Article CCADP wrote for Geragos' Peterson newslett

[CCADP]

Tracy Lamourie and Dave Parkinson are the founders and Directors of the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty (CCADP); founded in Toronto, Canada in 1998. The group maintains a web presence for nearly 1000 death row prisoners; and has been at the forefront of direct advocacy on behalf of condemned persons around the world. In 2002's 'CCADP v Stewart'; a precedent setting case, the court ruled the State of AZ did not have the right to restrict advocacy groups from posting information about prisoners
on the internet.

*******

We try not to spend too much time watching American news networks anymore. Having just got Fox News in Canada it was a treat to see Geraldo and Greta
Van Sustren again after all these years.

Remember Greta at CNN and Geraldo at MSNBC when both networks covered the exection of Gary Graham
(Shaka Sankofa) in Huntsville Texas, back when Bush was still the Texecutioner.

At the time we were quite impressed with their coverage, both were quite adamant that case was flawed and demanded a new trial, and were both quite vocal in their opposition to the death penalty; at least in that case.
.Oddly enough, not long after that both departed ways with their previous employers for a more "Fair and Balanced" approach to journalism....

Now Greta still talks about legal issues...Every week it seems they're following around another suspect in a disappearance or murder case, trying to be the first show/network to convict the perpetrator...Like the guy whose wife drowned a few months back, and Greta had a week of shows implying that the husband drowned her...until it was found that; she wasn't a victim of
foul play.

How about the runaway bride ? All the media outlets were beiginning to imply that the husband was guilty of her murder. We saw him interviewed a few times and his demeanor certainly seemed questionable given the magnitude of the situation, when the media began speculating if he could be a possible suspect, we had to agree because the way he'd been portrayed so far made it appear that he might very well be guilty...

When Jessica Lumsford disappeared in Florida, and the media speculation began rolling in we were worried about her poor father, who we'd seen every night on TV pleading with the public for help finding his daughter.
Commentators began talking about the grandparents, how they failed on some of the polygraph questions. Journalists and legal commentators alike were
now talking about the family, the father and his extended family, his relationship with Jessica's mother, etc... We just hoped the Authorities would find the real culprit before the media's systematic dissection of the
Lumsford family made Jessie' Father or Grandparents the next target of ridicule in the networks attempts to improve ratings and make this latest missing person story the new "Flavor of the Month".

We remember watching Nancy Grace on CNN's Larry King Live during the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart. Angela Ricci; the wife of Ricci, the man who was accused of abducting and killing her at the time was a guest on the program trying to defend her husband from Nancy's malicious attacks...Amazing Grace had been making
inflammatory statements regarding her belief that Ricci was guilty of the abduction and murder of Elizabeth Smart from the moment he was considered a suspect by police up until his untimely death in police custody of a brain
aneurysm, caused possibly by the stress of being falsely labeled a child killer in the National Spotlight thanks primarily to Nancy's rants. Needless to say Nancy repeatedly berated and demeaned Ricci's wife, attacking her credibility and refusing to allow her the opportunity to defend her husband without resorting to admonishing her attempts to vindicate his name.

Of course we all know now that Elizabeth Smart was actually not murdered at all, and Richard Ricci really was innocent...When will Nancy be having a show to invite Mrs. Ricci back to apologize profusely to her on national TV?

Whenever we change the channel, another investigative journalist or so called legal expert is trying to get us upset about the latest murder they had coverage of and try to convince us to hate the prime suspect long before
guilt or innocence is established...

The onus of responsibility is on the media and those who claim to be investigative journalists or those who claim to represent the legal profession to expose the injustices that occur in the justice system, not to systematically contribute to making matters worse.

Is the media just afraid to expose the truth, and actually be somewhat objective in their coverage of the injustices taking place? Are they afraid that this will somehow undermine the p ublic's confidence in a justice system
that has gone awry?

Tabloid news stories that sell are more important than justice, in the eyes of the American justice system. Unlike the Canadian system where we regularly face temporary media or publication bans to protect the judicial system from undue influence by outside sources such as the media.

How could the media be so irresponsible to publicly broadcast the location of Scott Petersons whereabouts on the day in question; before either Laci or Connor's bodies were even found. Doesn't this bring into question the integrity of the investigation into these areas?
continued...

[CCADP]

How is it that hours of police wiretaps revealed nothing but personal conversations that bear little or no relevance to the case? Why were these tapes allowed into the record at all other than to further demonize and
attack the credibility of the defendant? As countless others have pointed out, if Peterson is guilty of being a liar, or c heating on his wife, that doesn't make him a murderer. Many politicians, celebrities and average
American citizens are guilty of the same.

If the public perception is such that he is more capable than incapable of committing a crime by the spin they portray; then it does make it easier to convince a jury of
his guilt.

