GUILTY CA - Laci Peterson, 27, pregnant, Modesto, 24 Dec 2002 #2

[Gigiky]

I posted on this a little ways back.

What is the Los Angeles Innocence Project?​

The Los Angeles Innocence Project is a non-profit group fighting to exonerate wrongfully convicted people.
It provides “pro bono investigatory services and legal representation to indigent individuals in Central and Southern California who were convicted of crimes they did not commit,” according to its website. It also aims to raise awareness “of the inherent problems within the judicial system” for local and state lawmakers.
The group comprises about 20 staff members, including attorneys and policy advisors, with the intention of freeing those it believes don’t belong behind bars. To achieve this, the L.A.I.P. emphasizes the need to “uncover and remedy” the misuse of scientific evidence presented in court (i.e., junk science) and to improve such standards.
Dialogue between scientists and stakeholders could also significantly improve injustices in the court, per its mission statement.
Also made mention that his sister in law went back to school to get her Law
degree so that if SP gets a new trail she can participate in his Defense.
the college she addended was in Western California, and that maybe she reached out to LAIP on SP behalf.

 

[NetSleuth_41]

Don’t you think the “Innocence Project” has to have some pretty convincing reasons and evidence to think that Scott is innocent? They are not likely to take a case of someone who is guilty.

I completely agree with you @niikkee

 

[NetSleuth_41]

What’s interesting here with respect to the transcripts is the claim by Peterson and his supporters that they had to go through this big painstaking process to do the court transcripts but it has been noted on the record during the appeals process that the state gave defense the trial transcripts already (which is normal and part of the appeals process) and that the defense is using their own that doesn’t match the record. The state has to point this out to the court because the Petersons have once again decided to run their own parallel investigation that they want the public to believe came from the authorities themselves. Gee, I wonder why they’d do that. State doesn’t go into a lot of detail regarding what precisely is inconsistent by they do state the defense transcripts don’t match the record and that defense has been sent the transcripts again.

It also wouldn't be unfathomable for the State to claim that the transcripts differ from the Defence' transcripts even if it was minor, irrelevant details. And unless we know exactly what those details are and have proof of that, IMO, this argument doesn't stand. And I also don't understand why people tend to "attack" or focus on the Petersons. Here is a family convinced that Scott is innocent so of course they are going to do whatever they can to defend him. If I thought a family member of mine was innocent in any type of crime but especially one as heinous as murder, I would do the same. I wouldn't rest. I see too much rhetoric of people coming after the Peterson family and I don't understand it. Of course they are trying to defend him. They believe him to be innocent and this is his family.

Let's be real here - unless something specific like DNA or a confession or what have you comes to light that Scott is the person who did it, we don't know. I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know. There is not one person that is right or wrong in this discussion. The only person right now that knows whether or not Scott is innocent is... Scott.

 

[kae27]

The Innocence Project themselves even released a statement clarifying the LA Innocence Project is ‘wholly independent’. They don’t want to be within a mile of this mess.

Statement on Developments in the Scott Peterson Case in California - Innocence Project

The Los Angeles Innocence Project filed motions seeking DNA testing and post-conviction discovery on behalf of their client, Scott Peterson.

innocenceproject.org

Thank you (and others) so much for clarifying this. I've volunteered with the Innocence Project several times, and they have a years-long waiting list for people who want their services. I've even done some pro bono work reading the applications to help them sort through all of these. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how this one would have gotten on their to-do list. Now it makes more sense.

 

[katydid23]

It also wouldn't be unfathomable for the State to claim that the transcripts differ from the Defence' transcripts even if it was minor, irrelevant details. And unless we know exactly what those details are and have proof of that, IMO, this argument doesn't stand. And I also don't understand why people tend to "attack" or focus on the Petersons. Here is a family convinced that Scott is innocent so of course they are going to do whatever they can to defend him. If I thought a family member of mine was innocent in any type of crime but especially one as heinous as murder, I would do the same. I wouldn't rest. I see too much rhetoric of people coming after the Peterson family and I don't understand it. Of course they are trying to defend him. They believe him to be innocent and this is his family.

