Scott Peterson

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Should we reconsider everything we've been told, when a man's life is on the line

Yes
86
79%
No
23
21%
 
Total votes : 109

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:11 am

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:Desert Fox, your post leaves me scratching my head. After all this time, you don't seem to be aware of the numerous grounds upon which Scott Peterson is basing his appeals.


The higher court has to decide that any such evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury and that can be a very high bar to pass.


I don't think the CASC will be able to ignore the numerous violations of Scott Peterson's constitutional rights to due process. He did not receive a fair trial.

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:01 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy doesn't understand the U.S. Appellate Process. That's one reason why his arguments don't make sense.


Nothing personal Jane, but you lack the basic understanding of evidence and foundation and I dare say general reasoning and logic.

I noticed it is only me you jump on, here you have another person denying the Connor was born and yet you say nothing even though that is one of your pillars of Scott's innocence, you don't have any objectivity in this matter and that is just one of many examples.

the idea that a burglary across the street automatically means that it had something to do with Laci's murder, is fundamentally flawed. And as I have previous stated, unless there is fundamentally sound evidence that supports an abduction / murder theory - it will remain nothing more than speculation.

The notion that the Peterson's have through their own investigation, come up with exculpatory evidence that they are intentionally keeping from the press and omitting from the Appeal and Habeas seems very far fetched.

Anon


There's a basic flaw in your reasoning, Anonshy. You imply that the only way Scott can have a successful appeal is by identifying the people who actually murdered his wife, by proving exactly how they abducted her, by proving how they kept her captive, by proving how they committed the murder, and by proving how they got the body to the bay.

This is not correct. Any one of the errors listed in the direct appeal or the claims in the habeas, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient for them to reverse the verdict.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:12 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Little inconsistencies? There are a lot more than "little inconsistencies" in this case. In fact - much of what the state claimed happened, simply could not have happened. They were for the most part largely INconsistent. Those puzzle pieces didn't fit together.

I know when it comes to the numerous searches of the bay by numerous agencies not turning up a body or any anchors everyone who believes Scott is guilty wants to use the "the San Francisco Bay is a huge area" excuse. But it's not. Not the area we are talking about. The prosecution was very clear. Scott went fishing along this route - he dumped her weighted body along this route - this giant storm came along and loosened her from the anchors and she and Conner floated ashore. They had their expert plot out the trajectory from where he dumped Laci's body on December 24th along his fishing route to where Conner was found. They were clear. They didn't say her body had been floating around the bay - Laci's body was anchored until that storm hit and within 45 hours, Conner washed ashore. The problem was the evidence says no - absolutely not. And much of this contradicting evidence was testified to by the prosecution's own witnesses. Berkeley to Brooks Island - a mile and a half. 1.5 square miles - shallow water - searched for 3 months. Did they take days off? - sure - but they were out there for at least 27 solid days before the bodies washed ashore, 25 days after the bodies were found. Dogs, boats, sonar. Oh but she was under water right? Murky, muddy water - that's why they couldn't find her. Wrong. The medical examiner, the prosecution's witness testified that there was mineralization in Laci pants indicating that she had gone through some repeated drying and rewetting process. Which means over an extended period of time, Laci’s body was exposed to the air repeatedly, long enough for the crotch portion of her pants to completely dry out (again REPEATEDLY and COMPLETELY). The only thing that can possibly explain this is that at every low tide - Laci's body was exposed. Yet her body was never spotted during the numerous bay searches of Scott’s undisputed fishing route.

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Cheng, was able to track a trajectory for Conner, from Scott’s fishing route to the location of where his body was found, but was unable to give an explanation for Laci's body turning up where it did. But the medical examiner says they were together. He testified that Conner must not have been expelled from Laci’s body and in the water more than 48 hours prior to being found on the shoreline, due to the lack of animal feeding on his body....Dr. Cheng could not explain how the bodies, supposedly propelled by the wind, could have originated from the same place but moved in different directions.

Conner was 33 weeks old on December 24th, 2002 when Laci disappeared, and all indications, based on 33 weeks of pre-natal care indicate he would have been a smaller than average to average sized baby. Yet his measurements at his time of death were of an averaged sized 35 week old baby or a VERY large 33 week old baby. Habeas expert and renowned fetal biometrist, Dr. Philippe Jeanty, the man who wrote the equation that the prosecution’s expert misused to come up with his date of death for Conner of December 24th, says that based on Conner’s measurements and using the proper equations – Conner’s date of death was in early January.

And more inconsistencies:

Prosecution claims Scott left the house at 10:08 and was at the warehouse on the computer at 10:30. Prosecution also claims that Karen Servas found the dog with his leash on and the gate wide open and returned the dog to the yard no later than 10:18. Prosecution does not dispute the mailman’s timeline of delivering the mail to the Peterson home no earlier than 10:35. However the mailman claims the gate was open and the dog was nowhere on the Peterson property when he delivered the mail that day. Yet the dog was in the yard with the gate closed when Scott returned home at 4:45:

10:08 - Scott leaves for the warehouse
10:18 - Karen Servas finds the dog and the gate open - she puts him back in the yard and closes the gate
10:35-10:50 - The mailman delivers the mail - the gate is open - the dog is gone
4:45 - Scott returns home - the dog is in the yard and the gate is closed

More inconsistencies:
Prosecution wants you to believe that it was Scott Peterson on the home computer that morning, pretending to be Laci, visiting shopping sights and viewing Gap scarves, garden weather vanes and sunflower motif umbrella stands, knowing the police would check his computer activity - hoping to make them think she was still alive at 8:45 AM. Yet this is the same computer that Scott researched boats for sale (a boat they claim he wanted to keep secret), the bay area and the Berkeley Marina on AND Scott never mentioned to the police that Laci had been on the computer that morning when he told them the events of that morning.

The prosecution claimed that Scott murdered his wife and unborn child because he did not want to be a father and wanted to be free from marriage. Yet Scott and Laci had tried for a year and half to get pregnant and Scott attended every OB-Gyn appointment with Laci during her pregnancy. Multiple people – friends as well as Laci’s family testified that Scott was excited about being a father...that Scott was goal oriented and that one of his goals was to have a child and a family (testimony of Brent Rocha).

The prosecution says the burglary across the street did not occur on the 24th, but on the 26th, when Covena was in the midst of searching for Laci. They say that Steve Todd rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th – when the Peterson home was being used as a makeshift volunteer center – police cars were lined up on Covena as the park was searched - and decided on that day that the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. Yet Diane Jackson saw a van with 3 men in front of the Medina home on the 24th around 11:30 am, and the Tenbrink brothers say Laci confronted Todd during the burglary.

Fictitious multiple anchors. Not a spec of evidence of multiple anchors being made.

Those are just some inconsistencies I could think of off the top of my head.

In addition to the inconsistencies - you have a pathetic investigation done by the MPD. When witnesses called to say they saw Laci walking that morning, instead of calling and talking to them, the police interview every pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood in an attempt to discredit people they never even bothered to interview. When given a description of Laci's jewelry that's missing - they do a search at the local pawn shops (expecting to find that Laci or Scott had pawned these items). When a pawn for a Croton watch turns up - instead of finding the woman who pawned the watch (who turns out actually had a connection to the burglars), Det. Grogan seeks to prove that Laci would not have worn that watch. Burglary across the street? Nah....that van and the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the house on the 24th didn't have anything to do with the burglary....the MPD says the one burglar burglarized that home all by himself - on the 26th - and moved all those items on his bicycle - making multiple trips (again - on his bicycle) in the middle of the night. And got a friend to help him move a safe out of the house and into a waiting vehicle on the street - amongst media trucks the morning of the 26th.

They improperly hypnotized Diane Jackson and Kristin Dempewolf - because of this they were not allowed to testify.
They either ignored or buried the Aponte tip.
They buried the mailman's info.
They excised information from a police report that Laci had been to the warehouse the week she disappeared.
Det. Brocchini stopped the dog trailing after it lead to the airport district (where the burglars lived) - and instead had them drive the dog's to Scott's warehouse.
Det. Brocchini kept the scent articles, including Laci's hair brush, in his desk drawer. Oh and miraculously one hair found in the pliers in the boat turned into two separate hairs in the evidence envelope - when Det. Brocchini opened it.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:30 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy doesn't understand the U.S. Appellate Process. That's one reason why his arguments don't make sense.


Nothing personal Jane, but you lack the basic understanding of evidence and foundation and I dare say general reasoning and logic.

I noticed it is only me you jump on, here you have another person denying the Connor was born and yet you say nothing even though that is one of your pillars of Scott's innocence, you don't have any objectivity in this matter and that is just one of many examples.

the idea that a burglary across the street automatically means that it had something to do with Laci's murder, is fundamentally flawed. And as I have previous stated, unless there is fundamentally sound evidence that supports an abduction / murder theory - it will remain nothing more than speculation.

The notion that the Peterson's have through their own investigation, come up with exculpatory evidence that they are intentionally keeping from the press and omitting from the Appeal and Habeas seems very far fetched.

Anon


There's a basic flaw in your reasoning, Anonshy. You imply that the only way Scott can have a successful appeal is by identifying the people who actually murdered his wife, by proving exactly how they abducted her, by proving how they kept her captive, by proving how they committed the murder, and by proving how they got the body to the bay.

This is not correct. Any one of the errors listed in the direct appeal or the claims in the habeas, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient for them to reverse the verdict.


OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:34 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:Desert Fox, your post leaves me scratching my head. After all this time, you don't seem to be aware of the numerous grounds upon which Scott Peterson is basing his appeals.


The higher court has to decide that any such evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury and that can be a very high bar to pass.


Jane is under the belief that, if the Defense states it or belives it, it must be true!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:40 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Agree, going after the innocence stance is fool-hearty. If the Defense went to the Judge with the so-called evidence that is thrown around in this thread, it will be a very short process. Can you please explain to Jane what the concept of Evidentiary foundation means!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:49 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy doesn't understand the U.S. Appellate Process. That's one reason why his arguments don't make sense.


Nothing personal Jane, but you lack the basic understanding of evidence and foundation and I dare say general reasoning and logic.

I noticed it is only me you jump on, here you have another person denying the Connor was born and yet you say nothing even though that is one of your pillars of Scott's innocence, you don't have any objectivity in this matter and that is just one of many examples.

the idea that a burglary across the street automatically means that it had something to do with Laci's murder, is fundamentally flawed. And as I have previous stated, unless there is fundamentally sound evidence that supports an abduction / murder theory - it will remain nothing more than speculation.

The notion that the Peterson's have through their own investigation, come up with exculpatory evidence that they are intentionally keeping from the press and omitting from the Appeal and Habeas seems very far fetched.

Anon


There's a basic flaw in your reasoning, Anonshy. You imply that the only way Scott can have a successful appeal is by identifying the people who actually murdered his wife, by proving exactly how they abducted her, by proving how they kept her captive, by proving how they committed the murder, and by proving how they got the body to the bay.

This is not correct. Any one of the errors listed in the direct appeal or the claims in the habeas, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient for them to reverse the verdict.


OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:32 am

lsmith510 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Little inconsistencies? There are a lot more than "little inconsistencies" in this case. In fact - much of what the state claimed happened, simply could not have happened. They were for the most part largely INconsistent. Those puzzle pieces didn't fit together.

I know when it comes to the numerous searches of the bay by numerous agencies not turning up a body or any anchors everyone who believes Scott is guilty wants to use the "the San Francisco Bay is a huge area" excuse. But it's not. Not the area we are talking about. The prosecution was very clear. Scott went fishing along this route - he dumped her weighted body along this route - this giant storm came along and loosened her from the anchors and she and Conner floated ashore. They had their expert plot out the trajectory from where he dumped Laci's body on December 24th along his fishing route to where Conner was found. They were clear. They didn't say her body had been floating around the bay - Laci's body was anchored until that storm hit and within 45 hours, Conner washed ashore. The problem was the evidence says no - absolutely not. And much of this contradicting evidence was testified to by the prosecution's own witnesses. Berkeley to Brooks Island - a mile and a half. 1.5 square miles - shallow water - searched for 3 months. Did they take days off? - sure - but they were out there for at least 27 solid days before the bodies washed ashore, 25 days after the bodies were found. Dogs, boats, sonar. Oh but she was under water right? Murky, muddy water - that's why they couldn't find her. Wrong. The medical examiner, the prosecution's witness testified that there was mineralization in Laci pants indicating that she had gone through some repeated drying and rewetting process. Which means over an extended period of time, Laci’s body was exposed to the air repeatedly, long enough for the crotch portion of her pants to completely dry out (again REPEATEDLY and COMPLETELY). The only thing that can possibly explain this is that at every low tide - Laci's body was exposed. Yet her body was never spotted during the numerous bay searches of Scott’s undisputed fishing route.

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Cheng, was able to track a trajectory for Conner, from Scott’s fishing route to the location of where his body was found, but was unable to give an explanation for Laci's body turning up where it did. But the medical examiner says they were together. He testified that Conner must not have been expelled from Laci’s body and in the water more than 48 hours prior to being found on the shoreline, due to the lack of animal feeding on his body....Dr. Cheng could not explain how the bodies, supposedly propelled by the wind, could have originated from the same place but moved in different directions.

Conner was 33 weeks old on December 24th, 2002 when Laci disappeared, and all indications, based on 33 weeks of pre-natal care indicate he would have been a smaller than average to average sized baby. Yet his measurements at his time of death were of an averaged sized 35 week old baby or a VERY large 33 week old baby. Habeas expert and renowned fetal biometrist, Dr. Philippe Jeanty, the man who wrote the equation that the prosecution’s expert misused to come up with his date of death for Conner of December 24th, says that based on Conner’s measurements and using the proper equations – Conner’s date of death was in early January.

And more inconsistencies:

Prosecution claims Scott left the house at 10:08 and was at the warehouse on the computer at 10:30. Prosecution also claims that Karen Servas found the dog with his leash on and the gate wide open and returned the dog to the yard no later than 10:18. Prosecution does not dispute the mailman’s timeline of delivering the mail to the Peterson home no earlier than 10:35. However the mailman claims the gate was open and the dog was nowhere on the Peterson property when he delivered the mail that day. Yet the dog was in the yard with the gate closed when Scott returned home at 4:45:

10:08 - Scott leaves for the warehouse
10:18 - Karen Servas finds the dog and the gate open - she puts him back in the yard and closes the gate
10:35-10:50 - The mailman delivers the mail - the gate is open - the dog is gone
4:45 - Scott returns home - the dog is in the yard and the gate is closed

More inconsistencies:
Prosecution wants you to believe that it was Scott Peterson on the home computer that morning, pretending to be Laci, visiting shopping sights and viewing Gap scarves, garden weather vanes and sunflower motif umbrella stands, knowing the police would check his computer activity - hoping to make them think she was still alive at 8:45 AM. Yet this is the same computer that Scott researched boats for sale (a boat they claim he wanted to keep secret), the bay area and the Berkeley Marina on AND Scott never mentioned to the police that Laci had been on the computer that morning when he told them the events of that morning.

The prosecution claimed that Scott murdered his wife and unborn child because he did not want to be a father and wanted to be free from marriage. Yet Scott and Laci had tried for a year and half to get pregnant and Scott attended every OB-Gyn appointment with Laci during her pregnancy. Multiple people – friends as well as Laci’s family testified that Scott was excited about being a father...that Scott was goal oriented and that one of his goals was to have a child and a family (testimony of Brent Rocha).

The prosecution says the burglary across the street did not occur on the 24th, but on the 26th, when Covena was in the midst of searching for Laci. They say that Steve Todd rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th – when the Peterson home was being used as a makeshift volunteer center – police cars were lined up on Covena as the park was searched - and decided on that day that the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. Yet Diane Jackson saw a van with 3 men in front of the Medina home on the 24th around 11:30 am, and the Tenbrink brothers say Laci confronted Todd during the burglary.

Fictitious multiple anchors. Not a spec of evidence of multiple anchors being made.

Those are just some inconsistencies I could think of off the top of my head.

In addition to the inconsistencies - you have a pathetic investigation done by the MPD. When witnesses called to say they saw Laci walking that morning, instead of calling and talking to them, the police interview every pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood in an attempt to discredit people they never even bothered to interview. When given a description of Laci's jewelry that's missing - they do a search at the local pawn shops (expecting to find that Laci or Scott had pawned these items). When a pawn for a Croton watch turns up - instead of finding the woman who pawned the watch (who turns out actually had a connection to the burglars), Det. Grogan seeks to prove that Laci would not have worn that watch. Burglary across the street? Nah....that van and the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the house on the 24th didn't have anything to do with the burglary....the MPD says the one burglar burglarized that home all by himself - on the 26th - and moved all those items on his bicycle - making multiple trips (again - on his bicycle) in the middle of the night. And got a friend to help him move a safe out of the house and into a waiting vehicle on the street - amongst media trucks the morning of the 26th.

They improperly hypnotized Diane Jackson and Kristin Dempewolf - because of this they were not allowed to testify.
They either ignored or buried the Aponte tip.
They buried the mailman's info.
They excised information from a police report that Laci had been to the warehouse the week she disappeared.
Det. Brocchini stopped the dog trailing after it lead to the airport district (where the burglars lived) - and instead had them drive the dog's to Scott's warehouse.
Det. Brocchini kept the scent articles, including Laci's hair brush, in his desk drawer. Oh and miraculously one hair found in the pliers in the boat turned into two separate hairs in the evidence envelope - when Det. Brocchini opened it.


There are huge inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. In fact, there was no physical evidence, direct or circumstantial, that tied Scott Peterson to the act of murder. It is not sufficient to provide circumstantial evidence of motive and opportunity. There must be evidence that ties the defendant directly to the crime. That evidence does not exist in this case.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:34 pm

jane wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
jane wrote:What does this have to do with your understanding of the U.S. appellate process?


It is almost always easier to appeal on some sort of legal ground than actual innocence in the United States.
If you appear based on actual innocence, you better be sure that your case is completely solid.

I believe that Mr Peterson is guilty, enough that if I was in the jury I would have voted guilt even though I would have voted against death.
I just don't want to keep arguing and I think I have supported my case as well as possible.

There is going to be little inconsistencies in every case, things that you scratch your head about, in the most solid of cases.
Data tends to be messy.


Little inconsistencies? There are a lot more than "little inconsistencies" in this case. In fact - much of what the state claimed happened, simply could not have happened. They were for the most part largely INconsistent. Those puzzle pieces didn't fit together.

I know when it comes to the numerous searches of the bay by numerous agencies not turning up a body or any anchors everyone who believes Scott is guilty wants to use the "the San Francisco Bay is a huge area" excuse. But it's not. Not the area we are talking about. The prosecution was very clear. Scott went fishing along this route - he dumped her weighted body along this route - this giant storm came along and loosened her from the anchors and she and Conner floated ashore. They had their expert plot out the trajectory from where he dumped Laci's body on December 24th along his fishing route to where Conner was found. They were clear. They didn't say her body had been floating around the bay - Laci's body was anchored until that storm hit and within 45 hours, Conner washed ashore. The problem was the evidence says no - absolutely not. And much of this contradicting evidence was testified to by the prosecution's own witnesses. Berkeley to Brooks Island - a mile and a half. 1.5 square miles - shallow water - searched for 3 months. Did they take days off? - sure - but they were out there for at least 27 solid days before the bodies washed ashore, 25 days after the bodies were found. Dogs, boats, sonar. Oh but she was under water right? Murky, muddy water - that's why they couldn't find her. Wrong. The medical examiner, the prosecution's witness testified that there was mineralization in Laci pants indicating that she had gone through some repeated drying and rewetting process. Which means over an extended period of time, Laci’s body was exposed to the air repeatedly, long enough for the crotch portion of her pants to completely dry out (again REPEATEDLY and COMPLETELY). The only thing that can possibly explain this is that at every low tide - Laci's body was exposed. Yet her body was never spotted during the numerous bay searches of Scott’s undisputed fishing route.

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Cheng, was able to track a trajectory for Conner, from Scott’s fishing route to the location of where his body was found, but was unable to give an explanation for Laci's body turning up where it did. But the medical examiner says they were together. He testified that Conner must not have been expelled from Laci’s body and in the water more than 48 hours prior to being found on the shoreline, due to the lack of animal feeding on his body....Dr. Cheng could not explain how the bodies, supposedly propelled by the wind, could have originated from the same place but moved in different directions.

Conner was 33 weeks old on December 24th, 2002 when Laci disappeared, and all indications, based on 33 weeks of pre-natal care indicate he would have been a smaller than average to average sized baby. Yet his measurements at his time of death were of an averaged sized 35 week old baby or a VERY large 33 week old baby. Habeas expert and renowned fetal biometrist, Dr. Philippe Jeanty, the man who wrote the equation that the prosecution’s expert misused to come up with his date of death for Conner of December 24th, says that based on Conner’s measurements and using the proper equations – Conner’s date of death was in early January.

And more inconsistencies:

Prosecution claims Scott left the house at 10:08 and was at the warehouse on the computer at 10:30. Prosecution also claims that Karen Servas found the dog with his leash on and the gate wide open and returned the dog to the yard no later than 10:18. Prosecution does not dispute the mailman’s timeline of delivering the mail to the Peterson home no earlier than 10:35. However the mailman claims the gate was open and the dog was nowhere on the Peterson property when he delivered the mail that day. Yet the dog was in the yard with the gate closed when Scott returned home at 4:45:

10:08 - Scott leaves for the warehouse
10:18 - Karen Servas finds the dog and the gate open - she puts him back in the yard and closes the gate
10:35-10:50 - The mailman delivers the mail - the gate is open - the dog is gone
4:45 - Scott returns home - the dog is in the yard and the gate is closed

More inconsistencies:
Prosecution wants you to believe that it was Scott Peterson on the home computer that morning, pretending to be Laci, visiting shopping sights and viewing Gap scarves, garden weather vanes and sunflower motif umbrella stands, knowing the police would check his computer activity - hoping to make them think she was still alive at 8:45 AM. Yet this is the same computer that Scott researched boats for sale (a boat they claim he wanted to keep secret), the bay area and the Berkeley Marina on AND Scott never mentioned to the police that Laci had been on the computer that morning when he told them the events of that morning.

The prosecution claimed that Scott murdered his wife and unborn child because he did not want to be a father and wanted to be free from marriage. Yet Scott and Laci had tried for a year and half to get pregnant and Scott attended every OB-Gyn appointment with Laci during her pregnancy. Multiple people – friends as well as Laci’s family testified that Scott was excited about being a father...that Scott was goal oriented and that one of his goals was to have a child and a family (testimony of Brent Rocha).

The prosecution says the burglary across the street did not occur on the 24th, but on the 26th, when Covena was in the midst of searching for Laci. They say that Steve Todd rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th – when the Peterson home was being used as a makeshift volunteer center – police cars were lined up on Covena as the park was searched - and decided on that day that the Medina home would be a good house to burglarize. Yet Diane Jackson saw a van with 3 men in front of the Medina home on the 24th around 11:30 am, and the Tenbrink brothers say Laci confronted Todd during the burglary.

Fictitious multiple anchors. Not a spec of evidence of multiple anchors being made.

Those are just some inconsistencies I could think of off the top of my head.