The most unfortunate thing about the Peterson case is that even if Scott is Exonerated tomorrow by DNA, eye witness testimony, Forensic science or even someone else coming forward to admit his guilt, there would always be a
percentage of the American population who would never believe it, and always think he was guilty simply due to the overwhelming impact the media has had in affecting the publics perception of Scott Peterson.

In cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, and or eyewitness testimony without any sort of forensic science to back it up, the credibility of the defendant in the eyes of the jury is paramount. It just takes a small element of doubt in one jurors mind to turn the outcome of the
trial around. Robert Blake, from the little Rascals to Barretta and all the movies in between had established a presence in the hearts and minds of people; Michael Jackson too as a public figure is well known and well
trusted by many simply due to the image we see of them through the media's eyes. The prosecution has the difficult task of having to breakdown all the preconceived notions the public and potential jurors have about celebrity
defendants, regardless of how they live their private lives. Much more difficult for a prosecutor to make people believe that a well loved celebrity committed a crime than someone no one ever heard of before,

with the media's enthusiastic help painting a negative or evil picture of an individual.

When it comes to Scott Peterson, a nobody in celebrity circles, he has no profile to breakdown, no preconceived notions about him. He's just some guy, and whatever the media say about him, or portray

him as will be the only perception the public or potential jurors will ever have. Inevitably no one who is subject to this kind of negative media exposure will be able to defend themselves adequately for long...

Even since he has arrived at death row; the media's attention has not let up. But are they looking at the appellate issues? Are they truly investigating? No - its just more tabloid journalism. The media have even
reported; then ridiculed Scott about having pictures of Laci around his cell and above his bunk as being disgusting and an affront to the victims... If Scott truly is innocent as he claims, how would he get by everyday without
them ?

For Vernell Crittenden; San Quentin information officer to brief the media on the standard procedures that Mr. Peterson will undergo during his transfer to death row is one thing... But for the public to be briefed on what Scott ate, what he's said to DOC staff, how his cell is decorated amongst other trivial banter is completely uncalled for and certainly a violation of Mr. Petersons right to serve his
sentence without undue harassment by corrections officials, media and other prisoners. We have never seen such an unprofessional display from any prison officials in our 8 years in this work.

We at the CCADP (Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty) were concerned about the rhetoric going around about Scott and one media report in particular that quoted a San Quentin death row prisoner as saying he
thought some there wanted the opportunity to do harm to Peterson.

Our main concern was that although so many other prisoners there have had to undergo the same sort of unrestrained media scrutiny as Scott has (although
certainly not nearly as intense) many unfortunately will also succumb to the Rhetoric of the Nancy Grace's out there, and try to join the popular lynch mob by threatening or assaulting Scott during his period of incarceration.

We wrote to the particular prisoner who'd been quoted to condemn any such actions and to re-iterate the point that 'as death row prisoners you're all in the same boat together', and despite all the hysteria; certainly Scott
Peterson isn't even the "Worst of the Worst" when it comes to San Quentin residents. We reminded him as well that somewhere out there he is a "Scott Peterson" in the minds of his victims, and he should know better that to be spouting such garbage publicly about a case whose appellate issues he is completely unaware of yet.

We also wrote a similar letter to another San Quentin prisoner we communicate with asking that he pass the word to others in his area to treat Scott in a decent manner; and not to buy into the media hype and hysteria;
to be on the side of those of us who seek humane treatment for prisoners; not on the side of those who'd like to seem them all fight; and attack each other. This prisoner responded to our comments by saying that he had the opportunity to introduce himself and say hello; and said as far as he was aware Scott faced no such harassment or intimidation by other prisoners at
the facility.

We are glad to hear this is the case of course. CCADP is currently working with Scott on making his CCADP webpage; and we hope to be a part of bringing
some of the important issues in this case to light - issues like those raised in Scott's recent briefs; appellate issues, media effect on trials, jury tampering, etc.

Visit CCADP's personal Scott Peterson page;
www.ccadp.org/scottpeterson.htm

at the time of this writing we are working with Scott and his supporters to allow Scott a forum to express himself without the media's filter we've had to contend with for the past several years.


- Tracy Lamourie and Dave Parkinson are the founders and Directors of the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty (CCADP); founded in Toronto, Canada in 1998. The group maintains a web presence for nearly 1000 death row prisoners; and has been at the forefront of direct advocacy on behalf of condemned persons around the world. In 2002's 'CCADP v Stewart'; a precedent setting case, the court ruled the State of AZ did not have the right to restrict advocacy groups from posting information about prisoners on the internet.

[injector]

If I were the CCADP, I would focus on abolishing the death penalty rather than Scott Peterson's innocence. When you make claims that Peterson is innocent, you lose credibility. Peterson is the poster boy for the DP, and by claiming he is innocent, you appear flaky to most people. That is not meant as an insult, just honest advice.

