posted on April 21, 2003 12:21:47 PM new
That's just unbelievable. Apparently, both his parents and her parents were convinced that they were getting along very well.
I wonder how they will try to justify the premeditated charge.
posted on April 21, 2003 12:21:50 PM new
VALLEY - according to what he told his friends, the hair color change happened when he went swimming. Also - the Mexico trips are completely understandable since he is a salesman for a Mexico based company. Unless you are running to an airport, running to Mexico is foolish. Head to Brazil get someone pregnant quick - Brazil will not extradite the parent of a Brazilian born child.
I'm yet to hear a valid explination for $10,000 in the trunk.
KRAFTY - he is being arraigned today, two counts, 1st degree, special circumstances (double murder) to enable the death penalty. Parents said that the police were "preening and celebrating" at the press conference confirming identification of the bodies, the DA was gloating about the case being a slam dunk before arraignment, she feels like she is in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, that their son was chased out of Modesto and that is was WAY too convienient that the bodies were found where near where Scott said he went fishing.
REAMOND - He was cleared in the disappearance of the college girl, that one was tossed in when someone realized they both went to the same school at the time of her disappearance but the police have always had one main suspect in that girls case, they have just never found the physical evidence to charge him and he stopped talking to them long ago.
posted on April 21, 2003 12:38:18 PM new
Helen - California First Degree murder statutes do not require premeditation, only an intentional or deliberate act.
posted on April 21, 2003 12:40:47 PM new
Thanks neon... you're so helpful! Although there's been no actual evidence shared with the public, like gravid mentioned, I agree with Helen that the police must have a good case.
Could he plea guilty off the bat to avoid a trial?
posted on April 21, 2003 12:51:46 PM new
I'm sure the DA would accept and Lacys family would appreciate a plea. These are the kind of cases that cost millions to prosecute between expert witnesses, time and the added security measures involved in a media circus.
I doubt that public pressure would allow for anything less than an agreement of life without parol (remember - DA is an elected position ) but his demeaner and actions scream that this is someone that is not going to fess up.
posted on April 21, 2003 03:44:21 PM new
I understand from the local news (I live about an hour south) that there was significant luminol reaction in the house.
posted on April 22, 2003 09:40:05 AM new
Twelve, unfortunately right now the DAs office is estimating two years to get this to court. We Californians got spoiled by the Westerfield trial and his refusal to waive his right to a speedy trial so there was only a period of a couple months between arrest and trial. In the Peterson case we won't be so lucky , toss in a Public Defender and it only gets worse.
It'll be interesting to see if any big name defenders step forward but quite honestly, if you look at the after effect on the legal careers of the Dream Team I don't think it's going to happen.
posted on April 22, 2003 09:55:15 AM new
This would be a big opportunity for some defense lawyers to gain notariety. I bet he ends up with a team like OJ.
posted on April 22, 2003 10:03:35 AM new
If he is innocent he should have run like crazy because it was obvious they were not looking at anyone else as a suspect.
When you get right down to it the cops are pretty lazy. They assume it is the spouse and then by immediatly publishing all the information about where he went fishing and so forth they give anyone else who did it all the information they need to know where to dump the bodies to incriminate the husband.
What need did it seerve to blab all that to the public? None except to make the cops feel self important by holding a big news conference.
I really suspect someones motives and truthfullness who are busting their arms as hard as these cops are patting themselves on the back. They seem not professional at all.
posted on April 22, 2003 10:15:25 AM new
So far, I haven't heard of any evidence against Scott, but the police have said they believe they have enough to convict. Can they call it premeditated without the evidence to do so, or do they just go for the worst, hoping for some kind of conviction?
posted on April 22, 2003 12:31:50 PM new
::If he is innocent he should have run like crazy because it was obvious they were not looking at anyone else as a suspect.::
They followed up on thousands of tips, no other suspects came up.
::When you get right down to it the cops are pretty lazy. They assume it is the spouse::
Law of averages says look at those that are closest. Now... add these details... Husband seen carying large bundle in tarp out of house on the morning of the disappearance, refuses to take polygraph, says no new insurance, OOPS, there's recent insurance policy, Says no martial problems, no affair, OOPS, there's a mistress, sells his missing wifes car within weeks of her disappearance and attempts to sell the house, the one with the nursery they had put so much effort into and repeatedly reffers to his wife and son in the past tense.
::and then by immediatly publishing all the information about where he went fishing and so forth they give anyone else who did it all the information they need to know where to dump the bodies to incriminate the husband. ::
Flip side of the arguement..... could jog witness memory to something that they witnessed that could have just as easily have cleared of all suspicion. Lets say John smith was hanging out and saw Scott get out of the truck, grab a few poles and a cooler and relaxed and happy as a clam set of on his fishing trip. If he didn't know Scott he wouldn't know who they guy he just saw was, he certainly wouldn' report a relaxed happy fisherman to authorities. However if he reads a report with time and date and location he could come forth with a reort of behavior that is certainly inconsistant with someone that killed and dismembered their wife and is rushing off to dump the bodies.