In addition to the inconsistencies - you have a pathetic investigation done by the MPD. When witnesses called to say they saw Laci walking that morning, instead of calling and talking to them, the police interview every pregnant dog walker in the neighborhood in an attempt to discredit people they never even bothered to interview. When given a description of Laci's jewelry that's missing - they do a search at the local pawn shops (expecting to find that Laci or Scott had pawned these items). When a pawn for a Croton watch turns up - instead of finding the woman who pawned the watch (who turns out actually had a connection to the burglars), Det. Grogan seeks to prove that Laci would not have worn that watch. Burglary across the street? Nah....that van and the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the house on the 24th didn't have anything to do with the burglary....the MPD says the one burglar burglarized that home all by himself - on the 26th - and moved all those items on his bicycle - making multiple trips (again - on his bicycle) in the middle of the night. And got a friend to help him move a safe out of the house and into a waiting vehicle on the street - amongst media trucks the morning of the 26th.

They improperly hypnotized Diane Jackson and Kristin Dempewolf - because of this they were not allowed to testify.
They either ignored or buried the Aponte tip.
They buried the mailman's info.
They excised information from a police report that Laci had been to the warehouse the week she disappeared.
Det. Brocchini stopped the dog trailing after it lead to the airport district (where the burglars lived) - and instead had them drive the dog's to Scott's warehouse.
Det. Brocchini kept the scent articles, including Laci's hair brush, in his desk drawer. Oh and miraculously one hair found in the pliers in the boat turned into two separate hairs in the evidence envelope - when Det. Brocchini opened it.


There are huge inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. In fact, there was no physical evidence, direct or circumstantial, that tied Scott Peterson to the act of murder. It is not sufficient to provide circumstantial evidence of motive and opportunity. There must be evidence that ties the defendant directly to the crime. That evidence does not exist in this case.


The part you don't seem to get is the weight the legal system give to jury verdicts!

I could go through each and every one of your slanted to innocent post but it's really not worth it, your the only one in here paying attention, and trying to talk reason to you is an exercise in frustration. Needless to say there are easy counter points to each of your contentions. You also have to understand the importance of "harm" which is the reference point the referring judges will work to.

Just a quickly, unless Todd was carrying the safe on his back and walked home, there would be very little chance any dog could track someone inside a vehicle over large distances. but this is just one example where you call something Junk Science when it points to guilt but embrace it when it works towards innocence.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:20 pm

I still feel that this is a reasonably strong circumstantial case (scores of defendants have been convicted on less convincing evidence) but that the defense has raised two very strong defenses - the fact that the victim may have been alive and in the vicinity of their home after the defendant left to go to the Bay and the argument that the victim was alive and actually died only at a time substantially after the time the defendant is alleged to have killed her. Either of these - if established with sufficient evidence - should lead to an acquittal. However, in the absence of either of these, I think the conviction is likely to be affirmed and even if reversed that the defendant is likely to be convicted upon retrial.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:13 am

erasmus44 wrote:I still feel that this is a reasonably strong circumstantial case (scores of defendants have been convicted on less convincing evidence) but that the defense has raised two very strong defenses - the fact that the victim may have been alive and in the vicinity of their home after the defendant left to go to the Bay and the argument that the victim was alive and actually died only at a time substantially after the time the defendant is alleged to have killed her. Either of these - if established with sufficient evidence - should lead to an acquittal. However, in the absence of either of these, I think the conviction is likely to be affirmed and even if reversed that the defendant is likely to be convicted upon retrial.


Claim #11 in the habeas is for Cumulative Error. This means that the judges do not have to select just one error to overturn the verdict and ignore all the others.

Excerpt:
5. In this petition and in the briefing on direct appeal, petitioner has set forth separate post-conviction claims and arguments regarding the numerous guilt phase and penalty phase errors, and he submits that each one of these errors independently compels reversal of the judgment or alternative post-conviction relief. However, even in cases in which no single error compels reversal, a defendant may be deprived of due process if the cumulative effect of all errors in the case denied him fundamental fairness.....

6. Petitioner submits that the errors in this case, asserted in both the direct appeal and in this petition, require reversal both individually and because of their cumulative impact. As explained in detail in the separate claims and arguments on these issues, the errors in this case individually and collectively violated federal constitutional guarantees under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as they individually and collectively had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict, judgment and sentence and are moreover prejudicial under any standard of review.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 12:34 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.


I have been summoning the strength to answer Anon's post over the last two days. I have been going back and forth in my mind whether it is even worth it.

Anon - you either aren't reading slow enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I did not say it wasn't Todd. I said I often considered that maybe it wasn't Todd that the Tenbrinks were talking about - and that through the grapevine something got misconstrued. That's because I am not going to do what the Modesto Police Department did. I will not form a theory and then seek to prove my theory. My mind is open to the truth and where it leads me. However the possibility that it wasn't actually Todd that Laci confronted does NOT nullify the Aponte tip. The Tenbrinks and Aponte were clear.....Laci confronted the burglars. It doesn't matter if it was Todd or someone else - if that happened - Scott Peterson is innocent. And you can hide behind your arguments of "proper foundation" and "evidentiary rules" ......but an unbiased look at the facts of this case say that Laci Peterson was alive after Scott left that day.

Jane isn't all over my position because she and I discuss this case other places besides here. And we both know that we agree on the fundamental aspects of this case. Lace was alive after Scott left the house that day. We don't know all the details of what happened to her. Just like you don't know all the details in the Amanda Knox case. But you have a crime scene in the Knox case - we don't. You have the perpetrator behind bars. And yet you still don't know exactly what happened that day. You don't know if Rudy Guede broke into the home and entered through the window. You don't know if Meredith walked in on him burglarizing their home or if Meredith let him in and he broke the window to stage a burglary. You don't know why Rudy didn't bother to flush the toilet. You don't know if they had some type of consensual interaction prior to the attack. You don't know what made Rudy Guede go from being just a petty thief, to a rapist and a murderer. You can't prove that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. In fact the prosecution says there is forensic evidence that says Raffaele was there. Amanda confessed to being there. But sloppy police work called that evidence into question - so it must be dismissed. And there are still people who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I know you don't think there are similarities between the Knox case and the Peterson case - but there are. Your guilty bias in the Peterson case prevents you from seeing it.

Sure - the Petersons have had decades to find out what really happened to Laci. But they are up against witnesses who have spent a lifetime addicted to methamphetamine.....which compromises their memory and their credibility. These people and their families still live in that neighborhood - and likely with Laci's killer - and the police are not on the side of the truth. The police now have a vested interest in Scott Peterson being guilty. Det. Brocchini has a history of intimidating witnesses and threatening witnesses' families. You think they are going to jeopardize their own safety and their childrens' safety to help Scott Peterson? And without a crime scene, without police assistance/pressure, without a proper investigation...that's what the Petersons are left with. Hoping someone will come forward. And you dare to use this as proof that Scott must be guilty. It leaves me shaking my head.

And as far as the dog tracking......my point in bringing it up - was to show the impropriety on the part of Brocchini when he stopped the trailing and decided to DRIVE the dogs to the warehouse. And then you either confused Jane with having said it and basically called her a hypocrite because she had previously stated that dog tracking was junk science.....or.....you are continuing to imply that Jane and I are the same person. One last time.....we are not. And please either read more carefully or stop twisting my words.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:12 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.


I have been summoning the strength to answer Anon's post over the last two days. I have been going back and forth in my mind whether it is even worth it.

Anon - you either aren't reading slow enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I did not say it wasn't Todd. I said I often considered that maybe it wasn't Todd that the Tenbrinks were talking about - and that through the grapevine something got misconstrued. That's because I am not going to do what the Modesto Police Department did. I will not form a theory and then seek to prove my theory. My mind is open to the truth and where it leads me. However the possibility that it wasn't actually Todd that Laci confronted does NOT nullify the Aponte tip. The Tenbrinks and Aponte were clear.....Laci confronted the burglars. It doesn't matter if it was Todd or someone else - if that happened - Scott Peterson is innocent. And you can hide behind your arguments of "proper foundation" and "evidentiary rules" ......but an unbiased look at the facts of this case say that Laci Peterson was alive after Scott left that day.

Jane isn't all over my position because she and I discuss this case other places besides here. And we both know that we agree on the fundamental aspects of this case. Lace was alive after Scott left the house that day. We don't know all the details of what happened to her. Just like you don't know all the details in the Amanda Knox case. But you have a crime scene in the Knox case - we don't. You have the perpetrator behind bars. And yet you still don't know exactly what happened that day. You don't know if Rudy Guede broke into the home and entered through the window. You don't know if Meredith walked in on him burglarizing their home or if Meredith let him in and he broke the window to stage a burglary. You don't know why Rudy didn't bother to flush the toilet. You don't know if they had some type of consensual interaction prior to the attack. You don't know what made Rudy Guede go from being just a petty thief, to a rapist and a murderer. You can't prove that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. In fact the prosecution says there is forensic evidence that says Raffaele was there. Amanda confessed to being there. But sloppy police work called that evidence into question - so it must be dismissed. And there are still people who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I know you don't think there are similarities between the Knox case and the Peterson case - but there are. Your guilty bias in the Peterson case prevents you from seeing it.

Sure - the Petersons have had decades to find out what really happened to Laci. But they are up against witnesses who have spent a lifetime addicted to methamphetamine.....which compromises their memory and their credibility. These people and their families still live in that neighborhood - and likely with Laci's killer - and the police are not on the side of the truth. The police now have a vested interest in Scott Peterson being guilty. Det. Brocchini has a history of intimidating witnesses and threatening witnesses' families. You think they are going to jeopardize their own safety and their childrens' safety to help Scott Peterson? And without a crime scene, without police assistance/pressure, without a proper investigation...that's what the Petersons are left with. Hoping someone will come forward. And you dare to use this as proof that Scott must be guilty. It leaves me shaking my head.

And as far as the dog tracking......my point in bringing it up - was to show the impropriety on the part of Brocchini when he stopped the trailing and decided to DRIVE the dogs to the warehouse. And then you either confused Jane with having said it and basically called her a hypocrite because she had previously stated that dog tracking was junk science.....or.....you are continuing to imply that Jane and I are the same person. One last time.....we are not. And please either read more carefully or stop twisting my words.


My remarks about foundation are 100% true and as I stated, this is an issue that will haunt the Habeas and the Appeal, You see, courts of Law have rules, and the idea that you don't agree with the judges rulings or the verdict rendered by the Jury is certainly a valid topic for this forum, but it does not remove evidence rules.

I get that you feel a great injustice has been committed, But I also think you go to far in directly relating this case to the Knox Case. The most important fact, is the final decision in the 2 cases, Knox was found not guilty and Peterson was found guilty, This fact changes the entire dynamic of fighting for innocence. There is no comparison to Knox at this point. An if I'm being as straight forward as possible, I thought Knox to be Guilty when I first got involved with the case.

It's good to know that you and Jane have discussion about this case in other places, It adds some transparency to the linkage, and the only reason I mentioned you were the same person was due to the Date you both registered and the fact that you are always running to each others aid.

Aponte's tip was in the hands of the Defense, they chose not to use it or explore it further, This evidence is without foundation, we don't know if it is a true representation of what was said, who actually said it to be overheard or the context in which it was spoken, to base a whole theory on this foundation deprived so called evidence is useless, Does the Tip add to the grandeur of the your shared fantasy, well sure it does, but there is no linkage between the burglary and Laci's murder. A Theory is like a building, when the foundation is weak, the building will fall, Sure you can stack a whole bunch of half-truths and speculation to add lipstick to the pig, but in the end what you are left with is nothing. The burglary theory is laughable in terms of evidence. And as a continuing theme, remember I'm not comparing the strength of the evidence in the primary trial, Because I know how you work, your response will be "They convicted him on less", That is certainly open for debated, but that is not where reality puts this case.

I have yet to hear of a reasonable alternative murderer with a reasonable motive. I have yet to hear how, in a burglary scenario one can account for the condition of the bodies and the obsticles associated with keeping Laci Alive only to kill her to try and Frame Scott. What it amounts to is wishful thinking!

As for the Peterson's, I find it hard to give them any credibility in anything they say, After all they basically gave their son a bag of money, Credit Cards and helped arrange his escape, why would they do that if they really felt he was innocent? a decade later and they are still very uncompelling, Other than the Publicity they pay for from PWC, I dont see them pushing their sons story in the press, actively putting themselves out there in the media.

I'm from Missouri as the edict goes

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:13 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:OK so now making an argument Habeas makes it a fact, sorry not so!

I have never said that Scott has to identify anyone or any thing, only that any evidence he submits or argues on behalf of, has to have proper foundation and follow evidentiary rules. There is no flaw in my logic.

It is not enough in an appeal to just throw out Ideas or theories that are based on evidence without foundation. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! As it stands right now there is very little in way of compelling evidence that a burglary, even if it did take place at the same time Laci disappeared, had any linkage.

Even inside your tight little group you have a LM stating it was not Todd and therefor basically nullifying Aponte, and also stating that Connor was never born alive, they you Jane, with it was Todd and Connor was born alive. The Innocence community with the benefit of a decade passing, has nothing concrete.

As I have stated up-thread, how come you are not all over LM about her position on the Burglary being a completely different group of people (Than Todd), and why are you not debating her on Connor being born alive.........

Anon


What makes you think there is not a proper foundation for everything that is argued in the direct appeal and the habeas? What makes you think that either one of these documents is based only on the connection of the burglary to Laci's abduction? That is not the point that is being made at this stage of the process. To repeat what I posted for Desert Fox:

These are just a few of the issues raised in the appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.

To read the actual documents go to:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/appe ... ation.html

As far as the rest of your post, I'll let LSmith respond to that if she wants to.


I have been summoning the strength to answer Anon's post over the last two days. I have been going back and forth in my mind whether it is even worth it.

Anon - you either aren't reading slow enough or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. I did not say it wasn't Todd. I said I often considered that maybe it wasn't Todd that the Tenbrinks were talking about - and that through the grapevine something got misconstrued. That's because I am not going to do what the Modesto Police Department did. I will not form a theory and then seek to prove my theory. My mind is open to the truth and where it leads me. However the possibility that it wasn't actually Todd that Laci confronted does NOT nullify the Aponte tip. The Tenbrinks and Aponte were clear.....Laci confronted the burglars. It doesn't matter if it was Todd or someone else - if that happened - Scott Peterson is innocent. And you can hide behind your arguments of "proper foundation" and "evidentiary rules" ......but an unbiased look at the facts of this case say that Laci Peterson was alive after Scott left that day.

Jane isn't all over my position because she and I discuss this case other places besides here. And we both know that we agree on the fundamental aspects of this case. Lace was alive after Scott left the house that day. We don't know all the details of what happened to her. Just like you don't know all the details in the Amanda Knox case. But you have a crime scene in the Knox case - we don't. You have the perpetrator behind bars. And yet you still don't know exactly what happened that day. You don't know if Rudy Guede broke into the home and entered through the window. You don't know if Meredith walked in on him burglarizing their home or if Meredith let him in and he broke the window to stage a burglary. You don't know why Rudy didn't bother to flush the toilet. You don't know if they had some type of consensual interaction prior to the attack. You don't know what made Rudy Guede go from being just a petty thief, to a rapist and a murderer. You can't prove that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there. In fact the prosecution says there is forensic evidence that says Raffaele was there. Amanda confessed to being there. But sloppy police work called that evidence into question - so it must be dismissed. And there are still people who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. I know you don't think there are similarities between the Knox case and the Peterson case - but there are. Your guilty bias in the Peterson case prevents you from seeing it.

Sure - the Petersons have had decades to find out what really happened to Laci. But they are up against witnesses who have spent a lifetime addicted to methamphetamine.....which compromises their memory and their credibility. These people and their families still live in that neighborhood - and likely with Laci's killer - and the police are not on the side of the truth. The police now have a vested interest in Scott Peterson being guilty. Det. Brocchini has a history of intimidating witnesses and threatening witnesses' families. You think they are going to jeopardize their own safety and their childrens' safety to help Scott Peterson? And without a crime scene, without police assistance/pressure, without a proper investigation...that's what the Petersons are left with. Hoping someone will come forward. And you dare to use this as proof that Scott must be guilty. It leaves me shaking my head.

And as far as the dog tracking......my point in bringing it up - was to show the impropriety on the part of Brocchini when he stopped the trailing and decided to DRIVE the dogs to the warehouse. And then you either confused Jane with having said it and basically called her a hypocrite because she had previously stated that dog tracking was junk science.....or.....you are continuing to imply that Jane and I are the same person. One last time.....we are not. And please either read more carefully or stop twisting my words.


My remarks about foundation are 100% true and as I stated, this is an issue that will haunt the Habeas and the Appeal, You see, courts of Law have rules, and the idea that you don't agree with the judges rulings or the verdict rendered by the Jury is certainly a valid topic for this forum, but it does not remove evidence rules.

I get that you feel a great injustice has been committed, But I also think you go to far in directly relating this case to the Knox Case. The most important fact, is the final decision in the 2 cases, Knox was found not guilty and Peterson was found guilty, This fact changes the entire dynamic of fighting for innocence. There is no comparison to Knox at this point. An if I'm being as straight forward as possible, I thought Knox to be Guilty when I first got involved with the case.

It's good to know that you and Jane have discussion about this case in other places, It adds some transparency to the linkage, and the only reason I mentioned you were the same person was due to the Date you both registered and the fact that you are always running to each others aid.

Aponte's tip was in the hands of the Defense, they chose not to use it or explore it further, This evidence is without foundation, we don't know if it is a true representation of what was said, who actually said it to be overheard or the context in which it was spoken, to base a whole theory on this foundation deprived so called evidence is useless, Does the Tip add to the grandeur of the your shared fantasy, well sure it does, but there is no linkage between the burglary and Laci's murder. A Theory is like a building, when the foundation is weak, the building will fall, Sure you can stack a whole bunch of half-truths and speculation to add lipstick to the pig, but in the end what you are left with is nothing. The burglary theory is laughable in terms of evidence. And as a continuing theme, remember I'm not comparing the strength of the evidence in the primary trial, Because I know how you work, your response will be "They convicted him on less", That is certainly open for debated, but that is not where reality puts this case.

I have yet to hear of a reasonable alternative murderer with a reasonable motive. I have yet to hear how, in a burglary scenario one can account for the condition of the bodies and the obsticles associated with keeping Laci Alive only to kill her to try and Frame Scott. What it amounts to is wishful thinking!

As for the Peterson's, I find it hard to give them any credibility in anything they say, After all they basically gave their son a bag of money, Credit Cards and helped arrange his escape, why would they do that if they really felt he was innocent? a decade later and they are still very uncompelling, Other than the Publicity they pay for from PWC, I dont see them pushing their sons story in the press, actively putting themselves out there in the media.

I'm from Missouri as the edict goes

Anon


It's curious that you only find the "final" verdicts relevant in the two cases. Wasn't Knox initially found guilty? And Scott's guilty verdict is not the final verdict. The possibility for a second trial will not be gone until his appeals are exhausted.

Just for clarification....the defense did not choose not to explore or use Aponte tip. The judge ruled they could not use the Aponte tip because the neighbor finding the dog at 10:18 made it impossible for Laci to have confronted the burglars. Which was a faulty reasoning....faulty beyond belief.

No one has ever said they killed Laci Peterson to frame Scott Peterson. That statement makes it clear that you are not "listening" to or considering what we are saying.

Scott was not fleeing. It really astounds me that people keep saying that. It goes to show you that if a lie is repeated over and over again people will believe it.

You could not be more wrong about the Petersons. You really don't see why they wouldn't trust the media? Really? Why do you think there hasn't been ONE report in the media about the info in the habeas appeal? Because the media has a vested interest in the public continuing to believe that Scott Peterson is guilty. The media does not have the "you know whats" to stand up against the mob mentality....besides - giving the mob what they want is what makes them money. You really think the Petersons can go to the media and trust that they won't edit their interview to further their own agenda? Are you that naïve?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:23 pm

Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:57 pm

anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Not that you’ll bother to read anything that doesn’t support your point of view, but here’s a link: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

The defense was unaware of the significance of the Aponte tip until the end of the prosecution case on October 5, 2004 shortly before Geragos was to begin his CIC. At that time they attempted to contact Aponte and it took some time to reach him. Then Aponte began a search for the taped conversations of the Tenbrink brothers and was unable to find them. The defense did not interview Aponte until after Scott had been convicted. The judge refused to consider the Aponte info because of the Servas 10:18 timeline for finding the dog.

One level of hearsay has been removed by the signed declaration for the habeas from Sean Tenbrink confirming the conversation and its content. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the CASC, Adam Tenbrink could be subpoenaed to confirm that Steve Todd was the one who told him that Laci walked up as they were doing the burglary. At that point, the information would be admissible as a hearsay exception—as the witness (Laci) was killed to prevent her from testifying against Todd.


Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Amanda Knox was convicted twice.


Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

Todd’s original intention was to remove Laci from the scene of the burglary so she couldn’t report it. Putting the body where Scott went fishing was intended to keep the focus on Scott and away from the people who murdered her.

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon

You don’t know anything about what the Peterson’s have done and are still doing to exonerate Scott. Stay tuned.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:10 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Not that you’ll bother to read anything that doesn’t support your point of view, but here’s a link: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

The defense was unaware of the significance of the Aponte tip until the end of the prosecution case on October 5, 2004 shortly before Geragos was to begin his CIC. At that time they attempted to contact Aponte and it took some time to reach him. Then Aponte began a search for the taped conversations of the Tenbrink brothers and was unable to find them. The defense did not interview Aponte until after Scott had been convicted. The judge refused to consider the Aponte info because of the Servas 10:18 timeline for finding the dog.

One level of hearsay has been removed by the signed declaration for the habeas from Sean Tenbrink confirming the conversation and its content. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the CASC, Adam Tenbrink could be subpoenaed to confirm that Steve Todd was the one who told him that Laci walked up as they were doing the burglary. At that point, the information would be admissible as a hearsay exception—as the witness (Laci) was killed to prevent her from testifying against Todd.


Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Amanda Knox was convicted twice.


Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

Todd’s original intention was to remove Laci from the scene of the burglary so she couldn’t report it. Putting the body where Scott went fishing was intended to keep the focus on Scott and away from the people who murdered her.

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon

You don’t know anything about what the Peterson’s have done and are still doing to exonerate Scott. Stay tuned.


I don't need to read anyone's opinion, I got a list of the items in the car and an image of scott's apearence from the court files, it very simple to draw a reasonable inference of what Scott was doing.

Show me Todd's statemet, its really that simple, what did he say and who did he say it to...Still without the benefit of being under oath or in a court of law. but I guess any old interview will do. A Signed statement saying what, he overheard someone say that Laci was killed by burglars? Sounds like Hearsay again to me!

Hearsay does not have t be more than one level in California, it is inadmissible unless it meets a very specific criteria, the criteria you gave is not valid for admission. Laci's availability to speak is no an exception as she was not the one who made any attributable comments.

In Italy a guilty verdict is not converted to a final conviction until the highest court confirms it, so no she was not Ultimately convicted

You Logic Jane leave much to be desired. you fail to grasp even basic rules of evidence and foundations.

The Peterson's worked to help their son escape justice, that is a criminal act....They should have been tried for obstruction of Justice.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:41 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Not Fleeing = Dying ones Hair, Growing a Goatee. Had Brother Drivers License, $15,000.00 in Cash, Gas Card and Credit Cards from Family members, 4 Cell Phones, Camping and survival gear.....Sure, he was going to the Dentist in Michael Griffi's car......

