that any of this actually happened.

 

[fran]

FWIW, on the "meringue" thing, they DID NOT talk about meringue on the 24th like Scott said they did,

On December 23, there was a whole segment on Martha Stewart on making meringue.

On December 24th, there was just the word, "meringue," at approximately 50 minutes into the show. Just the word, I'm sure of it.

After all, this faux paux of the prosecutor was brought to the jury's attention by the defense attorney at the expense of the prosecutor and was most embarrassing, because the prosecutor had told the jury in his opening the meringue was on the 23rd, but the defense found a second in time on the 24th the word was spoken. However, the prosecutor used this same instance in the closing argument to keep the timeline tight as to when Laci allegedly disappeared.

This was the first criminal case I followed closely. Although I no longer have my notes from the case, this detail I'm absolutely positive about.

JMHO
fran

 

[GrandmaBear]

That's not true, either. You need to learn the facts of this case. They spoke about "meringue" on the Martha Stewart show that aired on the 24th, just as Scott told the police. With the exception of his relationship with Amber, everything Scott told the police was found to be true. He told them everywhere he went that day and everything he did.

That is not my issue. Circumstantial evidence is often more powerful and more convincing than direct evidence. My issue is the complete lack of evidence, of any kind.

The prosecution created this totally imaginary scenario where Scott killed Laci somehow, wrapped her body in a tarp and boat cover and put her in his truck. At this point he takes the time to do a few fake internet searches and watch a little Martha Stewart. After letting his dog loose somewhere in the neighborhood, he drove Laci's body to his warehouse, tied several uniquely identifiable anchors around it, then transferred it to the boat. After which he inexplicably spent 45 minutes responding to innocuous emails, looking up instructions and assembling a mortiser. He was in no hurry, I suppose... Then Scott decided to drive 90 miles to the busiest marina in northern California to put his boat in the Bay and go dump the body. For some reason, he took the time to unwrap the body and bring the tarp and cover back with him, as well as one homemade anchor which would directly link him to the others he just dumped in the Bay. He apparently was able to do all of this alone, without anyone seeing him do anything suspicious. No neighbors, motorists, boaters, fishermen, house boat residents, no one. Then he went home and immediately told the police exactly where in the Bay he dumped the body, describing the area precisely. Does that make sense to you? There's not a single shred of evidence to indicate that any of this actually happened.

The man was golfing. Not fishing. Per Scott. It was his plan.... Mentioned to her sister and others prior... Setting up of a story... Once under pressure, of course he realized he might have been seen or otherwise and had a receipt in case... He messed up when AFTER reported missing, he mentioned to his own relative he was golfing... AFTER THE FACT he said this... Liars have trouble keeping things straight.

No satanic cult nor anyone else took a pregnant Laci from her neighborhood to where Scott was fishing... And they had a boat or were fishing too on Christmas Eve and put a pregnant Laci into a boat and she ends up where?? Okayyy... Gee I bet he had like loan sharks out to frame him or something or some evil cult members running around the neighborhood and following him to where he fished and framed him??? Gee I mean what are the odds...?

And that is just basic info and just a couple of things out of tons.

This case has been tried and a jury decided his guilt. Who would drive all of those miles to fish on Christmas Eve? I mean, all you are saying is just the opposite. No one else would have any reason but a killer might...

You talk about no one else seeing him well who else placed themselves there and where is the evidence of others there who could be connected to her the day she went missing? Oh there was that sigh or whistle of relief on the tapped phone call when what they found in the bay was an anchor and not his wife nor son...

You can lighten up or not, I agree it is a circumstantial and somewhat controversial case although most are not on your page, I differ on your thoughts, apparently you think he is innocent. I suppose you think Casey Anthony and OJ are innocent too? Well to each their own.

I see no need to offend you or insult you so don't do it to me. You said you were not responding and I said "don't then" but you did.

 

[GrandmaBear]

FWIW, on the "meringue" thing, they DID NOT talk about meringue on the 24th like Scott said they did,

On December 23, there was a whole segment on Martha Stewart on making meringue.

On December 24th, there was just the word, "meringue," at approximately 50 minutes into the show. Just the word, I'm sure of it.

After all, this faux paux of the prosecutor was brought to the jury's attention by the defense attorney at the expense of the prosecutor and was most embarrassing, because the prosecutor had told the jury in his opening the meringue was on the 23rd, but the defense found a second in time on the 24th the word was spoken. However, the prosecutor used this same instance in the closing argument to keep the timeline tight as to when Laci allegedly disappeared.

