Police once theorized Laci Peterson was poisoned

[greatdarkwing]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/28/peterson.trial.ap/index.html

That would explain no blood in the crime scene.

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

There's no way he'll be convicted with a death penalty sentence. :distress: I do wonder what the hell happened to her and her baby. I've been fascinated with this case from the very begining.

[amber]

He did it, that's what happenend.
Amber

[DrummerDeanna]

IT's not like she's sitting on the jury or anything...it's an opinion - and a popular one at that.

[strandinthewind]

There's no way he'll be convicted with a death penalty sentence. :distress: I do wonder what the hell happened to her and her baby. I've been fascinated with this case from the very begining.


Other than he was cheating on his wife and her hair, etc., was on things it apparently would be expected to be on because she was his wife (common assets, etc.) - I just do not see the prosecution's case here. But, juries have convicted on less and if he did not do it, who did, etc.

Other than that, I cannot believe how much media attention this case is getting and has been for well over a year now.

[skcin]

Oh yes, that's another thing. I was just looking it up. Don't Americans love to kill each other in the numbers every day? What's so special about this case that it's got so much attention. Down here people only care when 2 year olds are killed in a trail of blood from pigs heads being distributed on properties or heads being found in barrels in bank vaults. We don't do it as often but when we do we like to make a spectacle of it. I'm being serious though, what is it about the case that keeps it in the headlines? We're lead to believe that it happens every day over there. Is this grossly incorrect?

Oh, it does happen every day. Laci's probably more news-worthy because she was a married white upper-middle class female who was pregnant at the time of her murder. Her family may also be wealthy (I'm not positive though), making it easier for them to get the word out to the media.


Paula

[Patti]

Oh yes, that's another thing. I was just looking it up. Don't Americans love to kill each other in the numbers every day? What's so special about this case that it's got so much attention. Down here people only care when 2 year olds are killed in a trail of blood from pigs heads being distributed on properties or heads being found in barrels in bank vaults. We don't do it as often but when we do we like to make a spectacle of it. I'm being serious though, what is it about the case that keeps it in the headlines? We're lead to believe that it happens every day over there. Is this grossly incorrect?

Lux, I think there are a couple of things that captured people's attention. First, she was VERY pregnant, like 7 1/2 months at the time of her disappearance. Second, her family did a great job of getting the word out that she was missing. Then there is the sleaze factor that Scott Peterson is a nice looking guy and they were portrayed as an All-American couple. Then when it was discovered that Mr. All-American was having an affair and supposedly was going to marry this other woman (who didn't even know he *was* married, btw), it read like a soap opera and the whole thing took off.

There are more details than that, of course, but I think that's about it in a nutshell.

[gldstwmn]

He did it, that's what happenend.
Amber

Let's presume you are correct. How did she die? That was my question. There are far more questions than answers in this case, not to mention that one of the cops was dirty, IMO (Brocchini).

[dissention]

Peterson will be convicted because of the fact that there is no one else to point the finger at. Geragos's preposterous "cult" theory was dead in the water the minute he uttered it. There's no one else to point the finger at, so Peterson is going to be convicted.

And I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why he was 20 miles from the Mexican border with his brothers ID, a disguise, and $15,000. Still waiting.

[amber]

you've got to be objective about these kinds of things.
No I don't. Do you have some kind of "rules for members of the public rulebook"? :laugh: :wavey: I just think he's guilty, is all. But we'll see. Ever heard of O.J. ? Everyone and their mom knows he's guilty, but he got off. So the court/jury doesn't always know...
AMber

[amber]

Well actually it wasn't really stated like an opinion. It was more or less stated as fact, and yes the fact that it's a very popular one is also what reminded me of Australia in the early 1980s. Granted there's more evidence to blame this guy than there ever was in the case I'm referring to, but still it's the principle of a whole society just blaming whoever the media does without leaving even a bit of room for the unpopular possibility that perhaps the media is wrong. Still have opinions, that's fine, that's not what I was commenting on.
Actually, I AM AMBER FRYE, HIS EX GIRLFRIEND!!! I KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!
ok, just kidding...
AMber

[amber]

Other than he was cheating on his wife and her hair, etc., was on things it apparently would be expected to be on because she was his wife (common assets, etc.) - I just do not see the prosecution's case here. But, juries have convicted on less and if he did not do it, who did, etc.

Other than that, I cannot believe how much media attention this case is getting and has been for well over a year now.
uh, don't you think his morning fishing trip, near where the body washed up, the day after she disappeared, is a little suspicious?
AMber

[DrummerDeanna]

Yeah - the whole thing is super fishy...he'll probably be convicted...there are some just really strange things....and even if the prosecution presents a reasonable doubt...he'll still probably be convicted....because, as you said, there's no one else to point a finger at.

As for the high profile-ness of this case...it just happens sometimes...ie - why did Elizabeth Smart's case get so much attention? Children are kidnapped every day...

There's a little journalistic saying (mostly in tv and newspapers - luckily NPR and its stations still hold to a higher standard - my little plug :D ) "if it bleeds it leads" This casae is brutal and the way Laci was found and the fact that she was pregnant...very grissly....therefore...very headline worthy.

[amber]

And I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why he was 20 miles from the Mexican border with his brothers ID, a disguise, and $15,000. Still waiting.
Hello, THANK YOU! And for what GDW said, I don't know how she died, obviously, but to me this mystery does not really point to her husband not being guilty. In fact, the opposite. If someone had attacked her, etc, while she was out for a walk or whatever, the attack probably would have been somewhat violent and shown up - but a husband is in more of a position to murder someone sneakily, like by suffocation or poison. IMO. But, it is true that as far as concrete, non-circumstantial evidence, there isn't a strong case. But i still think he did it, as of now.
AMber

[dissention]

Hello, THANK YOU! And for what GDW said, I don't know how she died, obviously, but to me this mystery does not really point to her husband not being guilty. In fact, the opposite. If someone had attacked her, etc, while she was out for a walk or whatever, the attack probably would have been somewhat violent and shown up - but a husband is in more of a position to murder someone sneakily, like by suffocation or poison. IMO. But, it is true that as far as concrete, non-circumstantial evidence, there isn't a strong case. But i still think he did it, as of now.
AMber

Yup. Her hair just happened to be on his pliars in the toolbox that went with him to the marina, too. We already know that she would have fit in that toolbox no matter which way the defense spins it.