Let's be real here - unless something specific like DNA or a confession or what have you comes to light that Scott is the person who did it, we don't know. I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know. There is not one person that is right or wrong in this discussion. The only person right now that knows whether or not Scott is innocent is... Scott.

I can't fully Agree with the above statement=="I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know."

In this specific case, SP has already gone to trial and been convicted. He has been found GUILTY because of much evidence deliberated by the jury. So we can 'know' something about this case. It is not an unknown. IMO

 

[RANCH]

I can't fully Agree with the above statement=="I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know."

In this specific case, SP has already gone to trial and been convicted. He has been found GUILTY because of much evidence deliberated by the jury. So we can 'know' something about this case. It is not an unknown. IMO

I agree.

This was a very strong circumstantial evidence case that proved SP was guilty. No DNA or a confession needed for a conviction. JMO.

 

[TallCoolOne]

I can't fully Agree with the above statement=="I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know."

In this specific case, SP has already gone to trial and been convicted. He has been found GUILTY because of much evidence deliberated by the jury. So we can 'know' something about this case. It is not an unknown. IMO

Ahhhh..... There we go, the voice of reason!

 

[TallCoolOne]

I agree.

This was a very strong circumstantial evidence case that proved SP was guilty. No DNA or a confession needed for a conviction. JMO.

Another voice of reason!

 

[SoWhat]

It also wouldn't be unfathomable for the State to claim that the transcripts differ from the Defence' transcripts even if it was minor, irrelevant details. And unless we know exactly what those details are and have proof of that, IMO, this argument doesn't stand. And I also don't understand why people tend to "attack" or focus on the Petersons. Here is a family convinced that Scott is innocent so of course they are going to do whatever they can to defend him. If I thought a family member of mine was innocent in any type of crime but especially one as heinous as murder, I would do the same. I wouldn't rest. I see too much rhetoric of people coming after the Peterson family and I don't understand it. Of course they are trying to defend him. They believe him to be innocent and this is his family.

Let's be real here - unless something specific like DNA or a confession or what have you comes to light that Scott is the person who did it, we don't know. I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know. There is not one person that is right or wrong in this discussion. The only person right now that knows whether or not Scott is innocent is... Scott.

Actually the prosecution has to point out that the transcripts don’t match because it’s confusing for each of the parties to be working off of different documents. There’s an official court record all parties should be working off of, there’s nothing controversial about that.

As for his family - no one is saying they’re wrong for wanting to help Scott. It’s the ceaseless lying and manipulation that is the problem. Some of the 9/11 hijackers families are adamant that their loved one had nothing to do with the attacks and were framed by the US. I understand why a grieving family would be in denial but I don’t have to sit here and indulge in conspiracy theorist BS just because they can’t cope with reality. Cindy Watts wants people to believe her daughter in law murdered her grandchildren. Again, I understand why a family member would be in denial but I am not going to say that it’s okay or even that it’s understandable and reasonable for her to spread misinformation because she won’t accept what her son did and he won’t outright tell her he murdered his kids, not his wife.

What you would do if it was your loved one is immaterial. If you were to go on a campaign to pin the murder of your sister in law on two other men to free your brother in spite of the fact the two men you are trying to implicate have no evidence connecting them to your sister in law’s murder and were cleared 20 years ago I would tell you straight to your face that that is reprehensible and inexcusable. If you think it’s okay that anyone is doing that then you and I have nothing more to discuss here. One of the men Scott’s sisters are defaming is dead now and can’t defend himself.

