Scott Peterson trial - opening statements set to begin tomorrow..

[minniepumpernickel]

I've been trying to follow this case, although the whole thing gives me one giant headache.

I believe that i would have to sit on jury, and ponder the evidence for a good, long time to give him the death penalty.

I really, truly believe that he is guilty though!

 

[Robinrs]

Whether or not he gets off doesn't matter to me, the defense and Justice system of this country lets people guilty as heck off everyday.

I have my own way of telling if a person is lying. A person who lies looks up to the left when he's lying. I watched his interview on TV and he looked up to the left everytime he answered the questions! LOL!

Regardless, he, like good ol' OJ will always be guilty in the world's eyes and his life will be hell on earth here whether he walks or not.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Robinrs

I have my own way of telling if a person is lying. A person who lies looks up to the left when he's lying. I watched his interview on TV and he looked up to the left everytime he answered the questions! LOL!

----------------------------------

Whoa! Please tell me you're not advocating someone be given the DEATH penalty based on whether they look to the "left" or not!!!!!

 

[N.Bailey]

I am having such trouble staying connected today that I'm going to just post this and try to read anything anyone has said since this post:

Originally posted by Epcotgal8
I couldn't tell you the last time I read even a cover of the Enquirer or any of those rags, so no, I promise that's not my source. I wish I could remember exactly which news show it was but it was either on Dateline or 20/20. First of all the distressed call to Laci's mom that I am referring to was from Laci before the murder (obviously). The details of the conversation will come out in court I'm sure but the impression was that she was very upset for some reason. The blood in the hall that I mentioned was found by something forensics uses (sorry, I wasn't taking notes that illuminates if there is any trace of blood even deep down in the fibers. One POSSIBLE theory that they mentioned (from the blood pattern they found) was that Scott and Laci had an argument and however he killed her was in the hall. Now, if this is false information I am sorry but I promise I didn't make this up gang. Technically Scott wasn't in Mexico but he was not far from the border, had a large amount of cash and his brother's passport. He wouldn't need that to go to San Diego now would he? He had also dyed his hair blond which sounds like a disguise to me. It's one thing if just had sunglasses and a baseball cap on but isn't dying your hair suspicious? I realize they can't convict him just from those things but I still believe he's guilty.

Here is a site (and there are numerous ones out there if you'd like to check for others) that states that Scott was born and raised in San Diego. His parents live there now as do many other family members. I can't say that he didn't have intentions of fleeing to Mexico (he'd done work there at times too didn't he? I think he knows that area well), but by being in San Diego, that does not mean, IMO he intended to run to Mexico. I know however that the prosecution suspected he might be and it's certainly not out of the question. Thinking it and proving it are two different things entirely.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-info.html

As for the phone conversation that Laci had with her mother the evening prior (and this was their last conversation) Laci had only called to tell her mother that they would be coming over to their house for dinner on Christmas Eve. There was nothing frantic in Laci's tone. Her mother did say she was tired though. Here is a link for that, and again, there are lots of others if you don't like this site.

Sharon Rocha: "She had called -- I had asked them on a couple of different occasions
to come to our house on Christmas Eve, and she called about 8:30 Monday evening
to tell me that they would be coming to our house for dinner."

Rick Distaso: "And how long did that conversation last?"

Sharon Rocha: "It was only a couple of minutes because I was on another line . . . she sounded
very tired and I asked her if she was feeling all right, and she said that she was just really tired.

Rick Distaso: "Did you hear from Laci ever again after that phone call?"

Sharon Rocha: "No."
http://www.findlaci2003.us/ne-laci-last-days-11-18.html

Here is a little of the phone conversation when Scott Called Sharon:

It was on Christmas Eve when Scott Peterson called his mother-in-law, telling her that Laci was missing.

"He said: 'Hi Mom. Is Laci over there?' And I said "No." And he said: 'Well, Laci's missing,'" Rocha said.

During the first phone call Peterson didn't sound frantic at all. During the second phone call he was more concerned, Rocha said.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/2257931/detail.html

It doesn't state in on this site, but I know Scott using the words missing initially really bothered Sharon. She thought those choice of words was really odd and I agree with her!

