Scott Peterson-- Innocent on Death Row

[CCADP]

Maggie - great point about the vigil!

I was just thinking about typing something like; how do we know he wasn't calling Amber back; why would he CHOOSE that time to call even if he wanted to; someone could come up to him; Amber could have heard somethng someone said; etc etc - it seems like if he was picking a time to call he would have called somewhere quieter....and with less risk.

Amber's claim that she never knew Lacy was missing seems very very odd to me; I had heard of the case and Peterson at that point I think; and I'm in Toronto! I don't buy THAT!

[catskillz]

Note that i'm not talking about the penalty phase, im not confident in saying there was no public/media influence there.

Catz

[catskillz]

I could very well be wrong, and the picture shown seems enhanced indeed as far as my eye can see.

It would certainly say alot of things about certan media, but in the whole of events and issues, this doesn't stand out as imo this photo is not saying much about the actual case really. Therefor i don't share the explanations given to it.

Catz

[CCADP]

I definately think the media contributed to both. There have been tons of cases similar to the Laci murder in the years since Lacy died - the media generated the public interest in this case; and eventually people became fascinated and the media fed into that; but these were not celebrities; just a fertilizer salesman and his wife living in CA; and it was a great distraction for CNN once they picked it - you'd never know there was a war going on; or that the US was slowly losing its respect and credibility amongst its friends; etc etc etc - the public wants to hear about Peterson...!

Its the media that wanted to tell us about Peterson. People I know think they know details about the case; and they normally wouldn;t care a bit about a crime story. The media had a huge degree of influence on the jury - before they were even picked I'm sure - and I think the conviction was shaky and it most probably would not have ended up a DP case w/o the intervention of the media.

I thought Scott was guilty too from what Nancy Grace told me.

I also thought that runaway bride's fiancee seemed WAY guiltier than Scott when he was interviewed when she was still missing.

LUCKY for him she turned up alive at home, or he'd be writing us soon too.

[CCADP]

as to the photo that is just a small example of how the media can portray something - its not a lie; but one gets a different impression from looking at the one of him alone; as you do looking at him in a group; all laughing at a brief joke.

its all perception. Impressions count. we see what we are given to see; not the whole picture.

So this photo is in fact a great analogy for the whole case. I feel that I already feel differently about the case; just based on the points Maggie has made here today.

[catskillz]

Reminds me of the case where Time (!) magazine eddited Vanessa Paradis' cover picture without her knowing about it (they gave here a nice set of front teeth).

[CCADP]

really? I never heard that - funny...!

she's married to my man, isn't she ? (Johnny Depp, smile)

sorry Dave - that was the teenaged Tracy talking for a minute...smile...

[MoonRiver]

Thanks for posting those pics, CCADP. I'd seen both during the trial. I took a break from the forum earlier because I definitely do not want to re-hash a 6 month trial all over again and call posters wrong or (whatever). There are plenty of other forums to go and post for that.

But, if there is evidence or valuable reasons for ANY DR convict to be heard, then this has to happen. We live in a modern world, not a damp, dark, dungeon from the middle ages.

I'm interested in Maggie's findings and posts ~ even though I do not necessarily believe or subscribe to the same issues, all views, logic and cards should be placed on the table.

(OT: And confessing! Been Johnny-Depp-Kray-zee for many, many 'moons'. And when I Chocolat? That was me. History! )

[Maggie]

Moon, I think we both agree the DP was totally out of line here. It's bad enough the DP is still legal in some states, but it's a REALLY scary, sad state of affairs when people can be convicted and given the DP on NOTHING but "so-called" circumstantial evidence.

The law states that with circumstantial evidence if there is an explaination that goes towards innocence the jury must accept the innocent explaination.
Clearly the jury in the Peterson case did not do that.

Also, when people start getting convicted on "behavior".... another BAD move that should outrage everybody imo. The fact is the American public does not know Scott Peterson. Who is anyone to judge the behavior of someone they have never even met?

I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing was proven in the Peterson case....... nothing. As for reasonable doubt, there was plenty.

Yet Scott sits on DR.

I think we are going back to the dark ages-- I am beyond disgusted with American justice... I really am.

[CCADP]

Dave was talking at work about media perception in cases; and the two cases that had just finished in the courts and in the media came up - Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.

Now no one knew Scott Peterson.

Everyone has known Blake forever - Little Rascals, Beratta, he grew up in the public eye. People thought they knew him; had a certain impression of him; a girl at Dave's day job said "I don't think he did it. I don't think he would do something like that". Neither did the jury. So like OJ another celebrity that people felt they knew in some way; he walked.

The previous public image that people had of them; didn't fit the story of the monsters that DA was telling us must have committed these crimes. People just couldn't truly see OJ that way - he was the Hertz commercial guy; big football star. Robert Blake is the cute kid from Little Rascals. The prosecutors had a much harder row to hoe.