This was the first criminal case I followed closely. Although I no longer have my notes from the case, this detail I'm absolutely positive about.

JMHO
fran

It was one of my first also Fran. I followed it entirely. All facts are not fresh with me but I have read some again lately. What Geragos tried to dispute generally backfired on him or could be turned around. And honestly, when you have to dispute a ton of different things, it is just too much, no one could be that unfortunately unlucky but they can be that dumb...

She was a low risk victim making any stranger very unlikely and she sure had no hint of anyone else who would be after her and the hub had a motive and a recent enticement to add to that motive...

And then some stranger or group of them drove her and dumped her how many hours/miles away in a spot that implicates him, wow. Yeah right.

 

[Howell]

The man was golfing. Not fishing. Per Scott. It was his plan.... Mentioned to her sister and others prior... Setting up of a story... Once under pressure, of course he realized he might have been seen or otherwise and had a receipt in case... He messed up when AFTER reported missing, he mentioned to his own relative he was golfing... AFTER THE FACT he said this... Liars have trouble keeping things straight.

Also not true, GB. Scott had planned to go either golfing or fishing that day. The morning weather made his decision for him. Scott never told any of his relatives after the fact that he went golfing.

And that is just basic info and just a couple of things out of tons.

No, that's basic misinformation. You're welcome to lay out for us these "tons" of things you're referring to. Not what you heard from Nancy Grace, mind you, but real evidence and testimony presented at trial. Evidence that actually implicates Scott in a murder.

This case has been tried and a jury decided his guilt. Who would drive all of those miles to fish on Christmas Eve? I mean, all you are saying is just the opposite. No one else would have any reason but a killer might...

You talk about no one else seeing him well who else placed themselves there and where is the evidence of others there who could be connected to her the day she went missing? Oh there was that sigh or whistel of relief on the tapped phone call when what they found in the bay was an anchor and not his wife nor son...

Well, if you were searching for your missing spouse, wouldn't you be relieved when told that it wasn't him found on the ocean floor? Might you even give a whistle of relief? Of course, if you view everything with a colored lens, that whistle could only mean "Scott was relieved to know the body he dumped hadn't been found".

You can lighten up or not, I agree it is a circumstantial and somewhat controversial case although most are not on your page, I differ on your thoughts, apparently you think he is innocent. I suppose you think Casey Anthony and OJ are innocent too? Well to each their own.

I see no need to offend you or insult you so don't do it to me. You said you were not responding and I said "don't then" but you did.

I've not said anything offensive or insulting to you. I will however continue to insist that you stick to the facts, and that isn't going to change.

 

[Howell]

FWIW, on the "meringue" thing, they DID NOT talk about meringue on the 24th like Scott said they did,

On December 23, there was a whole segment on Martha Stewart on making meringue.

On December 24th, there was just the word, "meringue," at approximately 50 minutes into the show. Just the word, I'm sure of it.

After all, this faux paux of the prosecutor was brought to the jury's attention by the defense attorney at the expense of the prosecutor and was most embarrassing, because the prosecutor had told the jury in his opening the meringue was on the 23rd, but the defense found a second in time on the 24th the word was spoken. However, the prosecutor used this same instance in the closing argument to keep the timeline tight as to when Laci allegedly disappeared.

This was the first criminal case I followed closely. Although I no longer have my notes from the case, this detail I'm absolutely positive about.

JMHO
fran

Scott was asked about the show content, and he said: "I don't know what they had on, some cooking deal, I don't know, cookies of some sort, they were talking about what to do with meringue."

On the episode aired on Dec 24th, just as Scott said, they were baking lemon cookies and mentioned meringue.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Also not true, GB. Scott had planned to go either golfing or fishing that day. The morning weather made his decision for him. Scott never told any of his relatives after the fact that he went golfing.

No, that's basic misinformation. You're welcome to lay out for us these "tons" of things you're referring to. Not what you heard from Nancy Grace, mind you, but real evidence and testimony presented at trial. Evidence that actually implicates Scott in a murder.

Well, if you were searching for your missing spouse, wouldn't you be relieved when told that it wasn't him found on the ocean floor? Might you even give a whistle of relief? Of course, if you view everything with a colored lens, that whistle could only mean "Scott was relieved to know the body he dumped hadn't been found".

