Scott Peterson trials

[Kushina]

Was there any proof?

 

[Jimzz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson#Evidence

 

[waggy]

that is one trial i think shenanigans went on.

 

[Kushina]

Was there proof of the affair with Amber Frey?

 

[blackdogdeek]

In addition to her sworn testimony of said affair?

 

[Brovane]

Was there any proof?

To me the actual evidence was really flimsy connecting him to the murder. They had a lot of circumstantial evidence. Not saying that he was innocent. However the sentence of death doesn't make me comfortable considering the lack of hard evidence. However with him in CA he will probably never be executed.

 

[smackababy]

I think the entire case was circumstantial, but that doesn't mean it was weak. I don't remember the specifics though. I do remember that Nacy Grace particularly hated Scott Peterson.

The problem with him getting the death penalty is that the average length for an appeal to be heard like triples compared to that of a person with a life sentence.

 

[mugs]

Mostly just his strange behavior after her disappearance. He totally did it, but I don't think they adequately proved it. IIRC Peterson was sentenced to death the same day Robert Blake was acquitted. I was amazed that those two cases could go those directions with the evidence they had.

 

[Kushina]

Seems like he did it, but there isn't proof from what I remember. Reasonable doubt ? I'd say pretty damn close. There talking about putting a guy in prison for the rest of his life and putting him on death row.

 

[Miramonti]

Finding his wifes body near where he had gone fishing, and this, certainly didn't help his case:

Peterson was arrested by San Diego police on April 18, 2003, in La Jolla, California, in the parking lot of the Torrey Pines Golf Course, where he said he was meeting his father and brother for a game of golf. At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of the following non-golf specific items:

approximately $15,000 in cash
Four cell phones
multiple credit cards belonging to various members of his family
an array of camping equipment, including knives, implements for warming food, tents and tarpaulins and a water purifier
nine pairs of footwear (shoes, boots, flip flops)
several changes of clothing
a T-handled double-edged dagger
a MapQuest map to Frey's workplace (printed the previous day)
a shovel
2 ropes
200 blister packs of sleeping pills
Viagra
his brother's driver's license

His hair and goatee had been bleached blonde. Although he claimed the lighter hair color was the result of chlorine from swimming in a friend's pool, its owner later testified that, to his knowledge, he had never swam in it or made use of his hot tub.

 

[smackababy]

Finding his wifes body near where he had gone fishing, and this, certainly didn't help his case:

Most of that stuff isn't exactly indicating he did anything. A MapQuest print out? Camping equipment? 9 pairs of shoes? His brother's drivers license? I'll make sure next time I murder someone, I'll be sure to have those items with me...

 

[Leyawiin]

To me the actual evidence was really flimsy connecting him to the murder. They had a lot of circumstantial evidence. Not saying that he was innocent. However the sentence of death doesn't make me comfortable considering the lack of hard evidence. However with him in CA he will probably never be executed.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. It was more he was convicted and given that sentence based more on he was a philandering tool more than hard evidence.

 

[Kushina]

He got all those things when he felt he was going to be convicted, trials had already started at that point. If I was going to prison innocently I might be inclined to do the same.

 

[Blackjack200]

The MapQuest map to Frey's house is weird. Hadn't they been seeing each other for months?

 

[Miramonti]

Most of that stuff isn't exactly indicating he did anything. A MapQuest print out? Camping equipment? 9 pairs of shoes? His brother's drivers license? I'll make sure next time I murder someone, I'll be sure to have those items with me...

On it's own, of course it's not proof he did anything. However if you throw out circumstancial evidence, you turn the whole justice system upside down.

 

[smackababy]

On it's own, of course it's not proof he did anything. However if you throw out circumstancial evidence, you turn the whole justice system upside down.

The circumstantial value of that evidence says nothing about whether or not he committed the crime. And, that is the problem with it. He could have been revealed his wife was murdered and was planning a camping trip in the desert with Frey on their way to Vegas for some gambling. That doesn't mean he was guilty of murder, just an asshole.

I think he was convicted solely on the fact the jury didn't like him, which is beyond stupid. Not that I think he didn't do it, he just shouldn't have been convicted on such weak evidence.

 

[z1ggy]

So a guy's wife disappears (2 weeks prior to him telling his mistress he's a widower) and he shortly then sells all her shit, changes his appearance and has a bunch of stuff including a driver's license that's not his...? Hm...

Seems pretty certain he did it, but I'm very surprised he got death over just circumstantial evidence.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The MapQuest map to Frey's house is weird. Hadn't they been seeing each other for months?

