dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 18, 2006 9:43:06 GMT -5
I know, that's what I was thinking as well but I think it would be a good idea. If they see your letter, which is brilliant, along with all the information and proof along with it I think it will make it that much more in they're face and powerful. Otherwise they might just take your letter and brush it off. If you take the time to add all your research in there they might think your more serious? I know it will take alot of work and will probably add up to pages but if I can do anything, let me know. Maybe if you ask certain people to research certain people then add them all together? I"m probably not the best person to ask because i'm so new to this case, as you can all probably see by my questions.... but I totally believe Scott is innocent and that is the main point. I am willing to spend time researching and doing whatver I can to help. If you want me to get information on one person in particular I can do that and then someone can go through all that information and decide what is worth adding to the letter. I'll just keep watching this thread to see what you decide to do.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 18, 2006 9:53:12 GMT -5
Dove, once we all agree to the letter and addendum we all need to send it, as many as possible. One letter will accomplish little or nothing. Hundreds of letters may raise a few eyebrows. Thousands of letters will get their attention.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Jul 18, 2006 13:14:54 GMT -5
Dove, once we all agree to the letter and addendum we all need to send it, as many as possible. One letter will accomplish little or nothing. Hundreds of letters may raise a few eyebrows. Thousands of letters will get their attention. Art this is great!! Is this something where we can ask for a hearing? Can a citizen demand a hearing into prosecutorial misconduct? Scott's rights are limited because he has been convicted..... but what about us? A class action type thing against the government?
|
|
|
Post by janice on Jul 18, 2006 13:30:03 GMT -5
artguy this is great news. Scott is very fortunate to have you on his side. I agree that including the research with the letter would be powerful.
I found one typo in your letter:
Mr. Peterson has been incarcerated since his arrest on April 18th. 2002 and is currently in the custody of the Warden of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, where he is awaiting appeal.
It is 2003 not 2002.
I enjoy your posts...keep it up!
|
|
AW2B
Doin' Time
Posts: 71
|
Post by AW2B on Jul 18, 2006 17:19:44 GMT -5
Art... what you're doing is GREAT..I totally agree with you..Mark Geragos did a horrible job....
Many people reported seeing Laci on the 24th, however, there were about 4 independent witnesses who reported seeing her walking McKenzie on La Loma ave on December 24th...what's interesting those witnesses saw her around the same time.. -Maldonado -Tony Freitas -Martha Aguilar -Gene Pedioli
Note: Aguilar and Pedrioli were never mentioned in the trial..
From Dalton's book:
Quote:
Neighbor Martha Aguilar had no problem recognizing Laci. She estimated she spotted her walking the dog sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM on December 24th while she drove on LaLoma. Aguilar, who lived a few blocks from the Petersons, told us that she knew Laci because they went to the same doctor. According to Aguilar, the Modesto police never followed up on her call.
Quote:
The Modesto police dispatch log shows two calls from Gene Pedrioli, who spotted a woman whom he thought was Laci about the same time as the other witness did. He had to pick up a prescription at his pharmacy at 10:00 AM and noticed the golden retriever because it was the same color as his own dog. The pregnant woman with the dog was in the same area as where Aguilar spotted her. Tree branches blocked the path on the sidewalk and she and the dog walked around them. When he talked to the police, Pedrioli was told to get proof that he was where he said he was. Basically, he told me, he felt he was being ignored. He gave up trying to convince the police.