Not that you’ll bother to read anything that doesn’t support your point of view, but here’s a link: http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/did-not-flee.html

Defense did not use Aponte, probably for the same reason I have spoken about, its fourth degree Hearsay with a total lack of foundation. If the Judge Ruled it inadmissible it would be reasonable on many grounds. It Lacks Foundation, It Lacks Relevance, it is Hearsay that does not conform to any exceptions for admittance

The defense was unaware of the significance of the Aponte tip until the end of the prosecution case on October 5, 2004 shortly before Geragos was to begin his CIC. At that time they attempted to contact Aponte and it took some time to reach him. Then Aponte began a search for the taped conversations of the Tenbrink brothers and was unable to find them. The defense did not interview Aponte until after Scott had been convicted. The judge refused to consider the Aponte info because of the Servas 10:18 timeline for finding the dog.

One level of hearsay has been removed by the signed declaration for the habeas from Sean Tenbrink confirming the conversation and its content. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered by the CASC, Adam Tenbrink could be subpoenaed to confirm that Steve Todd was the one who told him that Laci walked up as they were doing the burglary. At that point, the information would be admissible as a hearsay exception—as the witness (Laci) was killed to prevent her from testifying against Todd.


Amanda Knox was never Convicted, Scott has been - the 2 scenerios are completely different -anyone on this sight should know the difference!

Amanda Knox was convicted twice.


Jane and others have expressed multiple time that it was Todd's intention to frame Scott......As them yourself

Todd’s original intention was to remove Laci from the scene of the burglary so she couldn’t report it. Putting the body where Scott went fishing was intended to keep the focus on Scott and away from the people who murdered her.

I'm 100% right about the Petersons, and their lack of any formal public support of their son, I am also correct in my assertion that they were willing to obstruct justice when they helped Scott in his preparations to flee. They knew exactly what they were doing, their lack of public support is based on their shame.

Anon

You don’t know anything about what the Peterson’s have done and are still doing to exonerate Scott. Stay tuned.


I don't need to read anyone's opinion, I got a list of the items in the car and an image of scott's apearence from the court files, it very simple to draw a reasonable inference of what Scott was doing.

Show me Todd's statemet, its really that simple, what did he say and who did he say it to...Still without the benefit of being under oath or in a court of law. but I guess any old interview will do. A Signed statement saying what, he overheard someone say that Laci was killed by burglars? Sounds like Hearsay again to me!

Hearsay does not have t be more than one level in California, it is inadmissible unless it meets a very specific criteria, the criteria you gave is not valid for admission. Laci's availability to speak is no an exception as she was not the one who made any attributable comments.

In Italy a guilty verdict is not converted to a final conviction until the highest court confirms it, so no she was not Ultimately convicted

You Logic Jane leave much to be desired. you fail to grasp even basic rules of evidence and foundations.

The Peterson's worked to help their son escape justice, that is a criminal act....They should have been tried for obstruction of Justice.

Anon


By any chance, Anonshy, are you from Modesto?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Broseph » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:55 pm

Jane, are you a friend, relative or admirer of SP?

(On ISF I've noticed that, with only 1 or 2 exceptions, every one now posting in defense of Knox has either met her in person or wants to meet her in person.)
Broseph
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:18 am

Broseph wrote:Jane, are you a friend, relative or admirer of SP?

(On ISF I've noticed that, with only 1 or 2 exceptions, every one now posting in defense of Knox has either met her in person or wants to meet her in person.)


None of the above. Just an ordinary citizen very concerned about the problem of wrongful convictions. The Peterson case is one of the worst. Extreme media bias, dishonest investigation, misconduct by the prosecutors, false testimony by expert witnesses, judicial bias, juror misconduct, numerous violations of Peterson's constitutional rights to due process.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:57 am

There is no way that Scott Peterson could be guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn child.

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.

So how did the jury find him guilty? Hatred, pure and simple.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:45 pm

jane wrote:There is no way that Scott Peterson could be guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn child.

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.

So how did the jury find him guilty? Hatred, pure and simple.


Not from Modesto, Sorry!

Scott is a convicted Murderer of his wife an unborn child, he had both a credible motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. That is a legal reality, again, you may not like it but that is a fact. There may be some form of revision through Habeas or on Appeal, but as it stands now, he is convicted of the brutal Murder of his Wife and son! Circumstantial as it is, and with some very obvious deficiencies, the jury was in fact able to reach a verdict. Scott was the only one that could have Killed laci without leaving a trace, it would have taken time, planning and opportunity that on Peterson had. Everything points to Scotts guilt an no one else. Sure you can try to shift blame away from Scott by suggesting some Meth-Head small time burglars committed the act, but we all know this is just the last ditch hail marry that is not supported by any credible evidence. Hearsay statements that have not been released or held up to an form of scrutiny are passed off as undisputed fact. If you look at it in the aggregate it is almost laughable. The shortest distance between 2 points is always a straight line, and in the same way the Occam's proved to be correct in the Knox case, so will it continue to be correct in the Peterson matter. The Habeas and Appeals have been classified by experts as being very weak. and the PWC Publicity campaign has been ineffective of changing or generating any advancement for Peterson in the public or legal communities.

The Peterson's have been deplorable through the whole process, fighting Lac's family's every at requests to have her personal belongings, from her personal journals down to the Wedding Ring given to Laci that Scott Demanded to keep. These are not good people, and as it turns out they raised a monster!

To those new here, beware of the use of Fantasy as fact, and speculation over foundation, if you understand those tenants you will have no issue wading through the nonsense that will be throw around as fact.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:41 pm

Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:03 pm

jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:26 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon


Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:06 am

Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:23 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Motive and opportunity are not sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There has to be evidence that the defendant committed the physical act of murder. There is none.

Most of the people who make personal attacks against the Petersons come from Modesto. I think these attacks are disgusting. Under the circumstances, the Petersons behaved like saints when confronted by the tacky behaviour of the Rochas who broke into the Covena house and took several truckloads of things that didn’t belong to them.


They are not attacks, they are pointing out facts that are on the record:

The Peterson's through their lawyers worked against Laci's family in a time when they were looking for healing and closure. They made simple request to pickup property that directly belonged to Laci including her Journals and her wedding ring. the Peterson's fought all of these request adding to the Injury and loss they were dealing with. Why on gods earth would they act in this manner? - that's easy, they are not good people!

It is interesting that you bring up the fact that most people in Modesto don't like the Peterson's, but not all that surprising given their actions.

Your completely wrong about needing physical evidence or direct evidence that the physical act occurred, the fact that there is a total lack of evidence is in fact evidence in itself. Opportunity and Motive are sufficient when circumstances at in support. There have been cases where no body is ever discovered, and no direct evidence of the act of murder is collected and guilt can still be proven. YOu just don't seem to have a real good grasp on how law works, the emotionallity of your convictions is clouding your perspective.

Anon


Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:28 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:37 am

jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:39 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.


I was not discussing the break-in, I was discussing the initial stance of the Peterson's towards lacis family. If they felt they had to "Break In" to Laci's own house, to Retrieve Laci's own belonging's you make my point for me.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:41 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:46 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.


I was not discussing the break-in, I was discussing the initial stance of the Peterson's towards lacis family. If they felt they had to "Break In" to Laci's own house, to Retrieve Laci's own belonging's you make my point for me.

Anon


And here's more from another Modbee article on May 31, 2003:

Scott Peterson's family had planned to voluntarily turn over only some of the items that his wife's family wanted from the couple's home.

Laci Peterson's family and friends acted first, though, and took what they wanted Friday from the Covena Avenue house -- over the Peterson family's objections.

Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, expressed dismay: "Yesterday we see a coroner's report about a baby, and today we're talking about salt and pepper shakers," she said by telephone from her home in San Diego County.

In discussing the Rochas' request for property from the home, Peterson said some of the items, such as Laci's journals, could not be turned over.

"Scott didn't even know she had journals," Peterson said. "If she did, police have them."

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother. Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

The Rocha family could not be reached for comment.

The family had submitted a 22-point list of items sought from the house. Peterson said Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, later revised it to 16 points.

The Rochas still wanted the crib intended for Conner, the boy with whom Laci was pregnant at the time of her disappearance. And they wanted the rocking chair from the baby's room, too.

Crib and rocking chair went out the door Friday.

Earlier this week, family attorneys said the Rochas needed to "sit in Conner's room in the rocking chair Laci had purchased to rock him in, and just to have the opportunity to feel her presence."

Peterson said she and her family bought almost everything in the baby's room, including crib, rocking chair, clothes and toys -- all baby shower gifts. Scott wanted to keep the baby's things, his mother said.

She said Sharon Rocha was welcome to take back the crib bedding that she had purchased.

Peterson said her son previously agreed to give some property to Laci's brother and half sister: for Brent Rocha, flower vase wall sconces that he had given to Laci as a gift; and for Amy Rocha, wicker furniture and lamps given to Laci by the women's paternal grandmother.

Other items, she said, Scott and Laci acquired as a couple -- such as two white chairs and an end table. "They are not Sharon's," Peterson said.

Nor did her son want to turn over kitchenware -- a food processor, a mixer and cookbooks -- "that Scott will need to keep house," his mother said.

Scott already had decided to turn over the salt and pepper shaker set, in snail motif.

The Rochas also had asked for "Laci's fine china and stemware." Peterson noted how the listing omitted Scott's name.

She described the china and stemware as wedding gifts to the couple, entitling Scott to keep them. She added that she and her husband bought most of the china, filling out the set after the wedding.

There are no photos of Laci to turn over, Peterson said. She said police took every one that included Laci, leaving four photos in the house. She said police also took most of Laci's clothing. "But she (Sharon Rocha) can have all of it."............
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:46 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:49 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon


The things you say are not true. You are making things up. If you have a credible source for this information, name it.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:49 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Your posts are complete nonsense. What is your main source of information about the case?


I can tell you that it is not a paid publicity site like the PWC you keep cutting and pasting from. Jane your a lemming for the Peterson's

Everything I have posted is true, Sorry it does not fit into your fantasy narative.

Anon


Name your source. Compare your information to the facts about the Rocha break-in which I posted above this morning.


I was not discussing the break-in, I was discussing the initial stance of the Peterson's towards lacis family. If they felt they had to "Break In" to Laci's own house, to Retrieve Laci's own belonging's you make my point for me.

Anon


And here's more from another Modbee article on May 31, 2003:

Scott Peterson's family had planned to voluntarily turn over only some of the items that his wife's family wanted from the couple's home.

Laci Peterson's family and friends acted first, though, and took what they wanted Friday from the Covena Avenue house -- over the Peterson family's objections.

Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, expressed dismay: "Yesterday we see a coroner's report about a baby, and today we're talking about salt and pepper shakers," she said by telephone from her home in San Diego County.

In discussing the Rochas' request for property from the home, Peterson said some of the items, such as Laci's journals, could not be turned over.

"Scott didn't even know she had journals," Peterson said. "If she did, police have them."

Peterson said her son has a request, too: He wants his wife's wedding ring, another diamond ring that he bought her, and a few diamonds given to Laci by her grandmother. Peterson said the rings and gems had been taken to a jeweler for crafting into one ring.

"We want those," Peterson said. She said the Rochas picked them up from the jeweler.

The Rocha family could not be reached for comment.

The family had submitted a 22-point list of items sought from the house. Peterson said Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, later revised it to 16 points.

The Rochas still wanted the crib intended for Conner, the boy with whom Laci was pregnant at the time of her disappearance. And they wanted the rocking chair from the baby's room, too.

Crib and rocking chair went out the door Friday.

Earlier this week, family attorneys said the Rochas needed to "sit in Conner's room in the rocking chair Laci had purchased to rock him in, and just to have the opportunity to feel her presence."

Peterson said she and her family bought almost everything in the baby's room, including crib, rocking chair, clothes and toys -- all baby shower gifts. Scott wanted to keep the baby's things, his mother said.

She said Sharon Rocha was welcome to take back the crib bedding that she had purchased.

Peterson said her son previously agreed to give some property to Laci's brother and half sister: for Brent Rocha, flower vase wall sconces that he had given to Laci as a gift; and for Amy Rocha, wicker furniture and lamps given to Laci by the women's paternal grandmother.

Other items, she said, Scott and Laci acquired as a couple -- such as two white chairs and an end table. "They are not Sharon's," Peterson said.

Nor did her son want to turn over kitchenware -- a food processor, a mixer and cookbooks -- "that Scott will need to keep house," his mother said.

Scott already had decided to turn over the salt and pepper shaker set, in snail motif.

The Rochas also had asked for "Laci's fine china and stemware." Peterson noted how the listing omitted Scott's name.

She described the china and stemware as wedding gifts to the couple, entitling Scott to keep them. She added that she and her husband bought most of the china, filling out the set after the wedding.

There are no photos of Laci to turn over, Peterson said. She said police took every one that included Laci, leaving four photos in the house. She said police also took most of Laci's clothing. "But she (Sharon Rocha) can have all of it."............


I don't care what the Peterson's told the press they "Planned to do", I m interested in what they actually did do, can you not think for yourself?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:52 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy really doesn’t know the facts of the case; so he just throws in a few legal terms and makes the rest up. For instance, compare what he said about the May 30, 2003 Rocha Break-In and the facts that were reported in the Modesto Bee:
************
Laci Peterson’s family and friends removed truckloads of items from the slain Modesto woman’s house Friday.

Loaded into seven vehicles were a white rocking chair, a mattress and bed frame, clothing and a box with Graco printed on the outside. Graco produces baby products like strollers, high chairs and car seats.

Laci Peterson’s family announced Wednesday that they had hired attorneys to help retrieve from the house her wedding dress, a baby crib, jewelry and other items.

Scott Peterson’s defense attorneys said prosecution and defense representatives had worked out an agreement to walk through the house on Tuesday, videotaping the location and type of items, which were then to be handed over to Laci Peterson’s family.

Some of the requested items, including what appeared to be gifts, had been moved to the Modesto office of defense co-counsel Kirk McAllister on Monday to transfer to the slain woman’s family, but they had not been picked up by Friday morning, McAllister said.

“I still have things for the Rochas sitting in my front conference room,” McAllister said. “I don’t know why they need to break in.”………………..

Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson’s brother, was among several people moving items from the house into four pickups, two sport utility vehicles and a minivan. Asked for comment from a crush of reporters, Rocha said simply: “Thanks, guys,” before driving away.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
**************
This is an excerpt from commentary on the episode by Jonna Spilbor, a CNN legal analyst:

One week prior to the hearing, Laci's family, together with a few friends, descended upon the Modesto home Scott shared with Laci before her death. With neither permission nor legal justification, they removed truckloads of property -- furniture, clothing, jewelry, even the salt and pepper shakers -- and drove it away. Television cameras captured nearly the entire event on tape.

The property apparently belonged to Scott Peterson, as his wife's heir. Thus, the Rochas' and their friends' actions constituted both trespassing and theft. Indeed, this was technically a textbook residential burglary -- which is a felony in California.

Sympathy aside, crime victims do not gain the right to break the law by virtue of their misfortune. The Rochas had no more right to take items from the Peterson home than they had, for example, to rob the local bank.

Far worse than the actions themselves, is their impact on the trial. It is virtually impossible to determine to what extent the Rochas' actions may interfere with Scott Peterson's defense. After all, the prosecution claims Laci's murder occurred inside the Modesto home.

Police had their opportunity to investigate the so-called crime scene. But Mark Geragos and his investigators have not fully completed their own investigation. Now, they may never be able to.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/11/findl ... .peterson/


Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon


The things you say are not true. You are making things up. If you have a credible source for this information, name it.


I reference your own posting, go read it yourself, it states that lawyers were involved, that the petersons blocked access requiring an agreement in the first place, and from your article, there were resrtictions place on their access. What other source do I need to quote.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:44 am

WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:28 pm

anonshy wrote:WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon


You proved my point. No further need to comment. You have no source for your allegations. Therefore, you referenced the sources in my posts which you obviously did not read or understand.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:47 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Cut and pasted from a paid Peterson Publicity firm. All you need to know is simple, when the first requests were made to retrieve items they were refused by the Peterson's, this is the reason lawyers had to get involved in the first place, Jane cant see the forest for the trees! Just ask yourself why lawyers where needed in the first place and you can ignore Jane's long cut and past. Peterson's refused, and even when finally granted, they had restrictions placed on them, hardly the actions of an innocent man wrongly prosecuted for killing his wife....but you all make up your own minds.

You will also notice, I won't attack other just because I have a different opinion. I may call them out on stupidity, To infer I know nothing about this case is just more fantasy. There has been much debate in this forum, and I have always provided a balanced representation of the evidence.

Ask Jane the right question, do your own investigation into her claims and you will see for yourself what merits her theory has, but beware, her story changes quite often so be sure to read back through earlier post to see how (After all this time) her theory evolves.

Anon

Anon


More nonsense. Are you saying that the Modesto Bee and CNN are Peterson publicity firms? Ridiculous!!

You still have not given the name of your source.


My source.....Is this watergate? all the information I have posted is available online and can easily be found - even by you Jane

Anon


The things you say are not true. You are making things up. If you have a credible source for this information, name it.


I reference your own posting, go read it yourself, it states that lawyers were involved, that the petersons blocked access requiring an agreement in the first place, and from your article, there were resrtictions place on their access. What other source do I need to quote.

Anon


Anon - I love how you make inferences from something you've read and suddenly it becomes fact. How do you know it wasn't the Rocha's that wanted the communications to be done via the lawyers? Scott had only been in jail six weeks when the Rocha's broke into the home. Ummm....the Petersons kind of had a lot on their plate don't ya think? Are you aware that Sharon Rocha started her demands of Laci's things as early as January, 2003? She wanted the baby's belongings, the crib, Laci's photographs, two tiffany lamps........Yes - Scott denied her those things because he still believed that Laci might come home. He hadn't been arrested yet. He was still living in the home! Scott agreed to share the photos with her - but said no to the lamps because he said they were Laci's and they should be in their home when she returned home. January!!! She had already stolen Laci's wedding ring. 11 days after Laci went missing - January 4th - even before anyone found out about Amber - Sharon Rocha went to the jeweler and picked up Laci's wedding ring.

Why wouldn't restrictions be placed on their access? Yes - it was Laci's home - but it was also Scott's home. Should the Rocha's have been able to enter and take everything they wanted? You look at everything from a guilty perspective. For once consider that Scott is innocent. Would you then feel that Sharon Rocha should have dibs on nursery furniture that was given to Scott and Laci by the Petersons? Why shouldn't Scott be entitled to that furniture? It was HIS furniture! Yes - the Rocha's lost their daughter and their grandson. But Scott lost his wife and his unborn son. And the Petersons lost their beloved daughter-in-law and grandson/nephew. They aren't these horrible people who knew their son was guilty and were depriving the in-laws of Laci's possessions. They weren't helping him "flee". They were parents who knew their son was innocent and were likely a little overwhelmed with the fact that Laci and Conner's bodies had just washed ashore, their son had been arrested, and all that came with it. The Petersons were protecting their innocent son. The Petersons had every intention of sharing Laci's belongings with the Rocha's....unfortunately Sharon Rocha could not wait and decided to break into the home and take what she wanted. And somehow people like you manage to vilify the Petersons over it. The truth is the Petersons were being more than reasonable and Sharon Rocha's demands and actions were outrageous. Sharon wanted Laci and Scott's wedding china??! You find that reasonable?

I'm not going to sit here and trash the Rocha's in order to defend the Petersons against your ridiculous allegations. But the TRUTH is Laci was very close to the Petersons. They travelled together. The Petersons gave Laci and Scott the money for the down payment on their home. It was the Peterson family that threw Laci a baby shower. It was the Petersons that purchased the Del Rio Country Club membership for Scott - likely to make it easier for him to entertain customers for his business. It was the Petersons who loaned Scott and Laci the money to open their first business. The Petersons helped both Laci and Scott enrich their lives. Scott AND Laci had decided (written in Laci's journal) to name their baby Conner LATHAM Peterson. Latham was JACKIE PETERSON'S maiden name!

And I think it is hysterical that anyone thinks that Scott was fleeing based on what he had in his car. Just how far and how long do you think he could have hidden with $15,000.00? He had CAMPING equipment in his car. Do you REALLY think he was going to rough it - and live in the wilderness and camp in MEXICO?

And your comparison and interpretation of the Italian justice system and saying that Amanda Knox was never convicted but Scott Peterson was - is nonsense. As Jane pointed out - she was found guilty twice. She was sentenced to 26 years in prison. Her conviction not being finalized until it's affirmed by the highest court is the equivalent of our appellate system here. It's not over for Scott yet. Your point is moot.

And like Jane said about what the Petersons have been doing to exonerate Scott. She gave you good advice. Stay tuned.

And STOP calling PWC-SII.com a paid Peterson publicity firm. Why are you resorting to lies to discredit Jane? Marlene Newell and many others contributed their own money to put that website together. And none of that money came from the Petersons.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:56 pm

First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:24 pm

anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


Troll alert. :roll:
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:43 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


Troll alert. :roll:


Brainless Lemming Alert!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:47 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon


You proved my point. No further need to comment. You have no source for your allegations. Therefore, you referenced the sources in my posts which you obviously did not read or understand.


The point that is lost on you, is that there was no need for another source, your own post supported everything I had put forward. I'm starting to understand how your twisted mind works Jane, a little scary1

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:33 am

anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


You are beyond ridiculous - and I'm sure that the Knox case participants would (and do) see that. In fact - I'm pretty sure you were reprimanded by admin over on the Knox forum.

It is YOU that posts NOTHING but conjecture and speculation. You post no references - no proof - for anything that you say - and then when we do - you accuse us of copying and pasting instead of thinking for ourselves. Our theories about this case are based on the FACTS - all of the facts - not the ones we pick and choose - as you do. It is your theory/the prosecution's case that is based on conjecture and speculation.

You say I lose credibility by saying Scott wasn't running - while you profess to know what Scott was thinking ("Scott was determined to have the thing melted down).....lol......okay. Do you actually listen to yourself? Do you actually read what you write? According to you Scott wanted the jewelry to melt it down and the Rocha's wanted to safeguard their daughter's jewelry from Scott 11 days after their daughter went missing because he wasn't acting right. No bias there - eh?

The Rocha's did NOT have a "right" to their daughter's belongings. Their daughter's belongings belonged to their daughter's spouse. Like it or not. Anything Scott was willing to give to them - and he WAS willing to let them have things - was up to him. They had no "right" to make any demands of her belongings. Do I understand why they would have wanted some of her things? Absolutely...and the Petersons understood that too. But expecting Scott to give up furniture from his home while he was still living in it is just a tad unreasonable...whether you'll admit it or not.

But worst of all about your posts......are your LIES. There is NO credible documentation that Laci and Scott's mom didn't get along or that the Petersons were upset about Scott and Laci living in Modesto. NONE. There is no documentation that the Petersons worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. There is not one statement anywhere that Scott wanted to melt Laci's wedding ring down.....you made it up and stated it as fact. You've done it over and over again....lying in a desperate attempt to discredit us. For that reason - and that reason alone - I am DONE discussing this case with you. I'll continue to call you out on your lies...but I'm done trying to reason with someone that is SO blindly biased and unreasonable...and who resorts to lying and name calling (uh yes - calling someone stupid IS name calling). I've done my best to get along with you...and now I am done.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:34 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:WOW, crickets.......................................

