Proof Of A Wrongful Conviction

Posted in the Scott Peterson Trial Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of36
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 25, 2008
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt was needed to support the jury’s finding that the killing of Laci Peterson was a first-degree murder by Scott Peterson. Jury instructions defined the necessary murder-one elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; i,e., willful (intended), premeditated and deliberated. Moreover, jury instructions also defined the necessary element for second-degree murder; i.e., malice aforethought.

In whole or in part, proof of premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought must be based on inculpatory evidence. Standing alone, corroborative evidence (consciousness of guilt, flight, false or misleading statements, dog tracking) is not sufficient to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent or malice aforethought.

An analysis of all possible sources of inculpatory evidence shows there is no inculpatory evidence the jury could have used in reaching its finding.

An eyewitness can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for no eyewitness testified at trial.

A confession can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for Scott has always maintained his innocence, and Judge Delucchi stated that he did not “see any pre-offense statement that indicates any intent, plan, motive or design that he [Scott] may have uttered.”

Time of death can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for there was no testimony that established either the day or the time of Laci's death or Connor's death.

Place of death can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for there was no testimony that established where they died.

Cause of death can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for the medical examiner, Dr. Brian Peterson, testified it could not be determined.

Neither a crime scene nor forensic evidence from a crime scene can be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for no one testified that a crime scene had been found.

Given that the above sources were void of inculpatory evidence, the only possible remaining source of inculpatory evidence would be motive.

On December 14, 2004, a juror, Greg Beratlis, took part in Larry King’s TV show on CNN. During the show, Larry King asked Greg Beratlis the following question.

”KING: And what do you think his motive was?”

”BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing.”

Greg Beratlis's "if/then" statement conditions deduction. Greg Beratlis, himself, is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind. For motive to have been used to support the jury’s first-degree murder verdict twelve jurors had to agree. Greg Beratlis proved that did not happen, which proves the jury reached its verdict absent motive.

Having eliminated motive as a possible source of inculpatory evidence, there are no other sources of inculpatory evidence that could have supplied evidence of premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought.

When all sources of inculpatory evidence cannot be the source the jury used to support its finding that premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then of logical necessity, the jury’s verdict either had to rely on impermissible speculation or had to be fallaciously derived.

Based on insufficient evidence, the verdicts should be reversed with jeopardy attached.
Kermit

Granite Bay, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 18, 2008
 

Judged:

4

4

4

This is soooo not proof, Wudge. What you are stating is nothing more than your circular logic, again. In case you need to refresh your memory, circular reasoning is supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. In simple terms, it is nothing more than one bs argument proven by another bs statement until your original argument is proven by itself. Only stupid people fall for this.

Tulessa

Winchester, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 20, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LOL!
Edward

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 3, 2009
 

Judged:

5

1

1

I agree with Wudge! He has to be found Not Guilty

There is not real piece of evidence that proves the charges against him.

This Guy was sent to Death Row for Cheating on his wife.
Burkey

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 3, 2009
 

Judged:

4

3

1

"This is soooo not proof, Wudge. What you are stating is nothing more than your circular logic, again. In case you need to refresh your memory, circular reasoning is supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion"

The legal requirement used in court is that the prosecution must prove guilt. Wudge is saying the prosecution did NOT prove guilt. Maybe you should read it again and respond to what the poster is saying. Wudge's statements are supported both by the law, and by the lack of evidence presented in the case.
betsy

Bronx, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

5

3

3

Edward wrote:
I agree with Wudge! He has to be found Not Guilty
There is not real piece of evidence that proves the charges against him.
This Guy was sent to Death Row for Cheating on his wife.
oh you poor thing. No wonder you don't get it. You can't understand simple English nor post that way. Did you drop out at age 5? Apparently so and why you pretending to be a guy?

He has to be found not guilty? Zoooooooooooooo, over your ignorant head.
betsy

Bronx, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 30, 2010
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Where is the evidence that proves Scott innocent? It's 2010 and none of you have come up with it yet especially wudge who was proven wrong at every turn day after day. He was a laughing stock. I'm sure he still is.
put scott 6 feet under

Bronx, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 5, 2010
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Anyone who agrees with Wudge is just as much of an idiot as he is.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 16, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Scott's appeal gets underway in August. Buckle up now for a second trial.
Burkey

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 3, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Well, they've extended the deadline again to Sept. 30th.