::What need did it seerve to blab all that to the public? None except to make the cops feel self important by holding a big news conference. ::
See above - it is done to bring forth possible witnesses.
::I really suspect someones motives and truthfullness who are busting their arms as hard as these cops are patting themselves on the back. They seem not professional at all.::
The fact of the matter is, you have been privy to an extremely small percentage of the investigative work done. New pieces of evidence are not tossed out for public consumption, they are kept concealed and secret to protect the integrity of their case.
With the assertion at the arraignment that Lacy was killed the night before or in the early morning in her home means there's got to be phsyical evidence that lends itself to that conclusion.
There is also another interesting detail that I think is going to prove to be important. Remember hearing about the house being broken into while Scott was outof town? Turn out that the person that "broke in" was a friend of Scotts and although Scott told police it was just a misunderstanding, no big deal, he is still being held. Could be nothing, could be that Scott had him remove something from the house that he could not remove fearing he was under surveilance.
posted on April 22, 2003 12:43:17 PM new
Kraft - they do not need to prove premediation, only a intentional deliberate act.
I.E. You get into an arguement with someone. You ppull a gun, hold it to their head and pull the trigger. You did not plot their death, you did not meet with them intending to kill them but your actions indictate a deliberate intention to end their life. That is first degree murder.
posted on April 22, 2003 08:44:40 PM new
I was just reading a statement from the police that they can't even say that she was killed in the house. They say that may change because they are waiting on tests to come back still. Yet they already had asserted that's what happened, and now they are back peddling. How about saving it for the jury? It does not serve anyone telling us this stuff.
Still looks pretty unprofessional to me.
Also read that they have several locals including a city councilman that insist they saw her after she went missing but the police don't believe them. That's going to be hard to deflect at trial.
posted on April 22, 2003 09:19:06 PM new
I think that information was public knowledge gravid, from the Booking Register, I believe, on this page >> http://www.modbee.com/reports/laci/
posted on April 22, 2003 09:25:22 PM new
It can be confusing when the reports don't agree...This article lists the home as the crime scene and then the DA says that it may or may not be accurate.
In the criminal complaint released a few hours before the arraignment, Modesto police listed the Peterson's home as the crime scene. The crime's time was placed at "on or about and between December 23, 2002, and December 24, 2002."
But Stanislaus County District Attorney Jim Brazelton said that information "may or may not be accurate" and has "nothing to do with the complaint [his office] filed in [the] case."
"As I said, we haven't gotten all the evidence, all of the reports yet," Brazelton said, adding that, "the most likely scenario is that [the crime] did occur at the residence."
Sources close to the investigation told CNN that they believe the murders happened at the Petersons' home at 523 Covina Ave. in Modesto and they believe there is sufficient evidence to prove it.
posted on April 22, 2003 09:31:44 PM new
I don't have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. I do think it's going to be nearly impossible for him to have a fair and just trial.
posted on April 22, 2003 09:54:18 PM new
The police are saying that they have direct evidence that links Scott to the murder. So far, all I've heard from the media is circumstancial stuff.
posted on April 22, 2003 10:17:02 PM new
Krafty - The vast majority of information will not be presented until the trial. Releasing evidence to the public prior to the trial can taint the jury pool. Big no-no. Causes delays, change of venue motions, etc.
Right now th press is so desperate to say something thatI just watched and interview with two prisoners released today from the Modesto county jail commenting on the inmates opinions of him........
posted on April 22, 2003 10:33:15 PM new
LoL neon!!... "while I thought he was the type of guy I could do lunch with, my cell mate thought he looked guilty"...
posted on April 22, 2003 10:38:31 PM new
Well I'm glad I did say 'Innocent until proven guilty'
As much as I don't care for the guy, going out on his pregnant wife and all.....
I just heard a blurb, didn't catch it all, can't find it on the net... but apparantly they just found a women in S.F. Bay, that was pregnant, and..... decapitated. Can't say for sure, it was a quick thing by the tv. So I'm not positive.
Sh*t maybe he is innocent..
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 22, 2003 10:53:03 PM new
Near, I heard that this woman was found back in February. She was pregnant and was anchored in the water along with her 7 year old son. The police said it was unrelated. (??)
Both the wife and the councilman saw her and were familiar with her from seeing her before. THEN tracking dogs followed her scent that same general direction.
"I had seen Laci walk by the house several times before," Mitchell said. "When she walked by on Christmas Eve, I hollered to Bill, 'Oh, look, it's the lady with the golden retriever.'"
Bill Mitchell, a former three-term Modesto city councilman, said he went to the window and saw the dog go around the corner.
"It looked like the dog wanted to go one way, and she was going another," he said.
Walking in neighborhood
Vivian Mitchell said she saw Peterson heading south on Buena Vista heading toward La Sombra Avenue.
"She must have come from Kewin Park," she said. "The dog wanted to head toward Yosemite Boulevard. She circled the dog around, and they headed the other way."
A neighbor later reported finding the dog running loose in the neighborhood about 10:30 a.m., and she placed the dog in the Petersons' back yard.