Geragos is a really bad lawyer, if you ask me. He blusters away about absolutely nothing (he has ever since he took on Winona Ryder) and when none of it comes to fruition, it all comes back to bite him in the ass. A good lawyer has to at least back up a little bit of what they say, but this guy spouts off tall tales that not only don't make sense, but sound like they came out of a Stephen King novel. Cults in black vans abducting Laci and then killing her and her baby as a ritual sacrifice? The guy is a joke, I wouldn't let him handle his own case on Judge Judy. By all accounts, the jury is sick and tired of his antics and are always roling their eyes whenever he stands up. Alienating the jury isn't going to score you any points, especially in a murder trial.

The jury needs to go into the jury room and think about two things: did the state prove that Scott did it? Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it? Taking into account that all this is is circumstantial, my answers would most definitely be yes and no. Geragos has not done anything to prove that someone else did it. He has not even given a credible theory about how she died and who killed her. I can tell you right now that when the jury sits down tot hink about this, they're going to look at all of his blustering antics and then look at all of the things that the prosecution has shown. The $15,000, the disguise, the camping gear, the fake ID, being 20 miles from the border, Laci's body washing onto the shore where Scott was fishing, her hair in his pliars, how she could have easily fitted into his toolbox, his affair with Amber, his references in the past tense, how he blew off John Walsh and America's Most Wanted to play golf, his lying to the authorities, his demeanor, ALL of this will kill him. Mark my words.

[amber]

Yup. Her hair just happened to be on his pliars in the toolbox that went with him to the marina, too. We already know that she would have fit in that toolbox no matter which way the defense spins it.

Geragos is a really bad lawyer, if you ask me. He blusters away about absolutely nothing (he has ever since he took on Winona Ryder) and when none of it comes to fruition, it all comes back to bite him in the ass. A good lawyer has to at least back up a little bit of what they say, but this guy spouts off tall tales that not only don't make sense, but sound like they came out of a Stephen King novel. Cults in black vans abducting Laci and then killing her and her baby as a ritual sacrifice? The guy is a joke, I wouldn't let him handle his own case on Judge Judy. By all accounts, the jury is sick and tired of his antics and are always roling their eyes whenever he stands up. Alienating the jury isn't going to score you any points, especially in a murder trial.

The jury needs to go into the jury room and think about two things: did the state prove that Scott did it? Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it? Taking into account that all this is is circumstantial, my answers would most definitely be yes and no. Geragos has not done anything to prove that someone else did it. He has not even given a credible theory about how she died and who killed her. I can tell you right now that when the jury sits down tot hink about this, they're going to look at all of his blustering antics and then look at all of the things that the prosecution has shown. The $15,000, the disguise, the camping gear, the fake ID, being 20 miles from the border, Laci's body washing onto the shore where Scott was fishing, her hair in his pliars, how she could have easily fitted into his toolbox, his affair with Amber, his references in the past tense, how he blew off John Walsh and America's Most Wanted to play golf, his lying to the authorities, his demeanor, ALL of this will kill him. Mark my words.
:nod: duly marked.

[strandinthewind]

. . . The jury needs to go into the jury room and think about two things: did the state prove that Scott did it? Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it? . . .

No - the first part is correct, but that is where it ends. The defense needs to prove nothing. They can sit there and not say a word. AND - if the jury convicts when the prosecution has not proven the case, the judge will remedy that and chastise the jury for disobeying the insctructions the judge laid out very carefully prior to sending the case to the jury.

I realize this is an academic point that may appear to make no difference here. But, I have seen cases fold on less.

It will be ineresting to see what will happen. Again, I think they will convict him not based on any direct evidence (blood, etc.) because there is none IMO. I think they will convict because he cheated on his pregnant wife and apparently had cheated other times in the past. That and the apparent running away to Mexico. But, we shall see!!!!

Note: the single strand of hair on the pliers is essentially meaningless as it could have come from his clothing, which could have had her hair on it, she could have used the pliers before, his toolbox or the pliers could have been in the house and her hair landed there as she walked by, etc. AND - that no blood was found with the hair further negated any culpability based on the hair.

Here is a pretty cool site (ONE OF MANY :laugh: ) with some interesting takes http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/others/others5.htm

[gldstwmn]

uh, don't you think his morning fishing trip, near where the body washed up, the day after she disappeared, is a little suspicious?
AMber

Yes and no. Her body washed up there in April after massive publicity about side scan sonar efforts there.

[dissention]

No - the first part is correct, but that is where it ends. The defense needs to prove nothing. They can sit there and not say a word. AND - if the jury convicts when the prosecution has not proven the case, the judge will remedy that and chastise the jury for disobeying the insctructions the judge laid out very carefully prior to sending the case to the jury.

I realize this is an academic point that may appear to make no difference here. But, I have seen cases fold on less.

It will be ineresting to see what will happen. Again, I think they will convict him not based on any direct evidence (blood, etc.) because there is none IMO. I think they will convict because he cheated on his pregnant wife and apparently had cheated other times in the past. That and the apparent running away to Mexico. But, we shall see!!!!

