Police once theorized Laci Peterson was poisoned
 

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

That would explain no blood in the crime scene.

~Alex

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.

He did it, that's what happenend.
Amber

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

Actually, I AM AMBER FRYE, HIS EX GIRLFRIEND!!! I KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!
ok, just kidding...
AMber

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

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.

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.

:nod: duly marked.

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/lacipet...rs/others5.htm

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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:

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.

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.

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

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

Aaaaah....
Amber