Scott Peterson was a stranger to all of us; just some guy. We didn't have an idea in our heads already that he was a nice guy - it was a blank slate and the prosecutors told us all the bad things that painted a bad picture of this person. I don't think the prosecutor ever told us any good things that would fight the image of the heinous killer any prosecutor will try to portray any capital case in court.

So we all agreed; along with the jury; that it sure looked like Peterson was a bad and dishonest guy. and if we have that negative idea of a person its easier to believe they did other bad things. When its a 'nice' guy like OJ; or Blake; that we already know....well; we're not so sure.

a lot of what we think we believe is from only hearing part of the story; its like that old fable about the blind men and the elephants trunk. or like the thought I had about the newspaper's timing in printing the letter. Sometimes its all in the way you look at it.

[MoonRiver]

Hey Maggie. You know, I feel I got to know OJ and Westerfield about as well as the rest of the public did through those very high-profile cases. The majority went for their guilt too (and I am not comparing OJ's case. I'm simply citing familiarity with the 'accused').

Ditto Bundy.. with so much crime happening, as we open our eyes on a daily basis, the electronic media are bringing these cases right into our homes on a daily basis.

I know exactly what Jerry Hobbs looks like; and Joseph Smith, Avila, Hacking and all, or most of these suspects. From the turn of the new century, these cases and stories brought with them a new 'messaging format'. And that was INTENSE MEDIA SPOTLIGHT.

Scott happened to fall into this whole new electronic age. Good or bad, I feel it was virtually unavoidable. The uproar over a string of missing girls, murders, rapes, serial killers still at large COUPLED with the (then) breaking news of Marc Dutroux in Belgium at that time didn't only catch the public's attention. It TRAPPED us.

So when Laci and Conner's story peaked, an already captured audience was 'tuned in' and it was (IMO) THAT very same audience, hungry for more, that went on to help set the ratings and create the demand.

The market was wide open for the bookies, sad but true.

Scott, in his own life, was just as a keen a participant of the new electronic age with his 4 mobiles, his computers and 'gadgets'. Granted, perhaps no different to you or me. But, we all now stand naked under the sinister beams of satellites these days.

It goes with the territory. Perhaps that's why I'd rather hear facts and new evidence than be swayed by (IMO) some sweeping statements that are far too general to pinpoint MEDIA TRIALS as a sole reason for someone's conviction.

SOME resposibility for that attention has got to be taken on board by ALL players in the SP case. Maybe that's why so many people who believe SP is guilty are saying 'denial' alot more frequently in this case than in most other cases? I don't know.

But I do know that if there are issues yet to come forward, then these MUST be investigated and the MEDIA ought to cover them just as intensely if they're to be 'let off the hook'.

Gulp! I'm really talking myself THICK today, lol. Sorry. Guess it's the excitement of being a newbie poster here ;D

Can't resist: Geragos did verrrrry little to dim the spotlight. Maggie! But then, I don't want to bash attornies here, either, suffice to say I have no desire whatsoever to discus MG. None. ;D

[CCADP]

I guess we differ on this; but I don't centre it on this case particularly. Being in Canada we get a lot of US news as well as our own news channels; and on digital cable get BBC World News and Deutsche Welle and another Euro news channel. The difference between those channels and CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, not to mention the laughable Foxnewschannel; is striking. On almost every day of the week; 65 percent of the news stories that don't involve sports and entertainment are as you say missing kids; serial killers; Michael Jackson; runaway-brides-that-arent-murder-victims-after-all-
yet-still-a-top-news-story-two-weeks-later; etc etc. On the world news; they cover world issues. even the Canadian news differs greatly. Yes, America has more crime; but it is insane that this is reported to the exclusion of everything else. There's a good reason for it - it maintains the status quo; keeps people afraid; and voting for those law and order politicians! And I guess murder plays better in the US than atrocities its soldiers commit in other countries; which by the way didn't get 10 percent of the attention the Peterson case did.

[catskillz]

Maggie said:

Also, when people start getting convicted on "behavior".... another BAD move that should outrage everybody imo. The fact is the American public does not know Scott Peterson. Who is anyone to judge the behavior of someone they have never even met?

Sure enough, behavior alone should never be the key-factor to convict anyone upon.

Luckely i am not the one to 'judge', i only have my opinion for what its worth. I didn't base my opinion solely on this item, but yes it does play a role for me combined with all the other issues i have.

Personally, i don't understand why Scott hasn't spoken out during and after trial/sentencing. The reason for Geragos advising scott not to say anything all this time doesn't make much sense to me . What was there to loose? Same question i have on the polygraph, why wouldn't he want to rule out his own involvement and keep focusses on finding the real killer, when he kept stating that was the only important thing and he worried about them spending too much time on him . If it was intentional, can we conclude the strategy failed? If not, can we expect them to come forward now? Or was it even a strategy towards appeal anticipating a sure guilt verdict? There was and is soo much controversy over all of this but i've seen soo little responses from scott and the defense in opposition of it. Obviously this only contributes to the rumours, the single-sided news reports, the gossip, the theories etc.

I really don't have any interest in him being innocent or guilty. Though i think he is guilty, it would be great if he was proven factually innocent since no innocent man should get convicted <edited >

Best, catz.

[CCADP]

it seems to be pretty common in CA; once people are on DR anyway; that they are told by their lawyers not to discuss the case at all, CA particularly..

[Maggie]

Awespme article that I agree with 100%. This guy has written some good stuff. I wish he was published more mainstream.

Bad Jurors: 114 And Counting
By Carl F. Worden
114 and counting: That's the number of men released from death rows in the United States in the past 12 years, after DNA forensic science proved they could not have committed the crimes the jurors said they did.

I've just been tallying up the responses to my article, "Laci Peterson's Murderer: A Look Back At The Zodiac", in which I presented facts that bring into question the seemingly "given" guilt of husband Scott Peterson.


Now, it isn't that I believe Scott Peterson is innocent or guilty. That is not the issue. The problem is that, based upon the facts known in the public realm today, there is no way I could send Scott Peterson to a lethally injected death, because as a responsible citizen and potential juror, I am required to assume innocence unless proven guilty to the extent that there is simply no question about it.


46% of the respondents to my article disagree with that "stupid" legal principle. (Several used the term, "stupid" to describe my article) Without actually coming out and writing it, they believe it better to let one innocent man hang, than for ten guilty to go free. According to them, the circumstantial evidence against Scott Peterson is so overwhelming that, if they had the opportunity, they would vote guilty and sentence him to death today, and based only on the existing evidence known to the general public.


That's the kind of citizens and jurors we've got to choose from nowadays: They are completely immoral, irrational, angry and vicious and just want to see someone most likely to have done it, killed. Scott Peterson's guilt doesn't need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; close is good enough, and the problem with that attitude is what constitutes real evidence of a person's guilt in their tiny little minds. That alone should scare the bejeebers out of 54% of you! You don't ever want to be in the same shoes as those 114 innocent men that these jurors flippantly condemned to death. These jurors are a people devoid of wisdom and of principle and they are extremely dangerous sitting in judgment of others to the extent of being criminally negligent.


So what's the difference between a drunk driver, who accidentally kills someone, and an irresponsible juror who condemns a person to death on insufficient evidence? Answer: The drunk driver has an excuse!


These people who are so eager to condemn others to death on such flimsy evidence truly regard themselves as stand-up citizens for law and order, while having all the moral fortitude of the average lynch mob. It would be different if we had just one eyewitness who actually saw Scott Peterson dump Laci's body -- or something that looked like it -- off his boat in San Francisco Bay. It would be helpful if neighbors saw Scott Peterson haul something heavy into his boat or truck that morning. If there was enough blood evidence in volume in the Peterson home to indicate Laci died there, and didn't just bleed a little from cutting her hand in the kitchen, that would constitute real evidence in the mind of a responsible juror. Had the cops found Laci's body using the sonar search they conducted in the area around the Berkeley Marina soon after her disappearance, they might have been able to determine cause of death and develop other physical evidence, but after four months in the water, there's not much left to glean evidence from. The evidence we need to see is the cement blocks on the floor of the bay that were allegedly molded at the Peterson home and allegedly used to weigh the body of Laci Peterson down. If the recovered cement blocks in the bay could be solidly tied to the cement poured at the Peterson home, then that would probably be enough for me. If part of Laci's body were still attached, I'd push the button on Scott Peterson right then and there, and without looking back. Another killer could have dumped Laci's body in the same area after reading about where Scott was the day she disappeared, but only Scott would have used concrete blocks molded at his home to weigh her body down.


The problem is that no such witnesses or evidence in the aforementioned paragraph currently exist.


So what do these potential jurors regard as convincing evidence of Scott Peterson's guilt in the murder of his wife? Why, that man sold her car! He changed his appearance! He had $10,000.00 on him when arrested! He had an affair! He had $250,000.00 in life insurance on Laci! Oh, and my all time favorite: He didn't act right -- at least not according to the standards of these potential jurors! I'm telling you, people like these should never be allowed to sit on a jury in a shoplifting case, let alone a capital murder trial. These are some of the scariest and most dangerous people in America, because they can sit back and flippantly pass judgment destroying an innocent person's life, then go home acting normally, just like your average sociopath serial killer.


Fifty bucks says these jackass jurors wouldn't be quite so loose with other people's lives if they faced execution themselves following exoneration of a person they wrongly convicted and recommended for death. Do ya think?? I'll bet that would give them an attitude adjustment, how about you? Do you think they’d be a little more demanding of rock-solid evidence then?


It is because we have potential jurors like these, free and walking the streets, that we have 114 innocent men freed from death row -- and counting. They would have never been on death row in the first place, were it not for those fine citizens who make up that 46%.


Carl F. Worden


www.sierratimes.com/03/04/25/carlworden.htm

I e-mailed him and told him how much I liked the article. I also pointed out the life insurance was a lie and debunked at the prelim. ;D