And what I'm saying is that by doing nothing but bluster and whine, Geragos is going to shoot himself in the foot (he already has, IMO). They're going to go in the jury room and convict because of the sheer fact that no other credible suspect or scenario has been presented. They will look at what the prosecution has given them and have a verdict in two days. Like it or not, that's what will happen.

[strandinthewind]

And what I'm saying is that by doing nothing but bluster and whine, Geragos is going to shoot himself in the foot (he already has, IMO). They're going to go in the jury room and convict because of the sheer fact that no other credible suspect or scenario has been presented. They will look at what the prosecution has given them and have a verdict in two days. Like it or not, that's what will happen.

It very well may. Only time will tell. IMO - the prosecution is LUCKY to get this to a jury based on this flismy circumstantial evidence.

[gldstwmn]

Peterson will be convicted because of the fact that there is no one else to point the finger at.

He will be acquitted. This California jury cannot convict with a charge of capitol murder, IMO. Maybe in Texas. :lol: The prosecutors should have gone for a manslaughter conviction, IMO.

[amber]

Yes and no. Her body washed up there in April after massive publicity about side scan sonar efforts there.
ok, good point, but still, fishing trip day she disappeared? At Xmas? :rolleyes:
AMber

[gldstwmn]

Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it?

They don't need to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?

[dissention]

AND - that no blood was found with the hair further negated any culpability based on the hair.

I don't think the strand of hair having no blood has any significance, especially if she was poisoned. I think having the root attached to the hair is more pretty damning itself. BUT - the prosecution is not attempting to explain how she died.

[dissention]

He will be acquitted. This California jury cannot convict with a charge of capitol murder, IMO. Maybe in Texas. :lol: The prosecutors should have gone for a manslaughter conviction, IMO.

He's going to buy the farm, my dear. He doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

[dissention]

They don't need to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?

And, as I told Jason twice, it doesn't matter if they need to or not, they are going to consider it when they are deliberating. It's a stretch to say that they won't, plain and simple. The one deciding factor in this case is a credible alternate theory. Unfortunately, the defense has not given one and it will only hurt them. Couple this with all of what the prosecution has presented? He's a goner.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think the strand of hair having no blood has any significance, especially if she was poisoned. I think having the root attached to the hair is more pretty damning itself. BUT - the prosecution is not attempting to explain how she died.

Well, they kind of have to if they want to make their case. They have to prove each element of the crime. They have to prove he killed her, which means they have to show he did it - or link him inextricably to it, which they have not done IMO. So, we shall see if their mostly circumstantial case will stick. Again, I think the jury may want to convict solely because he cheated on his pregnant wife, people really look down on that AND Scott Peterson appears and comes off as a nice looking spoiled brat whose parents essentially provided him with a great lifestyle he could not otherwise afford ($30,000 down payment for the house, $30,000 for the country club membership, etc.) - people of means do not play well with juries as a very general rule.

[dissention]

Well, they kind of have to if they want to make their case. They have to prove each element of the crime. They have to prove he killed her, which means they have to show he did it - or link him inextricably to it, which they have not done IMO. So, we shall see if their mostly circumstantial case will stick. Again, I think the jury may want to convict solely because he cheated on his pregnant wife, people really look down on that AND Scott Peterson appears and comes off as a nice looking spoiled brat whose parents essentially provided him with a great lifestyle he could not otherwise afford ($30,000 down payment for the house, $30,000 for the country club membership, etc.) - people of means do not play well with juries as a very general rule.

Regardless, they aren't.

Personally, for a circumstantial case, I think the prosecution is working wonders. This thing could have easily fallen apart day one, but miraculously, it hasn't and it looks better and better for them each day.

While I think he's guilty as sin, I don't know if I would convict if I was on the jury. I want a little more.

[gldstwmn]

ok, good point, but still, fishing trip day she disappeared? At Xmas? :rolleyes:
AMber

Which is negated by the massive publicity-anyone could've have dumped her there.

[strandinthewind]

Which is negated by the massive publicity-anyone could've have dumped her there.

Plus, people go to football games, etc. in that time period as well as other holidays. So, it is not like he went to China :shrug: Again, this is circumstantial.

[gldstwmn]

And, as I told Jason twice, it doesn't matter if they need to or not, they are going to consider it when they are deliberating. It's a stretch to say that they won't, plain and simple. The one deciding factor in this case is a credible alternate theory. Unfortunately, the defense has not given one and it will only hurt them. Couple this with all of what the prosecution has presented? He's a goner.

The insturctions that they get from the judge when the go to deliberate will have very specific parameters and they must vote to convict on that. Not only that, they have to decide to end a man's life on NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. That would be a travesty, IMO. I'm not saying Peterson is innocent or guilty, merely that the grounds to convict on capitol murder have not been met.

[amber]

Which is negated by the massive publicity-anyone could've have dumped her there.
Right, which is why i said good point, but still the timing of the fishing trip seems odd to me...and, uh, people don't fish too much in our bay - sailing, boating...i mean, a few people fish, but :shrug: and I certainly wouldn't recommend eating the fish :eek: and the day before Xmas?
AMber

[strandinthewind]

While I think he's guilty as sin, I don't know if I would convict if I was on the jury. I want a little more.

I agree - I have never been on a jury, but I think it would be hard to convict a man to death if the prosecution did not provide any evidence linking the defendant to the crime. I mean no witnesses, no blood, no nothing. That is a stiff sentence to give based on that :shrug:

[dissention]

Which is negated by the massive publicity-anyone could've have dumped her there.

Including Scott. :laugh:

Seriously, I don't think you can look at all these things individually and explain them all away. Eventually, they begin to add up and they can't be dismissed.

And, when do you suppose she was dumped there? It must have been almost directly after the story broke in order for the decomposition in the water to be as long as the medical examiner says.

But I don't know if I'd convict.