From the TS of the Trial
Tony Freitas
Mark Geragos: Okay. And can I ask you, there, there was a number of other witnesses that were provided to you, and I'll, I'll go through and give you an opportunity at the break so you can pull out your reports, but there was a number of other witnesses that, 40161. A number of other witnesses early on, Grace Wolf, Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas. When was the first time that you were aware of one or all of those people? Craig Grogan: I, I can look that up. Mark Geragos: Sure. Craig Grogan: The first one you mentioned was Grace Wolf? Mark Geragos: Yes. Craig Grogan: And I think the first that we heard about her was right after the preliminary hearing, around the time of the preliminary hearing, which was – Mark Geragos: Last fall? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. Craig Grogan: And – GEGAGOS: How about, I'm sorry, are you not finished? Craig Grogan: And that was only due to discovery that we got from your office. Mark Geragos: Okay. How about Tony Freitas, a gentleman who works as a driver for Orowheat who had been driving in the neighborhood that day? Craig Grogan: Mr. Freitas called in on December 30th of 2002 to the police tip line. Mark Geragos: Okay. Were you able to verify his work schedule of work hours in any way that day, for where he was on the 24th? Well, if he called in on the tip line, can I ask you when was the next time that somebody from law enforcement contacted him? Craig Grogan: He was contacted on July 29th of 2004. Mark Geragos: 2004? Craig Grogan: Yes, by a DA investigator. Mark Geragos: So Mr. Freitas called in, was he one of the dots on the board that you showed, that we marked as an exhibit and showed to the jury? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. And he called in and he said that he saw Laci Peterson walking a Golden Retriever, correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: He called in the tip line, correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And no, you now know that he was working for Orowheat at the time, correct? As a driver? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. And is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him from law enforcement between December, last week of December when he called in until approximately six weeks ago, during this trial? Craig Grogan: That's correct. I, we have the initial tip on December 30th. We have discovery from your office that we received sometime around the preliminary hearing, and then we re-contacted him July 29th of this year. Mark Geragos: Okay. Was there anything initially in that tip that, I know you weren't, you stated before you weren't the person who was actually sifting through these things; is that correct? Craig Grogan: That’s correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. And you had somebody who was at least sifting through or going through these things, right? Filtering them? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Is it a fair statement that, if you had known about Mr. Freitas back in December, that you would have taken some action to have contacted him and to have interviewed him or have somebody from law enforcement interview him? Craig Grogan: Well, I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time in the investigation, but the intention always was to try to contact any of those folks around there, yes. Mark Geragos: Now, when you say that you can't say that the sightings were, what was the term you used? Craig Grogan: A priority. Mark Geragos: A priority. And you did apply for search warrants repeatedly in this case, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: In every single one of those search warrant affidavits, which are declared under penalty of perjury, there was a section that says there are no verifiable sightings of her on December 24th, correct? Craig Grogan: Something to that effect. Mark Geragos: Okay. That it's a, I don't want to call it boilerplate, but it's a, it's a kind of a cut and paste on your word processor that goes from search warrant to search warrant to let the judge know, you're supposed to give the judge all the pertinent information in an affidavit for a search warrant, correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And one of the things that's contained throughout virtually all of the search warrants is that there's no verifiable sightings of Laci Peterson, correct? Craig Grogan: That’s correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. But it is also a fair statement that that was, sightings of Laci Peterson were not a priority at that point early in the investigation, correct? Craig Grogan: In the first few days the, the people that called in initially, most of those I think had been contacted or were contacted at the time, and then as more and more sightings continued to pour in, we used less resources to try to deal with all of that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, Tony Freitas, as I understand, had called in early on. Is that what your testimony was yesterday? Craig Grogan: I think it was somewhere around December 30th. Mark Geragos: Okay. And then he was interviewed. Was that also by Grogan? DA Investigator Grogan? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And that was July 29th, during this trial, the DA investigator went out there and he met with Tony Freitas, who said that he was a truck driver for Orowheat, right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And he said that his route takes him in the mornings from Perko's restaurant on Yosemite, can you show the jury where that would be? If you're going from Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's Restaurant on Downey and McHenry? Craig Grogan: Perko's on Yosemite? Mark Geragos: Perko's on Yosemite to Denny's on Downey and McHenry? Craig Grogan: Okay. Mark Geragos: He's driving toward town on La Loma? On La Loma? Craig Grogan: This is El Vista Avenue. Slightly east of that, between there and Riverside, would be the, the restaurant, first restaurant you mentioned, I believe. Mark Geragos: Okay. Craig Grogan: Perko's. Mark Geragos: Now, if you were to take that and go towards the park located on La Loma and Santa Barbara Craig Grogan: That would be he traveled down Yosemite, this is La Loma Avenue, and it comes across this way, and that's where it intersects the park. Mark Geragos: Did you put a dot there for that particular sighting? Craig Grogan: I'm sure I did. Mark Geragos: Looks like number 10? Craig Grogan: Number 10's right there. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, that, when he called in, his description was jacket and pants of an unknown color, because he wasn't asked for that description, right? Nobody asked him for a description; is that right? Craig Grogan: I don't know. Let me look here. Mark Geragos: According to your, you've got this legend that you use. That's the information that's on there. Is that accurate? Craig Grogan: It should be, yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. And it states on there that the jacket and the pants were an unknown color, and he was not asked either of them, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. And he says that as he approached there's a small triangular, triangle of a grassy park located at La Loma and Santa Barbara, right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And he saw a woman walking her dog, right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And she was wearing light-colored pants, a dark-colored jacket or pullover sweater, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: And he could not see a blouse or the type of shoes that she was wearing. He said the dog was reddish brown in color and the dog appeared to be pulling the woman; is that right? Craig Grogan: That’s what he said. Mark Geragos: Okay. He also said that he looked to his right and noticed two dirty-looking males in the park; is that right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. One sitting on a bus bench, the other squatting next to the bench; is that right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And that both were dirty and their clothing ragged and they did not appear to fit in the neighborhood; is that right? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, Tony said that he spoke to a female at the police department, right? Last sentence, or next to the last sentence on the next page. Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And the female told him that a detective would call at a later date; and a detective never called him, correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: Okay. So Freitas calls. Freitas calls up. He's on the tip sheet. Gives his phone number. Says he saw Laci on December 24th at about 10:00 o'clock on La Loma, correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And he says that there were two guys across the street from her, one was Hispanic, the other African-American, sitting at the bus stop, right? Craig Grogan: Right. Mark Geragos: And whoever is taking this down, I assume they got some instructions to try to take it down verbatim as to what people are telling them, right? Craig Grogan: I assume so, yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. So he says they look like low-life people, and Yosemite to stoplight, triangular park there, right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: He says Laci was on the south side of the street, on the street, on the walk, walking the dog in a northwest direction going towards town on La Loma, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. So going towards town. Those of us who don't live there, right along this way? Craig Grogan: Yes. That would take you to the downtown area of Modesto. Mark Geragos: Okay. And on the south, I mean the north side here? Is that the north side? Craig Grogan: That is the north side, yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. And he says that he stopped at the stoplight. There is a stop light there, right? Craig Grogan: I think there is a stoplight at Haddon and La Loma. Mark Geragos: Okay. And at the one guy was sitting on the bus bench, the other was sitting on the grass. And he specifically says their clothes were really ragged, right? Is that right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, and I know I have asked you this twice. But just to make sure there is, somebody culls out these tips and forwards them on to the investigators if they think they are worthwhile, right? Craig Grogan: Correct. The way it was established, we had an investigator going through the tips. And he would give them to a sergeant who would he assign them out to investigators to follow up on. Mark Geragos: Okay. Then I think you said yesterday that sightings were not the top priority at that point; is that a fair statement? Craig Grogan: Early on when those items were coming in they were followed up on pretty quickly. And as there became so many of them coming in, they became less of a priority. Mark Geragos: Okay. But, early on, this is, we're still talking December, it still is not a top priority; is that correct? Craig Grogan: By December 30th? Mark Geragos: Yes. Craig Grogan: I think we'd had quite a few at that point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Maldonado