Anon


You proved my point. No further need to comment. You have no source for your allegations. Therefore, you referenced the sources in my posts which you obviously did not read or understand.


The point that is lost on you, is that there was no need for another source, your own post supported everything I had put forward. I'm starting to understand how your twisted mind works Jane, a little scary1

Anon


Ha! Ummmm...no....it didn't.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:22 am

Anon definitely fits the troll profile.*

Constant insults, posts filled with false information based on malicious gossip.

https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-inter ... ls-3485894

** Most like categories 1, 2, and 5
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Connie C » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:03 am

Why did Scott list the house for sale as furnished if he thought Laci might come home?
Connie C
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:49 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:34 pm

jane wrote:Anon definitely fits the troll profile.*

Constant insults, posts filled with false information based on malicious gossip.

https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-inter ... ls-3485894

** Most like categories 1, 2, and 5


This is hilarious, I'm a troll simply because I have a different opinion.

There have been a few books written, by people close to and even family members, and the general concensus is that Laci and Scott's mom had a rocky relationship. I believe one of these sources is Scot's Half Sister, whom he stayed with after Laci went missing. No that it really matters, it's all symantics and posturing at this point without Laci around to give confirmation.

It is obvious and for good reason, that the Rocha's very early on, knew what Scott did to their daughter.
It is obvious that the Peterson's were aiding their son in his preparations to avoid his legal consequences.
it is obvious there were troubles in Laci & Scott's relationship, as Reference by Scott Himeslf

The more I think about it, he likely drowned her in their own pool.

So if your going to call me a troll, Fine, don't really care about your personal classification.


Here are the Key Items that lead to my opinion that Scott was going to flee with the help of his Family:
- Driver's license for John Edward Peterson, Scott Peterson's brother
- Approximately $15,000 in cash, including $14,000 in $100 bills with paper wrapper bands
Credit cards:
One Visa card issued to Anne E. Bird, Scott Peterson's sister
Chevron card issued to Jacqueline Peterson
- 24 blister packs of sleeping pills
- 12 tablets of Viagra
- Four cell phones
- Double-edged dagger with a t-handle
- A hand shovel
- A Water purifier
- Duct tape
- Two folding knives
- Folding saw
- Two packs of razor blades
- An Axe
- At least 10 pairs of athletic socks
- At least six pairs of underwear briefs


Everything speculative, without foundation that you drop as fact in this thread is gossip!
Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:46 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:First off PWC is a paid publicity firm, that site is editorial passed off as fact!

Secondly. Regardless if they thought Laci was going to return or not, the Rocha's had a right to their daughters personal belongings in her absence. The Peterson's worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. They wanted the wedding ring urgently, as Scott was determined to have the thing melted down, along with a few other pieces of Jewlery that belonged to Laci (Guilty Conscience would be my guess). The Rocha's knew Scott as well as anyone, and they saw the interviews, they witnessed first hand how he was acting. By Scott's own actions he raised their suspicions, and I don't blame them for wanting Laci's things early on, even if it was to safeguard them!

How can you see the list of items in Scott's car and not think he was running, $15000 and other peoples ID, he was covering every eventuality - your a fool if you think you will sway anyone otherwise and you just lose credibility.

There have been many sources that have stated that Laci and Scott's mom did not get along. She hated that Scott lived in Modesto closer to the Rocha's than her own side of the family. These are all documented, for you to the nerve to say that Laci was closer to the Petersons is just silly. Everything they did for Laci was about control!

If you fail to see the difference between Scott Peterson's situation and that of Amanda Knox, well I guess that speaks for itself......Spin the words any way you like, there is a finality to Peterson as a convicted Murderer that was never in place at any time for Amanda Knox, system differences aside, there is no comparison you can draw between the 2 cases, and again, when you try to, you lose credibility.

I really wish this was a more followed case and that more of the Knox case participants would venture in here, you and Jane would not last 2 seconds with your conjecture and speculation.

Anon


You are beyond ridiculous - and I'm sure that the Knox case participants would (and do) see that. In fact - I'm pretty sure you were reprimanded by admin over on the Knox forum.

It is YOU that posts NOTHING but conjecture and speculation. You post no references - no proof - for anything that you say - and then when we do - you accuse us of copying and pasting instead of thinking for ourselves. Our theories about this case are based on the FACTS - all of the facts - not the ones we pick and choose - as you do. It is your theory/the prosecution's case that is based on conjecture and speculation.

You say I lose credibility by saying Scott wasn't running - while you profess to know what Scott was thinking ("Scott was determined to have the thing melted down).....lol......okay. Do you actually listen to yourself? Do you actually read what you write? According to you Scott wanted the jewelry to melt it down and the Rocha's wanted to safeguard their daughter's jewelry from Scott 11 days after their daughter went missing because he wasn't acting right. No bias there - eh?

The Rocha's did NOT have a "right" to their daughter's belongings. Their daughter's belongings belonged to their daughter's spouse. Like it or not. Anything Scott was willing to give to them - and he WAS willing to let them have things - was up to him. They had no "right" to make any demands of her belongings. Do I understand why they would have wanted some of her things? Absolutely...and the Petersons understood that too. But expecting Scott to give up furniture from his home while he was still living in it is just a tad unreasonable...whether you'll admit it or not.

But worst of all about your posts......are your LIES. There is NO credible documentation that Laci and Scott's mom didn't get along or that the Petersons were upset about Scott and Laci living in Modesto. NONE. There is no documentation that the Petersons worked actively through their lawyers to prohibit Laci's family. There is not one statement anywhere that Scott wanted to melt Laci's wedding ring down.....you made it up and stated it as fact. You've done it over and over again....lying in a desperate attempt to discredit us. For that reason - and that reason alone - I am DONE discussing this case with you. I'll continue to call you out on your lies...but I'm done trying to reason with someone that is SO blindly biased and unreasonable...and who resorts to lying and name calling (uh yes - calling someone stupid IS name calling). I've done my best to get along with you...and now I am done.


Re-Read her post, its all there

Lawyers, Agreements, and Restrictions at the hands of the Peterson's and their Lawyers.

You can Run to the Peterson's aid all you like, you are obviously in that camp on some level.

I hate that this bozo killed his Wife and unborn child, it is outrageous that people try to pass off fantastical unproven theories as fact, in light of the serious nature of Scott's crimes. You can both get off your soap-boxes now - its time for you to put up or shut up - its time for you to present facts, not fantasy!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:36 pm

There is no need for the name calling. I understand that this thread often gets heated, but it looks like it has become a bit more elevated lately. Please refrain from personal attacks.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:06 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:There is no need for the name calling. I understand that this thread often gets heated, but it looks like it has become a bit more elevated lately. Please refrain from personal attacks.


To Whom are you referring?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:10 pm

Connie C wrote:Why did Scott list the house for sale as furnished if he thought Laci might come home?


I'll go one further, What danger would there be in the Rocha's collecting Laci's personal items, If Scott knew she would be back to collect them?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:18 pm

anonshy wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:There is no need for the name calling. I understand that this thread often gets heated, but it looks like it has become a bit more elevated lately. Please refrain from personal attacks.


To Whom are you referring?

Anon


I made a general statement to everyone in the thread.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:33 am

I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:18 am

jane wrote:I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.


So the general sentiment in all of the books is the same, they paint Scott in a negative light, and your contention is that every one of them was wrong - Noted.

What the Rocha's / Peterson's did after the murder and Scott's arrest is only marginally interesting and does not really go to the core of the argument. You continuously advocate for Scott as an upstanding citizen wronged by the world, you should be prepared and accept alternative views. When presented with other views that paint scott in a negative light, don't be so offended, There is nothing wrong with pointing out that He is a Convicted Killer of his wife and un-born child, crimes that are unfathomable and could only be commit by a monster. At this point, that is a legal fact (The conviction part).

You stopped discussing the core facts of this case some time ago, You cut and paste articles from a site that is mostly editorial about Scotts innocence, which only present one side of the story, and in most cases, even what you post is easily refuted with simple investigation. Once again I challenge you to post your theory, right here in writing so everyone knows what your theory is, and in doing so you will be open to critical question. Its easy just to sit on a forum and attack anything you don't like, it is another thing to be open to challenges. If you really think Scott is Innocent, you have had the luxury of a decade of time to formalize your theory of his innocence. so lets hear it!

Here is what I anticipate you will say:
Baby was too old - Scott Didn't do it
Baby was born Alive - Scott Didn't do it
There was a Burglary across the Street - Scott Didn't do it
There was a mysterious black van on the street - Scott didn't do it
Some inmate overheard another inmate say that he overheard someone say that Laci.......- Scott Didn't do it

That that's a good start, I look forward to debating the facts of the case based on facts and evidence with proper foundation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:46 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.


So the general sentiment in all of the books is the same, they paint Scott in a negative light, and your contention is that every one of them was wrong - Noted.

What the Rocha's / Peterson's did after the murder and Scott's arrest is only marginally interesting and does not really go to the core of the argument. You continuously advocate for Scott as an upstanding citizen wronged by the world, you should be prepared and accept alternative views. When presented with other views that paint scott in a negative light, don't be so offended, There is nothing wrong with pointing out that He is a Convicted Killer of his wife and un-born child, crimes that are unfathomable and could only be commit by a monster. At this point, that is a legal fact (The conviction part).

You stopped discussing the core facts of this case some time ago, You cut and paste articles from a site that is mostly editorial about Scotts innocence, which only present one side of the story, and in most cases, even what you post is easily refuted with simple investigation. Once again I challenge you to post your theory, right here in writing so everyone knows what your theory is, and in doing so you will be open to critical question. Its easy just to sit on a forum and attack anything you don't like, it is another thing to be open to challenges. If you really think Scott is Innocent, you have had the luxury of a decade of time to formalize your theory of his innocence. so lets hear it!

Here is what I anticipate you will say:
Baby was too old - Scott Didn't do it
Baby was born Alive - Scott Didn't do it
There was a Burglary across the Street - Scott Didn't do it
There was a mysterious black van on the street - Scott didn't do it
Some inmate overheard another inmate say that he overheard someone say that Laci.......- Scott Didn't do it

That that's a good start, I look forward to debating the facts of the case based on facts and evidence with proper foundation.

Anon


Evidently it isn't possible for you to discuss a case without making personal attacks. This post consists mostly of "you did this and you did that....." which IMO are accusations.

First of all, my previous post included a clip from a Larry King Live segment on May 30, 2003 and one from Sharon Rocha's book.

The PWC site consists mostly of factual information from the case: trial transcripts, case documents, and exhibits etc. Anything that is editorial in nature is in the Research and Analysis section or clearly stated as an opinion.

I'm not sure what your point is when you ask for a theory. That would be speculation or an opinion. Then you say you want to debate the facts of the case based on facts and evidence. Which is it?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:01 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when there is an understanding that there are to be no personal attacks.

Most of the books that were written about the Peterson case were very biased against Scott. In almost every case, there are reasonable explanations for his behavior that do not point to guilt.

For instance--If you want to know why it was necessary to involve lawyers in the matter of what was to be removed from the house, here is an explanation:

Commentary from LKL, May 30, 2003
TED ROWLANDS: As you mentioned at the top there, they said that, basically, the crime supposedly -- the murder supposedly took place in this house. They're not done processing the house. They're not done investigating in the house. And they were under the impression that all of this was going to take place in a formal manner on Tuesday of next week….

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, the first thing that you're thinking about in a situation like this is that your client is on trial for his life, and the home is considered by police to be the crime scene. So you don't want anyone going anywhere near the home unless you have a very clearly defined set of ground rules laid out. And as Ted mentioned, it seems that an agreement had been reached between the victim witness coordinator and the DA's office and the Rocha family and the defense team.

So I think emotion took over. But there's an awful lot of evidence, potentially, in that home still, and the defense team has only had a matter of weeks to look through it all.


***********
As to why the Rochas decided not to abide by the agreement, it's not clear. From Sharon's description in her book, it was clearly a break-in. Instead of re-claiming the things that were illegally taken, the police gave her preferential treatment:

I handed the matter to our family attorney, Adam Stewart, who contacted Geragos on May 14. Geragos, in turn, asked for a list of items I wanted. The list, which I submitted the next day, included furniture and Tiffany lamps given to Laci by her grandmother; her clothing, jewelry, and china; a picture Laci had painted; Conner's baby clothes; Laci's rocking chair, wedding dress, and diplomas; and watering cans that said "Laci's garden".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of us ran around looking for the alarm box so the wires could be disconnected to shut off the alarm. After locating and disconnecting the wires, everyone fanned out, lists in hand. We found Laci's wedding dress, boxed up her china, and put everything else on the list in boxes, then loaded them in the trucks……

Maybe an hour later, by which time we'd unloaded everything in the garage, a captain, a sergeant, and a detective arrived at our house. They wandered around, asking questions, and eventually said they had to take everything to the station. …………..

I finally had almost everything I wanted; seeing them take it away would have been too much to handle. The officers didn't want to take it away, either. They understood. I got Adam on the phone, and he and the captain quickly worked out a compromise, allowing me to keep everything after the officers inventoried it.


***
By the way, I plan to continue cutting and pasting from sources that explain specific points.


So the general sentiment in all of the books is the same, they paint Scott in a negative light, and your contention is that every one of them was wrong - Noted.

What the Rocha's / Peterson's did after the murder and Scott's arrest is only marginally interesting and does not really go to the core of the argument. You continuously advocate for Scott as an upstanding citizen wronged by the world, you should be prepared and accept alternative views. When presented with other views that paint scott in a negative light, don't be so offended, There is nothing wrong with pointing out that He is a Convicted Killer of his wife and un-born child, crimes that are unfathomable and could only be commit by a monster. At this point, that is a legal fact (The conviction part).

You stopped discussing the core facts of this case some time ago, You cut and paste articles from a site that is mostly editorial about Scotts innocence, which only present one side of the story, and in most cases, even what you post is easily refuted with simple investigation. Once again I challenge you to post your theory, right here in writing so everyone knows what your theory is, and in doing so you will be open to critical question. Its easy just to sit on a forum and attack anything you don't like, it is another thing to be open to challenges. If you really think Scott is Innocent, you have had the luxury of a decade of time to formalize your theory of his innocence. so lets hear it!

Here is what I anticipate you will say:
Baby was too old - Scott Didn't do it
Baby was born Alive - Scott Didn't do it
There was a Burglary across the Street - Scott Didn't do it
There was a mysterious black van on the street - Scott didn't do it
Some inmate overheard another inmate say that he overheard someone say that Laci.......- Scott Didn't do it

That that's a good start, I look forward to debating the facts of the case based on facts and evidence with proper foundation.

Anon


Evidently it isn't possible for you to discuss a case without making personal attacks. This post consists mostly of "you did this and you did that....." which IMO are accusations.

First of all, my previous post included a clip from a Larry King Live segment on May 30, 2003 and one from Sharon Rocha's book.

The PWC site consists mostly of factual information from the case: trial transcripts, case documents, and exhibits etc. Anything that is editorial in nature is in the Research and Analysis section or clearly stated as an opinion.

I'm not sure what your point is when you ask for a theory. That would be speculation or an opinion. Then you say you want to debate the facts of the case based on facts and evidence. Which is it?


2 things:

1 -You need to get thicker skin, there was no "Attack" in any of my post.

2 - As I stated, I dont wish to discuss fantasy which is speculation not supported by any facts, This also includes facts or evidence that has a complete lack of foundation. I will use an example: In the Amanda Knox case, one of the watershed arguments came from the DNA evidence, specifically in regards to the knife found at Raf's and the Bra Clasp found at the cottage. In terms of the DNA, there was enough observable discrepancies in the testing results and in the collection that it called into question the very heart of the prosecution case. At one point the DNA was speculative, but was always debatable because there was tangible evidence (Reports and Collection Video) to call the results into question. What I am not interested in doing is taking something that is complete speculation and using it as the entire basis of an argument, then weaving together other portions of unproven arguments to support the original failed speculation. Think of it like a building, if the foundation is flawed, then so is everything that is built on top of it. Evidence in a trial can't be entered int the record without foundation, I think the same rules should apply here, if something is hearsay, or assuming facts not in evidence, then you should either provide the necessary info or withdraw it.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:13 pm

Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:22 am

jane wrote:Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.


And all of what you just posted would have meant something a decade ago, these arguments are moot at this point. Here are the facts:

1 - The total lack of evidence is evidence of something. If the lack of evidence would indicate a level of planning or opportunity that would point to only a single individual, that is circumstantial evidence that has some weight.

2 - There is also no direct evidence that supports any other theory, and none has been found in over a decade.

3 - The hair in the pliers, is weak, but it is something.

4 - The motive of the affair and wanting a different life is reasonable given the circumstances. I personally think its weak as many people have affairs and don't kill their spouses, but if you look at domestic violence as a whole, cheating is usually a byproduct or at least part of the equasion. In marriages with infadellity there is a much higher rate of violence.

5 - Scott is a convicted Murderer, the rules have changed, gone is the presumption of innocence. Trying to argue his case now as if it is the first trial is flawed, it has to be looked at as a reverse burden. He is guilty, and it will take something miraculous to have any amendment. The lack of evidence works to Scott's detriment at this point, without a confession, New Evidence or DNA, it is very unlikely any of the arguments on appeal or Habeas will lead to action. The legal system puts a huge emphasis on verdicts that are delivered by jurys, holding their results as almost sacred. To have a Jury verdict set-aside, you have to have a lot more than a thoery based on hearsay.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:17 am

I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:24 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.


And all of what you just posted would have meant something a decade ago, these arguments are moot at this point. Here are the facts:

1 - The total lack of evidence is evidence of something. If the lack of evidence would indicate a level of planning or opportunity that would point to only a single individual, that is circumstantial evidence that has some weight.

2 - There is also no direct evidence that supports any other theory, and none has been found in over a decade.

3 - The hair in the pliers, is weak, but it is something.

4 - The motive of the affair and wanting a different life is reasonable given the circumstances. I personally think its weak as many people have affairs and don't kill their spouses, but if you look at domestic violence as a whole, cheating is usually a byproduct or at least part of the equasion. In marriages with infadellity there is a much higher rate of violence.

5 - Scott is a convicted Murderer, the rules have changed, gone is the presumption of innocence. Trying to argue his case now as if it is the first trial is flawed, it has to be looked at as a reverse burden. He is guilty, and it will take something miraculous to have any amendment. The lack of evidence works to Scott's detriment at this point, without a confession, New Evidence or DNA, it is very unlikely any of the arguments on appeal or Habeas will lead to action. The legal system puts a huge emphasis on verdicts that are delivered by jurys, holding their results as almost sacred. To have a Jury verdict set-aside, you have to have a lot more than a thoery based on hearsay.

Anon


You seem to be saying that because Scott was convicted that is the end of it.

This board is named Injustice Anywhere. This section of the board is titled Possible Wrongful Convictions. That is the point of all the discussions on this board--injustice and wrongful convictions.

It is a fact that Scott Peterson has filed a direct appeal and a habeas appeal with the California Supreme Court. All of the claims in the appeals are well documented. Any one of the claims, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient to reverse the verdict and give him a new trial.

He is not appealing on the basis of innocence. He is not appealing on the basis of a theory. He is not appealing on the basis of hearsay. These are some of the well researched and well documented grounds on which he is basing his appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.

Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:39 pm

On the death penalty jurors, I oppose the death penalty myself however I don't think that argument is going to be valid

https://www.capitalpunishmentincontext. ... lification
Courts can eliminate potential jurors who are not willing to vote for the death penalty in a capital case. If the judge believes that a juror's feelings about the death penalty would impair his or her ability to judge the case and choose the punishment fairly, that juror will be "dismissed "for cause." There is an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges and typically all jurors who say that they oppose the death penalty are excluded. Jurors who are not eliminated by the judge "for cause" because of their death penalty views can be eliminated by lawyers through "peremptory challenges." The lawyers from both sides are allowed to exclude a limited number of jurors without having to give any reason or show any bias, although they are not allowed to base peremptory challenges solely on the juror's race, gender or religion. Prosecutors can strike jurors who have doubts about the death penalty, and this process may reduce the number of people of a particular race or gender who can serve on the jury. Defense attorneys can challenge jurors who are so pro-death penalty that they could not judge guilt fairly in a capital case (Hovey v. California). However, research has shown that there are very few people who favor the death penalty so strongly that they can be excluded from the jury. The remaining jurors are then “death qualified.”

Wainwright v. Witt (1985)
The Supreme Court replaced the death qualification standards of Witherspoon with the standards of Wainwright v. Witt. The Witt standard gave more discretion to the judge in death qualification. The judge decides whether the jurors’ attitudes toward the death penalty would “prevent or substantially impair” their ability to decide on sentence fairly. This decision broadened the range of people who could be excluded by death qualification.

Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
In Lockhart v. McCree, the results of the empirical research on the effects of death-qualification came before the Supreme Court. The court held that the process of death-qualification does not unconstitutionally bias juries towards a verdict of guilt. Justice Rehnquist criticized the research, but ultimately the Court held that general empirical research could not decide the issue; instead, a defendant would have to demonstrate that his or her own jury was biased.

Uttecht v. Brown (2007)
The Supreme Court held that when a capital juror is disqualified and that decision is challenged on appeal, the court should generally defer to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to observe the juror’s demeanor. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a trial judge’s exclusion of a juror who had expressed some hesitation about imposing the death penalty, but was not totally opposed to it. The juror from the state of Washington stated on six occasions during voir dire that he could follow the law on applying the death penalty. However, some of his other statements were equivocal and the judge excused him from jury service.

Based on that, I don't any upper court will reverse on that.

May not like my opinions but I try to be as honest as I can be.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:59 am

Desert Fox wrote:On the death penalty jurors, I oppose the death penalty myself however I don't think that argument is going to be valid

https://www.capitalpunishmentincontext. ... lification
Courts can eliminate potential jurors who are not willing to vote for the death penalty in a capital case. If the judge believes that a juror's feelings about the death penalty would impair his or her ability to judge the case and choose the punishment fairly, that juror will be "dismissed "for cause." There is an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges and typically all jurors who say that they oppose the death penalty are excluded. Jurors who are not eliminated by the judge "for cause" because of their death penalty views can be eliminated by lawyers through "peremptory challenges." The lawyers from both sides are allowed to exclude a limited number of jurors without having to give any reason or show any bias, although they are not allowed to base peremptory challenges solely on the juror's race, gender or religion. Prosecutors can strike jurors who have doubts about the death penalty, and this process may reduce the number of people of a particular race or gender who can serve on the jury. Defense attorneys can challenge jurors who are so pro-death penalty that they could not judge guilt fairly in a capital case (Hovey v. California). However, research has shown that there are very few people who favor the death penalty so strongly that they can be excluded from the jury. The remaining jurors are then “death qualified.”

Wainwright v. Witt (1985)
The Supreme Court replaced the death qualification standards of Witherspoon with the standards of Wainwright v. Witt. The Witt standard gave more discretion to the judge in death qualification. The judge decides whether the jurors’ attitudes toward the death penalty would “prevent or substantially impair” their ability to decide on sentence fairly. This decision broadened the range of people who could be excluded by death qualification.

Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
In Lockhart v. McCree, the results of the empirical research on the effects of death-qualification came before the Supreme Court. The court held that the process of death-qualification does not unconstitutionally bias juries towards a verdict of guilt. Justice Rehnquist criticized the research, but ultimately the Court held that general empirical research could not decide the issue; instead, a defendant would have to demonstrate that his or her own jury was biased.