I've not said anything offensive or insulting to you. I will however continue to insist that you stick to the facts, and that isn't going to change.

That's just fine. I am always fine with respectfully disagreeing. As far as facts, as I said recently, show me proof that everything Scott did about the baby or being into it or a family man ended on 11/20 when he met Amber. And in fact if it did, that is damning to him. That is what started much of this and your odd opinion of what a double life is.

I don't need to look at trial testimony to know that you have no way of knowing something so ludicrous. I have been at trials where the defense will say oh he loved that baby, look what he did before he killed the child and the other side does not even bother much with rebutting it as it is all the defense has. It means nothing to bring up maybe his family or a friend that can say that.

You can talk about "facts" all you want and Scott ending acting like a family man or into his son and it ending on 11/20 is not a fact nor a fact you can prove.

I am discussing, you are at trial or something and your lamaze and nursery thing is lame and means nothing. As far as your way of talking with people it goes like this.... UNDERSTAND??? Wasn't that you?

Whatever... I don't even say you have no reason to have your apparent opinion. So don't diss others. Or do.

Scott Peterson killed his wife and his unborn son. Scott Peterson is a murderer. Scott Peterson was convicted.

Stick to the facts. A jury said so.

 

[Howell]

That's just fine. I am always fine with respectfully disagreeing. As far as facts, as I said recently, show me proof that everything Scott did about the baby or being into it or a family man ended on 11/20 when he met Amber. And in fact if it did, that is damning to him. That is what started much of this and your odd opinion of what a double life is.

I don't need to look at trial testimony to know that you have no way of knowing something so ludicrous. I have been at trials where the defense will say oh he loved that baby, look what he did before he killed the child and the other side does not even bother much with rebutting it as it is all the defense has. It means nothing to bring up maybe his family or a friend that can say that.

You can talk about "facts" all you want and Scott ending acting like a family man or into his son and it ending on 11/20 is not a fact nor a fact you can prove.

I am discussing, you are at trial or something and your lamaze and nursery thing is lame and means nothing. As far as your way of talking with people it goes like this.... UNDERSTAND??? Wasn't that you?

Whatever... I don't even say you have no reason to have your apparent opinion. So don't diss others. Or do.

Scott Peterson killed his wife and his unborn son. Scott Peterson is a murderer. Scott Peterson was convicted.

Stick to the facts. A jury said so.

With all due respect and meaning no offense GB, you're starting to sound a bit unhinged. Again, I would urge you to review the sworn trial testimony from Laci's own family(among others) to best understand how Scott felt and acted about becoming a father. I'm not sure what other information you think we should consider.

The question is whether or not Scott killed Laci. I'm just asking you to outline for us the evidence which shows that. You claim there is "tons" of it, so that really ought to be pretty easy for you. What evidence is there?

 

[GrandmaBear]

With all due respect and meaning no offense GB, you're starting to sound a bit unhinged. Again, I would urge you to review the sworn trial testimony from Laci's own family(among others) to best understand how Scott felt and acted about becoming a father. I'm not sure what other information you think we should consider.

The question is whether or not Scott killed Laci. I'm just asking you to outline for us the evidence which shows that. You claim there is "tons" of it, so that really ought to be pretty easy for you. What evidence is there?

With all due respect, Howell, this is not my day for being unhinged. I plan those carefully for when the planets align just right and I invite all my unhinged friends over as well for a totally unhinged party.

I am done beating your dead horse of a weak argument about how Scott felt about becoming a father. The man is a known liar. He negates it when he tells Amber he never wants children and is considering a vasectomy. You can use the term sworn testimony all you want, all that means is this is what Laci's family saw and what Scott said and they testified to that. So what? That is so lame--this is the very family who supported him at first and thought him innocent and changed their tune because they realized he "snowed" them. Do you honestly think Sharon Rocha today believes Scott wanted Connor? Clearly the jury did not think so either. You have a screw loose, with all due respect hon so I guess you are on your way to unhinged yourself. You knock circumstantial evidence and then take the most minor meaningless thing that is not evidence and think it is a defense. Scott could have taken the stand and lied and you would point to that as sworn testimony and fact?

As far as tons of circumstantial evidence, I have read a few articles recently listing much of it. I am not going to bother posting them for you as it will go nowhere and then you will start in some other direction or stay in your other circular pattern so what's the point?