Mark Geragos: Now, specifically the next within a day or two, you then get a tip from a Homer Maldonado; is that correct? That's on January 1st? I'm looking at 14865. Craig Grogan: Okay. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, he specifically saw I'm goingto ask you to step down again just to make a little dot on here. He and his wife, they phone in. Get their phone number. They say between 9:45 and 10:00 o'clock he and his wife got gas on Miller Avenue, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. And Miller Avenue is right here; is that right? Craig Grogan: That’s correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. Gas station is where right where my pen is? Craig Grogan: No. Mark Geragos: Back? Craig Grogan: It is at about Camelia, right about there. Mark Geragos: Right there. Okay so he is at the gas station on Camelia right here; is that fair? Craig Grogan: Yes. Judge Delucchi: Why don't you mark that M-1 for Maldonado. Mark Geragos: And this right here is Covena, correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, he says in his tip that they got gas right there, and that he said there was a tan van at the gas station, correct? The van had one occupant in it. The van was tan with yellow somewhere around it. He said he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner of Miller and La Loma, right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. And Miller and La Loma would be right about there; is that correct? Craig Grogan: Yeah. A little bit further up. There you go. Mark Geragos: Right there? Craig Grogan: One block more, block up. Mark Geragos: This is La Loma? Craig Grogan: That’s La Loma. Miller. Mark Geragos: Borrow your pen. That's Miller right there. So this would be Miller and La Loma on my pen. Craig Grogan: No. Miller is east-west. Mark Geragos: Isn't this Miller right here? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: That is La Loma right there. Miller and La Loma? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. Then he said that he noticed a pregnant woman walking her dog near the corner. He said it appeared the dog was pulling her. His wife had commented that the she hoped the woman didn't fall down. The dog had long hair and was blonde in color; is that correct? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, specifically he was, looks like on the tip sheet, at least, his was referred to a Detective Stough; is that right? Craig Grogan: Yes, Stough it's pronounced. Mark Geragos: Is it Stough, S-t-o-u-g-h? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Do you have any indication that he contacted Mr. Maldonado? And can I show this? When you are saying that, if somebody is notified, they just put it right there below the tip, right? Like I have got right there. Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: Now, I don't see anywhere where Detective Stough, or Detective Stough talked to Mr. Maldonado. Are you aware of that? Craig Grogan: I don't think he did. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, Maldonado was then interviewed by, and you have received, I assume you saw this, a report by Gary Ermoian, who is an investigator, the same investigator that Scott had hired? Craig Grogan: Yes, he was. Mark Geragos: Okay. And this was a report where Mr. Ermoian on January 10th made contact with Homer and Helen Maldonado, correct? Craig Grogan: Well, I don't know. I don't know when your investigator completed the report. Mark Geragos: Okay. I have got a report that's dated 1-10-2003. Did you get, that's the same one, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you reviewed that report which says Homer said he was at the USA Mini Mart gas station, right, near the corner, he calls it the corner of Covena and Miller, right? Craig Grogan: That’s what he says. Mark Geragos: Okay. Craig Grogan: I have seen the videotape interview. Mark Geragos: So he's got himself placed right there. Do you know where the gas station is? The could it be right there, Covena and Miller? Craig Grogan: No. I believe it's, well, yeah, it's a little, it's on the corner of that Camelia and Miller. And it would be to the bottom left hand side of that corner, right about where the "C" is on Camelia Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically he gave, for the most part, the same statement to Mr. Ermoian that he had told the officers, that he had seen her and the dog, described her. Said that she was located about the second house from the corner of Miller; is that right? That she was on the west side of the street. The way he describes it is, he's driving west on Miller past Covena. So that would be west on Miller. Past Covena would be right there, correct? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: And he says that he observed this beautiful young woman he described as very pregnant, with a Golden Retriever dog, right? Craig Grogan: Yes. Mark Geragos: And that he commented to his wife that it looked, something, I hope she doesn't fall, because she is having some trouble with the dog. Right? Craig Grogan: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, as he is driving in this direction, he says that he described the woman as being dressed in dark pants and light top, that she had dark hair, right? Craig Grogan: Dark pants a light top. Dark hair, yes. Mark Geragos: And he had seen photographs of Laci Peterson, and he is sure the person he saw with the dog was Laci, right? Craig Grogan: That’s what's what the report says, yes. Mark Geragos: He also said that he continued to drive. And he recalled looking in his rearview mirror to see if she crossed over Miller. And that he did not see her cross over Miller, right? Craig Grogan: Right --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, specifically Homer Maldonado said, when he telephoned the police on January 1st, he said he didn't receive a call back. So then he went to the Command Post to report the matter, correct? Craig Grogan: That’s what it says. Mark Geragos: And he said that he then told the same story to the Police Chaplain; is that right? Craig Grogan: Yes.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 19, 2006 10:21:29 GMT -5
Date
RE: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT LEE PETERSON, et al., Defendant
Case No. SC55500 (Stan. Co. 1056770)
Dear __________
I am writing you as a taxpaying and voting citizen of the United States of America regarding a matter of the highest urgency.
Upon reviewing the evidence and trial transcript in the above entitled case, it has become apparent to me that the investigation and subsequent trial were conducted in a manner that deprived Mr. Peterson of his constitutional right to an impartial trial. Furthermore Mr. Peterson’s lawyers, namely Geragos & Geragos did not provide effective counsel for the defendant during the trial in that they overlooked key eyewitness evidence which would have proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Peterson could not have possibly committed the crime.
