Scott is Guilty

[marlene]

Those of you who think he is guilty, make your case.

You are NOT required to stick with what the State presented at trial. If you have an alternate theory, that's fine.

I repeat: NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO STICK TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL! Not in THIS forum!

If you think I'm yelling, IT'S BECAUSE I AM!

[S Lyster]

I'm going to give it a go, even though I do not believe in Scott's guilt in law.

This is based mainly on the reading and video on-line available from prosecutor Birgit Fladager, who made the comment that "it takes time for the circumstantial evidence to sink in" regarding her belief in Peterson's guilt. This, then, means that one must understand the nature of circumstantial evidence itself, in relation to direct eivdence.

Yes, her comment was that it "takes time" for the finding of guilt to sink in - meaning that at trial the jury was initially exposed to all sorts of unconnected bits of circumstantial evidence. She credits (blames?) defense lawyer Geragos for being so disruptive to the prosecution's timeline that they had to resort to entering evidence in a confusing piecemeal.

She says it was only until Detective Grogan testified near the end of the prosecution's case, that the linkages were provided for all the formerly unconnected circumstantial stuff. Grogan provided the much needed overview so that the circumstantial evidence "sunk in" for the jury.

One poster to this board implied that the fact that this required "time to sink in" was itself reason to doubt the overview's veracity leading to guilt. If the circumstantial stuff itself wasn't readily pointing to guilt, then one could be forgiven for thinking this was more preparing the jury for "group think", something they could be prone to given that the prosecution spent time trying to get the jury to hate Scott to begin with. (Heck, even Geragos conceded that it was easy to hate his client!) To counter this, the prosecution claims that Gerago disrupted their flow - there was no intent on the prosecution's part to unfairly bias the jury against Scott.

But back to the place of circumstantial evidence at trial.... most experts in this area state that contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence is often more powerful than direct evidence. For the latter, all sorts of subjective criteria apply which can and should rule it out - meaning that so-called "direct evidence" is not always as it seems. Direct evidence, contrary to popular thought, can often have MORE interpretations than the circumstantial variety.

Circumstantial evidence, on the otherhand, is often (if not always) buttressed by expert testimony who show why a certain set of circumstances must point to only a few, and perhaps even one logical conclusion.

Case in point, particularly when circumstantial stuff falls apart. When the defense presented Dr. Charles March as an expert who would show that Laci must have died a week after going missing, he was destroyed as an expert witness on cross-examination by getting flustered and asking that he be "cut some slack" on some errors he'd made. Acc. to Wikipedia: "Summing up this key defense witness, Stan Goldman, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said, "There were moments today that reminded me of Chernobyl". "

So, this reasoning concludes, the jury would have no other option than to accept the prosecution's experts over the defense experts and further conclude that the overall prosecution theory was correct beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Scott was found guilty.

Circumstantial evidence becomes a war of experts. The prosecution won the war.

Gripes with this line of reasoning seem to revolve around the defense strategy to leave a lot of the prosecution's experts unchallenged. A lot of the stuff on-line seem to be re-doing the expert analysis on things like tides or autopsies and what should or shouldn't have been entered into evidence at trial. A lot of the stuff on-line is a "re-do". It may be right, but that's not the point for a trial which is already concluded.

Prosecutor Fladager's reasoning is that Scott is guilty because that's what the experts, in total, say. There is no other credible or logicial explanation for this body of evidence at trial other than that Peterson committed a homicide.

I was going to say something snide at this point, but will refrain. I am legitimately interested in hearing from people who can make a non-emotive case for Scott's guilt. Me being snide would tend to prevent them from the attempt.

[marlene]

I could make an excellent case against Scott using the information presented at trial IF that information had been correct. I'm speaking of the tidal testimony. That was the most important evidence, IMO, because it is the only evidence that directly links the murders to Scott Peterson.

However, all of that evidence is lies, lies, and more lies.

People's 100 is a lie. That is NOT what the Conner recovery site looked like on April 13, 2003. That picture was taken at a high tide of 6.39 feet above MLLW -- only 15% of all high tides from Dec 24, 2002 through April 14, 2003, produced a water level that high. It was a blatant misrepresentation. I've attached three pics that show the extent of the distortion. The first is People's 100. The second is a shot of the specific section where Conner was found at a slightly lower water level. The third is the same section at a slightly higher water 5.88 which occurred on April 13, 2003.