[strandinthewind]

Including Scott. :laugh:

Seriously, I don't think you can look at all these things individually and explain them all away. Eventually, they begin to add up and they can't be dismissed.

And, when do you suppose she was dumped there? It must have been almost directly after the story broke in order for the decomposition in the water to be as long as the medical examiner says.

But I don't know if I'd convict.

Then, the body shows no sign of trauma, poisen, etc. - which granted it was badly decomposed but they can find things with very little these days - - the whole thing is just strange.

[dissention]

Right, which is why i said good point, but still the timing of the fishing trip seems odd to me...and, uh, people don't fish too much in our bay - sailing, boating...i mean, a few people fish, but :shrug: and I certainly wouldn't recommend eating the fish :eek: and the day before Xmas?
AMber

Exactly. Again, I'd like to know when someone else supposedly dumped her there. The only way that they could have done it was immediately after the story hit TV. Was it the cult in the black van, too?

If Geragos was to say that she was dumped by someone else because of the publicity, then then he would be required to introduce a theory on what happened or else he'd look like a fool.

[dissention]

Then, the body shows no sign of trauma, poisen, etc. - which granted it was badly decomposed but they can find things with very little these days - - the whole thing is just strange.

BUT - if she was poisoned, would there still be evidence of the poisoning left in her and the fetus after so long, especially in the water? And if there was trauma, how would they be able to tell? A cracked skull could be explained away by saying she hit a rock while floating in the bay.

[amber]

BUT - if she was poisoned, would there still be evidence of the poisoning left in her and the fetus after so long, especially in the water? And if there was trauma, how would they be able to tell? A cracked skull could be explained away by saying she hit a rock while floating in the bay.
That's what i wondered. I don't know a bunch about forensics, but i thought the same thing about the poison...
AMber

[gldstwmn]

Right, which is why i said good point, but still the timing of the fishing trip seems odd to me...and, uh, people don't fish too much in our bay - sailing, boating...i mean, a few people fish, but :shrug: and I certainly wouldn't recommend eating the fish :eek: and the day before Xmas?
AMber

I believe it was catch and release. Also, her stepfather was fishing that very same day.

[amber]

I believe it was catch and release. Also, her stepfather was fishing that very same day.
Aaaaah....
Amber

[gldstwmn]

Including Scott. :laugh:

Seriously, I don't think you can look at all these things individually and explain them all away. Eventually, they begin to add up and they can't be dismissed.

And, when do you suppose she was dumped there? It must have been almost directly after the story broke in order for the decomposition in the water to be as long as the medical examiner says.

But I don't know if I'd convict.

The window of time in which the body could have been dumped is huge.

[gldstwmn]

Geragos is a really bad lawyer, if you ask me. He blusters away about absolutely nothing (he has ever since he took on Winona Ryder) and when none of it comes to fruition, it all comes back to bite him in the ass.

It's pretty hard to win an acquittal when the prosecution shows the court a video tape of your client stealing the clothes. :laugh:

[skcin]

What's this I heard earlier this morning about a DA (I think) who lives near Laci, looks like Laci & was also pregnant at the time of Laci's death receiving death threats right before Laci's murder? Someone was mentioning a mistaken identity theory.

It was either on Good Morning America or CBS This Morning - did anyone else hear this? What's the deal? Did I hallucinate this? :shrug:

Paula

[greatdarkwing]

This case will surely come down to circumstantial eveidence. There should be no question about it. Jason (Strandinthewind) made some very interesting points, and given that he has alittle more insight into these types of things than we do, proved some good points. PHYSICAL evidence in this case can all be practicallly thrown away. Yes, it is circumstantial he was fishing that day....but someone with her body could have dumped in that area with knowledge he was there. The infamous hair could have come from anywhere.

It is my belief that his constant lies and other circumstances will convict Scott. There was alot of debate over the cement mix which was claimed he made the anchors with. He said he used that cement mix to fix the driveway. Turns out, a cement expert proved that was not the mix used on his driveway! Why would he lie? Scott was found 20 miles from Mexico with dyed hair and a large sum of cash...why? The circumstances in this case seem to point the finger directly at him...but this case is not decided yet, and it could turn when the defense presents its case, but *I FEEL* he did it....whether or not that can be proved is a different story.

Two cents from a Pre-Law student.

~Alex

[gldstwmn]

What's this I heard earlier this morning about a DA (I think) who lives near Laci, looks like Laci & was also pregnant at the time of Laci's death receiving death threats right before Laci's murder? Someone was mentioning a mistaken identity theory.

It was either on Good Morning America or CBS This Morning - did anyone else hear this? What's the deal? Did I hallucinate this? :shrug:

Paula

I heard that as well.

[strandinthewind]

It is my belief that his constant lies and other circumstances will convict Scott. There was alot of debate over the cement mix which was claimed he made the anchors with. He said he used that cement mix to fix the driveway. Turns out, a cement expert proved that was not the mix used on his driveway! Why would he lie? Scott was found 20 miles from Mexico with dyed hair and a large sum of cash...why? The circumstances in this case seem to point the finger directly at him...but this case is not decided yet, and it could turn when the defense presents its case, but *I FEEL* he did it....whether or not that can be proved is a different story.

Two cents from a Pre-Law student.

~Alex

That, my friend, is worth a quarter!!!!! :cool: :nod:

[gldstwmn]

And I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why he was 20 miles from the Mexican border with his brothers ID, a disguise, and $15,000. Still waiting.

He was in Torrey Pines, north of San Diego. It's about 60 miles from the Mexican border.

[amber]

He was in Torrey Pines, north of San Diego. It's about 60 miles from the Mexican border.
and he was doing....???? :)
amber

[dissention]

He was in Torrey Pines, north of San Diego. It's about 60 miles from the Mexican border.