Mr. Peterson was clearly the victim of jury nullification created by the media and their peers, as evidenced in part by the high number of jurors who were dismissed during deliberations; this travesty was facilitated by ineffective counsel and numerous willful and unlawful acts of misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors.
Please see attached Addendum I which demonstrates that the court failed on every level to provide a legal and impartial trial in accordance with the laws of the state:
1. There was insufficient evidence to support the verdict
2. The court erred repeatedly when admitting and excluding evidence
3. New evidence has been discovered that was not admitted at trial
4. The conviction was illegal
5. Investigators released libelous, wrongful, damaging and highly prejudicial statements to the media in their attempts to illicit a confession from the defendant.
Mr. Peterson has been incarcerated since his arrest on April 18th. 2003 and is currently in the custody of the Warden of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, where he is awaiting appeal.
This case has set an extremely dangerous precedent that poses a serious threat to every US citizen. I now live in fear for my life knowing that a similar fate could be brought upon me or my family. As long as Mr. Peterson remains incarcerated, no US citizen is truly free.
Because of the numerous errors, omissions and illegal manner in which this investigation, arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing was conducted, I respectfully request that you exercise all powers at your disposal to effect the immediate release of Mr. Peterson pending a thorough investigation and hearing.
Signed,
________________
Addendum I
RE: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT LEE PETERSON, et al., Defendant
Case No. SC55500 (Stan. Co. 1056770)
1. There was insufficient evidence to support the verdict: No evidence whatsoever was proffered by the state to prove when, where, why or how the crime was committed. The sum of the evidence was circumstantial and based almost entirely on Mr. Peterson’s personal demeanor. The only piece of physical evidence offered was a single hair of the victim found in the defendant’s boat. However, eyewitness testimony placed the victim at the location where the boat had been stored prior to her disappearance, providing a reasonable explanation for the presence of her hair being in the boat. Furthermore, testimony was provided to explain that the hair could have been innocently accounted for by means of secondary transfer by the defendant’s person, clothing or other property.
2. The court erred repeatedly on matters of evidence admission and juror dismissal: - A defense exhibit demonstrating the stability of the boat alleged to have been used in the crime was not admitted; and,
- The court allowed the jury to conduct its own independent investigation of the boat to determine the stability of the vessel, which amounted to the taking of new evidence. However, the boat was attached to a trailer at the time and parked in a parking lot. This gave the jurors a false impression as to the stability of the craft, which led them to believe that it was possible for the defendant to have used the boat in the commission of the crime. Had they not conducted this illegal demonstration; or had they been allowed to see the defense exhibit; or had they been allowed to examine the boat under the circumstances under which it was alleged to have been used by the defendant, they would have realized that it was impossible for the defendant to have used the boat in any manner consistent with the prosecution’s theories.
- The cause given by investigators to obtain numerous wiretap conversations by the defendant was based on information that was later proven to have been false. For instance, that the defendant had recently purchased a $250,000 life insurance policy for the victim, which was later proven to have occurred over two years prior and at the request of the victim. The wiretap evidence should not have been admitted as it was obtained illegally and was highly prejudicial to the defendant with absolutely no probative value.
- 3 (three) jurors were dismissed throughout the course of trial, 2 (two) of which during deliberation. Upon dismissal of the final two jurors, a guilty verdict was reached within a matter of hours. Statements made by jurors after the trial confirmed the defense allegations that the jurors were being manipulated by the media and public pressure to seek a verdict in what they felt best served the public interest, as opposed to following their lawful juror instructions and making their decisions based on the evidence that was put forth at trial.
- The court erred by giving the jury flight instructions when there was no reasonable evidence of flight made evident through the course of the trial. In fact, at the time of arrest the defendant was driving in the opposite direction of the alleged flight path.
- The court erred by giving the jury the option of second degree murder in the case of the unborn child victim Connor and by so doing unnecessarily prejudiced the defendant. There is no scenario whereby Mr. Peterson could have killed his pregnant wife in the manner described by the prosecution without knowing that it would also result in the death of his unborn child. If the death of the fetus was unpremeditated then so was the death of the wife, thus ruling out any special circumstances.