Uttecht v. Brown (2007)
The Supreme Court held that when a capital juror is disqualified and that decision is challenged on appeal, the court should generally defer to the decision of the trial judge who was in a position to observe the juror’s demeanor. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld a trial judge’s exclusion of a juror who had expressed some hesitation about imposing the death penalty, but was not totally opposed to it. The juror from the state of Washington stated on six occasions during voir dire that he could follow the law on applying the death penalty. However, some of his other statements were equivocal and the judge excused him from jury service.

Based on that, I don't any upper court will reverse on that.

May not like my opinions but I try to be as honest as I can be.


Desert Fox, in order to fully understand the arguments put forward on this issue by the appellate attorneys, you need to read the actual document from pages 72-147. The judge dismissed jurors on the basis of their jury questionnaires without allowing the attorneys to question them. That is clearly error.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... sbrief.pdf

These are the claims of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISCHARGED THIRTEEN PROSPECTIVE JURORS OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION BASED SOLELY ON JURY QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS SHOWING THAT ALTHOUGH THEY OPPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY, THEY COULD NEVERTHELESS CONSIDER DEATH AS AN OPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
II. THE TRIAL COURT’S IMPROPER DISCHARGE OF THIRTEEN PROSPECTIVE JURORS BASED ON THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY ALSO VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RELIABLE GUILT PHASE PROCEDURES, AND REQUIRES REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTIONS AS WELL . . . . . . 108
III. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY EXCUSED AN ADDITIONAL 17 PROSPECTIVE JURORS BASED SOLELY ON JURY QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS WHICH DID NOT SHOW THESE JURORS WOULD BE UNABLE TO SET ASIDE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
IV. BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCUSED FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO WERE EQUIVOCAL ABOUT WHETHER THEIR ATTITUDES ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD AFFECT THEIR PENALTY PHASE DELIBERATIONS, REVERSAL OF THE DEATH SENTENCE IS REQUIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

This is an excerpt from one of the arguments on this issue.

.......Indeed, at one point defense counsel complained that “we have now [lost] some
twenty some odd people, losing people solely because of their opposition to the death
penalty.” (16 RT 3363.) The court responded, “well, that’s the law in California.”
(Ibid.)

As discussed more fully below, this is not the law in California, or anywhere else.
The trial court here discharged juror after juror simply because they stated in their written
questionnaire they were opposed to the death penalty. Every one of these prospective
jurors stated in the questionnaire that despite their opposition to the death penalty, they
would consider death as an option, and not a single one of these jurors was ever even
questioned about their views. Instead, these jurors were summarily discharged. Defense
counsel objected to every one of these discharges.

During these objections, there were at least two prosecutors sitting at counsel table
for the state. (See, e.g., 17 CT 5522.) At no point during the trial court’s exchanges with
defense counsel did either prosecutor say anything; the state’s attorneys did nothing and
said nothing to correct the trial court’s view. Instead, they simply took advantage of the
rulings to try their case to a jury selected in this way.

76
This strategy of silence worked. Of the 12 jurors selected to try the case, 11 were
in favor of the death penalty while the lone remaining juror was “ok with [the] death
penalty if warranted.” (CT MJQ 19, 42, 65, 88, 111, 134, 157, 180, 203, 226, 249, 272.)23
Of the six alternates selected, all six supported the death penalty. (CT MJQ 295, 318,
341, 364, 387, 410.) And more important for purposes of this argument, numerous jurors
who were completely qualified to sit as jurors were summarily discharged from jury
service, without voir dire.

As discussed in detail below, a new penalty phase is required. More than 40 years
ago the Supreme Court recognized “that a State may not entrust the determination of
whether a man should live or die to a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.”
(Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. at p. 521.) Only five years ago the Court
reiterated that a death sentence could not stand where “the systematic removal of those in
the venire opposed to the death penalty had led to a jury ‘uncommonly willing to
condemn a man to die.’” (Uttecht v. Brown (2007) 551 U.S. 1, 6, citations omitted.) But
that is exactly what happened here. As a matter of federal constitutional law, the trial
court’s clearly stated view that “if you don’t support the death penalty you cannot be
death qualified” is unquestionably wrong. Reversal of the penalty phase is required.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:59 pm

You need to reads Uttecht v. Brown. . . .Strait from the supreme court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-413.pdf
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Desert Fox wrote:You need to reads Uttecht v. Brown. . . .Strait from the supreme court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-413.pdf


In Uttecht, the judge conducted voir dire on the jurors who had issues with the death penalty to determine whether or not they could set aside their views and follow the law. Judge Delucchi did not do this. He excluded jurors solely on the basis of their juror questionnaires and did not interview them to determine if they could set aside their views. The juror questionnaire did not ask this question.

In 2015, the California Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in a case on this basis:

....... the panel reversed the convicted double-murderer’s death sentence, finding that a “cursory” examination of three prospective jurors who expressed general opposition to the death penalty was “simply not sufficient to permit an informed decision about their ability to serve.”

The panel noted that binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires automatic reversal of a death sentence based on error in excusing a prospective juror for cause based on that person’s views about the death penalty.

“Thus, regardless of whether defendant suffered any actual prejudice from the dismissal of these panelists, his penalty judgment must be reversed,” Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote on behalf of the panel.

http://mynewsla.com/crime/2015/06/29/ca ... -murderer/

The error in the Peterson case is even more egregious and calls for reversal of both the death penalty and the conviction.

See appellate document for more detailed explanations.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:27 am

Desert Fox wrote:I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.


In the end the dog scent evidence was not Needed for a conviction, after all, the bodies did turn Up IN the marina

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:26 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Here are some facts:

In spite of a $4.13 million dollar investigation whose only target was Scott Peterson, in spite of using every modern investigative tool available, and employing the help of the FBI and the CADOJ, the State could not produce any trace evidence of Laci's murder or dead body from any of the supposed crime scenes or items that would have come into direct contact with her deceased body. There was no incriminating evidence found in any of the places associated with Scott--Nothing in the house, nothing in the boat or anything associated with it, nothing in either Scott’s truck or Laci’s car, nothing in the warehouse, and there was no evidence of a clean-up in any of these places.


And all of what you just posted would have meant something a decade ago, these arguments are moot at this point. Here are the facts:

1 - The total lack of evidence is evidence of something. If the lack of evidence would indicate a level of planning or opportunity that would point to only a single individual, that is circumstantial evidence that has some weight.

2 - There is also no direct evidence that supports any other theory, and none has been found in over a decade.

3 - The hair in the pliers, is weak, but it is something.

4 - The motive of the affair and wanting a different life is reasonable given the circumstances. I personally think its weak as many people have affairs and don't kill their spouses, but if you look at domestic violence as a whole, cheating is usually a byproduct or at least part of the equasion. In marriages with infadellity there is a much higher rate of violence.

5 - Scott is a convicted Murderer, the rules have changed, gone is the presumption of innocence. Trying to argue his case now as if it is the first trial is flawed, it has to be looked at as a reverse burden. He is guilty, and it will take something miraculous to have any amendment. The lack of evidence works to Scott's detriment at this point, without a confession, New Evidence or DNA, it is very unlikely any of the arguments on appeal or Habeas will lead to action. The legal system puts a huge emphasis on verdicts that are delivered by jurys, holding their results as almost sacred. To have a Jury verdict set-aside, you have to have a lot more than a thoery based on hearsay.

Anon


You seem to be saying that because Scott was convicted that is the end of it.

This board is named Injustice Anywhere. This section of the board is titled Possible Wrongful Convictions. That is the point of all the discussions on this board--injustice and wrongful convictions.

It is a fact that Scott Peterson has filed a direct appeal and a habeas appeal with the California Supreme Court. All of the claims in the appeals are well documented. Any one of the claims, if accepted by the CASC, would be sufficient to reverse the verdict and give him a new trial.

He is not appealing on the basis of innocence. He is not appealing on the basis of a theory. He is not appealing on the basis of hearsay. These are some of the well researched and well documented grounds on which he is basing his appeals:

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.

Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina.


No need to read past the first line, I never said it was over, only that it will take a lot more than what has been presented to force ANY kind of revision

Direct Appeal:
• The judge improperly discharged jurors who were opposed to or equivocal about the death penalty.
- Jurors can be discharged for many reasons - there is a challenge system for selection and questionaires for profiles - there in No indication of any impropriety in the jury that convicted Scott

• The judge forced Mr. Peterson to trial in a community that was prejudiced against him.
- With the massive MEDIA attention there would be no destination in the courts jurisdiction that would not have knowledge of the case - there is no harm to the defendant - venue changes are most often denied

• The judge allowed the prosecution to present junk science evidence to support its case.
- Dog scent evidence has a level of accuracy and is repeatable, and IS recognized in courts in many states - Dog scent evidence was not required for a conviction as the bodies ended up being found in the bay, which eliminates the need for the evidence and if Still considered only bolsters the results THE Dog alerted to. “there exists no stronger testament to (the dog’s) capabilities” than the fact the bodies came ashore not far away.

• The judge allowed the jurors to perform an experiment with the boat.
- Jurors were allowed Access To the house and much of the evidence - there was no formal demonstration carried out by jurors and there was no harm to defendant

• The prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct regarding the defense failure to conduct a boat experiment.
- The judge was correct to bar the video, The conditions in the defense video were different from those presented in the case. For example, the boat in the experiment had a higher center of gravity and the man manipulating a weighted dummy overboard was using exagerated movements, try to tip the boat by leaning on the gunwale. The judge offered to let Geragos conduct another experiment with Peterson’s actual boat, with prosecutors watching this time, but Peterson’s legal team declined the offer. There was no harm to the defendant.

• The judge showed bias in his dismissal of Juror #5.
- No bias was shown - Juror 5 had Multiple incidents of Mis-CONDUCT, pandering and seeking media attention - actions Not assocIated or attributed to any other juror

• The judge failed to conduct an adequate hearing about misconduct by Juror #8.
- There was no misconduct noted by other jurors in regards to Juror # 8 - No juror mis-conduct and no harm to the defendant.


Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
- Speculative - No indication of harm to the defendant

• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
Jeanty does not dispute feta age only the formula used to calculate - I emailed Jeanty myself, he agrees with fetal velocity changes in gestation - no expert has said the baby was born alive.

• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
- Dog scent evidence was not required to achieve a conviction - evidence is self confirmed when the bodies did indeed, wash up in the bay. This may also be an illegal argument, as items on Habeas writs must be mutually exclusive tO arguments on appeals.

• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
- The actual Location of the bodies (dumped) is not necessary for a conviction, the bodies were indeed found on the shore-line of the bay - No harm to the Defendant

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
- No prosecution witness Was impeached in the trial - arguments were given for both sides with full cross examination - this was strategy and does not meet the IAC - No Harm to the Defendant

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
- This was strategy based on deposing witnesses, they were not credible or could be precise as hours or even days given Laci's normal routines - No Harm to the Defandant - Calls for speculation.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina
- Todd evidence lacks any foundation - it has massive Evidentuary issues based Hearsay and calls for speculation and assumes facts not given in evidence.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:46 am

Anonshy, the arguments in the appeal documents are much better than yours.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:51 am

jane wrote:Anonshy, the arguments in the appeal documents are much better than yours.


I disagree - My arguments are based on the facts of the case and are not that easily disregarded. I would love to debate the points I have raised but you are either unwilling to refute or possibly unable.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:24 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, the arguments in the appeal documents are much better than yours.


I disagree - My arguments are based on the facts of the case and are not that easily disregarded. I would love to debate the points I have raised but you are either unwilling to refute or possibly unable.

Anon


Your arguments are not based on United States or California legal precedents. The appellate documents cite numerous legal precedents for their arguments.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:14 am

anonshy wrote:
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
- Speculative - No indication of harm to the defendant
Speculative?!!! Ha! No.....there is no speculation....it is a fact that she lied on her questionnaire. And the law is very clear on this matter.

• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
Jeanty does not dispute feta age only the formula used to calculate - I emailed Jeanty myself, he agrees with fetal velocity changes in gestation - no expert has said the baby was born alive.
Wrong. He does dispute the age. Read the habeas. Dr. Jeanty's answers to your vague/generalized questions didn't dispute anything he said in the habeas. But more importantly Dr. Jeanty's statement impeaches Dr. Devore....which was the point.

• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
- Dog scent evidence was not required to achieve a conviction - evidence is self confirmed when the bodies did indeed, wash up in the bay. This may also be an illegal argument, as items on Habeas writs must be mutually exclusive tO arguments on appeals.
What do you mean the dog scent evidence was not required to achieve a conviction? How do you know what weight the jury gave the dog scent evidence? And your "self confirming" nonsense is just that....nonsense. No trailing dog can detect a vehicle trail under those conditions. That's the habeas expert's point. To suggest that a trailing dog could detect Laci's live scent while her dead body is over a mile away and underwater is pure nonsense. Besides - the point of the prosecution presenting that dog evidence wasn't to prove that Laci's body was in the bay - we all know her body was in the bay....it was to prove that Scott put her there via the marina. The bodies were NOT found at the marina.....nor were they found close enough for "self confirmation" of the dog tracking at the marina.

• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
- The actual Location of the bodies (dumped) is not necessary for a conviction, the bodies were indeed found on the shore-line of the bay - No harm to the Defendant
Of course it's necessary for a conviction - if we are talking about convicting Scott Peterson. There was no question as to where Scott went that day. If the bodies weren't dumped along his fishing route, then Scott Peterson is innocent.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
- No prosecution witness Was impeached in the trial - arguments were given for both sides with full cross examination - this was strategy and does not meet the IAC - No Harm to the Defendant
Dr. Devore was absolutely impeached.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
- This was strategy based on deposing witnesses, they were not credible or could be precise as hours or even days given Laci's normal routines - No Harm to the Defandant - Calls for speculation.
I don't understand why you think Geragos making a bad strategic decision isn't considered IAC. It doesn't matter what the reason for the deficiency is.....all that matters is that it was deficient. Geragos' strategic decision not to call them is not proof that they were not credible. They were very precise about what day and the general time of the morning that they saw her. The prosecution paraded every walking pregnant woman from the neighborhood they could find up on that stand and NONE of them walked that route...not on that day or any other. That actually gives credibility to those witnesses.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina
- Todd evidence lacks any foundation - it has massive Evidentuary issues based Hearsay and calls for speculation and assumes facts not given in evidence.


Anon


My responses in red.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:17 am

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Habeas Appeal:
• A juror concealed bias by lying on a juror questionnaire.
- Speculative - No indication of harm to the defendant
Speculative?!!! Ha! No.....there is no speculation....it is a fact that she lied on her questionnaire. And the law is very clear on this matter.
Did the defense have the opportunity to question the potential Juror prior to the trial, did they use their "Challenge" to recuse the potential juror?

• The prosecution presented false evidence about the age of the fetus at death.
Jeanty does not dispute feta age only the formula used to calculate - I emailed Jeanty myself, he agrees with fetal velocity changes in gestation - no expert has said the baby was born alive.
Wrong. He does dispute the age. Read the habeas. Dr. Jeanty's answers to your vague/generalized questions didn't dispute anything he said in the habeas. But more importantly Dr. Jeanty's statement impeaches Dr. Devore....which was the point.
The fact remains, Jeanty Confirms, There is more than enough variation in the percentiles to account for the variation in Connors size, nowhere does any expert have Conor born alive. There is no chart, Graph or Calculation taking into account the lack of estensible growth in late stage preganacy that would preclude Connor frm being dead in his mothers womb on December 24th, in fact there is far more to support that contention than any other theory.

• The prosecution presented false evidence regarding the dog scent at the Berkeley Marina.
- Dog scent evidence was not required to achieve a conviction - evidence is self confirmed when the bodies did indeed, wash up in the bay. This may also be an illegal argument, as items on Habeas writs must be mutually exclusive tO arguments on appeals.
What do you mean the dog scent evidence was not required to achieve a conviction? How do you know what weight the jury gave the dog scent evidence? And your "self confirming" nonsense is just that....nonsense. No trailing dog can detect a vehicle trail under those conditions. That's the habeas expert's point. To suggest that a trailing dog could detect Laci's live scent while her dead body is over a mile away and underwater is pure nonsense. Besides - the point of the prosecution presenting that dog evidence wasn't to prove that Laci's body was in the bay - we all know her body was in the bay....it was to prove that Scott put her there via the marina. The bodies were NOT found at the marina.....nor were they found close enough for "self confirmation" of the dog tracking at the marina.
They were found in the same Bay shoreline that Scott just so happened to go fishing in the day the Laci disappeared, if the dog sounded an alert in the Marina where Scott launched his boat, this is indeed evidence that works to confirm the findings of the dog, considering the location the bodies were discovered. Its very simple, you try to discredit the Dog scent evidence, but it does not matter, the jury could reach the same resonable conclusion just with Scotts fishing trip and the recovery site of the bodies.

• The prosecution presented false evidence about the location in the bay from which the bodies came.
- The actual Location of the bodies (dumped) is not necessary for a conviction, the bodies were indeed found on the shore-line of the bay - No harm to the Defendant
Of course it's necessary for a conviction - if we are talking about convicting Scott Peterson. There was no question as to where Scott went that day. If the bodies weren't dumped along his fishing route, then Scott Peterson is innocent.
there is much debate over Scotts location that day, no one was out following him around, he could have gone to multiple locations in the bay, to insist that a precise location is just silly given the other supporting evidence.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present expert witnesses to counter the false testimony of the prosecution experts.
- No prosecution witness Was impeached in the trial - arguments were given for both sides with full cross examination - this was strategy and does not meet the IAC - No Harm to the Defendant
Dr. Devore was absolutely impeached.
- Absolutly not impeached, his evidence was put on the record, jury was no admonished to ignore the results, his findings were accepted.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present exculpatory evidence that was available to him about the people who saw Laci walking in the neighborhood.
- This was strategy based on deposing witnesses, they were not credible or could be precise as hours or even days given Laci's normal routines - No Harm to the Defandant - Calls for speculation.
I don't understand why you think Geragos making a bad strategic decision isn't considered IAC. It doesn't matter what the reason for the deficiency is.....all that matters is that it was deficient. Geragos' strategic decision not to call them is not proof that they were not credible. They were very precise about what day and the general time of the morning that they saw her. The prosecution paraded every walking pregnant woman from the neighborhood they could find up on that stand and NONE of them walked that route...not on that day or any other. That actually gives credibility to those witnesses.
Not if they can''t account precisely for the time period in question, some of these witnesses were presented and considered by the Jury......moot point if you ask me
Bad Strategy in light of discovery is not covered by IAC. You keep insisting that everything that Geragos left out is so strong and compelling so the lack of inclusion is an instat indication of IAC, you are completley over-selling the strength of the evidence omitted.

• It was ineffective assistance of counsel not to present the exculpatory evidence that Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left for the Berkeley marina
- Todd evidence lacks any foundation - it has massive Evidentuary issues based Hearsay and calls for speculation and assumes facts not given in evidence.


Anon


My responses in red.
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:53 am

anonshy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.


In the end the dog scent evidence was not Needed for a conviction, after all, the bodies did turn Up IN the marina

Anon


Are you saying that the bodies turning up on the shoreline at the bay (not in the marina) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:29 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.


In the end the dog scent evidence was not Needed for a conviction, after all, the bodies did turn Up IN the marina

Anon


Are you saying that the bodies turning up on the shoreline at the bay (not in the marina) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt?


No, I am saying for the purpose of the Habeas where dog scent is being challenged, there is no proof of harm to the Defendant. The dog alert can be granted limited weight and a conviction is still possible. Take a look at the rules for Habeas that govern the process you will better understand.

The Habeas already has problems with 1.2 & 1.3.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:48 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.


In the end the dog scent evidence was not Needed for a conviction, after all, the bodies did turn Up IN the marina

Anon


Are you saying that the bodies turning up on the shoreline at the bay (not in the marina) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt?


No, I am saying for the purpose of the Habeas where dog scent is being challenged, there is no proof of harm to the Defendant. The dog alert can be granted limited weight and a conviction is still possible. Take a look at the rules for Habeas that govern the process you will better understand.

The Habeas already has problems with 1.2 & 1.3.

Anon


You didn't answer the question. If you say the dog scent was not needed for a conviction, you imply that the bodies turning up at the bay was the only thing necessary to convict.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:56 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I will argue that I think the prosecution would have been better off presenting a more simple case. . . . For example, the dog evidence is worse than useless in my opinion.
As far as I have looked, it likely left the jury scratching their head on what it meant. I think in the end I would have disregarded it.
At its core, this case is a circumstantial case.


In the end the dog scent evidence was not Needed for a conviction, after all, the bodies did turn Up IN the marina

Anon


Are you saying that the bodies turning up on the shoreline at the bay (not in the marina) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt?


No, I am saying for the purpose of the Habeas where dog scent is being challenged, there is no proof of harm to the Defendant. The dog alert can be granted limited weight and a conviction is still possible. Take a look at the rules for Habeas that govern the process you will better understand.

The Habeas already has problems with 1.2 & 1.3.

Anon


You didn't answer the question. If you say the dog scent was not needed for a conviction, you imply that the bodies turning up at the bay was the only thing necessary to convict.


No there is much more to the conviction than just those 3 elements (Scent ,Scotts Location and the Remains location), so I did answer your question. I'm arguing the Merits of your post where you listed the issues on the Habeas Writ, I'm discussing the merits of the arguments based on the process. There is no simplification of that argument, you either argue its merits under Appeal and let it conclude or try to argue it again and face a 1.2 or possibly a 1.3 violation on Habeas. If you want to argue the merits of the case from a fantasy perspective ignoring the actual state of the case file, I'm really not interested, If you want to discuss the merits of the arguments on Habeas or Appeal in the correct context of "Where we are at", fine by me.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:48 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:In the end the dog scent evidence was not Needed for a conviction, after all, the bodies did turn Up IN the marina

Anon


Are you saying that the bodies turning up on the shoreline at the bay (not in the marina) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt?


No, I am saying for the purpose of the Habeas where dog scent is being challenged, there is no proof of harm to the Defendant. The dog alert can be granted limited weight and a conviction is still possible. Take a look at the rules for Habeas that govern the process you will better understand.

The Habeas already has problems with 1.2 & 1.3.

Anon


You didn't answer the question. If you say the dog scent was not needed for a conviction, you imply that the bodies turning up at the bay was the only thing necessary to convict.


No there is much more to the conviction than just those 3 elements (Scent ,Scotts Location and the Remains location), so I did answer your question. I'm arguing the Merits of your post where you listed the issues on the Habeas Writ, I'm discussing the merits of the arguments based on the process. There is no simplification of that argument, you either argue its merits under Appeal and let it conclude or try to argue it again and face a 1.2 or possibly a 1.3 violation on Habeas. If you want to argue the merits of the case from a fantasy perspective ignoring the actual state of the case file, I'm really not interested, If you want to discuss the merits of the arguments on Habeas or Appeal in the correct context of "Where we are at", fine by me.