There is simply zero excuse to stubbornly cling to defense arguments that have already been debunked. Physical evidence exists in this case and it supports the prosecution’s theory and not the defense’s. There is no new evidence like we have been promised there would be each and every time the defense files an appeal. I’m not even convinced LAIP is all that dedicated to this case. The evidence that LAIP is quibbling over isn’t new. They mistate facts about the case. Their filings are sloppy. Scott was already denied a new trial. The CA Supreme Court already went over and refuted the evidence Scott’s defense is reasserting in his current appeal. There is no way that they would take this case up again because they would immediately recognize that already dealt with it and nothing new has happened other than Scott having new representation. This isn’t going anywhere and I have a hard time believing a team of accomplished appellate attorneys don’t recognize this.

DNA evidence is still circumstantial evidence. Scott isn’t going to confess. The case against him was strong, his narrative now is as ludicrous as it has always been. Thank god no jurors or judges are fooled by him.

 

[otto]

It also wouldn't be unfathomable for the State to claim that the transcripts differ from the Defence' transcripts even if it was minor, irrelevant details. And unless we know exactly what those details are and have proof of that, IMO, this argument doesn't stand. And I also don't understand why people tend to "attack" or focus on the Petersons. Here is a family convinced that Scott is innocent so of course they are going to do whatever they can to defend him. If I thought a family member of mine was innocent in any type of crime but especially one as heinous as murder, I would do the same. I wouldn't rest. I see too much rhetoric of people coming after the Peterson family and I don't understand it. Of course they are trying to defend him. They believe him to be innocent and this is his family.

Let's be real here - unless something specific like DNA or a confession or what have you comes to light that Scott is the person who did it, we don't know. I don't know he is innocent. You don't know he is guilty. We are all going on what evidence is available to the public. Period. We don't know. There is not one person that is right or wrong in this discussion. The only person right now that knows whether or not Scott is innocent is... Scott.

The family is not convinced that Scott is not guilty. At least one half sibling believes that he is guilty.

Scott Peterson's Sister: He Did It

Anne Bird On Her Book Telling Why She Thinks Scott Killed Laci

www.cbsnews.com

 

[otto]

I remember a recorded phone call between Scott and his mother, where she told him that even he is not so stupid as to provide an alibi placing himself at the same location where the bodies resurfaced. But he is that stupid, or perhaps it is arrogance.

Lee Peterson met with investigators and said that there are dead women littering the ditches throughout California, implying that Laci was taken by a serial killer.

Did Scott's mother, and does Scott's father, actually believe that Scott is not guilty? I'm not convinced. It requires a lot of magical thinking to remove Scott from the sequence of events that put Laci at the bottom of the ocean. I understand that his father and one of his half-sisters want Scott to be released from prison because they care about him. I'm not convinced it's because they can't see the obvious.

Is the one "restricted" financial contributor to the LA Innocence Project someone in Scott's family?

Los Angeles Innocence Project Inc, Full Filing - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001.

projects.propublica.org

 

[Chypre]

I remember a recorded phone call between Scott and his mother, where she told him that even he is not so stupid as to provide an alibi placing himself at the same location where the bodies resurfaced. But he is that stupid, or perhaps it is arrogance.

Lee Peterson met with investigators and said that there are dead women littering the ditches throughout California, implying that Laci was taken by a serial killer.

Did Scott's mother, and does Scott's father, actually believe that Scott is not guilty? I'm not convinced. It requires a lot of magical thinking to remove Scott from the sequence of events that put Laci at the bottom of the ocean. I understand that his father and one of his half-sisters want Scott to be released from prison because they care about him. I'm not convinced it's because they can't see the obvious.

Is the one "restricted" financial contributor to the LA Innocence Project someone in Scott's family?

Los Angeles Innocence Project Inc, Full Filing - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001.

projects.propublica.org

IMO, the question of whether or not he did it lasts less than a millisecond in their brains. The parents are just getting hope and energy as best they can with each tiny crack they can wedge a fingernail in. They are victims in Scott's wake but keep it going.

 

[otto]

A Neighbor testifying that SP called and left a message on their recorder at 5:30 pm on Dec. 24th, asking if him or his wife had seen Laci, YESTERDAY or today. I believe that neighbor was crying during his testimony. I can't remember who was the last person to see or talk to Laci other than SP on the 23th.
I will have to go back and check it out.