There's actually evidence that did not make it to trial (because it was covered up by Modesto Police) that strongly indicates Laci confronted the burglars across the street and met a bad end. Look up Xavier Aponte and the NORCO correctional facility.
There were witnesses who saw Laci walking the morning of December 24th while Scott was driving to Berkeley. Matt Dalton discusses them in his book. Dalton was a prosecutor in LA for a long time and interviewed all of these people (there are six). The police did not bother to call them back.
Then there's Tom Harshman, who saw what likely was the abduction in progress on December 24th. He called 911 that day, before it was known that Laci was missing. He and his wife saw a woman being pulled into a van, and it was the fear on the woman's face that made him dial 911. He went back to the police several times and still could not get a follow-up. Finally, a New York police officer who was a friend of Harshman's called Craig Grogan, who was heading the search for Laci, and insisted he talk to Harshman. Amazingly, Harshman did not testify at trial. Nor did Dalton's witnesses, and Dalton doesn't know why, and Geragos isn't telling. Two of the witnesses who saw her walking say that she was having trouble controlling the dog. Laci's mother said she had trouble controlling the dog.

And if we're talking about dogs, there's the little matter of the supposed crime scenes--the house, the warehouse, the boat, the truck. None of the cadaver dogs alerted. It was only a couple of days later--if Laci's body had been in the Petersons' home, or the boat, or the warehouse, or in that toolbox, there would have been something.
There would have been scent for the dogs. There would have been skin flakes. There would have been microscopic fibres from Laci's clothing. There would have been evidence, in other words---if you've got a body, if you've only got a very short window of time to dispose of it, as the prosecution contended, you're not going to be able to clean up all the physical evidence.

Plus, Peterson was never violent in his life, and hasn't been since, otherwise we'd surely have heard about it from opportunistic jail guards. He was also asking to spend more time with the Rochas, according to Ron Grantski's testimony, because the baby was coming.

And then you had the jurors who refused to deliberate, instead kicking off fellow jurors they didn't agree with and didn't want to hear out. Two jurors removed during deliberations in a death penalty case? Ever heard of this?

It's hinky, all of it, most definitely.
Michigan

Brighton, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 8, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There are HUNDREDS of men who have killed, and were never violent prior to the killing, and have never been violent in prison. This "theory proves nothing.... Stephen Grant, killed his wife Tara. Yazeed Essa, killed his wife, Dentist Barton Corbin killed his wife, and so on and so on
A Voice of Sanity

Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Michigan wrote:
There are HUNDREDS of men who have killed, and were never violent prior to the killing, and have never been violent in prison. This "theory proves nothing.... Stephen Grant, killed his wife Tara. Yazeed Essa, killed his wife, Dentist Barton Corbin killed his wife, and so on and so on
http://thevoiceofsanity.blogspot.com/2011/07/...
the Oracle

Palm Desert, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Then there's the matter of the autopsy, which showed Laci's uterus to be post partum, not non-pregnant. The size shows Laci died 1 1/2-2 weeks post partum, probably of overwhelming sepsis. No one has listened to this error in the autopsy, although I have notified them several times. The investigator called me once, but shrugged his shoulders.

This is the real smoking gun. The gestational age of Connor is only a McGuffin.

O.

(Hi! Wudge.)
George

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I have to wonder about the launching of the boat. When you launch at a marina, as Scott Peterson did, people there help you, which is part of the service you pay for. Although the boat was probably brought there under a tarpaulin, the canvas would have been removed before launching. Had there been a dead body on board, it would definitely would have been seen by the people launching the boat. Were any marina employees called as witnesses, either by prosecution or defense?

Peterson has been said to have been convicted through circumstantial evidence. I believe the only circumstances were that he was the husband of the murder victim and the cops made no effort to find anybody else. One of the cops admitted as much on TV.

I don't know if he is innocent or not, but I do know there was not evidence against him for a conviction. I say that, because there was NO evidence.

Some jurors said they voted for conviction because Peterson did not seem grief-stricken enough. This was 18 months after the report of the abduction; most people would have worked through their grief by then.
A Voice of Sanity

Maple Ridge, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 14, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

George wrote:
I say that, because there was NO evidence.
Actually, there was plenty of evidence. Almost everybody has failed to understand that all of it shows Peterson is innocent.

http://thevoiceofsanity.blogspot.com/2011/07/...
George

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 14, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I mean there was no proof of guilt. The life insurance policy on Laci could have been a motive, but it is certainly not proof of anything. Many young families have insurance policies on the parents.

