Innocence Project, LA takes Scott Petersen's case

Great Debates
1

(apologies for typos I don’t catch and correct-- I have Band-Aids on several fingers)

I usually keep my mouth shut when the topic of Scott Peterson comes up, because people seem to so overwhelming think he killed his wife with “malice aforethought,” and soforth. I had him on my Death Pool list for years, thinking he might get shanked in the shower, once his death sentence was overturned, and he was in the general population.

Understand, I never thought he was innocent, just not guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution’s theory of the crime was that he killed his wife, Laci, so he could be with his girlfriend, Amber Frei.

I didn’t think that made sense, because Laci’s body appeared to have been weighted and sunk in such a way that the intent was to keep her at the bottom-- but if that were the case, then as long as she was “missing,” Scott was not legally a widower, and not free to be with anyone else.

However, I did think it was pretty likely he killed her-- just not by carrying out a plan. I thought it was a fit of rage, or something.

Another, smaller piece of the story had to do with Scott Peterson not wanting to be a father, and being angry with Laci for being pregnant in the first place-- but Amber Frei already had a child. So that part of the story I also thought fell apart.

I still never believed Peterson’s claim of actual innocence.

But that is what The Innocence project is pursuing. They say it will begin with the testing of DNA to a degree of finesse that was not possible 20 years ago.

They are being fairly tight-lipped, but there does seem to be more than just speculation that there was a burglary in the area belonging to a pattern that included other dead witnesses.

This is the only decent article I can link to. Everything else is tabloid-type, or paywalled.

2

I never followed the case all that closely, however, I did watch The Murder Of Laci Peterson a while back. Keeping in mind, it’s very much biased on the ‘he’s innocent’ side of things, but it does paint a pretty compelling picture of his innocence. IIRC, and I may not, a lot of people’s perception of the events came from Nancy Grace who took the side of him being, unquestionably, the killer and milked that for every nickle she could get from it, whether or not it was true.
Personally, I suggest that anyone that’s had an interest in that case watch this show. At least take a look at things from the other side.

3

The part that keeps me wondering is the testimony of Amber Frei who was not in any way a witness to the alleged murder. She was even wired up to try to get a confession from Petersen and IIRC came up empty. So why was she allowed to testify against him?

4

I didn’t follow it, but she could have been called to establish that they were in a relationship, even if she didn’t have any info about the killing.

5

He most certainly killed her. Who can know why some people kill?

Amber was a pawn and was exploited. Probably afraid for her own life.

Nancy Grace is the most vile person, except for one other, on this planet.

The Innocence Project has lost my respect.

6

I look forward to seeing the results of the Innocence Project investigation. They seem to have no particular axes to grind, they haven’t made assumptions, they have just looked at the shortcomings of the evidence and decided they merit a further look.

I never understand why so many people are so full of absolute certainty about these “popular” murder cases. Outrage about such a crime is understandable (with caveats) but certainty about what happened is almost never justified for people who have not seen all the evidence nor heard or read all the testimony. Is it that hard to live with uncertainty?

7

They’ll find there was problems with jury. Because of the over publicity, in my opinion.

But he’s still guilty.

I’m not a DNA scientist. I don’t see any new info they can glean. If there was ever any Scott himself unadulterated it with all that bleach.
And why would he clean up after burglary had occurred? Makes no sense.

8

FYI, the Los Angeles Innocence Project is a separate organization from the Innocence Project. They are both part of the Innocence Network and, of course, have similar stated missions.

The Los Angeles Innocence Project is fairly new and they are the ones working on the Scott Petersen case.

9

They are in association. They still have lost my respect.

10

This was my first reaction when I saw this news. Just from what I heard when following the case the evidence seemed compelling. If burglars had killed her they wouldn’t have bothered to hide the body.

11

Agreed.

The Los Angeles Innocence project is less than two years old, but seems quite legit:

Prior to launching LAIP, the attorneys worked together to free 13 clients, who collectively lost 273 years to wrongful incarceration, including exoneree Jane Dorotik. Dorotik, along with another exoneree Franky Carrillo, are joining LAIP at Cal State LA as policy advisors, hoping to use their personal experiences to help the project free others who were wrongfully convicted.