No, he wasn't. Torrey Pines is a golf course in La Jolla, California, right next to San Diego. They followed him from the golf course into San Diego, where they arrested him and took him into custody at Stanislaus County. It was 500 miles from Modesto and approximately 30 miles from the border, not even close to 60.

[dissention]

and he was doing....???? :)
amber

Obviously something if he was 30 miles from the Mexican border with over ten grand in cash, camping equipment, a disguise, and an ID that was not his own. And 500 miles from his home. :woohoo:

[amber]

Obviously something if he was 30 miles from the Mexican border with over ten grand in cash, camping equipment, a disguise, and an ID that was not his own. And 500 miles from his home. :woohoo:
gosh, i'm sure he was looking for his wife's killer... :rolleyes: But what about the mistaken identity thing that people talked about above? What if someone was really threatening the DA who lived near her and looked like her and was pregnant at the same time? Seems farfetched, a bit, but wouldn't that be a doozy of a twist if that turned out to be the case? ooooooooo :)

[dissention]

Seems farfetched, a bit, but wouldn't that be a doozy of a twist if that turned out to be the case? ooooooooo :)

If I was on the jury, I wouldn't buy it, especially with such little information about the theory. It does seem far-fetched and it seems desperate, too. Hopefully this has some sort of basis and isn't just being thrown out there. They still have their cult in a black van theory to throw out, too. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

It's pretty hard to win an acquittal when the prosecution shows the court a video tape of your client stealing the clothes. :laugh:

Yeah, but don't go into open court and say that she didn't steal them and that she had prescriptions when you've already seen the tape. :laugh: She should have fired his on the spot and if she had plead guilty, she would have gotten an even lighter sentence.

[DrummerDeanna]

Obviously something if he was 30 miles from the Mexican border with over ten grand in cash, camping equipment, a disguise, and an ID that was not his own. And 500 miles from his home. :woohoo:

That's pretty damn suspicious if ya ask me....things like that and someone mentioned the lying....he's definitley sinking...

[gldstwmn]

and he was doing....???? :)
amber

He was meeting his family at Torrey Pines Golf Club, which he was a member of and they were waiting there. Are you sure you're not Nancy Grace? :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

No, he wasn't. Torrey Pines is a golf course in La Jolla, California, right next to San Diego. They followed him from the golf course into San Diego, where they arrested him and took him into custody at Stanislaus County. It was 500 miles from Modesto and approximately 30 miles from the border, not even close to 60.

La Jolla is a good 30 minute drive from downtown San Diego. I know. I've driven it. :) Also, his parents live in Solana Beach and he was fully aware that he was being followed. Why would he wait so long to flee?

[dissention]

La Jolla is a good 30 minute drive from downtown San Diego. I know. I've driven it. :) Also, his parents live in Solana Beach and he was fully aware that he was being followed. Why would he wait so long to flee?

Why would he have almost fifteen grand, camping equipment, his brothers ID, and a disguise? We can argue over how far from the border he was (and it was no 60 miles :laugh: ), but I still am not hearing an explanation for any of these things. Was the fifteen grand the proceeds from the sale of his not-yet-known-to-be-dead wife's car?

And why did it take so long to flee? I don't know, ask the majority of murderers who only flee when the walls begin to close in.

[strandinthewind]

Why would he have almost fifteen grand, camping equipment, his brothers ID, and a disguise? We can argue over how far from the border he was (and it was no 60 miles :laugh: ), but I still am not hearing an explanation for any of these things. Was the fifteen grand the proceeds from the sale of his not-yet-known-to-be-dead wife's car?

And why did it take so long to flee? I don't know, ask the majority of murderers who only flee when the walls begin to close in.

What was his reponse to these questions.

Again, circumstantial. He could have been going camping :shrug:

As for the money, who knows. Again, what did he say?

[dissention]

What was his reponse to these questions.

Again, circumstantial. He could have been going camping :shrug:

As for the money, who knows. Again, what did he say?

I don't know, that's why I was asking. :)

But the "I was going camping" excuse would make no sense, least of all to the jury. I mean, I've heard of stupid people, but c'mon. :laugh:

One thing that won't go over well is the fact that he blew off John Walsh and America's Most Wanted in order to...play golf.

[strandinthewind]

I don't know, that's why I was asking. :)

But the "I was going camping" excuse would make no sense, least of all to the jury. I mean, I've heard of stupid people, but c'mon. :laugh:

I did a google search, but nothing that came up indicated why he had so much cash. I know the media reported his wife had inherited about $100,000 worth of jewelry and she had been selling it to pawn shops. I think two diamond earings and a watch were noted to be missing, but she may have sold them as she did the others.

As for the camping - did he often go camping - I mean that is not out of the ordinary as people do camp and he had camping equipment like a tent, etc. in the car :shrug:

Here is a site that apparently lists what he had the car:

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-items-in-car.html

[amber]

He was meeting his family at Torrey Pines Golf Club, which he was a member of and they were waiting there. Are you sure you're not Nancy Grace? :laugh:
since i don't know who that is, probably not... :)
AMber

[amber]

What was his reponse to these questions.

Again, circumstantial. He could have been going camping :shrug:

As for the money, who knows. Again, what did he say?
ok, but fake id? that really can't be explained away, especially, with the disguise, with the large sum of cash...for going camping? um, yeah. I like to take along 15 grand or so when i go camping, you know, in case i have to bribe some bears, or just to roll around in it in my tent - and who could really explore the wondrous outdoors without 15 grand??? :D And aren't fake id's illegal? I think there is so much circumstantial evidence, that it will be tough for the jury to explain it away. At this point, it's kinda tough (for me) to have reasonable doubt...
AMber

[dissention]

ok, but fake id? that really can't be explained away, especially, with the disguise, with the large sum of cash...for going camping? um, yeah. I like to take along 15 grand or so when i go camping, you know, in case i have to bribe some bears, or just to roll around in it in my tent - and who could really explore the wondrous outdoors without 15 grand??? :D And aren't fake id's illegal? I think there is so much circumstantial evidence, that it will be tough for the jury to explain it away. At this point, it's kinda tough (for me) to have reasonable doubt...
AMber

It wasn't a fake ID per se, it was his brothers. Which is even more suspicious because he modeled himself after th picture on the ID (goatee, dye job, etc.).