 

[mom2of2]

At this point I believe that he did do it as well or at least had something to do with the murders. Although there is a lot of circumstantial evidence we haven't heard even half of what evidence that they do have. Back to the orginal question though, at this point in time I could not sentence him to death with only knowing what I know now, and I have followed the case since Lacey went missing.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I am having such trouble staying connected today that I'm going to just post this and try to read anything anyone has said since this post:



Here is a site (and there are numerous ones out there if you'd like to check for others) that states that Scott was born and raised in San Diego. His parents live there now as do many other family members. I can't say that he didn't have intentions of fleeing to Mexico (he'd done work there at times too didn't he? I think he knows that area well), but by being in San Diego, that does not mean, IMO he intended to run to Mexico. I know however that the prosecution suspected he might be and it's certainly not out of the question. Thinking it and proving it are two different things entirely.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-info.html

As for the phone conversation that Laci had with her mother the evening prior (and this was their last conversation) Laci had only called to tell her mother that they would be coming over to their house for dinner on Christmas Eve. There was nothing frantic in Laci's tone. Her mother did say she was tired though. Here is a link for that, and again, there are lots of others if you don't like this site.

Sharon Rocha: "She had called -- I had asked them on a couple of different occasions
to come to our house on Christmas Eve, and she called about 8:30 Monday evening
to tell me that they would be coming to our house for dinner."

Rick Distaso: "And how long did that conversation last?"

Sharon Rocha: "It was only a couple of minutes because I was on another line . . . she sounded
very tired and I asked her if she was feeling all right, and she said that she was just really tired.

Rick Distaso: "Did you hear from Laci ever again after that phone call?"

Sharon Rocha: "No."
http://www.findlaci2003.us/ne-laci-last-days-11-18.html

Here is a little of the phone conversation when Scott Called Sharon:

It was on Christmas Eve when Scott Peterson called his mother-in-law, telling her that Laci was missing.

"He said: 'Hi Mom. Is Laci over there?' And I said "No." And he said: 'Well, Laci's missing,'" Rocha said.

During the first phone call Peterson didn't sound frantic at all. During the second phone call he was more concerned, Rocha said.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/2257931/detail.html

It doesn't state in on this site, but I know Scott using the words missing initially really bothered Sharon. She thought those choice of words was really odd and I agree with her!

-------------------------------

Thanks so much for providing those links.. Seems like Scott Peterson had a good enough reason to be in the San Diego area -considering his family is there - and the phone call from Laci sounds ANYTHING but "distressed"..

 

[shortbun]

Death penalty? nope

 

[C.Ann]

Just a quick update.. In opening statements today it was revealed that the DNA tests on the infamous hair did NOT conclude that it was Laci's..

They have to come up with something more than a bunch of circumstantial evidence..

 

[Epcotgal8]

Originally posted by C.Ann
-------------------------------

Thanks so much for providing those links.. Seems like Scott Peterson had a good enough reason to be in the San Diego area -considering his family is there - and the phone call from Laci sounds ANYTHING but "distressed"..

Y'all, as I posted earlier, I repeated what I heard on a TV show! I wasn't an investigating officer, I wasn't there. I said previously, this was a while back and maybe it was sensationalized but I KNOW what I heard and they made it sound like when Laci phoned her mom she thought that Laci sounded upset. Now they are saying she was "tired" but at the time that is not what it said. For all I know it might have been someone who leaked that and it wasn't true. I believe what you say they are reporting now. But please don't imply I am stupid or don't know what I heard. And just for the sake of argument, ok, Scott's parents live in San Diego. Fine. But he was carrying his brother's passport and $10,000 in his pocket and had dyed his hair. Do most people carry a passport around with them unless they are leaving the country? Would a loyal husband whose pregnant wife was missing and feared dead want to leave instead of staying there to help find his wife and unborn child? And if he had legit business in Mexico why didn't he have his OWN passport? Probably because he was told not to flee the country. He happened to go fishing by HIMSELF on the day before Christmas 100 miles away on a day that the weather wasn't good? And it just so happens Laci and her son wash up near there? I'm not trying to fight with y'all but I am curious. Are you just saying that they don't have enough evidence to convict or do you REALLY believe he didn't do it?? I think the phone conversations of his after the murder will be what wins the case for the prosecution.

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by C.Ann
They have to come up with something more than a bunch of circumstantial evidence..

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this and agree with an earlier poster who stated that someone can certainly be convicted on circumstantial evidence. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case. Any reasonable person would conclude that he is guilty based on it alone.

You seem a little too excited that there is a lack of hard evidence. I'm taken aback and a bit dumbfounded by your posts. Are you somehow related to the Peterson's or something?