I am not going to go read the transcripts like you keep insisting I do in your weak defense that testimony or what the Rochas believed of Scott at a certain period of time means anything or is meaningful evidence of any kind. I would rather talk to the jurors and ask them if they spent hours upon hours arguing that Scott wanted Connor because what he acted like proved it (lol) before they found him guilty. I doubt much time was spent counting that as meaning much if anything at all when put together with the rest, but you can sure spend hours beating on it.

You described Scott yourself sweetheart. You said how you could see him claiming his wife was dead as it would make him more sympathetic, etc. to Amber. He puts on faces and he lies. The good father wanting his baby, the good husband, the single employee to a colleague, and the lying widower celebrating New Year's in Paris... You can't have it both ways and pick and choose--oh it is meaningless when he uses lies to impress Amber or gain her sympathy but it is meaningful when he lies or acts to the families like he wants Connor. Hypocrisy at its finest with all due respect.

 

[Howell]

With all due respect, Howell, this is not my day for being unhinged. I plan those carefully for when the planets align just right and I invite all my unhinged friends over as well for a totally unhinged party.

I am done beating your dead horse of a weak argument about how Scott felt about becoming a father. The man is a known liar. He negates it when he tells Amber he never wants children and is considering a vasectomy. You can use the term sworn testimony all you want, all that means is this is what Laci's family saw and what Scott said and they testified to that. So what? That is so lame--this is the very family who supported him at first and thought him innocent and changed their tune because they realized he "snowed" them. Do you honestly think Sharon Rocha today believes Scott wanted Connor? Clearly the jury did not think so either. You have a screw loose, with all due respect hon so I guess you are on your way to unhinged yourself. You knock circumstantial evidence and then take the most minor meaningless thing that is not evidence and think it is a defense. Scott could have taken the stand and lied and you would point to that as sworn testimony and fact?

As far as tons of circumstantial evidence, I have read a few articles recently listing much of it. I am not going to bother posting them for you as it will go nowhere and then you will start in some other direction or stay in your other circular pattern so what's the point?

I am not going to go read the transcripts like you keep insisting I do in your weak defense that testimony or what the Rochas believed of Scott at a certain period of time means anything or is meaningful evidence of any kind. I would rather talk to the jurors and ask them if they spent hours upon hours arguing that Scott wanted Connor because what he acted like proved it (lol) before they found him guilty. I doubt much time was spent counting that as meaning much if anything at all when put together with the rest, but you can sure spend hours beating on it.

You described Scott yourself sweetheart. You said how you could see him claiming his wife was dead as it would make him more sympathetic, etc. to Amber. He puts on faces and he lies. The good father wanting his baby, the good husband, the single employee to a colleague, and the lying widower celebrating New Year's in Paris... You can't have it both ways and pick and choose--oh it is meaningless when he uses lies to impress Amber or gain her sympathy but it is meaningful when he lies or acts to the families like he wants Connor. Hypocrisy at its finest with all due respect.

That Scott lied to and about Amber is not in dispute.

I didn't knock circumstantial evidence, quite the opposite. I just asked you to list it for us. You claim there's "tons" of it yet you can't cite any of it. Well no, you claim you COULD, but you're just unwilling for one reason or another. When you're pointed to the trial evidence, you refuse to consider or address it and just start ranting.

The entire point of this board to me is to discuss these cases, yet when someone questions your point of view, you refuse to continue and say "what's the point"? I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to have a discussion with you.

 

[GrandmaBear]

That Scott lied to and about Amber is not in dispute.

I didn't knock circumstantial evidence, quite the opposite. I just asked you to list it for us. You claim there's "tons" of it yet you can't cite any of it. Well no, you claim you COULD, but you're just unwilling for one reason or another. When you're pointed to the trial evidence, you refuse to consider or address it and just start ranting.

The entire point of this board to me is to discuss these cases, yet when someone questions your point of view, you refuse to continue and say "what's the point"? I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to have a discussion with you.

I don't ask you to go get your trial transcripts and post them and point out the parts with what you cite, did you notice that? One of the ones I read that has a rundown of many of the points made with circumstantial evidence was a CNN article. It is not my first rodeo and people who send people off all of the time to cite something is nothing new but I sure can. And then as I have seen previously, you will attack the media or article and go elsewhere.

As someone pointed out above, this thread is about the death sentence being overturned. As of this time Scott is guilty and was convicted, the case is not being tried. Or even retried which is what you keep trying to do.