Anon


Just concentrate on the basic question. If the dog scent evidence isn't necessary, what is the proof that Scott transported Laci's body to the bay?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:47 am

Jane:

I answered the question it is more than just the 2 issues. it's a little difficult to answer questions about Habeas and that procedure and then add then impose first instance perspective where it is not applicable. in Terms of procedure, the answer is simple, the Jury heard all of the evidence and was indeed able to render a verdict. My contention to the argument of Habeas for that purpose is also simple, Due to the circumstances of the case, The fact that Scott takes the fishing trip, places himself in the Bay on the day his wife goes missing, the eventual discovery of the bodies in the same general area in a condition consistent with submersion for period resonably accounting for the duration of Laci's disapperance, This is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, If you have the dog scent evidence or not, if you feel it is self confirming or not, there is no need for scent evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion that Scott put Laci in the bay, the condition of the bodies, Scott's presence in the area and the discovery of the bodies in the same area and the condition of the remains, is enough to extend the crime scene and reach the reasonable conclusion. I do not believe you need to prove transportation, even the Dog sent evidence would not prove method of transportation, it would just confirm the presence of the body, but we already have confirmation that the bodies washed up in that area, in a state of decomposition that is consistent with deposit into the ocean on December 24th, Any reasonable judge would make the same determination, and that is really what is at issue in Habeas and why your question is a little off-side. The judge needs to remove the Scent evidence from the equasion and deem if a conviction is still reasonable based on other facts presented at trial. I believe it is very clear that other evidence works only to strengthen the contention that the scent alert was real, and therefore reliable in conjunction with the other evidence, secondly, even with diminished value or stricken, the sent evidence is not required and therefor there is no harm to the Defendant. The other issue with adding the Dog-Scent issue on the Habeas, is that it might be completely ignore or removed as it is improper procedure considering it is not fully resolved on appeal (section 1.2, 1.3 - rules of Habeas - Last Resort).

For That matter, the totality of the Habeas in light of the pending appeal, is rather odd. Usually there is no Habeas while an appeal is active, as the results of the appeal are required to form a Habeas. In fact any duplicate arguments from the appeal and Habeas do not conform to the rules of procedure.


Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:32 am

anonshy wrote:Jane:

I answered the question it is more than just the 2 issues. it's a little difficult to answer questions about Habeas and that procedure and then add then impose first instance perspective where it is not applicable. in Terms of procedure, the answer is simple, the Jury heard all of the evidence and was indeed able to render a verdict. My contention to the argument of Habeas for that purpose is also simple, Due to the circumstances of the case, The fact that Scott takes the fishing trip, places himself in the Bay on the day his wife goes missing, the eventual discovery of the bodies in the same general area in a condition consistent with submersion for period resonably accounting for the duration of Laci's disapperance, This is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, If you have the dog scent evidence or not, if you feel it is self confirming or not, there is no need for scent evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion that Scott put Laci in the bay, the condition of the bodies, Scott's presence in the area and the discovery of the bodies in the same area and the condition of the remains, is enough to extend the crime scene and reach the reasonable conclusion. I do not believe you need to prove transportation, even the Dog sent evidence would not prove method of transportation, it would just confirm the presence of the body, but we already have confirmation that the bodies washed up in that area, in a state of decomposition that is consistent with deposit into the ocean on December 24th, Any reasonable judge would make the same determination, and that is really what is at issue in Habeas and why your question is a little off-side. The judge needs to remove the Scent evidence from the equasion and deem if a conviction is still reasonable based on other facts presented at trial. I believe it is very clear that other evidence works only to strengthen the contention that the scent alert was real, and therefore reliable in conjunction with the other evidence, secondly, even with diminished value or stricken, the sent evidence is not required and therefor there is no harm to the Defendant. The other issue with adding the Dog-Scent issue on the Habeas, is that it might be completely ignore or removed as it is improper procedure considering it is not fully resolved on appeal (section 1.2, 1.3 - rules of Habeas - Last Resort).

For That matter, the totality of the Habeas in light of the pending appeal, is rather odd. Usually there is no Habeas while an appeal is active, as the results of the appeal are required to form a Habeas. In fact any duplicate arguments from the appeal and Habeas do not conform to the rules of procedure.


Anon


Anonshy, would you please give a link to the rules of procedure?

For a just conviction, It should have been proved that no one but Scott committed the physical act of murder, transported Laci's body to the bay, and dumped her body into the water.

There is no evidence that proves Scott committed the physical elements of the crime. The only evidence offered by the prosecution to prove these things came in the false testimony of Greggory Devore, Eloise Anderson, and Ralph Cheng.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:50 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Jane:

I answered the question it is more than just the 2 issues. it's a little difficult to answer questions about Habeas and that procedure and then add then impose first instance perspective where it is not applicable. in Terms of procedure, the answer is simple, the Jury heard all of the evidence and was indeed able to render a verdict. My contention to the argument of Habeas for that purpose is also simple, Due to the circumstances of the case, The fact that Scott takes the fishing trip, places himself in the Bay on the day his wife goes missing, the eventual discovery of the bodies in the same general area in a condition consistent with submersion for period resonably accounting for the duration of Laci's disapperance, This is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, If you have the dog scent evidence or not, if you feel it is self confirming or not, there is no need for scent evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion that Scott put Laci in the bay, the condition of the bodies, Scott's presence in the area and the discovery of the bodies in the same area and the condition of the remains, is enough to extend the crime scene and reach the reasonable conclusion. I do not believe you need to prove transportation, even the Dog sent evidence would not prove method of transportation, it would just confirm the presence of the body, but we already have confirmation that the bodies washed up in that area, in a state of decomposition that is consistent with deposit into the ocean on December 24th, Any reasonable judge would make the same determination, and that is really what is at issue in Habeas and why your question is a little off-side. The judge needs to remove the Scent evidence from the equasion and deem if a conviction is still reasonable based on other facts presented at trial. I believe it is very clear that other evidence works only to strengthen the contention that the scent alert was real, and therefore reliable in conjunction with the other evidence, secondly, even with diminished value or stricken, the sent evidence is not required and therefor there is no harm to the Defendant. The other issue with adding the Dog-Scent issue on the Habeas, is that it might be completely ignore or removed as it is improper procedure considering it is not fully resolved on appeal (section 1.2, 1.3 - rules of Habeas - Last Resort).

For That matter, the totality of the Habeas in light of the pending appeal, is rather odd. Usually there is no Habeas while an appeal is active, as the results of the appeal are required to form a Habeas. In fact any duplicate arguments from the appeal and Habeas do not conform to the rules of procedure.


Anon


Anonshy, would you please give a link to the rules of procedure?

For a just conviction, It should have been proved that no one but Scott committed the physical act of murder, transported Laci's body to the bay, and dumped her body into the water.

There is no evidence that proves Scott committed the physical elements of the crime. The only evidence offered by the prosecution to prove these things came in the false testimony of Greggory Devore, Eloise Anderson, and Ralph Cheng.


Circumstantial trials happen all the time with convictions applied and upheld: This Jury Heard the evidence and found that Scott was responsible for Killing his wife and unborn son.


1. Requirements before you can bring a habeas corpus petition

A California writ of habeas corpus is supposed to be what the law calls an "extraordinary remedy"-that is, it's supposed to be used only in extreme and unusual circumstances.10 Because of this, the best way to understand it is to first understand the important limits on when and how it can be used.

1.1. Petitioner must be "in custody"

You can only bring a habeas corpus petition if the state has you in custody...if, because of criminal charges or a criminal conviction, your ability to move around freely is restricted.11

So, of course, you can bring a writ of habeas corpus petition if you are in
state prison or county jail. But you can also bring a habeas corpus petition if you are:

Out on parole or probation (because both parole and probation involve restrictions on a person's liberty), 12
Out on bail, 13 or
Released on your own recognizance while charges are pending.14

1.2. Exhaustion of remedies

As a general rule, you can't file a petition for habeas corpus unless you've done something that judges call "exhausting your remedies." What this means is that you have to try every other solution that the system makes possible for you before you can try a writ of habeas corpus.15

What this means in practice is that you have to file all possible appeals of a California criminal conviction before you can try a writ of habeas corpus.16

1.3. Issues already resolved on appeal

Also, in California, courts usually won't consider a habeas corpus petition that is based on issues that were already considered and resolved on appeal.18

In other words, if you appealed your conviction arguing that the jury selection process was flawed, and the appeals court ruled against you, you can't then file a successful habeas corpus petition arguing that the jury selection process was flawed. This rule is known as the "Waltreus rule," after a case in which it was first declared. 19

2. Grounds for habeas corpus petitions in California

As we just explained, California law is such that you can really only bring a successful writ of habeas corpus on the basis of certain issues. Here is a list of the most important of these issues.

2.1. Conviction under unconstitutional law

You may be able to get relief through the writ of habeas corpus in California if you can show that the criminal law under which you were charged and convicted is unconstitutional. 20

It's rare for a court to find a law unconstitutional, but it does happen...usually because the law is too vague, or because the law violates a fundamental right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or the California constitution.


2.2. Ineffective assistance of counsel, or no lawyer provided

One of the most common reasons courts grant writs of habeas corpus is because a defendant did not have a competent lawyer at their trial and/or their appeal. This is what is known as an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim.

You can argue ineffective assistance of counsel in a habeas corpus petition even if you didn't make that argument in a criminal appeal.22 This makes sense because, if you had an incompetent lawyer, there's a chance that he or she wouldn't even have told you that you needed to file an appeal. Also, he or she almost certainly wouldn't have helped you to make an "ineffective assistance of counsel" argument on appeal!

But in order to get a writ of habeas corpus because your trial lawyer was incompetent, you also need to show that the result in the trial might have been different if you had had a better lawyer.23 In other words, you need to show that your trial lawyer made mistakes that may have made a difference to the verdict, or to your decisions about how to plead to charges.

It is also possible to get a habeas corpus petition granted if you did not have the money to pay for an attorney and were not given one by the state...or if you were not told that you had a right to get one from the state.25

2.3. Prosecutor's misconduct

Habeas corpus petitions may also be granted in cases involving prosecutorial misconduct in California

Your habeas corpus petition may be granted if the prosecutor at your trial engaged in certain kinds of bad behavior. These include:

Presenting false testimony in court,
Withholding key evidence that was favorable to your case,
Presenting false evidence that prompted you to decide to plead guilty, and
Making false statements to the jury.27

2.4. Incompetency during trial

California law provides that a person can't be tried for a crime while they are insane or otherwise incompetent. This is the concept of "competency to stand trial."

Habeas corpus petitions may be granted on the grounds that the defendant was not competent when he was tried for the crime.28

As with ineffective assistance of counsel, it makes sense that this is considered a legitimate basis for a habeas corpus petition. Habeas corpus petitions exist to correct the kinds of mistakes in the criminal trial process that the appeals process wouldn't catch. If a defendant didn't have a decent lawyer, or was himself insane during the normal process, there's a good chance justice wasn't done at either the trial or the appeals stage.

2.5. Newly discovered evidence

Another common reason courts grant habeas corpus petitions is that new evidence is discovered after the trial and the appeals process are over.29

But because it's very rare that all evidence is uncovered during the trial...and therefore very common for new evidence to come to light after the verdict...courts have put strict limits on the kind of new evidence that can justify a habeas petition. California courts have held that the new evidence has to either:

indicate with total certainty that the defendant is innocent, or
completely undermine the entire structure of the prosecution's case.30

Example: Will is convicted of murder. He files multiple appeals and loses on all of them. Years later, someone else comes forward and confesses to having killed the person Will was supposed to have killed. This is enough for a court to grant Will's habeas petition and release him from prison.31

BUT


Example: Jerome is convicted of bribery. The key witness for the prosecution in Jerome's trial was Tom.

Later, someone named Andy comes forward and says that Tom told him that he had lied at the trial and framed Jerome. Tom denies that this is the case.

Because it's Andy's word against Tom's, the new evidence (Andy's story) doesn't indicate for certain that Jerome is innocent. So Jerome's habeas corpus petition isn't granted.32

2.6. Changes in the law

Another valid basis for a habeas corpus petition is a change in the law since the time you were convicted or lost on your appeal.33

This too makes sense, given the purposes of habeas corpus-if the law was such that you were guilty at the time of your trial or appeal, and now is such that you would be innocent, you will need another method outside of the appeals process to challenge your conviction.

Example: Rachel uses marijuana for medical purposes, with her doctor's recommendation, and cultivates her own. She is arrested and convicted for cultivation of marijuana; she appeals her conviction but loses.

Then California voters pass the Compassionate Use Act, aka the medical marijuana law, under which Rachel's actions may be legal.

Rachel may be able to file a successful habeas corpus petition and get released from jail...if she can show that the change in law means that what she did is no longer a crime in California.

2.7. Evidence regarding battered woman's syndrome

The California legislature has specifically provided that prisoners can file habeas corpus petitions in order to introduce scientific expert testimony about the syndrome popularly known as "battered woman's syndrome." Basically, this syndrome consists of the psychological effects of domestic violence by a spouse or other intimate partner.34

This is only a valid reason for a habeas corpus petition in certain specific circumstances, however. These include:

Evidence on the effects of domestic partner abuse was not introduced at the original trial, 35
The conviction was for a violent felony like murder,
voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, attempted murder, or kidnapping, 36
The crime was committed before August 29, 1996, 37 and
It's reasonable to expect that introducing expert testimony on battered women's syndrome would have changed the outcome of the original trial.38

2.8. Challenging conditions of confinement

Finally, another common use of habeas corpus petitions is not to challenge a person's conviction for a crime...but instead to challenge the conditions under which they are serving their prison sentence.39 This use is especially important, given the horrendous conditions inside many California prisons today, with jail and prison abuse increasingly widespread.

According to Beverly Hills criminal defense and civil rights attorney Neil Shouse:40

"Prison inmates do have civil rights, even though they're more restricted than the rights of people on the outside. If you've been the victim of abuse or medical neglect in prison...and the processes that the prison system provides for challenging these conditions are not helping you...a habeas corpus petition may be a logical next step."

3. Time frame for bringing a California
habeas corpus petition

For all the reasons we just discussed, a California habeas corpus petition is a much more limited remedy than a normal appeal.

However, there is one major way in which a habeas corpus petition is a more flexible tool than an appeal: timing. There are strict timeframes and deadlines to appeal a criminal conviction in California. In contrast, there are no strict deadlines for filing a habeas corpus petition...as long as it is filed while you are in custody.

However, you are not supposed to delay filing a habeas corpus petition for too long...and if you do delay, you'll have to justify the delay in your petition.41 But any "delay" is measured from the time you find out that you have a good reason to seek habeas corpus relief.42 This can be the day you're convicted...or it can be years later.

So, for example, if you find out ten years into your prison sentence that someone else has confessed to the crime you are supposed to have committed, you can challenge your conviction through habeas corpus...even though the deadlines for filing appeals will have long since passed.
4. Procedure for obtaining a writ of habeas corpus
in California

Habeas corpus petitions go through the courts. But the procedure surrounding them is different from the normal California criminal court process.

You start by filing a petition that sets forth the grounds for relief. You should attach any reasonably available documents that will help your case.43

If there are any questions of fact involved with your petition, the general rule is that you file first in a California superior court. If it is rejected, you may "move up" to courts of appeal and maybe even the California Supreme Court.44

After you file your petition, the judge will make an initial decision on whether you might be entitled to have the petition granted if all the facts you allege in the petition are true. If the answer is no, the petition will be dismissed then and there.45

But if the answer is yes, then the jailer has to file an answer to your petition (this is called a "return").46 You then file an answer to that answer (called a "traverse").47

If there are any facts that are in dispute, then the court will hold a hearing in which evidence is presented. Otherwise, the court will simply rule based on the documents that were filed.48
5. Federal writ of habeas corpus

5.1. For state prisoners

The harsh truth is that most California petitions for habeas corpus don't succeed. But if you are in custody for a California crime and your California habeas corpus petition fails, you are not completely out of options. There is also the possibility of filing a habeas corpus petition in federal court.

Unfortunately, federal law takes a very strict approach to habeas corpus petitions challenging state sentences.

First, you can only get federal habeas corpus relief if you can show that your conviction or custody violated either the United States Constitution or federal law.49 In other words, you can't challenge your conviction on the basis of California state law in federal court.

Second, in order to get relief through this route, you will need to show that you have exhausted all remedies available in California (meaning, you have tried both regular appeals and all possible habeas corpus petitions in California courts).50 But you may be able to avoid this requirement if you can show that there was some reason why those state processes were not able to protect your rights.51

And, finally, federal courts won't grant a petition unless it's clear to them that the state courts made a really large and obvious mistake in dealing with your claim. The California courts' decision on any of your claims won't be overturned unless it was either

contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States (not by other federal courts), or
based on a completely unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.52

5.2. For federal prisoners

If you are in federal prison serving a sentence for a federal crime, you will file any habeas corpus petition in federal court (rather than California state court).53

But federal habeas corpus law for federal prisoners is a bit different than for state prisoners, in that a strict deadline applies for filing a petition. You need to make sure that your petition is filed within one (1) year after the latest of:

the date when your conviction becomes final,
the date on which the law changes to provide you with a basis for challenging your conviction or sentence, OR
the date on which the facts (like new evidence) on which you base your petition COULD have been discovered through reasonable efforts (even if this is earlier than when you actually discovered them).54
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:03 am

(CA) SUPREME COURT POLICIES REGARDING
CASES ARISING FROM JUDGMENTS OF DEATH

www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PoliciesMar2012.pdf

1-1.1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be presumed to be filed without substantial delay if it is filed within 180 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal or within 36 months after appointment of habeas corpus counsel, whichever is later. [As amended effective Sept. 19, 1990, Jan. 22, 1998, July 17, 2002, and Nov. 30, 2005.]

**********
Yes, the jury convicted Scott Peterson and sentenced him to death. Death penalty cases receive an automatic direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. The habeas appeal is to be filed within 180 days after the final due date for the reply brief in the direct appeal.

There are numerous valid grounds for reversal raised in both of Peterson's appeals.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:20 am

To everyone

Ok you know I see this over and over and over again and it is really getting into a heated battle, even yes I do see battle and I am not a fan of it. But when I talk about criminal law. I do it into reading novel. It who I am!!!

But let face it, I am not a fan of it criminal law, even when I do the work. I know some people don't agree with me!!!

Let talk about Science. I know Jane you want to prove that part with Scott Peterson innocent and I assume you would and Anon you got to learn accept it, even I know you might not. I respect science and I know someone else is against science even I put him in my foe list!!!

Let talk about Polygraph. I am a fan of it, even I support polygraph that people can past the test of there innocent into he & she. So if Jane doesn't want a group of issue. She want a link and here is that link with the issue into the color of red!!!

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-pr ... ocess.html
What is an appeal?

An appeal is a petition to a higher court by the losing party in a lawsuit to overturn a lower court's ruling. The basis of an appeal must be a reversible error in the application of the law at the trial court level (i.e., based on the facts, the court clearly misapplied the law).

In criminal cases, an appeal can target the conviction itself or just the sentencing portion of the decision without regard to the underlying conviction. For example, if a defendant is properly convicted of manslaughter but a judge sentences the defendant to a prison term that is beyond the limit of the law, the defendant will only appeal the prison term while leaving the conviction itself intact.

An appeal may be filed only after a final judgment or order has been reached by the trial court. This is quite simply for reasons of efficiency, so that the court system isn't bogged down by delays and trials aren't constantly put on hold while waiting for appeals of a judge's every ruling.

At the conclusion of a trial, the losing party may also make direct appeals (e.g., motion for a new trial, motion for directed verdict) to the presiding judge to immediately overrule the jury's decision, but these are rarely successful.

Does an appeal constitute a new trial?

No. In an appeal there are no new issues presented or witnesses called to testify. The appellate court will only review the trial's transcript and evidence presented during the trial to determine whether there were errors in either procedure or application of the law. Even if there were errors, if they are deemed minor -- legally called "harmless error" -- the judgment will not be overturned or a new trial granted.

Can any judgment be appealed?

The short answer is no, there is no absolute right to an appeal. Each state has laws which outline the types of cases which appellate courts may review. There must be an error of law for an appellate court to review a case. The fact that the losing party did not like the verdict is not enough to sustain an appeal.

That being said, even in administrative courts or lower level courts, if anyone's constitutional rights have been infringed upon, they may sue to enforce their rights and/or to revisit the original case.

What is the appeals process?

In most state court proceedings, the appellant or petitioner (the party appealing the verdict) must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the ruling. In federal court, the deadline is 60 days. The filing of the notice of appeal starts the clock running on the appeals process and there are prescribed deadlines from this point on. The petitioner submits a legal brief detailing the alleged errors of law made by the trial court, and the respondent or appellee (the party that prevailed at the trial) writes a response.

Once the appellate court receives both petitioner and respondent briefs, it will analyze the arguments and make a determination of whether: a) there were errors of law made by the trial court, and b) whether the errors rise to the level of "reversible error" (very serious errors). As noted above, harmless errors will be overlooked by the appellate court.

There may or may not be oral arguments presented by petitioner and respondent. If the court decides to hear oral arguments, the petitioner will present their arguments and field questions from the judge(s) and then the respondent will do the same. In most appeals, this question and answer format lasts 10-15 minutes per side.

Whether the appeals court hears oral arguments or issues a ruling based solely on the written briefs, the court will either: 1) affirm the decision; 2) order a new trial; 3) modify the ruling in some way; 4) consider new facts or evidence (seldom); or 5) in extremely rare cases, may throw out the case entirely.

What are the odds of a successful appeal?

The number of successful appeals is low. Appellate courts give the trial court great leeway in conducting trials. The law does not guarantee perfect trials, therefore appeals courts will only overturn verdicts which contain clear, serious errors of law.

Because of the leeway appeals courts give trial verdicts, petitioners carry an even greater burden in proving that errors of law were serious and not harmless. If an appellate court can find any reasonable argument that the error wouldn't have changed the verdict (and is therefore "harmless"), it will refuse to overturn the verdict.

There are, of course, numerous cases where serious errors were made and appeals courts will overturn those verdicts. Particularly serious are charges that the trial court denied rights guaranteed by the constitution, such as due process and equal protection rights.

I lost my trial because my attorney made stupid mistakes, can't I rely on an appeal to correct them?

Don't count on appeals to make up for any real or perceived deficiencies at trial. You should put all of your energy into the trial itself, which includes finding the right lawyer to try the case. Successfully appealing a verdict because you had a deficient attorney is extremely difficult proposition. You can't appeal because you simply had a bad lawyer.

You can appeal on the basis that your attorney was so incompetent that you were essentially denied your 6th Amendment right to a fair trial (known legally as an "ineffective assistance of counsel" appeal). This occurs almost exclusively in criminal defense cases and the standard for the appeal is very high -- courts are extremely deferential to the competency of attorneys and maintain a strong presumption that the lawyer's assistance was within professional standards. To put it in perspective, there have been cases where an attorney has fallen asleep during a trial, yet the verdict was not overturned nor the case retried.

Many cases aren't eligible for appeal because the trial attorney did not object to a ruling during the trial, and therefore didn't "preserve" that issue for appeal. For example, a written statement from a witness accusing a defendant of robbery is entered into evidence, but the witness does not testify at trial. The defense attorney does not object and the defendant is convicted based solely on the written statement. The Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to face his accuser, a right which, if infringed, could form the basis for an appeal.

Because the attorney failed to object at trial to the admission of only a written statement rather than live testimony, however, the defendant is deemed to have waived this right and an appeal will not be allowed on that issue.