Does anybody know anything about testimony from the Berkeley Marina operators? Were there any witnesses from there even called? They would have been the last persons to see the boat going out in the Bay, and they would have seen and talked about it if there had been a dead person aboard.

SP told Amber Frey he was unmarried, which is a normal thing to say to a woman when you are having an affair. Of course, when she read in the newspaper or saw on TV that his wife had disappeared, that ended that affair. If he wanted to continue the affair, as he said he did, why would he have done something to make himself such a public figure?

As far as I can see, he was convicted and sentenced to death because he was cheating on his pregnant wife, NOT because he was guilty of any crime.
Noob

Nürnberg, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 15, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Noob wrote:
Nevertheless, there is a transcript from a dog handler (whose dog didn't pick up on the presented scent at Berkeley Marina):
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...
I found the transcripts of the other trailing dog handler whose dog DID pick up on the presented scent.

One should keep in mind that
- both dog's were there at around the same time
- one dog used a shoe and didn't pick up on scent
- the other dog used sunglasses and did pick up on scent
- both dogs are trailing dogs (live scent) NOT cadaver dogs (according to the prosecution Laci was supposed to be dead already)
- the dog which picked up a scent failed in previous exercises

These are transcripts of the other dog handler:
Pre-Trial: http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...
Guilt Phase: http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...

Here is brief overview about those two dogs at Berkeley Marina:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-peterson-...

And there is a longer article about all the dogs used in this case:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/dogs.htm
Noob

Eichenau, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Oct 17, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

George wrote:
Does anybody know anything about testimony from the Berkeley Marina operators? Were there any witnesses from there even called?
I actually posted two comments on Saturday. The first one, which included the links to the Berkeley Marina testimonies doesn't show up anymore.

So here's a brief re-post:

Links to the "Berkeley Marina Testimonies":

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/...

Most of the testimony is about weather and the size of the marina. Nobody who testified has seen Scott or Laci.

However, Mike Ilvesta and two other men who supposedly saw Scott never testified at the trial:
Mike Ilvesta, a gardener at the marina, told Newsweek that he saw Peterson there at midday, and the cops talked to two men who saw him fumbling ineptly to get his boat -- at 14 feet, rather short for a windy day on choppy water -- off the trailer and into the drink, report Los Angeles Correspondent Andrew Murr and West Coast Editor David Jefferson in the April 28 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 21).
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-26955...
A Voice of Sanity

Maple Ridge, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Nov 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Noob wrote:
<quoted text>
I found the transcripts of the other trailing dog handler whose dog DID pick up on the presented scent....
Re dogs:

See the case of a German shepherd named Harass II, who wowed juries with his amazing ability to place suspects at the scenes of crimes. Harass could supposedly do things no other dog could: tracking scents months later and even across water, according to his handler, John Preston. It was all a fraud.

See the case of Sandra Marie Anderson of Sanford and her Doberman-German short-hair dog, Eagle, participated in hundreds of searches, including at the World Trade Center after September 11 and at mass graves in Bosnia and Panama. She has admitted she planted evidence for Eagle to find in at least a half-dozen cases.

Both caused wrongful convictions of innocent men because too many people just WANTED to believe the dogs could do magic.

And these two are not unique. See this as well:

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/...

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 14, 2012
 
Hi Oracle LTNS.

Scott's just filed appeal will definitely result in a second trial. And if he is awarded a new trial based on the dog tracking evidence (a centerpiece issue in his appeal) being far too unreliable, then it will be hard for any prosecutor to win a conviction again. Because the dog evidence was the only evidence offered in the first trial that allegedly placed Laci at the marina around the time that Scott was there.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of36
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Scott Peterson Trial Discussions

Search the Scott Peterson Trial Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
David Temple 48 Hours Mystery (Dec '08) Apr 16 let_him_fry 91
will scott peterson actually walk free someday ... (Aug '09) Apr 14 Jane 88
Scott Peterson Applauds Sharon Rocha Over Her N... (Mar '08) Aug '13 mike 34
Jodi Arias (Jun '13) Jul '13 Alliance 3
Scott and Richelle Nice Are Penpals??? (Jan '07) Jun '13 Leeta 20
Laci's mom outraged over Scott Peterson's blog (Jul '08) Jun '13 psywizard880 3,067
Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony trials had simila... (Jul '11) May '13 pixi 12
•••
•••
•••
•••