Scott Peterson Hearing

[Azred]

Well, here we are into the 8th day of the preliminary hearing for Scott Peterson, who stands accused of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son. What we know for certain is:

• he was having an affair with Amber Frye
• he had a boat about which other family members were unaware
• he had a secret mailbox for correspondence rented the day Laci disappeared
• the house was clean when police first arrived to investigate her disappearance
• he asked about "cadaver dogs" only 1 day into the search for Laci
• he sold Laci's car not long after she disappeared
• he dyed his hair blonde, had a fake ID, $10,000 cash, and a rented car only 20 miles from the border with Mexico
• Scott claims that Laci walked the dog while he went fishing...on Christmas Eve
• the body of an adult female and infant washed up less than 2 miles from the spot where Scott claims he was fishing

There are other facts that I don't have memorized right now; I don't see any current news links, either. I'll edit one in tomorrow.

His defense team, headed by Mark Gallagos (of the O.J. trial fame), has suggested that a Satanic cult took Laci. Now they are claiming that the police have "rushed to judgement", despite the fact that in many cases when a murder victim is married the spouse is the murderer. Of course, DNA testing of a hair found in Scott's boat and the bodies that washed onto shore has been questioned in great detail.

If you know about the case, what do you think? Based on the evidence that has been released thus far, it certainly doesn't look promising for Scott. Time will tell.

[ 11-13-2003, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Djinn Raffo]

I don't care about this.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I don't care about this.

Why did you post in this thread then?

[Djinn Raffo]

Because i wanted to.

[Skunk]

So basically we have a circumstantial case? Is this all they have??

"he was having an affair with Amber Frye"
Many men have affairs without murdering their wives.

"he had a boat about which other family members were unaware"
We're talking about the extended family of course - his close family (wife and daughter may well have known about it).

"he had a secret mailbox for correspondence rented the day Laci disappeared"
With the way that some reporters behave, combined with the possible filtering by police officers keen to prove the 'husband did it' theory, that's not unreasonable. In any event, renting a post-box is not a sign of guilt.

"the house was clean when police first arrived to investigate her disappearance",
Gosh! What? A man who does housework? How un-natural - must be a murderer then!
On the other hand, many people under stress look for something to do to occupy themselves - bet the stress of my family dissappearing would leave my own home spotless!

"he asked about "cadaver dogs" only 1 day into the search for Laci"
So he feared the worst? And?

"he sold Laci's car not long after she disappeared"
Maybe they had agreed that?

"he dyed his hair blonde, had a fake ID, $10,000 cash, and a rented car only 20 miles from the border with Mexico"
Adulters do all sorts of things to cover their infidelity.

"Scott claims that Laci walked the dog while he went fishing...on Christmas Eve the body of an adult female and infant washed up less than 2 miles from the spot where Scott claims he was fishing."
So they both like recreation activities by the lake - this does not suggest anything either.

"despite the fact that in many cases when a murder victim is married the spouse is the murderer.
Oh well, he must be guilty then.

"Of course, DNA testing of a hair found in Scott's boat and the bodies that washed onto shore has been questioned in great detail."
So they found hair in the family boat? Could it be because the family used it?

Maybe the wife never wanted Scott to buy a boat, but he did anyway (in secret) - then later 'owned up' and took her out in the boat in an attempt to make her see how nice it was to own one?

Where is the *hard* evidence in this case?

[ 11-13-2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Ronn_Bman]

They do have his wife's hair taken from a pair of needle nose pliers found on the boat. Now she may have gone on the boat, but it's doubtful she used the pliers to pluck hairs.

Also Amber Frye's testimony that Scott told her his wife had passed away. He told her that about 2 weeks or so before his wife went missing.

[ 11-13-2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Azred]

That is what makes the case so difficult, Skunk. Taken by themselves, each bullet point in the list is explainable under normal circumstances. Also, each one is innocent enough to provide reasonable doubt, which is all the defense needs to present in court.
However, when all these things are taken together they paint a picutre of a deceptive man who just might be desperate enough to act in the extreme.

This will be a difficult fight for the prosecution because so much of the evidence is circumstancial.

The other wrinkle in this case is that the DA has charged Scott with two counts of first-degree murder: one for Laci and one for Conner, the unborn child. The reason this is a big wrinkle is because apparently abortion is ok, but murder of an unborn child is not. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: They do have his wife's hair taken from a pair of needle nose pliers found on the boat. Now she may have gone on the boat, but it's doubtful she used the pliers to pluck hairs.

I know a number of women who will never travel anywhere without their makeup bag (or a mini-version in their handbags) - even on recreational activities like boating and camping in the mountains. (I have always had trouble understanding the logic in this - who are they painting themselves for, a passing bear?)

Anyway, items do fall out of bags (esp. when they are stuffed silly with useless items).

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Also Amber Frye's testimony that Scott told her his wife had passed away. He told her that about 2 weeks or so before his wife went missing.

Yes but the name of the game here is adultery - and adultery is a game of deception by definition. Adulterers often lie not only to their wives but also to the ones that they are having an affair with - esp. when they are trying to win over their 'conquest'.
"My wife doesn't understand me/tortures me/ bullies me/is mean to the kids/has died/is dying".
"I'm not married/I'm a widower/ No, I don't have a McJob, I'm Bill Gate's right hand man..."
You get the picture.

I worry about these cases for two reasons. Firstly a circumstantial case has a high risk of miscarriage of justice - the outcome depends on the quality of the lawyers employed on both sides, rather than on the burden of evidence.
Secondly, double-jeopardy means that if the guilty manages to win the case, there is no chance of a retrial when real evidence surfaces.

Better to wait and gather *real* evidence and then press for prosecution.
Right now, as an armchair juror, I don't see enough evidence to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that we are looking at the deceptive actions of a murderer - rather than a simple adulterer, keen to start and then cover up an affair.

As Azred says, it's a tough call.

[Azred]

Even I can be right sometimes. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seriously, though...Peterson's defense team is definitely in charge here. The detectives that led the investigation and the prosecutors have fumbled the ball pretty badly.

Right now, Peterson's best defense is to hurry up and have a trial, because the case is full of reasonable doubt. Were I on the jury, I would have to vote "not guilty" because the case is rather flimsy.

Another thing to consider is the recently-concluded Durst trial in Texas. The guy admits to killing someone who pulled a gun on him, but then he subsequently dismembers the body and hides the pieces. The jury found him not guilty becaues of reasonable doubt, despite his confession.

Looks like Scott might be celebrating New Year's Day at home.

[khazadman]

But you forget two things Azred, and that is that the prosecution is saving the best (or worst) stuff for the trial, and this idiot couldn't keep his story staight. He told the police he was fishing on Christmas eve while he was telling his neighbors he was playing golf. Now comes the fact that the clothes she was found wearing when her body washed ashore she'd worn the day before she disapeared.