Finally, if you truly are fresh on ALL of the transcripts, I don't need to detail what they had on either side now do I?

As far as asking what's the point, I only do that with you as I have been there before. I can't recall saying that anywhere else on this forum to others. True fact.

 

[Howell]

I don't ask you to go get your trial transcripts and post them and point out the parts with what you cite, did you notice that? One of the ones I read that has a rundown of many of the points made with circumstantial evidence was a CNN article. It is not my first rodeo and people who send people off all of the time to cite something is nothing new but I sure can. And then as I have seen previously, you will attack the media or article and go elsewhere.

As someone pointed out above, this thread is about the death sentence being overturned. As of this time Scott is guilty and was convicted, the case is not being tried. Or even retried which is what you keep trying to do.

Finally, if you truly are fresh on ALL of the transcripts, I don't need to detail what they had on either side now do I?

As far as asking what's the point, I only do that with you as I have been there before. I can't recall saying that anywhere else on this forum to others. True fact.

You don't need to ask me to cite my evidence, I've done that without prompting. We don't need to rely on CNN or other media citation of the evidence as we have all of it readily available in the form of the trial transcripts.

If you didn't wish to discuss the evidence because you felt it was off-topic or for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine, then you should've just kept quiet. You injected yourself into the conversation. It was you who addressed me, not the other way around. Then you went on to misstate the evidence and offer false information. Again, if you do that, it isn't going to go unchallenged.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yes, I guess I made the mistake of thinking a discussion could result and more than just one on one discussion directed by and rules as we go set by Howell. Thump on head to me.

It is you who always turns things personal as far as insults, or tries to, and I am sure it is supposed to get someone's "goat". As far as you citing anything, in another thread, I think several people had to ask you about 50 times to back up what you said. You never link anything so don't ask me to do so my dear.

Lighten up, if you have that in you, it's not a courtroom nor the Court of Appeals and we are not jurors in the case.

Done here, so others can have the thread stay up. I wish you lightness and an overdue happy day, we all could use one at times...

 

[Whatsnext]

Yes, I guess I made the mistake of thinking a discussion could result and more than just one on one discussion directed by and rules with rules as we go set by Howell. Thump on head to me.

It is you who always turns things personal as far as insults, or tries to, and I am sure it is supposed to get someone's "goat". As far as you citing anything, in another thread, I think several people had to ask you about 50 times to back up what you said. You never link anything so don't ask me to do so my dear.

Lighten up, if you have that in you, it's not a courtroom nor the Court of Appeals and we are not jurors in the case.

Done here, so others can have the thread stay up. I wish you lightness and an overdue happy day, we all could use one at times...

you are such a patient person. Nobody wants to get attacked like that.

 

[GrandmaBear]

you are such a patient person. Nobody wants to get attacked like that.

Thank you! Much appreciated and hugs to you too . I think the history exists on the forum of who commences it. No big deal though to me.

Scott Peterson though and Laci's family, now that's a different story. My heart is with them. They have been through enough.

 

[kdg411]

Since I didn't follow this case from the beginning like many of you could anyone help direct my attention to what the physical vs circumstantial evidence was used to obtain a guilty verdict?

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

I didn't follow extremely closely, but I've found the Wikipedia to have some good links and info. Scott Peterson - Wikipedia (Many people scoff at Wiki, but things posted there must have sources... If you click on the little numbers next to a statement it will take you to the original source.)

The only physical evidence: "A single hair was the only piece of forensic evidence that was identified. The hair, matched through DNA comparison to hair from Laci's hairbrush, was stuck to pliers found on Peterson's boat.[81]"

Circumstantial evidence:
Presented as prosecution evidence during the trial was the fact that Peterson changed his appearance and purchased a vehicle using his mother's name in order to avoid recognition by the press. He added two pornographic television channels to his cable service only days after his wife's disappearance.[82] The prosecution stated this meant he knew she would not be returning home. Peterson expressed interest in selling the house he had shared with Laci,[83] and traded in her Land Rover for a Dodge pick-up truck.[84]

Rick Cheng, a hydrologist with the United States Geological Survey and an expert witness on tides of the San Francisco Bay, testified as a witness for the prosecution. During cross-examination, Cheng admitted that his findings were "probable, not precise."[85] Tidal systems are sufficiently chaotic, and he was unable to develop an exact model of the bodies' disposal and travel. As the trial progressed, the prosecution opened discussion of Peterson's affair with Frey and the contents of their secretly-recorded telephone calls.[86]