His relationship with her was based solely on lies though. He told her he had "lost" his wife, implying that she had died. Once Frey found out who he really was and about the disappearance of Lacy she went to the Police and even helped them by recording conversations she had with Scott.

 

[eng2d2]

The circumstantial value of that evidence says nothing about whether or not he committed the crime. And, that is the problem with it. He could have been revealed his wife was murdered and was planning a camping trip in the desert with Frey on their way to Vegas for some gambling. That doesn't mean he was guilty of murder, just an asshole.

I think he was convicted solely on the fact the jury didn't like him, which is beyond stupid. Not that I think he didn't do it, he just shouldn't have been convicted on such weak evidence.

I bet if the person murdered is related to you the evidence would be compelling.

 

[smackababy]

I bet if the person murdered is related to you the evidence would be compelling.

No, it wouldn't be. It would be compelling he was a scumbag, nothing more. And, none of the jury were related to Laci Peterson. If they were, Scott's lawyers were fucking awful. That person should have been excluded from the jury pool immediately.

 

[SamQuint]

I was in jury duty and the prosecutor flat out told us that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence and that yes you can convict on circumstantial evidence alone. It was a DUI case and the defense was claiming the guy was not actually driving but he was drunk. The prosecutor was going to prove that he was driving but only with circumstantial evidence. I was not picked for that trial though so don't know how it turned out.

 

[smackababy]

I was in jury duty and the prosecutor flat out told us that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence and that yes you can convict on circumstantial evidence alone. It was a DUI case and the defense was claiming the guy was not actually driving but he was drunk. The prosecutor was going to prove that he was driving but only with circumstantial evidence. I was not picked for that trial though so don't know how it turned out.

Circumstantial evidence can be enough, and I hardly doubt he had enough in the case of the drunk driver. What could it have been? "Defendant was at bar, drunk, and his car was seen in the parking lot. Hours later, defendant was at house and his car was also there. Bar patrons saw defendant leave bar alone and nobody saw him, or anyone else, drive him home." Reasonable doubt 100% of the time. He could have called a cab from the parking lot, he could have walked and come back for his car, someone could have noticed he was about to drive drunk and gave him a ride. All possible explanations of what could have happened. Why a prosecutor even took that case baffles me.

And the evidence didn't point that he murdered his wife, just that he was an asshole who didn't care she was gone:

Peterson changed his appearance and purchased a vehicle using his mother's name in order to avoid recognition by the press. He added two pornographic television channels to his cable service only days after his wife's disappearance;[27] the prosecution suggested that this meant he knew she would not be returning home. He expressed interest in selling the house he had shared with her,[28] and he sold her Land Rover.[29]

Testimony for the prosecution included Rick Cheng, a hydrologist with the United States Geological Survey, and an expert witness on tides, particularly of the San Francisco Bay. Cheng admitted during his cross-examination that his findings were "probable, not precise";[30] tidal systems are sufficiently chaotic, and he was unable to develop an exact model of the bodies' disposal and travel. The prosecution explored an affair by the defendant with Frey, and the contents of their taped telephone calls.[31]

 

[GrumpyMan]

I was in jury duty and the prosecutor flat out told us that circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence and that yes you can convict on circumstantial evidence alone. It was a DUI case and the defense was claiming the guy was not actually driving but he was drunk. The prosecutor was going to prove that he was driving but only with circumstantial evidence. I was not picked for that trial though so don't know how it turned out.

^^^^^^^
I got the case dismissed because I donated a lot of money to the Judge's re-election campaign....

 

[Brovane]

So a guy's wife disappears (2 weeks prior to him telling his mistress he's a widower) and he shortly then sells all her shit, changes his appearance and has a bunch of stuff including a driver's license that's not his...? Hm...

Seems pretty certain he did it, but I'm very surprised he got death over just circumstantial evidence.

The thing is that one you are guilty it doesn't matter how flimsy the evidence is. The jury didn't like the guy so had no problem after finding him guilty sentencing him to death.

 

[Wreckem]

People have no fucking clue what circumstantial evidence means.

Unless it is direct evidence, it is circumstantial evidence.

Anything that needs inference to reach conclusions is circumstantial, and that includes physical evidence. DNA, fingerprints, etc are all pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is audio, video, and eyewitness statements(as well as a few other things). The third of which is less reliable than most forms of circumstantial evidence.

Inferences from circumstantial evidence convicts the overwhelming majority of people.