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

[Gigiky]

Now, the 51-year-old has been granted access to crucial evidence by a California judge in a bombshell ruling that could open the door to reevaluation of the case that has captured nationwide attention.

Peterson is now allowed a discovery period on the basis of California Penal Code 1054.9 - which gives discovery rights to defendants who were convicted of serious or violent felonies and sentenced to 15 or more years in jail.

The code allows the defendant access to materials 'in possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities to which the same defendant would have been entitled at the time of trial.

 

[LinasK]

Now, the 51-year-old has been granted access to crucial evidence by a California judge in a bombshell ruling that could open the door to reevaluation of the case that has captured nationwide attention.

Peterson is now allowed a discovery period on the basis of California Penal Code 1054.9 - which gives discovery rights to defendants who were convicted of serious or violent felonies and sentenced to 15 or more years in jail.

The code allows the defendant access to materials 'in possession of the prosecution and law enforcement authorities to which the same defendant would have been entitled at the time of trial.

So what? He gets to re-examine the same old evidence. How in any way is this a 'bombshell"??? To me it's not!

 

[LinasK]

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 twelve people on the jury who convicted him know that he's Guilty. He's already had his fair trial. The judge and prosecutors know it too and so does the general public.

 

[TallCoolOne]

Actually, the twelve people on the jury who convicted him know that he's Guilty. He's already had his fair trial. The judge and prosecutors know it too and so does the general public.

True dat! Much ado about nadda! Bombshell (TCO rolling her eyes)

I guess they'll do most anything just to keep his name out there. Only time I'll be glad to see his name is in the obits. Sorry, not sorry!

 

[Niner]

plus this in the above article.

Whether or not Peterson, who is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, will be granted a retrial depends on how the discovery process proceeds.

link: Bombshell update in Scott Peterson's fight to overturn conviction

 

[browneyes]

So what? He gets to re-examine the same old evidence. How in any way is this a 'bombshell"??? To me it's not!

I agree. Oh, and he’s guilty.
I wish he’d just sink under the jail. Poor Sharon having to deal with him all these years later.

 

[NetSleuth_41]

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

@katydid23 I think for me, and we have seen this become a prominent issue in the True Crime community, is just because someone has gone to trial, someone has been convicted by a jury, etc., doesn't mean they are actually guilty. This unfortunately only seems to come to light years later once they have served several years of their initial sentence. The reality is people that have been found guilty of violent crimes are not always guilty. Many factors contribute to this like inept criminal investigators/Detectives. It is like any other job. There are incredible Detectives that fully conduct due diligence and ones that don't. The pressure and the desire to find who did it becomes so immense to the point that they will use anything they have to point the finger at someone.

They have no concrete evidence that Scott is the killer - but - circumstantial - he had an affair, he showed emotions in a way that were not normal for how a grieving husband would behave, it looked like he planned to flee - they used that. I also feel confident that if his affair with Amber had never been revealed, he would never have been arrested. And the fact that they brought Amber in to make a public statement about that affair also shows how motivated they were to simply pin this on the easiest guy which was Scott.

I personally just don't feel that he did it.

I think all of us, those who believe he is guilty, those who believe he is innocent, could go on and on and on and on about our reasons for why and how we think. I think for me, at the end of the day, what is important, is we respect each other and I always say this, I do appreciate how respectful, for the most part, people are on this forum.

 

[NetSleuth_41]

Actually, the twelve people on the jury who convicted him know that he's Guilty. He's already had his fair trial. The judge and prosecutors know it too and so does the general public.

@LinasK I would appreciate it if you read my most recent reply to at katydid23 It would be a similar reply to what I would say to your post and I don't think anyone wants to hear any of us say the exact same thing twice lol Thank you as always for your viewpoints. I do appreciate them.

 

[NetSleuth_41]

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 My apologies. When I said "family" I was simply referring to the family members that we were aware of that made their feelings public about his innocence

 

[NetSleuth_41]

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

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.

@SoWhat

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.

@SoWhat I do not disagree with you that perhaps normally, that is why they would point out the discrepancies. I just find it interesting that the discrepancies they point out benefits them.

