Police once theorized Laci Peterson was poisoned

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 and I certainly wouldn't recommend eating the fish and the day before Xmas?
AMber

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

Including Scott.

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

Including Scott.

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]

Originally Posted by amber

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 and I certainly wouldn't recommend eating the fish 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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]

Originally Posted by amber

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 and I certainly wouldn't recommend eating the fish and the day before Xmas?
AMber

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

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

Aaaaah....
Amber

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Including Scott.

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

[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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Paula

I heard that as well.