posted on February 11, 2004 11:19:34 AM new
The fact that the presecution tracked Peterson by bugging his truck with a GPS unit is not the point at all. The thing his attorney should object to and in fact I object to is that they say his going to the bay demonstrates guilt.
They may establish that he went to the bay but what talant for mind reading allows them to make the jump to tell us what mental state prompted his going there?
He may well have committed a murder but if such mind reading is the way they plan to convict him then it is going to be a conviction of assumptions and not facts.
He was already known to hang around the bay and I can see them just as easily saying he was avoiding leading them to the bodies and demonstrating his guilt if he avoided the places he customarily went. Way it looks to me they decided he is guilty and anything he does supports that in their eyes. Like so many of these cases if anybody else did it they don't want to be bothered with it because the case is closed as far as they are concerned. The people who saw her with the dog after she was supposed to be dead have gotten no hearing at all. More than evil I am disgusted that the cops are just plain lazy.
This is an excellant example of why government should not be allowed to track every little thing we do because they can make a great deal of trouble for you out of meaningless detail.
If you stop most days at a store on the way home from work and they get robbed how would you like to be dragged in to explain why you were "casing the joint out for months"?
So - did anyone ever DNA test the kid to see if it was really his?
posted on February 11, 2004 11:57:35 AM new
The circumstancial evidence produced so far isn't enough to convict, but as far as I know, the prosecution hasn't presented their evidence yet. The gps might be part of it but doesn't prove intention or anything else, you're right. You have to admit though Gravid, if a person that might have committed a double homicide that didn't have a gps monitor installed, it might be brought up against the police in court. I think they're just covering all the bases.
posted on February 11, 2004 12:35:31 PM new
If you stop most days at a store on the way home from work and they get robbed how would you like to be dragged in to explain why you were "casing the joint out for months"?
I'd hate it. Probably, though, I wouldn't submit to being 'dragged in' unless I was first formally placed under arrest. Then we'd have a nice chat with my attorney...
posted on February 11, 2004 12:46:29 PM new
I think they were hoping he would lead them to the body, Gravid. You do have to wonder why he would go back to where she was found (before she was found) and stand there staring out at the water on a few occasions. Why there?
posted on February 11, 2004 01:12:56 PM new
Could be a place he hung out. I have a couple places like that I drive to even when it is too cold to sit outside and sit in the car and enjoy the view. Even though I haven't dumped any bodies there.
Stoney Creek park and the Rochester Munni Park and the Oakland U athletic field and I go downtown and buy a coffee and sit on a bench on Main St fairly often. Usually have my camera along incase I see something or just like the lighting. Sometimes sit and read a book.
If you want to imagine a scenerio from whole cloth - somebody that knew him might know enough to dump the bodies in a place he associated himself with.
posted on February 11, 2004 01:40:49 PM new
I agree. If he used to hang out there, it means nothing. If he didn't, it looks suspicious. If the prosecution's case is going to be all circumstantial, it'll be these little things that add up to make their case.
If someone was trying to frame him, they'd have to be a psychic to predict all of his actions, most of which have incriminated himself.