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Epcotgal8
Y'all, as I posted earlier, I repeated what I heard on a TV show! I wasn't an investigating officer, I wasn't there. I said previously, this was a while back and maybe it was sensationalized but I KNOW what I heard and they made it sound like when Laci phoned her mom she thought that Laci sounded upset. Now they are saying she was "tired" but at the time that is not what it said. For all I know it might have been someone who leaked that and it wasn't true. I believe what you say they are reporting now. But please don't imply I am stupid or don't know what I heard. And just for the sake of argument, ok, Scott's parents live in San Diego. Fine. But he was carrying his brother's passport and $10,000 in his pocket and had dyed his hair. Do most people carry a passport around with them unless they are leaving the country? Would a loyal husband whose pregnant wife was missing and feared dead want to leave instead of staying there to help find his wife and unborn child? And if he had legit business in Mexico why didn't he have his OWN passport? Probably because he was told not to flee the country. He happened to go fishing by HIMSELF on the day before Christmas 100 miles away on a day that the weather wasn't good? And it just so happens Laci and her son wash up near there? I'm not trying to fight with y'all but I am curious. Are you just saying that they don't have enough evidence to convict or do you REALLY believe he didn't do it?? I think the phone conversations of his after the murder will be what wins the case for the prosecution.

------------------------------

Hey - calm down!! No one is calling you "stupid" or anything else.. We're just discussing information that has been posted here by MANY posters that evidently isn't what it appears to be or what they believe it to be.. NOTHING PERSONAL - honest!!!

And let me clarify what I'm saying about Scott Peterson.. I am NOT saying he "didn't do it" - odds are he probably did - what I AM saying is that there isn't enough CONCRETE information to hand the man a death sentence.. If they can prove it with more than circumstantial evidence, then I say FRY HIM.. But I think it would be terribly wrong to execute a man based on what little evidence they currently appear to have..

Really - NONE of this is aimed at you directly - okay?

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this and agree with an earlier poster who stated that someone can certainly be convicted on circumstantial evidence. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case. Any reasonable person would conclude that he is guilty based on it alone.

You seem a little too excited that there is a lack of hard evidence. I'm taken aback and a bit dumbfounded by your posts. Are you somehow related to the Peterson's or something?

-------------------------------------

I didn't say he shouldn't be "convicted" - I said he should not receive the DEATH penalty based on circumstantial evidence.. Big, BIG difference!

If I was "related" to Peterson, would I have stated that I would like to see him FRY if they can provide CONCRETE evidence?

 

[N.Bailey]

I just wanted to pipe in to reiterate that I too believe he is guilty as sin. I mean no disrespect to anyone when I reply to any of your posts. This case intrigues me enough that I find myself thinking entirely too much about it.

I do however believe that the state of California MUST present a solid case (whether that's circumstantial or something more concrete to convince 12 jurors that he's guilty). To me, they have not done that yet. And, I'm no moron, I know he's not been tried yet too!

As for the death penalty. You won't find a person who is more in favor of it than me. I STRONGLY support it!! If however, I were a juror, I could convict a person based on the theory of "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt", but I don't care what the law states, for me to vote in favor of the death penalty, you would have to convince me "Beyond Any Doubt!" I would have to live with whatever decision I made for the rest of my too, and if I'm certain the person is guilty, I'd have no problems sleeping at night. If there was doubt though, it would be something I don't feel I could live with.

Now back to Scott Peterson. 1st off, he states he had his brothers drivers license because the club he wanted to golf at required a license to enter. His brother supposedly lent him his so Scott did not have to alert anyone that he was there. Take that for what it's worth. As to my understanding, he did not have a passport. Only papers to apply for one. Maybe I'm wrong there? That's what I remember though.

I feel a conviction is possible with circumstantial evidence. This would depend on who the jurors are though. I am hopeful that they have some solid evidence though, and I guess we'll find that our within the next couple of months.

Oh, and I'm not trying to fight with anyone either. I'm sorry if I am coming across that way. It's certainly not my intent. I'm equally sure that I've not said anything that both the prosecution and the defense haven't already thought about either.