On Dec. 26, police detectives used bloodhounds trained to track people to try to find Peterson. The dogs led their handlers toward Yosemite Boulevard.
posted on April 24, 2003 06:47:21 PM new
Peterson Could Walk Lawyers:
Case in the Media Doesn’t Always Transfer to Court
Scott Peterson was sporting a different hair color, a new beard, and toting $10,000 in cash and someone else's identification when he was arrested about 30 miles from the Mexican border on suspicion of killing his wife, Laci, reports say.
Peterson, 30, who has pleaded not guilty to capital murder charges, dropped out of sight soon after his wife's disappearance was declared a homicide.
Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant, was reported missing on Christmas Eve. Earlier this month, her body and that of the fetus she was carrying washed ashore near the area where Scott Peterson claimed to have been when she disappeared.
Guilty, right?
"I would tell people, 'Hold your horses,' " said Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor. "We really don't know enough now to say that Scott Peterson was the killer."
Insufficient Evidence?
For the defense, the good news is that so far there have been no smoking guns — no eyewitnesses, no known physical evidence linking Peterson to the deaths, and no confession.
Levenson says it's a mistake for prosecutors to act so confident.
"We have seen prosecutors come out and say, 'We have a slam dunk case,' " she said. "In the O.J. case, that's exactly what they said, and they ended up with an acquittal."
Many murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone. But Mark Geragos, a criminal defense attorney, says the jury that gets the Peterson case may never hear any of the stories about his possibly suspicious behavior.
"All of this stuff that has come out, about $10,000 cash, whether his hair was bleached … none of that stuff is relevant, because there is no issue of flight," Geragos said. "You've got to have somebody flee. … I could almost guarantee you, that there isn't a judge around that's going to allow that in and say that it's evidence of flight."
Alibi Still Could Work
Ironically, the biggest defense hurdle may be Peterson's own alibi. How could it be a coincidence that the bodies of his wife and unborn son washed up not far from where he claimed he was fishing when Laci disappeared?
A good defense team could use the alibi problem to point the finger at someone else, Geragos says.
"If somebody else did this, [the alibi location] was so widely publicized," he said. "And what better place to set him up, or frame him, than to dispose of the body at the very location where they know that he was?"
There also have been widely reported rumors of concrete found in Peterson's boat, suspicion it could have been used to anchor a body, fishing poles that were never used, and blood in Peterson's truck. They could be damning details, but have not been confirmed, defense experts say, and may not be provable in court.
Even if forensic evidence is found among the 100 items police collected from the Peterson home in Modesto, Calif., that too could be explained.
"DNA evidence you can find in that house is to be expected to be found there," Geragos said. "She lived in that house. … Her hair is going to be there, her blood. Everybody cuts themselves in their house, and there is nothing untoward about that."
Affair to Forget?
But crucial to any murder case is motive, and prosecutors argue that Scott Peterson had one — his affair with another woman.
But again, it's damaging evidence the jury might not hear.
Said Levenson: "I think the defense will try to keep out the evidence of the affair and say, 'Look, this doesn't at all establish a motive. I told my wife about it. She was with me a full month after I told her about it.' It's just a way of distracting a jury."
Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, a jury consultant, says a good defense attorney would try to pick jurors who might not view it as incriminating.
"My speculation will be that perhaps someone who had been involved in an extramarital affair may be more open to the defense," Dimitrius said.
"Your experience teaches you that adulterers don't normally become murderers," Geragos said. "You can deal with it. It is not something that is going to be a death knell for the defense."
Defense attorneys admit it is not enough to explain away every allegation. Ultimately, they cannot ignore the lingering question: If Scott Peterson didn't kill Laci, then who did?
The defense will likely argue, "We may never know," because the police suspected Peterson immediately and never looked further.
"The only suspect that they were focusing on is Scott Peterson, and he can start to point to other leads by saying, 'Look, if they tracked those down, they might have found the real killer,' " Levenson said.
Loose Lips
But Peterson's lawyers have another problem, one their client brought on himself: Unlike so many other high-profile defendants, he first chose to defend himself on national television, and he even admitted he had lied about the affair.
"It was inappropriate," Peterson told ABCNEWS' Diane Sawyer. "I owe a tremendous apology to everyone."
The defense is now stuck with his story.
Defense experts say Peterson's interviews also complicate the decision about whether he should take the stand, because any contradictions between his public statements and courtroom testimony would certainly be used to discredit him.
"It never helps the defense to have a whole lot of statements coming out of your client's mouth that you have to spend a whole lot of time talking about," Geragos said. "But the fact of the matter is, he is not charged with being a cad or being a coward or being a liar."
Given all the publicity, defense experts say, Peterson would be better off if the trial were moved from Modesto. And the longer it's delayed, the better, so the media frenzy can die down.
In the end, the case won't simply come down to evidence or even science; it will be decided by people. How will the jury see Scott Peterson? Is he someone who suffered the unspeakable loss of a wife and unborn child, or is he a monster who killed them?