[strandinthewind]

But, why would he ne sneaking off to Mexico when he knew he was being followed. I mean that makes no sense :shrug:

[amber]

But, why would he ne sneaking off to Mexico when he knew he was being followed. I mean that makes no sense :shrug:
Maybe he's an idiot? Maybe he thought that once he got to Mexi, they couldn't arrest him? Oh, by the way, I saw a picture of you from an old thread, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to officially declare you "a hottie". :)
Amber

[strandinthewind]

Maybe he's an idiot? Maybe he thought that once he got to Mexi, they couldn't arrest him? Oh, by the way, I saw a picture of you from an old thread, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to officially declare you "a hottie". :)
Amber

why thank you!!!!!

[dissention]

But, why would he ne sneaking off to Mexico when he knew he was being followed. I mean that makes no sense :shrug:

I don't think that anyone thinks he was going to necessarily sneak over to Mexico right then and there, just that his presence so close to the border is suspicious when coupled with his possession of his brothers ID, almost fifteen grand, camping equipment, and a bit of a disguise.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think that anyone thinks he was going to necessarily sneak over to Mexico right then and there, just that his presence so close to the border is suspicious when coupled with his possession of his brothers ID, almost fifteen grand, camping equipment, and a bit of a disguise.

Touche Touche

Also, I have looked in a few places and cannot seem to find his explanation of the foregoing. If you find one let me know as I would LOVE to hear him explain that one :laugh:

[dissention]

If you find one let me know as I would LOVE to hear him explain that one :laugh:

You and me both, kid. :xoxo: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

ok, but fake id? AMber

He didn't have a fake ID.

[gldstwmn]

Maybe he's an idiot? Maybe he thought that once he got to Mexi, they couldn't arrest him?
Amber

So he was smart when he committed the crime but dumb later? They can arrest him in Mexico but they can't extradite him.

[dissention]

So he was smart when he committed the crime but dumb later?

C'mon. :laugh: How do you think most murderers get caught? By making stupid mistakes after the fact.

I submit, however, that if he did murder her, he was pretty stupid when he went about doing it. Amber Frey is the most obvious example.

[skcin]

I suppose he COULD be innocent & he MAY have thought "well, they're gonna think I did it no matter what when they find out about all these affairs, so I'd better get the hell outta Dodge!"

That being said, my instinct (or maybe I've been brainwashed by the media :confused: ) says he did it.

Paula

[amber]

He didn't have a fake ID.
sorry, his brother's id, which he used to make himself over to look like the picture on his id.
AMber

[dissention]

I suppose he COULD be innocent & he MAY have thought "well, they're gonna think I did it no matter what when they find out about all these affairs, so I'd better get the hell outta Dodge!"

Why did his sell his wife's truck less than a month after her disappearance? His explanation that it she was going to sell it anyway and that she didn't use it simply does not pass the smell test. If your spouse disappears without a trace, just POOF, into thin air, is selling your spouses truck one of your main priorities? I think not. When John Walsh contacts you about going onto America's Most Wanted, do you say no because you're going golfing? I think not. This whole case STINKS and are yet more examples of him acting dumb after he murdered her.

[gldstwmn]

Still not enough evidence to convict with death penalty, IMO. :distress:

[amber]

Still not enough evidence to convict with death penalty, IMO. :distress:
What should they convict with? How about the "boys will be boys" penalty? just kidding, i know what you mean.... :p But the death penalty is what we've got, isn't it? I mean, if he's guilty, he should just be convicted, and I don't think the jury should be dissuaded from convicting just cause he'll get a death penalty...
Amber

[dissention]

Still not enough evidence to convict with death penalty, IMO. :distress:

I agree, especially since I don't believe in the death penalty. But he still murdered her.

[amber]

I agree, especially since I don't believe in the death penalty. But he still murdered her.
But still then, what should happen?

[dissention]

But still then, what should happen?

Honestly, I think both sides need to rest their cases before I make my final decision on whether or not I would convict. I lean both sides often. :laugh: But the evidence at this point says that he did it. Everyone who says there isn't enough to convict him aren't acknowledging all the cases where people were convicted on less; I think the evidence that proves his guilt is abundant, the only problem is that it's circumstantial. But also very powerful.

[amber]

Honestly, I think both sides need to rest their cases before I make my final decision on whether or not I would convict. I lean both sides often. :laugh: But the evidence at this point says that he did it. Everyone who says there isn't enough to convict him aren't acknowledging all the cases where people were convicted on less; I think the evidence that proves his guilt is abundant, the only problem is that it's circumstantial. But also very powerful.
right, but i'm asking, if you thought he was guilty, but he was supposed to get the death penalty for being guilty, would you then NOT want to convict him, just cause he gets the death penalty??
AMber

[dissention]

right, but i'm asking, if you thought he was guilty, but he was supposed to get the death penalty for being guilty, would you then NOT want to convict him, just cause he gets the death penalty??
AMber

No, I would convict. I'd be ashamed of myself for voting for a mans death, but that doens't mean he should get away with murder.

[strandinthewind]

Again, unless the prosecution carries its burden and satisfies all elements of the crime and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson did this crime, he should not be convicted no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence may be.