[CCADP]

Hi there - the article is not about Peterson's innocence or guilt. Its about media perceptions and how he like others was convicted in the media before he ever got near a court or was even arrested. I specifically have nothing to say about his guilt or innocence....not having studied the case yet much beyond what the media told us. If you read the article; we say we'd like to discuss the appellate issues; jury tampering etc. He may discuss his innocence; but except in the Jimmy Dennis case; CCADP doesn't make those claims or judgements.

[Maggie]

It's a great article Tracy!

Thank you so much for contributing!

[CCADP]

I hope its ok; it was kind of rushed...(my fault) but basically we got most of the points in. I have to admit; I slacked a bit; and Dave wrote a lot of it....

[catskillz]

injector said:

Peterson is the poster boy for the DP, and by claiming he is innocent, you appear flaky to most people.

Same goes for all the ones like u that say they KNOW he is guilty. I only think he did it, but there is no hard evidence. Now who is looking flaky..

[injector]

catskillz said:

injector said:

Peterson is the poster boy for the DP, and by claiming he is innocent, you appear flaky to most people.

Same goes for all the ones like u that say they KNOW he is guilty. I only think he did it, but there is no hard evidence. Now who is looking flaky..

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury and most everyone agrees on that.

[Maggie]

injector said:

catskillz said:

Same goes for all the ones like u that say they KNOW he is guilty. I only think he did it, but there is no hard evidence. Now who is looking flaky..

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury and most everyone agrees on that.

WRONG!!!

You are not correct. Most everyone does NOT agree with Scott's Peterson's conviction and if you bothered to analyze the facts in the case as opposed to letting the media spin control your thoughts maybe you would see that.

Injector, your little digs at Scott Peterson whenever you get the chance are ticking me off... because I noticed you don't have the guts (or maybe it's just lack of interest and you would rather spew ignorant remarks than be informed).... to really debate this case with me.
You were already told that there is a thread on Scott Peterson in the Specific Cases section. I will bump that thread for you and I invite you to debate the facts of the case.
If you are not willing to do that then please stuff it with the remarks concerning Scott Peterson, because you don't know what you're talking about.
When I see you over there, maybe I'll quit thining YOU are the FLAKE.

[Star]

injector said:

catskillz said:

Same goes for all the ones like u that say they KNOW he is guilty. I only think he did it, but there is no hard evidence. Now who is looking flaky..

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury and most everyone agrees on that.

If I was that Jury, I would have a HARD time sleeping at night..Because there is so much reasonable doubt that Jury should have never handed down a Death Verdit and the Judge should have overturned it.

[mhdubuha]

Whoa Maggie- I can see this one made you mad and with good reason.

I like the article, but I disagree that the media had anything to do with where those bodies ended up and the fact that it is implied here makes it look as though the CCADP is voicing an opinion that Peterson is innocent. I do have an issue with this b/c he was in fact convicted.

I take on the view that our Justice System works when we have the money to pay for it. No doubt it made it harder for them to select a jury with a bare bones knowledge of the case, but the defendant AND the prosecuter BOTH have the right to dismiss jurors.

I also understand what you are saying about the DA having a hard time getting past a good reputation in the media as well, but at first everyone liked Scott and was feeling really bad for him.

I also think that if new evidence came to light that clearly pointed out that Scott and only Scott was responsible for this crime that there would be a section of people who would choose not to believe that as well, possible responses being- he confessed b/c he was worn down, the evidence was planted and on and on...

Bottom Line- the only person who knows for sure is Scott himself, but since he refuses to tell the outside world ONE SINGLE TRUTH, I am inclined to believe that he is lying. I wish he would take a polygraph.

[Maggie]

mhdubuha said:

I also understand what you are saying about the DA having a hard time getting past a good reputation in the media as well, but at first everyone liked Scott and was feeling really bad for him.

The demonization of Scott Peterson began less than one month after Laci disappeared when the MPD held a PC with Amber Frey on national TV.
THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, IN ANY CASE

They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, IMO.

[mhdubuha]

Maggie-
None of this has happened before as far as the whole thing is concerned. I mean what a mess huh? But I just don't believe in the consperisy theory in this case. These people wanted to find her, I just can't see them intentionally doing something to mess it up. As far as I know they held the pc w/ amber b/c she was being bombarded at work and the modesto pd thought it was in HER best interest and to tell the press to back off of her.
MH

[sclcookie]

has anyone ever heard of reporters apologizing for said allegations?

[mhdubuha]

Chi-town-
I don't know of ANY APOLOGIES EVER FROM A REPORTER, but I am unsure as to what exactly you are refering to?