Laci spoke to her mother on the phone around 8:30 P.M. on December 23. This was after she and Scott went to her doctor's appointment, after Laci's half-sister cut Scott's hair, and after Scott and Laci picked up pizza.

On the morning of December 24, the computer was used to look at sunflower themed umbrella stands, and a diamond encrusted tennis bracelet that Laci was selling (her grandmother's jewellery). Scott relies on these web searches to claim that Laci was alive on the morning of December 24. Scott could have accessed those sites using search history.

No one saw Laci on December 24. All sightings of a woman wearing a white shirt and black pants could not be Laci. She was found wearing tan pants.

Laci had the daily habit of opening the curtains each morning. The curtains remained closed on December 24. She was most likely murdered on December 23, shortly after the phone call with her mother ended.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I remember a recorded phone call between Scott and his mother, where she told him that even he is not so stupid as to provide an alibi placing himself at the same location where the bodies resurfaced. But he is that stupid, or perhaps it is arrogance.

Lee Peterson met with investigators and said that there are dead women littering the ditches throughout California, implying that Laci was taken by a serial killer.

Did Scott's mother, and does Scott's father, actually believe that Scott is not guilty? I'm not convinced. It requires a lot of magical thinking to remove Scott from the sequence of events that put Laci at the bottom of the ocean. I understand that his father and one of his half-sisters want Scott to be released from prison because they care about him. I'm not convinced it's because they can't see the obvious.

Is the one "restricted" financial contributor to the LA Innocence Project someone in Scott's family?

Los Angeles Innocence Project Inc, Full Filing - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001.

projects.propublica.org

Thank you @otto !…… and to borrow one from @TallCoolOne ….. a voice of reason.

What I also find tragic in light of that, is that it does not seem that the SP family* has any empathy or compassion or caring or the like for the deceased LP and her / their unborn child Conner. It is all about SP. Just SMH at that. MOO

*aside from the apparent half-sibling that does believe in his guilt and conviction IIUC. MOO

 

[otto]

IMO, the question of whether or not he did it lasts less than a millisecond in their brains. The parents are just getting hope and energy as best they can with each tiny crack they can wedge a fingernail in. They are victims in Scott's wake but keep it going.

Scott's mother died of cancer in 2013, age 70. Scott's father did not show up for the verdict. I think his father knows that Scott murdered Laci, but he does not want Scott to rot in jail for his entire life. I think Lee Peterson bailed Scott out of every stupid mistake he ever made, and he is trying to get Scott out of this mistake.

 

[otto]

Thank you @otto !…… and to borrow one from @TallCoolOne ….. a voice of reason.

What I also find tragic in light of that, is that it does not seem that the SP family* has any empathy or compassion or caring or the like for the deceased LP and her / their unborn child Conner. It is all about SP. Just SMH at that. MOO

*aside from the apparent half-sibling that does believe in his guilt and conviction IIUC. MOO

Agreed. Scott's family has been singularly focused on protecting Scott from the consequences of his actions.

Just before Scott was arrested, he bought a $10,000 red Mercedes car under his mother's name. His family provided him with cash and he had false identification belonging to siblings.

"Before police arrested him with bleached-blonde hair and $15,000 near the Mexico border, he bought a Mercedes in cash and told the seller his name was "Jacqueline," according to prosecutors.

The seller, identified as Michael Griffin, asked him if the car was for his wife. "No, that's my name," Peterson replied, according to the filing. Griffin asked him if it was a "French thing."

"No, it's kind of a boy-named-Sue type thing," Peterson told him. "That's what my parents hung me with, I go by Jack."

Scott Peterson prosecutors lay out 'overwhelming evidence' against killer's new appeal in 337-page filing

Prosecutors say a boatload of evidence shows Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son – so much so that his quest for new DNA testing doesn't matter.

www.foxnews.com