I don't think Scott's family, those that are convinced of his innocence, are "in denial". I think they 110% believe he did not do this (as do a lot of people) and because of that, are fighting for his innocence and ultimately, his release. I don't think the LA Innocence Project findings are "sloppy" either. I also don't think they would risk their reputation on such a high profile case, without knowing they have strong evidence that would support Scott's innocence.

You and I just simply differ on all aspects of this case which is completely OK. As always, I respect your opinion. This is what we are ALL giving, our opinions. Let's be real about that

 

[otto]

@otto My apologies. When I said "family" I was simply referring to the family members that we were aware of that made their feelings public about his innocence

Some of Scott's siblings have made their feelings clear about his guilt, one or two family members are fighting to have him released from prison.

If Scott had committed the same murders in Canada in 2002, he would be released from prison by now. Each day of pre-trial prison time counts for 1.5 days of post-trial prison time, and there's always leniency for good behaviour. Scott would have spent the past 22 years learning new skills or completing university degrees - if he was inclined. He would not have wasted his time trying to over-turn a guilty verdict.

As it stands, he has nothing better to do with his time than to repeatedly try to change the consequences of his life choices ... for the rest of his life. What a waste.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

RSBMFF: And the fact that they brought Amber in to make a public statement about that affair also shows how motivated they were to simply pin this on the easiest guy which was Scott.

Respectfully, there is perhaps another way IMO to look at this case in light of the noted statement.

SP was not simply ‘the easiest guy’ to pin this on. He was the husband and intimate partner of LP. And he was involved in an adulterous affair. Many contend that SP would constitute the most likely or logical suspect to examine. Closely.

Statistics seem to bear this out. Reference this NIH (National Institutes of Health) article by Maeve Wallace, Veronica Gillispie-Bell, Kiara Cruz, Kelly Davis, and Dovile Vilda entitled ‘Homicide During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period in the United States, 2018–2019’ (Obstetrics and Gynecology 2021 Nov 1; 138(5): 762–769). And note statements therein referring to the intimate partner:

Homicide During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period in the United States, 2018–2019

To estimate the national pregnancy-associated homicide mortality ratio, characterize pregnancy-associated homicide victims, and compare the risk of homicide in the perinatal period (pregnancy and up to 1 year postpartum) with risk among nonpregnant, nonpostpartum ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

After watching the news of the disappearance and suspected murder of the pregnant LP, the case unfold, discovery of the remains of both LP and CP, and the trial I remain convinced that the correct individual was identified, tried, and convicted. MOO

 

[otto]

@katydid23 I think for me, and we have seen this become a prominent issue in the True Crime community, is just because someone has gone to trial, someone has been convicted by a jury, etc., doesn't mean they are actually guilty. This unfortunately only seems to come to light years later once they have served several years of their initial sentence. The reality is people that have been found guilty of violent crimes are not always guilty. Many factors contribute to this like inept criminal investigators/Detectives. It is like any other job. There are incredible Detectives that fully conduct due diligence and ones that don't. The pressure and the desire to find who did it becomes so immense to the point that they will use anything they have to point the finger at someone.

They have no concrete evidence that Scott is the killer - but - circumstantial - he had an affair, he showed emotions in a way that were not normal for how a grieving husband would behave, it looked like he planned to flee - they used that. I also feel confident that if his affair with Amber had never been revealed, he would never have been arrested. And the fact that they brought Amber in to make a public statement about that affair also shows how motivated they were to simply pin this on the easiest guy which was Scott.

I personally just don't feel that he did it.

I think all of us, those who believe he is guilty, those who believe he is innocent, could go on and on and on and on about our reasons for why and how we think. I think for me, at the end of the day, what is important, is we respect each other and I always say this, I do appreciate how respectful, for the most part, people are on this forum.

Tunnel vision and unjust convictions were more common before the invention of DNA analysis in the UK during the mid-1980s. DNA evidence is rarely useful in ruling in, or out, spousal homicide because suspect and victim DNA is expected to be at the crime scene.

DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. In this case, DNA evidence is irrelevant due to the fact that the victim and suspect lived together. That is, if there were a few drops of blood at Laci's home, it's meaningless. A missing pillowcase is also meaningless, although, if one were missing, it might be related to the murder. It proves nothing.

Circumstantial evidence did lead to the conviction, as is the case with most convictions.

If circumstantial evidence was excluded from trial, how would the suspect be convicted? There were no witnesses to the murder.

 

[LinasK]

@katydid23 I think for me, and we have seen this become a prominent issue in the True Crime community, is just because someone has gone to trial, someone has been convicted by a jury, etc., doesn't mean they are actually guilty. This unfortunately only seems to come to light years later once they have served several years of their initial sentence. The reality is people that have been found guilty of violent crimes are not always guilty. Many factors contribute to this like inept criminal investigators/Detectives. It is like any other job. There are incredible Detectives that fully conduct due diligence and ones that don't. The pressure and the desire to find who did it becomes so immense to the point that they will use anything they have to point the finger at someone.

They have no concrete evidence that Scott is the killer - but - circumstantial - he had an affair, he showed emotions in a way that were not normal for how a grieving husband would behave, it looked like he planned to flee - they used that. I also feel confident that if his affair with Amber had never been revealed, he would never have been arrested. And the fact that they brought Amber in to make a public statement about that affair also shows how motivated they were to simply pin this on the easiest guy which was Scott.

I personally just don't feel that he did it.

I think all of us, those who believe he is guilty, those who believe he is innocent, could go on and on and on and on about our reasons for why and how we think. I think for me, at the end of the day, what is important, is we respect each other and I always say this, I do appreciate how respectful, for the most part, people are on this forum.

Circumstantial evidence IS concrete evidence, it's just as powerful as Direct Evidence. Yes people do get wrongfully convicted, but this isn't one of those cases. No one "pinned" this on Scott. He committed the crime.

 

[otto]

It's easy to view DNA evidence and circumstantial evidence as two separate types of evidence at first, but DNA evidence, blood evidence, etc. are different types of circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence, such as an eye witness to the murder, is rare and has resulted in false convictions. That is, direct eye-witness testimony has been associated with wrongful convictions. Circumstantial evidence, such as DNA, has exonerated the wrongfully convicted.

That might be why some view this circumstantial evidence case as lesser, because they view DNA evidence as something other than circumstantial evidence?

 

[otto]

Circumstantial Evidence

Fingerprints, blood, semen, saliva, associated DNA analysis, duct tape used to wrap Laci, timelines, evidence of concrete anchors, whistling relief when it's a big ole' anchor, ignoring the phone during a TV interview at home, bodies washing up where he went fishing on the day that she went missing, cancelling his sex channel the day after a family christening when police did another search of his home, never wanting children of his own, hiding out at the home of the parents of a sibling who was put up for adoption at birth, emerging with Orange hair and ID in his sibling's and a "boy named sue/Jackie" names, trying to put their home for sale while Laci was missing, selling her car while she was missing, schmoozing with a girlfriend while she was missing, fighting with Sharon's family when they wanted to collect her things ... circumstantial evidence.

Even his mother said to Scott 'even you are not that stupid as to provide an alibi where the bodies wash up'. He is that stupid.

 

[LinasK]

Circumstantial Evidence

Fingerprints, blood, semen, saliva, associated DNA analysis, duct tape used to wrap Laci, timelines, evidence of concrete anchors, whistling relief when it's a big ole' anchor, ignoring the phone during a TV interview at home, bodies washing up where he went fishing on the day that she went missing, cancelling his sex channel the day after a family christening when police did another search of his home, never wanting children of his own, hiding out at the home of the parents of a sibling who was put up for adoption at birth, emerging with Orange hair and ID in his sibling's and a "boy named sue/Jackie" names, trying to put their home for sale while Laci was missing, selling her car while she was missing, schmoozing with a girlfriend while she was missing, fighting with Sharon's family when they wanted to collect her things ... circumstantial evidence.

Even his mother said to Scott 'even you are not that stupid as to provide an alibi where the bodies wash up'. He is that stupid.

Thank you! The car sale with name Jackie/ boy named Sue wasn't making sense to me recently. I had completely forgotten that Jackie was Scott's mother's name.

 

[SoWhat]

Circumstantial Evidence

Fingerprints, blood, semen, saliva, associated DNA analysis, duct tape used to wrap Laci, timelines, evidence of concrete anchors, whistling relief when it's a big ole' anchor, ignoring the phone during a TV interview at home, bodies washing up where he went fishing on the day that she went missing, cancelling his sex channel the day after a family christening when police did another search of his home, never wanting children of his own, hiding out at the home of the parents of a sibling who was put up for adoption at birth, emerging with Orange hair and ID in his sibling's and a "boy named sue/Jackie" names, trying to put their home for sale while Laci was missing, selling her car while she was missing, schmoozing with a girlfriend while she was missing, fighting with Sharon's family when they wanted to collect her things ... circumstantial evidence.

Even his mother said to Scott 'even you are not that stupid as to provide an alibi where the bodies wash up'. He is that stupid.

Also, when there was a supposed sighting of Laci in Washington you can hear Scott laugh when he’s listening to a voicemail telling him about it. And then he lied repeatedly and claimed that he was on standby for a flight to Washington when he absolutely was doing no such thing.

If I were the burglar that Scott, his family, and the idiots defending him in court are all clearly attempting to frame I would sue the pants off of them all, this is ridiculous. Janey seems like she’s got big pockets at least and she’s been Scott’s person on the outside continuing to go after the lone surviving thief.

We already know the burglars struck in the early hours of 12/26, all attempting to relitigate this will do is give SP conspiracy theorists records to cherry pick and misrepresent. I don’t see how or why Scott’s team would need access to records pertaining to a case that had nothing to do with Laci and Scott except to continue trying to frame the burglar.

I also love it that people who believe in this burglar theory will go on and on about a lack of concrete evidence implicating Scott (and they’re wrong about that for sure) but they’re willing to believe the burglars did it when there’s no evidence that they did and lots of solid evidence proving that they didn’t. It’s not okay to convict Scott with the evidence that was gathered but it is okay to convict the burglars without any evidence? Make it make sense.

 

[otto]

Thank you! The car sale with name Jackie/ boy named Sue wasn't making sense to me recently. I had completely forgotten that Jackie was Scott's mother's name.

The red Mercedes. Laci went to Disneyland with Scott and family while she was pregnant. The topic of cars came up; and what Laci needed for her and the baby. She said: Mercedes.

When Scott was on the run, he stayed at the home of the parents of a half-sister who was adopted at birth. She wrote a book about how she was fooled by Scott, with whom she shares a mother: Jackie Peterson.

After Scott was asked to leave his half-sister's parents' home, he bought a red Mercedes. When registering the vehicle with the seller, he used his mother's name: Jackie Peterson. The seller asked about a man named Jackie. Scott responded that it's like a boy named sue. Scott bought a Mercedes in his mother's name shortly before the car chase ended near the golf course with Scott's arrest.

Scott's mother bought the car that Laci wanted after her death. Wasn't the red mercedes a cash purchase, cash from his mother, including cash found in the car at the time of arrest?

Scott used his mother's name and cash to buy the mercedes, and he had credit cards and ID in sibling's names in that mercedes when he was arrested.

 

[NetSleuth_41]

Circumstantial evidence IS concrete evidence, it's just as powerful as Direct Evidence. Yes people do get wrongfully convicted, but this isn't one of those cases. No one "pinned" this on Scott. He committed the crime.

I am not saying that circumstantial evidence isn't credible, of course it is, however, when I look at this case and what was introduced as 'evidence', I am not convinced. And I am certainly not the only one that believes he is innocent. This case isn't black and white. If it was, we would not even be debating this. There would be enough evidence to say that 110%, he did it and we would all be in agreement.

And I know that Scott wasn't framed. Obviously, however, anyone that is guilty of a crime as heinous as murder is going to let anyone else suffer the consequences. The guilty party is going to want nothing more than for law enforcement to think it was someone else. They don't care who. And not all wrongful conviction cases happen because that person who was falsely accused was framed by someone or someone else said they did it. That certainly happens but it can't be applied to all cases.