Distaso flat-out lied when he said that Conner was past the debris line because as the water recedes, the heavier objects are deposited first. That is not how a debris line is formed. I've been to the Conner Recovery Site several times, and I've never seen a debris line like the one that was present on April 13, 2003. A debris line is defined as the landward limit of the wave action. That's NOAA's definition. There was obviously some wind-blown trash, but the debris line is well-formed and unbroken and proves beyond doubt the landward limit of that high tide. The debris line is also unbroken, so nothing dragged Conner past it, no wind blew him over. Conner had no animal or bird markings, so nothing carried him over.

Dr. Cheng flat-out lied about the violent storm on April 12, 2003, which the State explained was the force that loosed Laci from the anchors, and Conner from within her, and started them towards shore. He grossly exaggerated the strength of the storm, as proven by every wind-recording station in that area. He also said the violent storm coincided with an extremely low tide. That, too, is a lie. The storm coincided with the high tide, not the low tide.

The "most important fact" in this case -- that Conner and Laci "washed ashore" from where Scott was fishing, was proven to the Jurors by blatant lies and misleading information.

So, it's not just about what should have been presented at Trial but wasn't -- it's also about the lies that were presented, but shouldn't have been.

Had the Jury been told the truth, I believe the verdict would have been different.

That doesn't automatically prove Scott's factual innocence. He still may have been involved in some other way. But it does totally disprove the case as presented by the State in the Trial.

[Abby]

Marlene, do you have a tidal chart for April 12-13, 2003? By that, I mean a directional chart. Which way did the tide flow during that storm? I believe that the baby was placed where he was found. Laci's remains could have been dumped from several positions. Do you think she may have been in the Hoffman Channel?

[marlene]

Marlene, do you have a tidal chart for April 12-13, 2003? By that, I mean a directional chart. Which way did the tide flow during that storm? I believe that the baby was placed where he was found. Laci's remains could have been dumped from several positions. Do you think she may have been in the Hoffman Channel?

I don't know of any chart that shows the direction of tide flow for dates passed. You can get current tidal flow charts, but I'll have to look at SFPorts to see if they have archived data.

One could be put together because the exact times of the changes in the tide are known, but I'll check SFPorts.

She could have been put into the Hoffman channel during the low tide, and her body would have been carried out a bit, then brought back in with the change to high tide. It wouldn't matter particulary where she washed up -- anywhere in that general area would have been okay.

She also could have been carried down to the rocks and put there. Someone could have brought her down by the same route they took her up.

[Moolah]

MArlene,
I am in a debate on another board and they are saying that scott tried the boat out in his shop before going to the bay. Do you remember if he did and where I can find that? I have been searching 1/2 the morning for it.

[marlene]

MArlene,
I am in a debate on another board and they are saying that scott tried the boat out in his shop before going to the bay. Do you remember if he did and where I can find that? I have been searching 1/2 the morning for it.

I don't think I've ever heard of that one, Moolah. How could he try it out in his shop, it was on a trailer?

Are they talking about trying to start the engine? I think the MPD tried to start it on the 26th or 27th, and couldn't.

[Moolah]

someone said that scott tried the motor before he went to the bay with an adapter. I do not remeber this. it is the Nancy Grace spouting kinda of posters. My brain is fuzz and I am not debating well with them.

[JackIsBack]

MArlene,
I am in a debate on another board and they are saying that scott tried the boat out in his shop before going to the bay. Do you remember if he did and where I can find that? I have been searching 1/2 the morning for it.

If you mean sitting in it while it was in the trailer or on the ground, I would have done that... just to see how I fit in it and where I can place my stuff (tackle box, etc.). When you're excited about something, about a new purchase, you just test it out.... just after you drive your new car home, you sit in the drivers sit a while after you parked it, you adjust things, you get the manual out and go over things you never knew about it. You open the trunk.... you play.

[marlene]

someone said that scott tried the motor before he went to the bay with an adapter. I do not remeber this. it is the Nancy Grace spouting kinda of posters. My brain is fuzz and I am not debating well with them.

I think that is another one of NG's myths. I searched SII for motor, and the only reference I found to anyone trying to start the motor out of the water is on the boat fact sheet, which came from Skultety's testimony:


February 14, 2003
The boat was again examined by Detective Rudy Skultety. Detective Skultety had Mr. Donabedian from Tunney's Marine examine the boat motor, to try to pull start the motor and to take the motor apart and take samples of what was in the tank. Donabedian had difficulty starting the motor and failed after several attempts, "but eventually somebody put their foot on the motor -- not on it but up against it, and it fired right up." Donabedian dismantled the motor and Skultety took a sample of the contents of the gas tank. The motor was then re-assembled.


I assume the other side isn't producing any documentation to back-up the claim.