If someone (in general) does not like that, they need to vote to get a new criminal system. Otherwise, a conviction on less than that, makes one just as guilty as the murderer of Ms. Peterson. The law allows the jury to vote to terminate a life ONLY when the prosection establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commtted the elements of the accused crime and that pretty much requires direct evidence - which may or may not be present in this case but I have not seen all the evidence - from what I have seen, the evidence is circumstantial. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true.

[amber]

Again, unless the prosecution carries its burden and satisfies all elements of the crime and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson did this crime, he should not be convicted no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence may be.

If someone (in general) does not like that, they need to vote to get a new criminal system. Otherwise, a conviction on less than that, makes one just as guilty as the murderer of Ms. Peterson. The law allows the jury to vote to terminate a life ONLY when the prosection establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commtted the elements of the accused crime and that pretty much requires direct evidence - which may or may not be present in this case but I have not seen all the evidence - from what I have seen, the evidence is circumstantial. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true.
Yeah, but as i said before, I think the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence will put the jury beyond reasonable doubt..
AMber

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, but as i said before, I think the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence will put the jury beyond reasonable doubt..
AMber

I know that - but it is not establishing the elements of the crime - that requires a direct link. They are two different things. If you do not believe me, look it up :cool:

[dissention]

I know that - but it is not establishing the elements of the crime - that requires a direct link. They are two different things. If you do not believe me, look it up :cool:

No one is arguing that, they're simply saying that he is going to be convicted based on the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. And he will be.

[strandinthewind]

No one is arguing that, they're simply saying that he is going to be convicted based on the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. And he will be.

Then the people who convict him on that are just as "guilty" because from what I have read California apparently allows for the taking of a defendant's life ONLY when the elements of the crime are established, which they cannot be without some direct evidence, which from what I have seen is lacking in this case. But, such is the plight of a jury - do they do what they want or do they do what the law says - if they were your jury, what would you want them to do :shrug: :cool:

[amber]

I know that - but it is not establishing the elements of the crime - that requires a direct link. They are two different things. If you do not believe me, look it up :cool:
oh, yeah. but I studied that last semester, you can't expect me to remember, can you :laugh:
so, they have to prove intent, which i think they can, what else?

[strandinthewind]

oh, yeah. but I studied that last semester, you can't expect me to remember, can you :laugh:
so, they have to prove intent, which i think they can, what else?

You get no more free rides :laugh: - look it up - look up cases where the D was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence and then look at what the court's have determined is circumstantial evidence.

[amber]

You get no more free rides :laugh: - look it up - look up cases where the D was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence and then look at what the court's have determined is circumstantial evidence.
You're not my teacher, or the boss of me!!! :laugh: I haven't even done my real homework yet, now i have to look that up, too? Is this tough love? :rolleyes: anyways, ok, whatever.
AMber

[gldstwmn]

What should they convict with? How about the "boys will be boys" penalty? just kidding, i know what you mean.... :p But the death penalty is what we've got, isn't it? I mean, if he's guilty, he should just be convicted, and I don't think the jury should be dissuaded from convicting just cause he'll get a death penalty...
Amber

As I said earlier in the thread...manslaughter perhaps?

[amber]

As I said earlier in the thread...manslaughter perhaps?
but i thought it was stated in an earlier thread that the prosecution asked for 1st degree? CAN he get manslaughter? (forgive my ignorance) Also, i don't think he should get manslaughter, that's too light...
AMber

[gldstwmn]

but i thought it was stated in an earlier thread that the prosecution asked for 1st degree? CAN he get manslaughter? (forgive my ignorance) Also, i don't think he should get manslaughter, that's too light...
AMber

No. What I'm saying is they should have charged him with manslaughter at the outset because the burden of proof is less than capitol murder. Doesn't matter now.

[amber]

No. What I'm saying is they should have charged him with manslaughter at the outset because the burden of proof is less than capitol murder. Doesn't matter now.
right. so what do you think they should do now?

[gldstwmn]

right. so what do you think they should do now?

There's nothing they can do now.

[amber]

There's nothing they can do now.
no, i mean, since he still has to be found guilty or innocent, but there's the death penalty, what do you think should happen?

[gldstwmn]

no, i mean, since he still has to be found guilty or innocent, but there's the death penalty, what do you think should happen?

I think he will be acquitted.

[strandinthewind]

You're not my teacher, or the boss of me!!! :laugh: I haven't even done my real homework yet, now i have to look that up, too? Is this tough love? :rolleyes: anyways, ok, whatever.
AMber

No I am not your teacher and no love, tough or otherwise, was implied.

I was just noting how everytime you get called on something you ask for someone to look it up for you. Well, I think you should look it up yourself. But, if you do not want to - so be it.

[amber]

No I am not your teacher and no love, tough or otherwise, was implied.

I was just noting how everytime you get called on something you ask for someone to look it up for you. Well, I think you should look it up yourself. But, if you do not want to - so be it.
Gaw, i don't mind, i was just kidding. I ask people because i figure they know already, not cause i want them to go out of their way to look it up for me :shrug: and since i thought you were a lawyer, i thought you already knew. and that would facilitate conversation, because then I, too, would know. Sorry, i didn't mean to bother you :)
Amber

[strandinthewind]

Gaw, i don't mind, i was just kidding. I ask people because i figure they know already, not cause i want them to go out of their way to look it up for me :shrug: and since i thought you were a lawyer, i thought you already knew. and that would facilitate conversation, because then I, too, would know. Sorry, i didn't mean to bother you :)
Amber

no harm no foul :cool:

Interestingly, although the criminal laws are different in just about all states, the general rules usually apply in all state criminal trials because U.S. Const. due process. the right to a fair trial, etc. must apply in criminal cases in all states (at least in theory). So, my point was it is wrong to convict a person unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually committed the crime with which they are charged. Juries cannot just make up the elements of a crime.

If that were to be allowed, it would be chaos.

