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.htmat 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.