Charles March, a fertility specialist, was expected to be a crucial witness for the defense, one who, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, could single-handedly exonerate Peterson by showing that Laci's fetus died a week after prosecutors claimed. Under cross-examination, March admitted basing his findings on an anecdote from one of Laci's friends that she had taken a home pregnancy test on June 9, 2002. When prosecutors pointed out that no medical records relied on the June 9 date, March became flustered and confused on the stand and asked a prosecutor to cut him "some slack", undermining his credibility. Summing up this key defense witness, Stan Goldman, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said, "There were moments today that reminded me of Chernobyl."[87]

The prosecution presented Peterson's affair with Frey, financial problems and impending fatherhood as motives for the murder, surmising that he killed Laci due to increasing debt and a desire to be single again.[89][90]


Also a bit more here: Murder of Laci Peterson - Wikipedia

And here is one that outline's the defense's case a bit: COURTTV.COM - TRIALS - Two-timer, yes, but no double murderer: Peterson's defense lays out its case

 

[Scarlette]

I'm so glad you were able to get your forum back. So much has happened in my life that I can't remember how long ago it was, but kept checking Twitter to see when you would return. And the reason is, on some cases, I can only find what I want here, and with so many honest and respectful posters.

The first trial I ever followed every day was a local one and 2 local stations covered most of the day. That was back when Court TV was on also, and they mostly showed some of the trial when the prosecutor was doing the questioning, with very little of the defense's case. That case was also the only time I saw and understood exactly what circumstantial evidence. I read many mystery books with some being true life crimes.

I could not believe the man was convicted strictly on circumstantial evidence, no physical direct evidence. Nevertheless, he is still on death row in San Quentin. What I couldn't watch on TV, I recorded it.

I never followed the OJ case, I worked during those days. While I still read mysteries, I read mostly the ones where their is mostly trials. And I also watch Investigation Discovery a lot, and even with DNA, the detectives always pursue more physical evidence. Bottom line, I saw only some of the Laci Peterson case, and I agree with Howell. I may have missed it, but I didn't see him mention where a doctor examined the fetus and said it was older that he had yet lived longer than when she was due.

I hope to keep reading more on this case.

 

[Kimster]

I'm so glad you were able to get your forum back. So much has happened in my life that I can't remember how long ago it was, but kept checking Twitter to see when you would return. And the reason is, on some cases, I can only find what I want here, and with so many honest and respectful posters.

The first trial I ever followed every day was a local one and 2 local stations covered most of the day. That was back when Court TV was on also, and they mostly showed some of the trial when the prosecutor was doing the questioning, with very little of the defense's case. That case was also the only time I saw and understood exactly what circumstantial evidence. I read many mystery books with some being true life crimes.

I could not believe the man was convicted strictly on circumstantial evidence, no physical direct evidence. Nevertheless, he is still on death row in San Quentin. What I couldn't watch on TV, I recorded it.

I never followed the OJ case, I worked during those days. While I still read mysteries, I read mostly the ones where their is mostly trials. And I also watch Investigation Discovery a lot, and even with DNA, the detectives always pursue more physical evidence. Bottom line, I saw only some of the Laci Peterson case, and I agree with Howell. I may have missed it, but I didn't see him mention where a doctor examined the fetus and said it was older that he had yet lived longer than when she was due.

I hope to keep reading more on this case.

. So glad to know you returned! We sent emails out, but only some responded. Did you get one of the emails?

I never saw where a doctor examined the fetus and said it was older, either. I'd like to see a link to it if anybody finds it.

 

[Howell]

I never saw where a doctor examined the fetus and said it was older, either. I'd like to see a link to it if anybody finds it.

She's referring to the defense argument brought out in the testimony of Laci's doctors, the medical examiner, and a forensic anthropologist which posited that Conner was alive well beyond the 23rd. It was based on observations/facts/opinion regarding his expected gestational age from bone measurements, standard deviation, fetal biometry, etc. I don't believe there's any way to determine with any certainty that a "fetus" died within a particular 14-hour time frame after being in an ocean for 3.5 months, but honestly, it's a bit too complex to try to dissect here.

Far more compelling to me(and much easier to grasp) is the fact that there was a length of plastic twine, knotted tightly, within 2cm of Conner's neck. If Scott supposedly dumped a pregnant Laci into the Bay as the prosecution argued, how did this twine get tied around Conner's neck?