Take this hypo. - Mr. A hates abortion and is a strict Christian fundamentalist He thinks abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus. He also thinks a wife should obey her husband and never raise a hand to him. Mr. A is a juror in a trial where the defendant is on trial for killing her husband. The facts in evidence are the woman had an abortion without telling her husband, who raped her thus causing the pregnancy. When he tried it again to punish her for the abortion, she alleges she killed him in self defense, which the facts in general support, but it all comes down to her word only. Mr. A, the juror in this case, does not really care about all of this what he considers to be extraneous evidence. All he can see is the fact that this woman had an abortion and her convition in this case would serve as punishment for that murder, no matter that she was probably NOT guilty in the eyes of the law for killing her husband that in his opinion she should never have disobeyed, even though the state's law does not hold the disobeyance of a spouse to be a crime. Is it correct for this man to avenge the death of the fetus and right the wrong of spousal disobeyance by misapplying the law? After all, Mr. A is convinced that in his opinion the killing of the husband can never be justified and this woman killed her child as well - no matter what any silly law says.

Although the facts in the Peterson case are not nearly as black and white as the hypo. aboive, it is the same principle. Is is okay to disregard the elements of the crime with which the defendant is charged to satisfy a personal felling of "well, he probably is guilty of something, so although the prosecution cannot carry its burden and show beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant committed THIS exact crime, which they brought, I am gonna convict him of it anyway because that is how I personally feel" :shrug: I submit if we allow that to be the status quo, no one will get a fair trial.

In the peterson case, however, there is strong circumstantial evidence that SP did this crime. But, I am unsure if that is enough for a conviction in the eyes of the law. Thus, if the jurors convict on less than what the statute requires and this man is put to death, then his blood is on their hands because they put a man to death on a personal opinion even though the man did nt commit the crime changed. To me, that is horrible and that reasoning taken in the abtract and applied as above is scary to say the least :shrug: i mean we would be back to people convicting black people wrongly accused by white people, etc.

[amber]

no harm no foul :cool:

So, my point was it is wrong to convict a person unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually committed the crime with which they are charged. Juries cannot just make up the elements of a crime.

In the peterson case, however, there is strong circumstantial evidence that SP did this crime. But, I am unsure if that is enough for a conviction in the eyes of the law.
ok, your example and stuff - obviously. I thought that all the circumstantial evidence would remove a reasonable doubt from the jury's mind. probably not so. while they won't have a hard time proving bad intent, the have had hard time proving bad act. Then i just found this in last year's book "The proof must be so conclusive and complete that all reasonable doubts regarding the facts are removed from jurors minds. One study showed that judges equate 'behyond a reasonable dourt' with a median probability of approximately 8.8 out of 10. Jurors averaged approximately 8.6 out of 10" I thought i remembered my prof saying something about a preponderance of circumstantial evidence sometimes being persuasive enough to convict, but i can't remember exactly what he said...I'm not sure that the proof is going to be "so conclusive and complete" that they'll be able to convict. But i think they might convict. However, they ARE supposed to proveActus reus. and they really haven't.

[greatdarkwing]

The thing about this case that drives me so up the wall, is that I have yet to enter Law School, and I could have put up a better case than the prosecution did!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, everything the prosecution woould say, Gerragos would drive a truck right through their argument. They oversaturated the court with "Scott is a cheater. Scott lies" REALLY?! I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN!!!! PLEASE, TELL ME ABOUT IT EVERYDAY FOR 50 DAYS! :laugh: :laugh: Honestly. Not only that, but every piece of physical evidence practically had a sign on it that says "drive through me, Gerragos".

Now, after saying that, the prosecution has picked up a lot of steam these past few weeks. It alll started after the whole "cement" issue came into play. (Between you and me...if they end up finding those cement blocks in the ocean, that is the direct tie they need. HOWEVER, those cement blocks are so heavy, they are probably buried a fot into the silt.) The fact that he lied about this cement is very peculiar, and allot of you will agree. If he didnt use it on his driveway, LIKE HE SAID HE DID, Where did the cement go? No, this is not physical evidence, but the prosecution could not answer that question, and that plays a huge part in the prosecution's theory.

The I.D. is suspicious because of obvious reasons, and that needs no further explanation (He was attempting to make a run for it...everyone knows it).

Now, after saying all this, in the end I do feel there are enough circumstantial links to connect him with the disappearance, but direct evdence is also needed, and we have no evidence of that.

~Alex

[amber]

The thing about this case that drives me so up the wall, is that I have yet to enter Law School, and I could have put up a better case than the prosecution did!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, everything the prosecution woould say, Gerragos would drive a truck right through their argument. They oversaturated the court with "Scott is a cheater. Scott lies" REALLY?! I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN!!!! PLEASE, TELL ME ABOUT IT EVERYDAY FOR 50 DAYS! :laugh: :laugh: Honestly. Not only that, but every piece of physical evidence practically had a sign on it that says "drive through me, Gerragos".

Now, after saying that, the prosecution has picked up a lot of steam these past few weeks. It alll started after the whole "cement" issue came into play. (Between you and me...if they end up finding those cement blocks in the ocean, that is the direct tie they need. HOWEVER, those cement blocks are so heavy, they are probably buried a fot into the silt.) The fact that he lied about this cement is very peculiar, and allot of you will agree. If he didnt use it on his driveway, LIKE HE SAID HE DID, Where did the cement go? No, this is not physical evidence, but the prosecution could not answer that question, and that plays a huge part in the prosecution's theory.

The I.D. is suspicious because of obvious reasons, and that needs no further explanation (He was attempting to make a run for it...everyone knows it).

Now, after saying all this, in the end I do feel there are enough circumstantial links to connect him with the disappearance, but direct evdence is also needed, and we have no evidence of that.

~Alex
Yup, good points.