The example sounds absurd -- an attorney waives your constitutional right through ineptitude, yet your appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel fails -- but it happens frequently. An appeals court may reason that putting the witness on the stand wouldn't have had any positive effect for the defendant and therefore the decision not to object could be considered a trial strategy. That's the type of deferential latitude attorneys receive in ineffective assistance of counsel appeals and the reason why it is imperative to choose your attorney wisely at the beginning of the process and stay involved during each aspect of the trial.

What is a writ?

A writ is a directive from a higher court ordering a lower court or government official to take a certain action in accordance with the law. For example, if a lower court decides to try a case that is out of its jurisdiction, one or more of the attorneys involved may object and seek a writ of mandamus (writ of mandate) from an appeals court ordering the lower court to transfer the case to another jurisdiction.

How are writs and appeals different?

Writs are extraordinary court orders and only issued when a moving party (the one seeking the writ) has no other options. In the case of the writ of mandamus from above, the moving party had to act quickly because the lower court improperly took the case. If the moving party had simply objected at trial and waited to appeal, a tremendous waste of time and money would have occurred -- and all for nothing if the trial court improperly took the case.

Generally, higher courts won't review decisions of a lower court until a final verdict is delivered, for the aforementioned reasons of efficiency and leeway given to lower courts. Unlike appeals, which require a final verdict, writs are immediate orders and extraordinary in that the normal course of a trial is disrupted, potentially causing disorder and delay.

Courts do not take such events lightly and higher courts do not issue writs often. A court will only issue a writ when a lower court wrongly decided an issue, irreparable harm would occur to a party, and there are no other options.

Courts may also issue writs, such as writs of attachment and execution, in order to force compliance with a court order by an unwilling party.

What's a writ of habeas corpus?

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody.

Literally translated, a writ of habeas corpus is a court order to "produce the body," and is generally filed by those in prison, though they are also filed by those who have been held in contempt of court by a judge and either imprisoned or threatened with imprisonment. Also known as "the Great Writ," habeas petitions are often referred to as the hallmark of the United States justice system. Unlike other countries where the government may throw anyone in jail and keep them there indefinitely without filing charges or conducting a hearing, habeas corpus serves as a check on the government and offers prisoners a legal avenue to protest their imprisonment.

A habeas corpus petition can be filed in state or federal court. Before filing in federal court, however, all state options must be exhausted first.

Everyone has the right to be challenge illegal imprisonment or inhuman prison conditions. Like all writs, however, courts will insist on clear and convincing evidence in support of a writ and do not issue them frequently.

Case Evaluation by a Criminal Defense Attorney at No Charge

A great number of mistakes, or "reversible errors," occur during criminal plea agreements and at criminal sentencing hearings. An expert criminal defense attorney can review the transcript of these proceedings and can often find judicial errors that will have the case overturned on appeal after filing a writ of habeas corpus. If you feel you've been convicted or sentenced unfairly, you can contact a criminal defense attorney for a free case evaluation.
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Free the Innocence 2

Free: Kirstin Lobato Las Vegas NV & Dusty Turner Norfolk VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:33 am

jane wrote:(CA) SUPREME COURT POLICIES REGARDING
CASES ARISING FROM JUDGMENTS OF DEATH

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PoliciesMar2012.pdf

1-1.1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be presumed to be filed without substantial delay if it is filed within 180 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal or within 36 months after appointment of habeas corpus counsel, whichever is later. [As amended effective Sept. 19, 1990, Jan. 22, 1998, July 17, 2002, and Nov. 30, 2005.]

**********
Yes, the jury convicted Scott Peterson and sentenced him to death. Death penalty cases receive an automatic direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. The habeas appeal is to be filed within 180 days after the final due date for the reply brief in the direct appeal.

There are numerous valid grounds for reversal raised in both of Peterson's appeals.


I spoke specifically to each of the arguments on appeal and on Habeas, they are wrought with issues and very weak in terms of content.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:16 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:(CA) SUPREME COURT POLICIES REGARDING
CASES ARISING FROM JUDGMENTS OF DEATH

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PoliciesMar2012.pdf

1-1.1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be presumed to be filed without substantial delay if it is filed within 180 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal or within 36 months after appointment of habeas corpus counsel, whichever is later. [As amended effective Sept. 19, 1990, Jan. 22, 1998, July 17, 2002, and Nov. 30, 2005.]

**********
Yes, the jury convicted Scott Peterson and sentenced him to death. Death penalty cases receive an automatic direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. The habeas appeal is to be filed within 180 days after the final due date for the reply brief in the direct appeal.

There are numerous valid grounds for reversal raised in both of Peterson's appeals.


I spoke specifically to each of the arguments on appeal and on Habeas, they are wrought with issues and very weak in terms of content.

Anon


That is your opinion. As far as I know you are not a member of the California Supreme Court. They are the ones that will make the decisions.

This is a summation of the issues raised in the habeas petition:

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although the record on appeal in this case clearly shows that petitioner did not receive a fair trial, additional investigation now places this claim beyond dispute.
New evidence developed for this petition shows that one juror, Richelle Nice, gave false answers to material questions during voir dire. (See Claim One.)

It turns out that she, herself, had been a victim of a crime that endangered the life of her unborn child – a crime similar to that for which Scott stood accused. Ms. Nice suppressed this information, however, in an apparent attempt to gain a spot on Mr. Peterson’s jury. This suppression of material information is juror misconduct and raises a presumption of prejudice.

Further, new information developed for this petition shows that the State presented false testimony in three key areas: the date Conner died; the presence of Laci’s scent at the Berkeley Marina; and the location in the bay from which the bodies were swept ashore. Contrary to the evidence the jury heard, the evidence developed in this habeas proceeding indicates that Conner did not die on December 24, 2002, but days later; that the canine detection of Laci’s scent at the Marina was entirely unreliable; and that the bodies could have been deposited in the bay not just from the area around Brooks Island, but from a point near the Richmond Harbor or from an inland tidal creek in Richmond. Key evidence the jury heard was therefore false, and the ensuing conviction is therefore subject to challenge under Penal Code section 1473. (See Claims Two, Four and Six.)

Because defense counsel did not present expert evidence that would have undermined each of these aspects of the prosecution case, he rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Claims Three, Five and Seven.)

Counsel’s ineffective assistance was compounded by his promises in opening statement to produce exculpatory witnesses in three separate areas – promises which he did not fulfill. (See Claim Eight.)

Finally, after failing to read a critical police report undermining the state’s time line, counsel failed to call several witnesses who saw Laci alive after petitioner left the home. (See Claims Nine and Ten.)

At the end of the day, the claims raised here establish that petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The writ should therefore issue.


http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:48 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:(CA) SUPREME COURT POLICIES REGARDING
CASES ARISING FROM JUDGMENTS OF DEATH

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PoliciesMar2012.pdf

1-1.1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be presumed to be filed without substantial delay if it is filed within 180 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal or within 36 months after appointment of habeas corpus counsel, whichever is later. [As amended effective Sept. 19, 1990, Jan. 22, 1998, July 17, 2002, and Nov. 30, 2005.]

**********
Yes, the jury convicted Scott Peterson and sentenced him to death. Death penalty cases receive an automatic direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. The habeas appeal is to be filed within 180 days after the final due date for the reply brief in the direct appeal.

There are numerous valid grounds for reversal raised in both of Peterson's appeals.


I spoke specifically to each of the arguments on appeal and on Habeas, they are wrought with issues and very weak in terms of content.

Anon


That is your opinion. As far as I know you are not a member of the California Supreme Court. They are the ones that will make the decisions.

This is a summation of the issues raised in the habeas petition:

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although the record on appeal in this case clearly shows that petitioner did not receive a fair trial, additional investigation now places this claim beyond dispute.
New evidence developed for this petition shows that one juror, Richelle Nice, gave false answers to material questions during voir dire. (See Claim One.)

It turns out that she, herself, had been a victim of a crime that endangered the life of her unborn child – a crime similar to that for which Scott stood accused. Ms. Nice suppressed this information, however, in an apparent attempt to gain a spot on Mr. Peterson’s jury. This suppression of material information is juror misconduct and raises a presumption of prejudice.

Further, new information developed for this petition shows that the State presented false testimony in three key areas: the date Conner died; the presence of Laci’s scent at the Berkeley Marina; and the location in the bay from which the bodies were swept ashore. Contrary to the evidence the jury heard, the evidence developed in this habeas proceeding indicates that Conner did not die on December 24, 2002, but days later; that the canine detection of Laci’s scent at the Marina was entirely unreliable; and that the bodies could have been deposited in the bay not just from the area around Brooks Island, but from a point near the Richmond Harbor or from an inland tidal creek in Richmond. Key evidence the jury heard was therefore false, and the ensuing conviction is therefore subject to challenge under Penal Code section 1473. (See Claims Two, Four and Six.)

Because defense counsel did not present expert evidence that would have undermined each of these aspects of the prosecution case, he rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Claims Three, Five and Seven.)

Counsel’s ineffective assistance was compounded by his promises in opening statement to produce exculpatory witnesses in three separate areas – promises which he did not fulfill. (See Claim Eight.)

Finally, after failing to read a critical police report undermining the state’s time line, counsel failed to call several witnesses who saw Laci alive after petitioner left the home. (See Claims Nine and Ten.)

At the end of the day, the claims raised here establish that petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The writ should therefore issue.


http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf



You do realize that a convicted felon in California is free to make as many claims on his appeal and Habeas writ as possible. Just because an Lawyer argues a point does meant the point is valid, logical or factual.

Every single issue you raise for relief has a counter point based on the evidence itself or the rules of procedure. You are either unable or unwilling to respond to the counter-points, thus your continual re-hash and re-cut and paste from a very limited script. You not posting it for the sake of continual debate, and there is no one else posting in this forum, so not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

There is very little to no harm in any of the Habeas points. The points raise are run of the mill standard arguments that will be easily dismissed on appeal and Habeas. Then they can finally give Scott Peterson the full force of justice imposed on sentencing. When you kill your wife and unborn child, you deserve to die!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:08 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:(CA) SUPREME COURT POLICIES REGARDING
CASES ARISING FROM JUDGMENTS OF DEATH

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PoliciesMar2012.pdf

1-1.1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be presumed to be filed without substantial delay if it is filed within 180 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal or within 36 months after appointment of habeas corpus counsel, whichever is later. [As amended effective Sept. 19, 1990, Jan. 22, 1998, July 17, 2002, and Nov. 30, 2005.]

**********
Yes, the jury convicted Scott Peterson and sentenced him to death. Death penalty cases receive an automatic direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. The habeas appeal is to be filed within 180 days after the final due date for the reply brief in the direct appeal.

There are numerous valid grounds for reversal raised in both of Peterson's appeals.


I spoke specifically to each of the arguments on appeal and on Habeas, they are wrought with issues and very weak in terms of content.

Anon


That is your opinion. As far as I know you are not a member of the California Supreme Court. They are the ones that will make the decisions.

This is a summation of the issues raised in the habeas petition:

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although the record on appeal in this case clearly shows that petitioner did not receive a fair trial, additional investigation now places this claim beyond dispute.
New evidence developed for this petition shows that one juror, Richelle Nice, gave false answers to material questions during voir dire. (See Claim One.)

It turns out that she, herself, had been a victim of a crime that endangered the life of her unborn child – a crime similar to that for which Scott stood accused. Ms. Nice suppressed this information, however, in an apparent attempt to gain a spot on Mr. Peterson’s jury. This suppression of material information is juror misconduct and raises a presumption of prejudice.

Further, new information developed for this petition shows that the State presented false testimony in three key areas: the date Conner died; the presence of Laci’s scent at the Berkeley Marina; and the location in the bay from which the bodies were swept ashore. Contrary to the evidence the jury heard, the evidence developed in this habeas proceeding indicates that Conner did not die on December 24, 2002, but days later; that the canine detection of Laci’s scent at the Marina was entirely unreliable; and that the bodies could have been deposited in the bay not just from the area around Brooks Island, but from a point near the Richmond Harbor or from an inland tidal creek in Richmond. Key evidence the jury heard was therefore false, and the ensuing conviction is therefore subject to challenge under Penal Code section 1473. (See Claims Two, Four and Six.)

Because defense counsel did not present expert evidence that would have undermined each of these aspects of the prosecution case, he rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Claims Three, Five and Seven.)

Counsel’s ineffective assistance was compounded by his promises in opening statement to produce exculpatory witnesses in three separate areas – promises which he did not fulfill. (See Claim Eight.)

Finally, after failing to read a critical police report undermining the state’s time line, counsel failed to call several witnesses who saw Laci alive after petitioner left the home. (See Claims Nine and Ten.)

At the end of the day, the claims raised here establish that petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The writ should therefore issue.


http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf



You do realize that a convicted felon in California is free to make as many claims on his appeal and Habeas writ as possible. Just because an Lawyer argues a point does meant the point is valid, logical or factual.

Every single issue you raise for relief has a counter point based on the evidence itself or the rules of procedure. You are either unable or unwilling to respond to the counter-points, thus your continual re-hash and re-cut and paste from a very limited script. You not posting it for the sake of continual debate, and there is no one else posting in this forum, so not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

There is very little to no harm in any of the Habeas points. The points raise are run of the mill standard arguments that will be easily dismissed on appeal and Habeas. Then they can finally give Scott Peterson the full force of justice imposed on sentencing. When you kill your wife and unborn child, you deserve to die!

Anon


What are you hoping to accomplish by your continued refusal to address the facts raised in the appeals?

The points raised are not run of the mill standard arguments. They are significant proof of judicial error and prosecutorial misconduct. There are serious violations of Scott Peterson's constitutional rights. As far as the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, if the court is unwilling to hold the judge and the prosecutors to account, they have been given the option to blame the defense attorney.

The experts who signed declarations for the habeas appeal are more highly qualified than the experts who testified for the prosecution. They are uniquely able to prove that the prosecution experts gave false testimony about the essential physical elements of the crime.

This conviction will be reversed. Scott Peterson did not kill his wife and child.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:07 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:(CA) SUPREME COURT POLICIES REGARDING
CASES ARISING FROM JUDGMENTS OF DEATH

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/PoliciesMar2012.pdf

1-1.1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be presumed to be filed without substantial delay if it is filed within 180 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal or within 36 months after appointment of habeas corpus counsel, whichever is later. [As amended effective Sept. 19, 1990, Jan. 22, 1998, July 17, 2002, and Nov. 30, 2005.]

**********
Yes, the jury convicted Scott Peterson and sentenced him to death. Death penalty cases receive an automatic direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. The habeas appeal is to be filed within 180 days after the final due date for the reply brief in the direct appeal.

There are numerous valid grounds for reversal raised in both of Peterson's appeals.


I spoke specifically to each of the arguments on appeal and on Habeas, they are wrought with issues and very weak in terms of content.

Anon


That is your opinion. As far as I know you are not a member of the California Supreme Court. They are the ones that will make the decisions.

This is a summation of the issues raised in the habeas petition:

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although the record on appeal in this case clearly shows that petitioner did not receive a fair trial, additional investigation now places this claim beyond dispute.
New evidence developed for this petition shows that one juror, Richelle Nice, gave false answers to material questions during voir dire. (See Claim One.)

It turns out that she, herself, had been a victim of a crime that endangered the life of her unborn child – a crime similar to that for which Scott stood accused. Ms. Nice suppressed this information, however, in an apparent attempt to gain a spot on Mr. Peterson’s jury. This suppression of material information is juror misconduct and raises a presumption of prejudice.

Further, new information developed for this petition shows that the State presented false testimony in three key areas: the date Conner died; the presence of Laci’s scent at the Berkeley Marina; and the location in the bay from which the bodies were swept ashore. Contrary to the evidence the jury heard, the evidence developed in this habeas proceeding indicates that Conner did not die on December 24, 2002, but days later; that the canine detection of Laci’s scent at the Marina was entirely unreliable; and that the bodies could have been deposited in the bay not just from the area around Brooks Island, but from a point near the Richmond Harbor or from an inland tidal creek in Richmond. Key evidence the jury heard was therefore false, and the ensuing conviction is therefore subject to challenge under Penal Code section 1473. (See Claims Two, Four and Six.)

Because defense counsel did not present expert evidence that would have undermined each of these aspects of the prosecution case, he rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Claims Three, Five and Seven.)

Counsel’s ineffective assistance was compounded by his promises in opening statement to produce exculpatory witnesses in three separate areas – promises which he did not fulfill. (See Claim Eight.)

Finally, after failing to read a critical police report undermining the state’s time line, counsel failed to call several witnesses who saw Laci alive after petitioner left the home. (See Claims Nine and Ten.)

At the end of the day, the claims raised here establish that petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The writ should therefore issue.


http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf



You do realize that a convicted felon in California is free to make as many claims on his appeal and Habeas writ as possible. Just because an Lawyer argues a point does meant the point is valid, logical or factual.

Every single issue you raise for relief has a counter point based on the evidence itself or the rules of procedure. You are either unable or unwilling to respond to the counter-points, thus your continual re-hash and re-cut and paste from a very limited script. You not posting it for the sake of continual debate, and there is no one else posting in this forum, so not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

There is very little to no harm in any of the Habeas points. The points raise are run of the mill standard arguments that will be easily dismissed on appeal and Habeas. Then they can finally give Scott Peterson the full force of justice imposed on sentencing. When you kill your wife and unborn child, you deserve to die!

Anon


What are you hoping to accomplish by your continued refusal to address the facts raised in the appeals?

The points raised are not run of the mill standard arguments. They are significant proof of judicial error and prosecutorial misconduct. There are serious violations of Scott Peterson's constitutional rights. As far as the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, if the court is unwilling to hold the judge and the prosecutors to account, they have been given the option to blame the defense attorney.

The experts who signed declarations for the habeas appeal are more highly qualified than the experts who testified for the prosecution. They are uniquely able to prove that the prosecution experts gave false testimony about the essential physical elements of the crime.

This conviction will be reversed. Scott Peterson did not kill his wife and child.


Look up-thread you will see my response to both the Habeas and the Appeal - your just playing games.

Arguments have to be proven, not just submitted!

What I don't think you understand is that trials are never perfect, there are almost always errors, you can blame the lawyers, the process all you like but Scott received a fair trail, there were errors but none that would preclude a guilty verdict.

The conviction stands very little chance being overturned, Scott is a convicted murderer in the slaying of his wife an unborn infant.

I challenge you to put forth incontrovertible evidence someone else committed the crime! I will wait for that answer!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:27 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:That is your opinion. As far as I know you are not a member of the California Supreme Court. They are the ones that will make the decisions.

This is a summation of the issues raised in the habeas petition:

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although the record on appeal in this case clearly shows that petitioner did not receive a fair trial, additional investigation now places this claim beyond dispute.
New evidence developed for this petition shows that one juror, Richelle Nice, gave false answers to material questions during voir dire. (See Claim One.)

It turns out that she, herself, had been a victim of a crime that endangered the life of her unborn child – a crime similar to that for which Scott stood accused. Ms. Nice suppressed this information, however, in an apparent attempt to gain a spot on Mr. Peterson’s jury. This suppression of material information is juror misconduct and raises a presumption of prejudice.

Further, new information developed for this petition shows that the State presented false testimony in three key areas: the date Conner died; the presence of Laci’s scent at the Berkeley Marina; and the location in the bay from which the bodies were swept ashore. Contrary to the evidence the jury heard, the evidence developed in this habeas proceeding indicates that Conner did not die on December 24, 2002, but days later; that the canine detection of Laci’s scent at the Marina was entirely unreliable; and that the bodies could have been deposited in the bay not just from the area around Brooks Island, but from a point near the Richmond Harbor or from an inland tidal creek in Richmond. Key evidence the jury heard was therefore false, and the ensuing conviction is therefore subject to challenge under Penal Code section 1473. (See Claims Two, Four and Six.)

Because defense counsel did not present expert evidence that would have undermined each of these aspects of the prosecution case, he rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Claims Three, Five and Seven.)

Counsel’s ineffective assistance was compounded by his promises in opening statement to produce exculpatory witnesses in three separate areas – promises which he did not fulfill. (See Claim Eight.)

Finally, after failing to read a critical police report undermining the state’s time line, counsel failed to call several witnesses who saw Laci alive after petitioner left the home. (See Claims Nine and Ten.)

At the end of the day, the claims raised here establish that petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The writ should therefore issue.


http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf



You do realize that a convicted felon in California is free to make as many claims on his appeal and Habeas writ as possible. Just because an Lawyer argues a point does meant the point is valid, logical or factual.

Every single issue you raise for relief has a counter point based on the evidence itself or the rules of procedure. You are either unable or unwilling to respond to the counter-points, thus your continual re-hash and re-cut and paste from a very limited script. You not posting it for the sake of continual debate, and there is no one else posting in this forum, so not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

There is very little to no harm in any of the Habeas points. The points raise are run of the mill standard arguments that will be easily dismissed on appeal and Habeas. Then they can finally give Scott Peterson the full force of justice imposed on sentencing. When you kill your wife and unborn child, you deserve to die!

Anon


What are you hoping to accomplish by your continued refusal to address the facts raised in the appeals?

The points raised are not run of the mill standard arguments. They are significant proof of judicial error and prosecutorial misconduct. There are serious violations of Scott Peterson's constitutional rights. As far as the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, if the court is unwilling to hold the judge and the prosecutors to account, they have been given the option to blame the defense attorney.

The experts who signed declarations for the habeas appeal are more highly qualified than the experts who testified for the prosecution. They are uniquely able to prove that the prosecution experts gave false testimony about the essential physical elements of the crime.

This conviction will be reversed. Scott Peterson did not kill his wife and child.


Look up-thread you will see my response to both the Habeas and the Appeal - your just playing games.

Arguments have to be proven, not just submitted!

What I don't think you understand is that trials are never perfect, there are almost always errors, you can blame the lawyers, the process all you like but Scott received a fair trail, there were errors but none that would preclude a guilty verdict.

The conviction stands very little chance being overturned, Scott is a convicted murderer in the slaying of his wife an unborn infant.

I challenge you to put forth incontrovertible evidence someone else committed the crime! I will wait for that answer!

Anon


Your responses are not based on anything but your own opinion. The errors in this trial are quite serious violations of Scott's constitutional rights to a fair trial. The arguments presented in the appellate documents are based on legal precedents.

There is no proof that Scott committed the physical acts involved in the crime. The declarations signed for the habeas appeal prove that the prosecution experts gave false testimony. Scott does not have to prove third party guilt. The prosecution is required to prove that no one but Scott committed the crime. The process is not over by a long shot.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:01 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:That is your opinion. As far as I know you are not a member of the California Supreme Court. They are the ones that will make the decisions.

This is a summation of the issues raised in the habeas petition:

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although the record on appeal in this case clearly shows that petitioner did not receive a fair trial, additional investigation now places this claim beyond dispute.
New evidence developed for this petition shows that one juror, Richelle Nice, gave false answers to material questions during voir dire. (See Claim One.)

It turns out that she, herself, had been a victim of a crime that endangered the life of her unborn child – a crime similar to that for which Scott stood accused. Ms. Nice suppressed this information, however, in an apparent attempt to gain a spot on Mr. Peterson’s jury. This suppression of material information is juror misconduct and raises a presumption of prejudice.