As for C.Ann's earlier post:
I thought they had run testing and that mitochondrial DNA had proven it could have been Laci's? Granted, it could have been over 100 other people's too, but I thought it was already determined that it could have been hers? Gonna have to watch Greta tonight.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
As for C.Ann's earlier post:
I thought they had run testing and that mitochondrial DNA had proven it could have been Laci's? Granted, it could have been over 100 other people's too, but I thought it was already determined that it could have been hers? Gonna have to watch Greta tonight.

----------------------------

Please let us all know what you learn in regards to this.. My information was based on what was published in our local paper today and if it's incorrect, I would like to know..

Thanks!

 

[Robinrs]

Originally posted by C.Ann
----------------------------------

Whoa! Please tell me you're not advocating someone be given the DEATH penalty based on whether they look to the "left" or not!!!!!

.... uhh No

 

[Stepharoonie!]

 

[faithinkarma]

His behavior and demeanor are not/were not that of a grieving husband and father.

You know, we hear this line all the time applied to all kinds of suspects. " He/She did not look the way we expected them to ". It drives me nuts. How scientific is this? Haven't been there, thankfully, but if I ever am, I sure hope my facial expressions please the cops. Even if they think a suspect did not behave in a way they found "normal", for heaven's sake shut up about it. It makes the cops look silly when they say stuff like this.

Vent over

Could I give him the death penalty? Not a chance. Too many questions.

 

[N.Bailey]

Keep in mind, all I say from here on is coming from Greta's show only. I can't say it's fact, but this is an update according to the most reliable source that I know of. I really believe her show shows no bias at all. She says it as it is, in my eyes and will point out this that or the other no matter what the evidence is. She has devoted her life to the law, and IMHO shows no sign of trying to prove anything one way or another. She seems to only want to state facts, as she knows them to be. Can I say here that I miss the debate board where I don't have to state why I say what I say?

Ok, I shouldn't have said that!

Anyway, the prosecution spent 5 hours presenting their opening statement. Yes, you heard right, 5 hours! Because of that, Mark Geragos didn't get a chance to say his opening statements yet. He will have his turn tomorrow, unless he waives this right until a later point. (I doubt he'll waive this right, but that's OPINION) In a way, I guess, I understand the prosecution doing that, as the Jury will sleep on what was said today, but it (IMO) gives Geragos too much time to counter what was said today and you can be assured, he will lay it on thick (although in much less time) tomorrow!

As for the DNA evidence that was mentioned earlier, evidence of the hair was mentioned, but nothing was stated that DNA proved it was not Laci's hair. I'd think that would have been mentioned, but it wasn't. I don't know where your local paper (C.Ann) came up with that, but I would be interested in hearing what they had to say.

There was one juror that turned away after seeing pictures of Conner (in the state he was in). That to me (and it's prolly only me, but perhaps Mark Geragos too?) made me think the defense had chosen a juror that might be persuaded more by a psychological emotion basis than one that would base their decision on PURELY the evidence. I took that as a good sign for the prosecution! Maybe I read too much into that? I bet Geragos is questioning that one tonight though!

All in all though, I don't have much to report! There was no "Smoking Gun" so to speak!

 

[poohandwendy]

They have to come up with something more than a bunch of circumstantial evidence..

I think you need to read up on what circumstantial evidence really is. If people could not be convicted on circumstantial evidence (especially death penalty cases) there would be very few convictions because very few crimes have witnesses. Btw, DNA evidence is circumstantial.

I just don't understand why people are all of the time saying" All they have is circumstantial evidence"...Circumstantial evidence is most certainly valuable evidence and can prove a defendant guilty of the crime.

For example:

Joe's wife goes missing and is later found stabbed to death. We find that she was having an affair, he has a receipt for a new hunting knife which he cannot produce, he was the very last person to see her, he is caught in many lies about his whereabouts during the time of the crime and 2 liters of her blood is found in his truck bed as well as her hair strands, he has a scratch on his face and his skin is found under her fingernails during the autopsy. All circumstantial evidence.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
I think you need to read up on what circumstantial evidence really is. If people could not be convicted on circumstantial evidence (especially death penalty cases) there would be very few convictions because very few crimes have witnesses. Btw, DNA evidence is circumstantial.

---------------------------------

Please go back and read the previous posts.. I did not say that people could not or should not be "convicted" on circumstantial evidence.. I am questioning the wisdom of the PENALTY phase AFTER conviction.. The notion of giving someone the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence..

I know it doesn't happen often, but people have been convicted of crimes based on circumstantial evidence - given the death penalty - and later found to be innocent..