- The court erred by admitting highly prejudicial and non-probative audio tapes of conversations between the defendant and his mistress Amber Frey. The tapes contained no evidence or admissions whatsoever linking the defendant to the crime but served only to prejudice the jury against the defendant by character assassination.
- Wrongful and misleading dog evidence which misled and confused the jury was admitted over objections by the defense.
- Prejudicial evidence of the defendant ordering adult programming was admitted by the court over defense objections. This evidence was wholly prejudicial with absolutely no probative value.
- The court erred by granting a change of venue to a location only approximately 30 (thirty) miles from the victim’s home town, where the hatred and animosity of the defendant were virtually unanimous. Through an independent field survey, the defense found that between 39% and 59% of the citizens of Stanislaus County had already formed a conclusion as to the defendant’s guilt.
3. New evidence has been discovered that was not admitted at trial: No less than 4 (four) eyewitnesses, two of which knew the victim personally stated to have seen the victim alive and walking in the neighborhood at a time when the defendant’s whereabouts were known to be between 10 and 90 miles away from the victim during and after the alleged time of her disappearance. Although some of this evidence was made available to the defense during discovery they failed to introduce it at trial. Either for reasons of new evidence or ineffective counsel Mr. Peterson is entitled to a trial inclusive of this exculpatory eyewitness evidence, which proves unequivocally and beyond any reasonable doubt that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime.
4. The conviction was illegal: Due to an unprecedented presence of news media coverage and public speculation before and during the case, an impartial trial was not possible in the venue of San Mateo County, some 30 miles from the victim’s home town where she disappeared. By the court’s own admission of record it was merely doing the best it could under the circumstances. Our US Constitution’s 6th amendment is unconditional and makes no provisions for a less than impartial trial. Compared to this case, Shepard would be considered fairly low profile.
5. Investigators released libelous, wrongful damaging and highly prejudicial statements to the media in their attempts to illicit a confession from the defendant: Prior to arrest and in their efforts to pressure the suspect into giving a confession, the investigators released numerous wrongful, misleading and damaging statements to the media. Specifically:
- That a life insurance policy was recently purchased by the defendant for his wife in the amount of $250,000.00, which was later proven to have occurred over 2 (two) years prior, as an investment vehicle and upon the request of the victim.
- When the focus of the investigation should have been locating the victim, investigators released a description of Mr. Peterson, his boat and his vehicle and requested witnesses to attest to their whereabouts. Notwithstanding that Mr. Peterson had provided verifiable proof of his whereabouts, this information was released with the sole intent of casting suspicion on the part of Mr. Peterson and in so doing allowed actual viable suspects and witnesses to remain undetected.
- There were releases made to the media that the Peterson residence smelled of bleach, which was somehow connected to a bucket and mop found at the residence. It was later determined that there was no smell of bleach by anyone and that forensics provided no evidence whatsoever on the mop or bucket.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 19, 2006 10:56:13 GMT -5
Here's a new draft of the letter with the Addendum. Please feel free to edit. ... I note that neither the house, the boat nor the truck had any evidentiary value except that they were excluded by lack of forensics or direct testimony. So how was it that they were allowed to be used as 'props' for a theory which was based on guesswork and not supported by any evidence whatsoever? They might as well have claimed, "Scott could have shot Laci but we can't find the bullets but here is his gun". What was the supposed foundation for their introduction? The whole case was a theory with no supporting facts. They invited the jury to guess and used the media to promote hatred to overcome the lack of evidence against Peterson.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 19, 2006 11:02:08 GMT -5
Happy - The state can introduce pretty much whatever physical evidence they like, in accordance with the evidence code. It's the job of the defense to discredit the evidence. The house, boat, trucks, etc. and things inside are admissible, subject to evidence code violations. I don't see any, but that does not mean they are not there.
The media releases by the investigators were indeed questionable and I forgot about that. I'll incorporate them into the Addendum, along with any other suggestions you or anyone else may have. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 19, 2006 11:28:12 GMT -5
Thanks - Maggie. I'll add this:
- The court erred by granting a change of venue to a location only approximately 30 (thirty) miles from the victim’s home town, where the hatred and animosity of the defendant were virtually unanimous. Through an independent field survey, the defense found that between 39% and 59% of the citizens of Stanislaus County had already formed a conclusion as to the defendant’s guilt.
|
|