Further, new information developed for this petition shows that the State presented false testimony in three key areas: the date Conner died; the presence of Laci’s scent at the Berkeley Marina; and the location in the bay from which the bodies were swept ashore. Contrary to the evidence the jury heard, the evidence developed in this habeas proceeding indicates that Conner did not die on December 24, 2002, but days later; that the canine detection of Laci’s scent at the Marina was entirely unreliable; and that the bodies could have been deposited in the bay not just from the area around Brooks Island, but from a point near the Richmond Harbor or from an inland tidal creek in Richmond. Key evidence the jury heard was therefore false, and the ensuing conviction is therefore subject to challenge under Penal Code section 1473. (See Claims Two, Four and Six.)

Because defense counsel did not present expert evidence that would have undermined each of these aspects of the prosecution case, he rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Claims Three, Five and Seven.)

Counsel’s ineffective assistance was compounded by his promises in opening statement to produce exculpatory witnesses in three separate areas – promises which he did not fulfill. (See Claim Eight.)

Finally, after failing to read a critical police report undermining the state’s time line, counsel failed to call several witnesses who saw Laci alive after petitioner left the home. (See Claims Nine and Ten.)

At the end of the day, the claims raised here establish that petitioner did not receive a fair trial. The writ should therefore issue.


http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf



You do realize that a convicted felon in California is free to make as many claims on his appeal and Habeas writ as possible. Just because an Lawyer argues a point does meant the point is valid, logical or factual.

Every single issue you raise for relief has a counter point based on the evidence itself or the rules of procedure. You are either unable or unwilling to respond to the counter-points, thus your continual re-hash and re-cut and paste from a very limited script. You not posting it for the sake of continual debate, and there is no one else posting in this forum, so not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

There is very little to no harm in any of the Habeas points. The points raise are run of the mill standard arguments that will be easily dismissed on appeal and Habeas. Then they can finally give Scott Peterson the full force of justice imposed on sentencing. When you kill your wife and unborn child, you deserve to die!

Anon


What are you hoping to accomplish by your continued refusal to address the facts raised in the appeals?

The points raised are not run of the mill standard arguments. They are significant proof of judicial error and prosecutorial misconduct. There are serious violations of Scott Peterson's constitutional rights. As far as the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, if the court is unwilling to hold the judge and the prosecutors to account, they have been given the option to blame the defense attorney.

The experts who signed declarations for the habeas appeal are more highly qualified than the experts who testified for the prosecution. They are uniquely able to prove that the prosecution experts gave false testimony about the essential physical elements of the crime.

This conviction will be reversed. Scott Peterson did not kill his wife and child.


Look up-thread you will see my response to both the Habeas and the Appeal - your just playing games.

Arguments have to be proven, not just submitted!

What I don't think you understand is that trials are never perfect, there are almost always errors, you can blame the lawyers, the process all you like but Scott received a fair trail, there were errors but none that would preclude a guilty verdict.

The conviction stands very little chance being overturned, Scott is a convicted murderer in the slaying of his wife an unborn infant.

I challenge you to put forth incontrovertible evidence someone else committed the crime! I will wait for that answer!

Anon


Your responses are not based on anything but your own opinion. The errors in this trial are quite serious violations of Scott's constitutional rights to a fair trial. The arguments presented in the appellate documents are based on legal precedents.

There is no proof that Scott committed the physical acts involved in the crime. The declarations signed for the habeas appeal prove that the prosecution experts gave false testimony. Scott does not have to prove third party guilt. The prosecution is required to prove that no one but Scott committed the crime. The process is not over by a long shot.


I did not say Scott had to prove 3rd party guilt, that was a direct question to you!

your categorization of the arguments on the Habeas as being serious is your own opinion, but it is certainly not serious if you look at it in accordance of procedure and supporting facts.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:34 am

jane wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:You guys have gotten me to come around on this one. This guy may well be innocent. He is kind of a douche bag and many many people are convicted for that offense but they shouldn't be executed for it or we would have a declining population like Japan and Europe.


Happy New Year! I'm glad to hear that you've come around. Through the years I've come to believe that Scott is actually a very nice guy with some personal weaknesses. As far as the silly conversations he had with Amber, just remember that she was working for the police and encouraging him to participate in the fantasies.

It's immaterial whether or not Scott is a nice guy. Even nice guys murder. It's immaterial whether or not Scott has weaknesses. Not everyone with weaknesses either murders or doesn't murder. The only material thing to emerge from the taped Scott/Amber conversations is that even with opportunity, Scott never once revealed anything to do with the murder.

It's where I've always sat in looking at this - and TBH I have not looked at it in depth for a while - the conversations here seem to go in circles. I also have not followed in depth the Greybill stuff. But where I sit is that at the original trial, the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence to secure a reasonable conviction, even though the jury convicted. It was an unsafe conviction - which in the long run has nothing to do with Scott; be he a cheating heel, or a nice guy. Unsafe convictions are a blight. Period.

Esp. in cases like this when so many people want to convict him - not on the facts of the case, but on the content of his character.


It may be immaterial in a legal sense, but the prosecution portrayal of Scott as an evil person and the media characterization of him as a sociopath comparable to Ted Bundy need to be corrected if he is ever to have any kind of a future.


Happy 4th of July! I've just been rereading some of the posts on page 95 of this thread. This is one that gives me hope.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:48 am

jane wrote:
jane wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
jane wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:You guys have gotten me to come around on this one. This guy may well be innocent. He is kind of a douche bag and many many people are convicted for that offense but they shouldn't be executed for it or we would have a declining population like Japan and Europe.


Happy New Year! I'm glad to hear that you've come around. Through the years I've come to believe that Scott is actually a very nice guy with some personal weaknesses. As far as the silly conversations he had with Amber, just remember that she was working for the police and encouraging him to participate in the fantasies.

It's immaterial whether or not Scott is a nice guy. Even nice guys murder. It's immaterial whether or not Scott has weaknesses. Not everyone with weaknesses either murders or doesn't murder. The only material thing to emerge from the taped Scott/Amber conversations is that even with opportunity, Scott never once revealed anything to do with the murder.

It's where I've always sat in looking at this - and TBH I have not looked at it in depth for a while - the conversations here seem to go in circles. I also have not followed in depth the Greybill stuff. But where I sit is that at the original trial, the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence to secure a reasonable conviction, even though the jury convicted. It was an unsafe conviction - which in the long run has nothing to do with Scott; be he a cheating heel, or a nice guy. Unsafe convictions are a blight. Period.

Esp. in cases like this when so many people want to convict him - not on the facts of the case, but on the content of his character.


It may be immaterial in a legal sense, but the prosecution portrayal of Scott as an evil person and the media characterization of him as a sociopath comparable to Ted Bundy need to be corrected if he is ever to have any kind of a future.


Happy 4th of July! I've just been rereading some of the posts on page 95 of this thread. This is one that gives me hope.


I also have hope on this great Holiday (Happy 4th!), Hope & happiness that no one will ever be Harmed again at the hands of the Evil Monster Scott Peterson. So on a day where proud Americans celebrate the country and Freedom, we can all add Safety to that list as one less Monster is out walking the streets!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:58 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I have been looking at this Graybill point. It does seem to be a problem for the state. He, the mail man, placed himself outside 523 Covena, the Peterson place, between 10.30 and 10.45 on the morning of the 24th. That is pretty reliable because at various points on his route he was required to clock into to a device which pinpointed his location and the time and he was at 1424 Encina at 10.19 and, working forward from that, in the same way Karen Servas worked back to get her time of 10.18, he came up with the said time frame.

He told police the Peterson gate was open (not saying which one) and they made this note:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see tor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”


It's possible of course that the dog was at the further end of the garden and did not notice him and his evidence was he was not sure whether he delivered anything to 523 that day also. However, it's not possible that McKenzie opened the gate himself and Karen Servas is very clear that, as you would expect, she closed the gate after returning the dog, recalling that he barked once at her when she did that.

So, at 10.18 gate closed. At 10.30 to 10.45 gate open (assuming we are talking about the same gate). Geragos, through his own or his team's fault, was unaware of the police note and failed to question Graybill about the gate (you might think - why not just ask anyway, but it's better not to ask questions to which you don;t already know the answer) and no one else asked him either.

Assuming Graybill is not mistaken (the note was made within a few days and as a mail man, as he says in his evidence, he paid close attention to all dogs on his route and was able to relate individual characteristics of McKenzie's general behaviour towards him in his evidence) and assuming it's the same gate and assuming further there is nothing wrong with the gate such as to allow the dog to open it and get out by himself (and the gate was closed when Scott got back, let us recall, so even if the dog could open it, it's not likely he could or would close it behind him too) then, Houston, we have a problem.

It will be interesting to see the state's response. Geragos is said to have based a major part of his trial strategy on the belief that Servas's sighting could not have preceded a walk so this is quite a major point, much more significant IMO than dog scent and water currents evidence.


This is another post that gives me hope! From page 90 on this thread. Clive fully understands the significance of the Graybill information.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:13 pm

jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I have been looking at this Graybill point. It does seem to be a problem for the state. He, the mail man, placed himself outside 523 Covena, the Peterson place, between 10.30 and 10.45 on the morning of the 24th. That is pretty reliable because at various points on his route he was required to clock into to a device which pinpointed his location and the time and he was at 1424 Encina at 10.19 and, working forward from that, in the same way Karen Servas worked back to get her time of 10.18, he came up with the said time frame.

He told police the Peterson gate was open (not saying which one) and they made this note:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see tor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”


It's possible of course that the dog was at the further end of the garden and did not notice him and his evidence was he was not sure whether he delivered anything to 523 that day also. However, it's not possible that McKenzie opened the gate himself and Karen Servas is very clear that, as you would expect, she closed the gate after returning the dog, recalling that he barked once at her when she did that.

So, at 10.18 gate closed. At 10.30 to 10.45 gate open (assuming we are talking about the same gate). Geragos, through his own or his team's fault, was unaware of the police note and failed to question Graybill about the gate (you might think - why not just ask anyway, but it's better not to ask questions to which you don;t already know the answer) and no one else asked him either.

Assuming Graybill is not mistaken (the note was made within a few days and as a mail man, as he says in his evidence, he paid close attention to all dogs on his route and was able to relate individual characteristics of McKenzie's general behaviour towards him in his evidence) and assuming it's the same gate and assuming further there is nothing wrong with the gate such as to allow the dog to open it and get out by himself (and the gate was closed when Scott got back, let us recall, so even if the dog could open it, it's not likely he could or would close it behind him too) then, Houston, we have a problem.

It will be interesting to see the state's response. Geragos is said to have based a major part of his trial strategy on the belief that Servas's sighting could not have preceded a walk so this is quite a major point, much more significant IMO than dog scent and water currents evidence.


This is another post that gives me hope! From page 90 on this thread. Clive fully understands the significance of the Graybill information.


Graybil was fully covered in the case proper, Jury had this information and found Scott Guilty of Murder. You should be hopeful if you think he is innocent, Hope is a good thing, however miss-placed it may be in this case. I hope Scott is introspective enough to think about all of the families that will be getting together over this holiday and realize he could have had it all, A wife, A Child, a future, something he threw away when he decided to Kill his pregnant wife.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:07 pm

SHARON ROCHA: There's unbelievable sadness in my heart for the loss of what was and what should have been. On December 24th, 2002 the Scott Peterson I had known for more than eight years ceased to exit. The Scott I knew was the one Laci loved. He was the center of her world, and I entrusted him with her. Scott, you made a conscious decision to murder Laci and Conner. You planned and executed their murders. Yes, you did. You decided to throw Laci and Conner away, dispose of them as though they were just a piece of garbage. You thought after a few weeks we would stop looking for Laci and we would just forget about her as though she never existed. Your arrogance led you to believe you were more intelligent than everyone else, that you would be able to manipulate the entire situation so you would never be suspected of any wrongdoing. This was easy for you to believe because you killed Laci long before you murdered her. You were wrong. Dead wrong. You aren't intelligent at all. You're stupid. You're stupid to believe you could get away with murder. You're stupid to believe murder was your only way out of marriage. You're stupid to believe that we would forget about Laci. You equated a small town with a small mind, and you were wrong.

On December 14, 2002 you told Laci you had to meet a business associate in San Francisco and would have to spend the night there. You told her you wouldn't be able to attend the Christmas party with her that evening. On December 15th, 2002 we had dinner with you and Laci at your home. I didn't know at that time that you didn't go to San Francisco, instead you attended a Christmas party with your lover and spent the night with her. You attended the Christmas party with your girlfriend while your unsuspecting seven-and-a-half month pregnant wife went to her Christmas party alone. It makes me ill knowing that, at the very time we were having dinner with you and Laci that evening, you had already set your plan in motion to murder her. There was no way for me to know December 15th, 2002 would be the last time I would ever see Laci alive. But you knew it. You're selfish, heartless, spoiled, self-centered, and you are a coward; but above all, you are an evil murderer. You murdered my beautiful Laci and her precious baby, Conner, my grandson. You murdered your own baby. You're a baby killer. Not even Satan will claim to have a part in your making. You're man-made. You're a product of the environment that you grew up in. You could have chosen to change your path and distance yourself from evil, but you didn't. You Scott, have proved that evil can lurk anywhere. You don't even have to look evil to be evil. You wanted to eliminate Laci from your life. The logical solution would have been divorce. However, typical of your selfish, cowardly way, you chose what you thought would be the easiest way out for you: You murdered her. Why? Why did you murder Laci, Scott?

That's an answer we'll never get, isn't it. The fact you no longer wanted Laci did not give you the right to murder her. She was not a possession to rid yourself of. How dare you murder her? She was my daughter. My baby. I always wanted her and I always will. I trusted you and you betrayed me. You betrayed Laci. You betrayed everybody. Laci loved you with all her heart, unconditionally. You lied to her over and over again when she was most vulnerable. You selfishly cheated on her and then you murdered her. You hide behind a facade and pretend to be someone you're not. I know you're nothing but an empty, hollow shell. You have no love, no feelings, no compassion, no heart, and you have no soul. You have no remorse for murdering your wife and your baby. Laci was only five feet tall. She didn't stand a chance physically against you, Scott. It was easy for you to overpower her and murder her. How did that make you feel? Were you proud of yourself? Did you feel a sense of accomplishment? Did you feel relief that they were gone?

Your selfish act of murdering Laci has caused unbearable pain and heartache. You took a beautiful life and her precious baby away from us. There's a huge hole in my heart that will never heal. I grieve every single day for Laci and Conner. I miss Laci so much. I miss having a daughter. Our friendship, our talks and our laughter. I miss making plans with her and our shopping excursions, our lunches together. I miss teasing her, hearing her giggle, watching her mature. I miss telling, miss her telling me about the plants she purchased for her yard and a new recipe she's going to try tonight. I miss hearing her talk about her baby and her plans for the future. I miss her asking me for advice or for my opinion. I miss being my daughter's mother. I'll never have the opportunity to see her become a mother. I'll never meet my grandson. I'm left only to wonder what color would his hair and his eyes be. Would he look like Laci? Would he have her long, dark eyelashes? Would he have her dimples? Would he have her upbeat personality? Would he have her laugh? What would his interests be? What kind of person would he be? Would he like school? Would he like sports? What costume would Laci have him wear for his first Halloween? Would he cry when he has his picture taken with Santa? What would be in his Easter basket?

I'll never have the opportunity to know because his father murdered him. I wasn't there to protect Laci, to protect her from you, her husband, the man she loved and thought loved her, the last person she should need to be protected from. Laci didn't know the Scott that sits in this courtroom. She would never put her life or the life of her baby in jeopardy by living with a murderer. She loved you but she didn't need you, Scott. She would have survived a divorce. I find solace in the irony that you sentenced yourself to death when you murdered Laci. You were afforded something that Laci was not: An opportunity to plead your case and an attempt to avoid a death sentence. You were given a trial, an attorney, a judge and a jury. Laci wasn't that fortunate. You took it upon yourself to be her attorney, her judge and her jury, and you took it upon yourself to be her executioner. Tell me, Scott, before you murdered Laci did you ask her if she wanted to die? Did you ask her if she wanted to live?

No, you didn't. I could ask you do you want to die? Do you want to live? But I'm not going to because I don't care what you want. I only care that you get what you deserve, and that's death. But what you didn't count on was Laci's spirit and the love for her family and her friends and her baby were more powerful than your evilness. Laci tried her best to protect her baby. She kept him inside her body right up until the very end. It's truly a miracle and I thank God that both of them were found and they'll be together again for eternity. We had to bury Laci without her arms to hold her baby and without her head to see and hear and smell and kiss her sweat little baby, Conner. There was a time I couldn't bear to look at a picture of Laci because each time I did I envisioned her this way. You have no idea what that, the thought of that does to my soul. I finally convinced myself to see her body as she was and not as she is. Now what I see when I look at her picture is her beautiful smile and her contagious giggle, her happy heart, her love of life and her great expectations of becoming a mother, her generous soul, her knowing how much I love her and knowing how much she loves me. I'm haunted every single day with visions of you murdering Laci. Did she know you were killing her? Did she look at you? Did you look at her? Did you look her in the eye, Scott, while you were killing her?

Was she alive when you put her in the Bay? Struggling to free herself from the weights you put on her? I know she was terrified, and I wasn't there to save her life. Nothing will ever undo your evil. Now it's time for you to take responsibility for murdering Laci and Conner, your son, your own flesh and blood. You deserve to be put to death as soon as possible. I want to know, Scott, what were you thinking as you were killing Laci? What do you think Laci was thinking, that you, her beloved husband, was killing her and her son? I'll tell you what I think they were thinking, and I hope these words haunt you forever: Laci was thinking, Scott, why are you killing me? What are you doing? You know how much I love you, you told me you love me too. I trusted you, I believed in you. You promised to take care of me and protect me. You are my lover, my partner, and you're my best friend. I want to be your wife and the mother of your baby. You told me you wanted that too. Scott, I want to live, I don't want to die. I don't want, I don't understand why you're killing us. Please stop. Please stop. I don't want to die. I don't want to die.

SHARON ROCHA: You want to know what your son was thinking while your murdered him? He said, Daddy, why are you killing mommy and me? I haven't met you yet but I love you. If you let us live long enough for me, for you to meet me, I know you'll love me too. Daddy, please, please don't kill us. I want to live. Mommy has enough love for both of us. I promise I won't take her away from you. Daddy, why are you killing us? Please, please stop. I don't want to die. We don't want to die. And now, Scott Peterson, I'm saying this to you: You deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:42 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I have been looking at this Graybill point. It does seem to be a problem for the state. He, the mail man, placed himself outside 523 Covena, the Peterson place, between 10.30 and 10.45 on the morning of the 24th. That is pretty reliable because at various points on his route he was required to clock into to a device which pinpointed his location and the time and he was at 1424 Encina at 10.19 and, working forward from that, in the same way Karen Servas worked back to get her time of 10.18, he came up with the said time frame.

He told police the Peterson gate was open (not saying which one) and they made this note:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see tor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”


It's possible of course that the dog was at the further end of the garden and did not notice him and his evidence was he was not sure whether he delivered anything to 523 that day also. However, it's not possible that McKenzie opened the gate himself and Karen Servas is very clear that, as you would expect, she closed the gate after returning the dog, recalling that he barked once at her when she did that.

So, at 10.18 gate closed. At 10.30 to 10.45 gate open (assuming we are talking about the same gate). Geragos, through his own or his team's fault, was unaware of the police note and failed to question Graybill about the gate (you might think - why not just ask anyway, but it's better not to ask questions to which you don;t already know the answer) and no one else asked him either.

Assuming Graybill is not mistaken (the note was made within a few days and as a mail man, as he says in his evidence, he paid close attention to all dogs on his route and was able to relate individual characteristics of McKenzie's general behaviour towards him in his evidence) and assuming it's the same gate and assuming further there is nothing wrong with the gate such as to allow the dog to open it and get out by himself (and the gate was closed when Scott got back, let us recall, so even if the dog could open it, it's not likely he could or would close it behind him too) then, Houston, we have a problem.

It will be interesting to see the state's response. Geragos is said to have based a major part of his trial strategy on the belief that Servas's sighting could not have preceded a walk so this is quite a major point, much more significant IMO than dog scent and water currents evidence.


This is another post that gives me hope! From page 90 on this thread. Clive fully understands the significance of the Graybill information.


Graybil was fully covered in the case proper, Jury had this information and found Scott Guilty of Murder. You should be hopeful if you think he is innocent, Hope is a good thing, however miss-placed it may be in this case. I hope Scott is introspective enough to think about all of the families that will be getting together over this holiday and realize he could have had it all, A wife, A Child, a future, something he threw away when he decided to Kill his pregnant wife.

Anon

The jury did not have the information that Graybill gave to the police on December 27, 2002.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:15 am

There is Graybill up on the stand, Defense, prosecution free to ask any question they see fit......Graybill was before this court, a witness subject to pre-trial depositions and discovery. SO Yes, Graybill is on the record in this case, his answers recorded in the transcript.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:04 am

anonshy wrote:There is Graybill up on the stand, Defense, prosecution free to ask any question they see fit......Graybill was before this court, a witness subject to pre-trial depositions and discovery. SO Yes, Graybill is on the record in this case, his answers recorded in the transcript.

Anon


The prosecution case was based on a lie. The police knew on December 27, 2002 that the gate was open at Peterson's and McKenzie was not in the yard when Graybill delivered the mail to Peterson's 15-30 minutes after Karen Servas found the dog, put him back in the yard and closed the gate. This information exonerates Scott Peterson.

There was deliberate deceit on the part of the prosecutors in this matter. They framed their questions to Graybill on the stand so that he would not mention the open gate. Geragos did not know about the open gate because he did not find the 12-27-02 report in the discovery material that was given to him.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:51 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:There is Graybill up on the stand, Defense, prosecution free to ask any question they see fit......Graybill was before this court, a witness subject to pre-trial depositions and discovery. SO Yes, Graybill is on the record in this case, his answers recorded in the transcript.

Anon


The prosecution case was based on a lie. The police knew on December 27, 2002 that the gate was open at Peterson's and McKenzie was not in the yard when Graybill delivered the mail to Peterson's 15-30 minutes after Karen Servas found the dog, put him back in the yard and closed the gate. This information exonerates Scott Peterson.

There was deliberate deceit on the part of the prosecutors in this matter. They framed their questions to Graybill on the stand so that he would not mention the open gate. Geragos did not know about the open gate because he did not find the 12-27-02 report in the discovery material that was given to him.


Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:00 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:There is Graybill up on the stand, Defense, prosecution free to ask any question they see fit......Graybill was before this court, a witness subject to pre-trial depositions and discovery. SO Yes, Graybill is on the record in this case, his answers recorded in the transcript.

Anon


The prosecution case was based on a lie. The police knew on December 27, 2002 that the gate was open at Peterson's and McKenzie was not in the yard when Graybill delivered the mail to Peterson's 15-30 minutes after Karen Servas found the dog, put him back in the yard and closed the gate. This information exonerates Scott Peterson.

There was deliberate deceit on the part of the prosecutors in this matter. They framed their questions to Graybill on the stand so that he would not mention the open gate. Geragos did not know about the open gate because he did not find the 12-27-02 report in the discovery material that was given to him.


Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.

Anon


You obviously don't know anything about the US Appellate process. I can't see any point in further discussion with you on this topic.

This issue was thoroughly covered on this thread starting near the end of page 90 and continuing on page 91. Clive understands the significance of the Graybill information and so do many others.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:49 pm

anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests