The Peterson Murder Trial

[CharleyH]

You need to check out the whole Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case. Ultimately fascinating. I lived there when it happened, and knew people. Interesting indeed. A case - 12 years old - has resurfaced. Someone was put in jail, and Bernardo may have been the culprit. Fascinating. Fascinating.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

You need to check out the whole Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case. Ultimately fascinating. I lived there when it happened, and knew people. Interesting indeed. A case - 12 years old - has resurfaced. Someone was put in jail, and Bernardo may have been the culprit. Fascinating. Fascinating.

Why does this sound familiar to me? I'll have to look it up now. Thanks.

 

[cloudy]

I think Peterson did it, but whether he'll actually be found guilty is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Have you heard any of the tapes of the conversations between he and Amber? Really, really strange guy - lying about being in Brussels and someone in the hotel room next door had a dog that was barking, when he was at home, and it was Laci's dog that can be heard.

I guess I feel that someone that lies about everything so easily may well be lying about everything else, yes?

I've always believed that OJ killed Nicole, and will always believe that, but he had the money to put together a team of lawyers to put just a smidge of doubt in the jurors minds. The fact that the trial took place when the police force in LA was being looked at so closely for racism didn't hurt him, either.

The reason he was found liable in civil court is that the burden of proof is shifted. They didn't have to prove that he was guilty of killing Nicole beyond reasonable doubt, just that there was reason to believe he had. Different rules since there is no jail time involved. Nicole and Ron Brown's families will never see a penny of that money, by the way. He has no intention of paying it, and has said so on national television in that last huge interview he did.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I think Peterson did it, but whether he'll actually be found guilty is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Have you heard any of the tapes of the conversations between he and Amber? Really, really strange guy - lying about being in Brussels and someone in the hotel room next door had a dog that was barking, when he was at home, and it was Laci's dog that can be heard.

I guess I feel that someone that lies about everything so easily may well be lying about everything else, yes?

I've always believed that OJ killed Nicole, and will always believe that, but he had the money to put together a team of lawyers to put just a smidge of doubt in the jurors minds. The fact that the trial took place when the police force in LA was being looked at so closely for racism didn't hurt him, either.

The reason he was found liable in civil court is that the burden of proof is shifted. They didn't have to prove that he was guilty of killing Nicole beyond reasonable doubt, just that there was reason to believe he had. Different rules since there is no jail time involved. Nicole and Ron Brown's families will never see a penny of that money, by the way. He has no intention of paying it, and has said so on national television in that last huge interview he did.

I didn't hear about the tapes with his girlfriend. It's a sad chain of events to say the least, that baby so close to starting life, it makes me sick to even think about it.

OJ's trial was the biggest mishandleing of justice I have ever seen in my life. Then he wonders why nobody wants to play with him?? Puleese. Poor Ron, in the wrong place and the wrong time and brutally cut down.

Just like serial killers who justify their motives and reasons, I fear what goes on in the mind of a human being who is capable of that.

 

[cloudy]

I didn't hear about the tapes with his girlfriend. It's a sad chain of events to say the least, that baby so close to starting life, it makes me sick to even think about it.

OJ's trial was the biggest mishandleing of justice I have ever seen in my life. Then he wonders why nobody wants to play with him?? Puleese. Poor Ron, in the wrong place and the wrong time and brutally cut down.

Just like serial killers who justify their motives and reasons, I fear what goes on in the mind of a human being who is capable of that.

You haven't heard any of the tapes????

They've been discussing the case on Court TV almost every night, with that lawyer who has her own show on there......hell, can't remember her name now. Anyway, they've been actually playing the tapes, and he's one sick son-of-a-bitch, the things he's said to his girlfriend while his very-pregnant wife is missing, and then even after they found her. Sick, sick, sick.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

You haven't heard any of the tapes????

They've been discussing the case on Court TV almost every night, with that lawyer who has her own show on there......hell, can't remember her name now. Anyway, they've been actually playing the tapes, and he's one sick son-of-a-bitch, the things he's said to his girlfriend while his very-pregnant wife is missing, and then even after they found her. Sick, sick, sick.

Damn, I better start watching Court Tv...lol. He seems sort of slimey to me anyway.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Peterson

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I believe that Peterson is guilty. However, perhaps my fear of men has something to do with it. On the other hand, this sort of thing is all too common. Husbands/boyfriends/fiances murdering or attempting to murder their wives/girlfriends/fiancees....

It's not as though I paid the closest attention to the Peterson case. Not because I don't care, but I have bigger fish to fry. But is he guilty? I think so.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

update

Laci Peterson Said Killed Before Holidays



By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Laci Peterson (news - web sites)'s fetus likely died around Dec. 23, 2002, a day before the pregnant schoolteacher was reported missing, an expert testified Wednesday in the murder trial of her husband.

Prosecutors allege that Scott Peterson (news - web sites) killed his wife on or around Dec. 24, 2002, in their Modesto home, then dumped her body into the bay.


Her remains and that of her fetus washed up in April 2003, not far from the marina where he launched his boat on Christmas Eve for what he claims was a solo fishing trip.


Peterson's lawyers maintain someone else abducted and killed Laci.


Dr. Greggory DeVore, an expert in fetal medicine, said he was asked by prosecutors to examine Laci's medical records and bones taken from the dead fetus to help determine when it died.


The age of the fetus is important because prosecutors claim it was expelled dead from Laci's decaying corpse. Defense lawyers maintain the baby was born alive after Laci vanished, proving that her husband could not be the killer given the baby's due date of Feb. 10.


The coroner who performed the autopsy on the fetus estimated its age at death to be about nine months, or full term. A forensic anthropologist testified previously that the fetus' age was between 33 and 38 weeks.


DeVore said the Dec. 23 death date for the fetus was an average taken from several different examinations. The fetus could have also died on Dec. 21 or Dec. 24, he said. He estimated the fetus' age at its time of death to be about 33 weeks and one day.


DeVore never physically examined Laci Peterson before her death.


On cross-examination, defense lawyer Mark Geragos quickly pointed out the "varying results" from different doctors regarding the age of the fetus, and noted DeVore's opinions were simply based on averages and estimates.


"We know that two out of three of these calculations are wrong, is that correct?" Geragos asked, noting that Laci Peterson's baby was still alive when she visited her doctor on Dec. 23.


DeVore agreed but defended his estimates.


Geragos also noted to the obviously flustered DeVore that a test using another scientific method would indicate the fetus died on Dec. 28.


On Tuesday, Modesto police Detective Craig Grogan said police had more than enough reason to suspect Scott Peterson was involved in his pregnant wife's disappearance, and that her body lay somewhere in San Francisco Bay.


Grogan ticked off the list of reasons in rapid succession, providing jurors with the first detailed narrative of the murder case against Peterson in the 17-week trial. Grogan's account had jurors leaning forward in their seats, scribbling notes.


He explained each point:


_ Tracking dogs at the marina indicated Laci Peterson's scent was there.

_ Scott Peterson told police he was at the marina.

_ Peterson had a two-day fishing license that was purchased on Dec. 20 and filled out for Dec. 23 and 24.

_ The fishing tackle in Peterson's boat was freshwater tackle.

_ Peterson told some witnesses on the night Laci vanished he had been golfing all day. "We considered that possibly was what his initial alibi was meant to be," Grogan said.

_ Peterson loaded large umbrellas into the back of his pickup truck that Christmas Eve morning. "It would enable him to be able to explain to anyone seeing him load something in his truck."

Grogan then looked toward the jury as he completed the list.

"The ultimate conclusion was that Laci Peterson's body was in San Francisco Bay and that we needed to search there," Grogan said.

Despite all these clues, Grogan noted that police remained open to other possibilities. "We had a policy that if someone called in and said they knew where Laci Peterson's body was ... that we would go there and search it."

Grogan was due back on the stand later Wednesday.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Damn. Color me a conclusion jumper.

 

[shereads]

Re: update

_ Peterson told some witnesses on the night Laci vanished he had been golfing all day. "We considered that possibly was what his initial alibi was meant to be," Grogan said.

This proves he's innocent.

Nobody stupid enough to provide conflicting alibis before he was even asked for one could have gotten away with murder for this long. He'd have confessed by accident.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Re: Re: update

This proves he's innocent.

Nobody stupid enough to provide conflicting alibis before he was even asked for one could have gotten away with murder for this long. He'd have confessed by accident.

Now I can't stop thinking....who really did it??

Of course, it'll be like, another obscene amount of time before we learn that.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: update

Now I can't stop thinking....who really did it??

Of course, it'll be like, another obscene amount of time before we learn that.

Whoever has the best alibi is the one who did it...Which means someone who wasn't in California at the time.

Come to think of it...Where were you? California? No?

J'accuse!

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: update

Now I can't stop thinking....who really did it??

Of course, it'll be like, another obscene amount of time before we learn that.

It was Clinton.

Ed

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: update

It was Clinton.

Ed

It was the Bush twins, you scofflaw. Bill was busy with his book.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: update

It was the Bush twins, you scofflaw. Bill was busy with his book.

How do we know it wasn't the burning Bush himself?

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: update

How do we know it wasn't the burning Bush himself?

Nope. It was Clinton. Ask Sean Hannity.

 

[redrider4u]

I'm on the east coast......

so the reporting tends to be national, rather than local as in Cali.

From what I read here, it appears that the police have not assembled a strong case, and, Scott Peterson may go free. I find it interesting that apparently the police have not pursued any other lines of investigation.

Of course, his highly rated legal representation will make a significant differance.

Just a viewpoint from the Grand Strand............

 

[poohlive]

I think, moreso, it raises a question of how our law system works. And, what it really takes to kill someone.

I'm not a lawyer, and haven't read all of the laws by any means, but I have been on a jury, and I'm smarter than the average bear when it comes to things. You can disagree if you like, but if you wanted to kill someone, there are only three things that can convict you of that crime.


1. Evidence. Physical evidence of any kind. This can be as big as a body, to as small as a drop of blood on the trunk of your car. So, as long as you have a huge can of Windex, and a few scrubbers, you should be all right.

2. Eye Witness. If you don't get the job done, this becomes even tougher, cause the victim was there, and can identify you. But, there could also be a neighbor, a family member, a passing jogger, just about anyone. It's amazing how people don't mind their own business anymore, and God bless them.


3. Confession. But, that only happens if you are stupid and run your mouth. And, the fifth amendment gives you the right not to say a damned thing. So, unless you have a twinge of conscious, this one shouldn't be a problem.

If you can get past these three little details, I don't see how hard it is to murder someone. No wonder so many people are getting away with it.



And, I understand all of this circumstancial evidence of Scott Peterson. It does seem overwhelming at times, but then... a lot of innocent people were charged AND convicted of everything from petty theft to arson to murder with the same kinds of circumstantial evidence that just piled up and up.

One of the first cases that set precedent for a person being required to have a lawyer happened in some Southern town, where a person had broken into this bar, and ransacked a Juke Box. Stealing like 50 dollars in quarters.

So, the cops asked the bar tender, who said a few days ago there was this argument with a drunk guy, who was rowdy, and broke, and wanted beer. The tender didn't give him any, so the guy cursed and swore, and made a lot of threatening comments, and left.

Well, only a few hours after the crime, the cops pick up this guy, walking down the hiway only a few miles where the bar was, with two huge pockets filled with quarters.

Now, you can look at all this, and say, "Hey! he's guilty." But he wasn't. He had been at a poker game, they played in quarters. He won big, he was never even near the bar that night. Of course, that evidence didn't come into play until months and months later... which he spent in jail for a crime he didn't do.

So, you can look at all the circumstantial evidence that you want, and say, "Guilty." But, people who wrote the law put "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" in there for a reason.

 

[shereads]

So, you can look at all the circumstantial evidence that you want, and say, "Guilty." But, people who wrote the law put "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" in there for a reason.

Wrong on a key point: the wording is, "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is open to as many interpretations as there are people on a jury.

 

[poohlive]

True, true, I stand corrected, on one word.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The evidence the has been talked of here is so incredibly thin and the experts' testimonies so see-through, that I'm definitely inclined to think he may very well be a lying, cheating, insensitive bastard, but innocent of murder.

Of course no one can ever know, with a trial by jury...