The fact that they take on a case doesn’t prove innocence. And the LA Innocence Project may possibly not be as reliable as the national one. But there must be some honestly troubling issue for them to take on a case like this.

12

Insufficient brand recognition?

13

Then why is it on your Resume? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

14

Look, like I always said- he was a cheating asshole. And I think he likely did it.

But the Police had no solid evidence at all other than “the crime was really horrible” (true, and juries will often convict in those cases, even with weak evidence), “he was a cheating asshole” (absolutely), and he had motive, means and opportunity.

The cops clearly seized on him as “HE DONE IT”. and dropped all other possible lines.

As wiki says:
Lacking direct evidence to link Scott to the crime, prosecutors chiefly relied on circumstantial evidence, pointing, in particular to Scott’s behavior before and after Laci’s disappearance.

The hair evidence was bogus.

Whether or not he is really guilty, there is no doubt in my mind that the DA did not meet “beyond all reasonable doubt” . He was convicted on no real evidence , but the jury ignored that as the crime was so horrific.

The Innocence project is correct the take his case up. I am not saying he is innocent, but not “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

To show he was cheating scum.

If there is reasonable doubt, he has to be released- guilty or no. That is how our legal system works. That’s why OJ was declared Not Guilty- the racist lying cop provided plenty of reasonable doubt. That is also why the civil trial found he was responsible- a preponderance of the evidence .”

A preponderance of the evidence is not enough to find a man guilty of murder. Even if he really did it.

So it is okay to believe in your heart of hearts he killed his wife. Just like I know OJ killed his. But there was reasonable doubt, so OJ walked free.

If the Innocence project shows reasonable doubt, Petersen also needs to be set free.

15

I think the concrete blocks he made are pretty darn direct evidence.

16

They never found the ones they claimed were attached to her body, and yeah, you can make chepo anchors that way.
Prosecution witness Robert O’Neill was asked to comment on Scott’s claim that he had used a 90-pound bag of cement to make a single anchor and pave his driveway. O’Neill said that the material in the anchor did not match a sample of concrete from the driveway[113] because the driveway sample featured large, gravel-like chunks. Conversely, for the defense, Steven Gabler, a concrete expert, testified that the samples were consistent. Gabler said that the gravel chunks had adhered to the driveway’s concrete because the concrete was poured on top of those chunks.[83] Scott’s defense attorney, Mark Geragos, also pointed out that no such anchors were found after a search of the floor of San Francisco Bay with sonar equipment accurate enough to locate objects as small as a tin can.

So, no- not direct evidence.

Again- I think he did it. BUT- If the Innocence project shows reasonable doubt, Petersen needs to be set free.

17

No, that’s circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, security camera footage, DNA, fingerprints. That sort of thing.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is especially damning, but I’m not sure it is in this case.

Like I said before, I think he probably killed her-- I just think the prosecution theory of the crime was wrong, and he didn’t kill her to be with someone else. The reason for Amber Frei’s extensive testimony was to show that she was “waiting in the wings,” so to speak, because the prosecution claimed he’d killed Laci to be with Frei. I think that last part makes no sense, and he should not have been charged with first degree murder (that requires planning and motive), but some lesser charge.

18

I think the work Innocence Project groups do is generally very important and it’s great that they do it. I am sometimes bothered by how they characterize their successes as freeing people who are “innocent” or who’ve been wrongfully convicted. Sometimes that is what they do, for sure. And sometimes, they convince a court to second guess, with hindsight, a decision that their defense attorney made.

The standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

And circumstantial evidence is very real evidence; people get convicted on purely circumstantial evidence all the time, in cases that are rock solid.

Why wouldn’t she be?

It doesn’t really work that way in most postconviction cases.

Motive is not required. It’s helpful to provide a motive, but it’s not an element of the crime.

19

Because she was not a witness to the alleged crime. She was allowed to testify about far more than having a relationship with a married man. She provided emotional testimony about fearing Petersen even though her own testimony was that she had no such feelings about him until contacted by the authorities and even her attempt to get him to confess to involvement did exactly the opposite. She had no reason to think Petersen had anything to do with the crime except based on what the police and prosecutors told her. .

20

Were potential weaknesses in the case ever made clear in the media coverage before and during the trial? My vague impression back then (gained from the newspapers, not from Nancy Grace) was that it was open-and-shut.