“During the entire five month trial, only one piece of associative physical evidence was offered by the prosecution: a mark on her leg examined by an expert named Gary Robertson (a photogrammatrist). He testified that this mark was identical to the pattern on the seatbelts in Doug Mouser’s car, which he argued supported the prosecution’s theory.”
Why the disparate results? Two cases with no valid evidence lead to guilty verdicts, one with a death sentence. One case with so much evidence a boy scout could prosecute and the prosecutors pled it down to almost nothing.
Why? It should be noted that while the Mouser case received no national attention it received a great deal of local attention. Can it be that ‘justice’ depends on the level of public interest?
The link about the Mouser case is misleading. The forensic evidence was weak, but there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. There was evidence to suggest that she was murdered at home. He was caught in lies, regarding his whereabouts on the day of the murder, and his son testified that he was home shortly before the murder took place. Also, the mothers testimony was very damaging, as she was contradicted by other trial evidence, and was recorded telling her son that she would understand if Mouser fought with the victim and killed her.
I don’t think it was clear cut by any means, but pretty convincing.
This link has all of the details, just scroll past the appeal information.
It wasn’t long ago that it was voted the worst city in America. It was the car theft capital of the USA. It had a horrendous problem with violent home invasions. A couple of years back, there were three, separate, unrelated murders on one three day weekend.
The Airport district is a notorious area for criminals. It is also the only place that a tracking dog caught a good scent of Laci Peterson, following it from the home. It is also where the criminals, who burglarized the Medina home right across the street on the day Laci was abducted, lived.
The Petersons had planned to leave it. Good choice.
Did you follow the link I posted? The FBI comments were devastating:
IOW, he assumed that all car seat belts are different, a very silly idea indeed. But this is typical of the shonky witnesses Distaso was fond of using, like Devore in the Peterson case, experts who aren’t expert.
Most of what people call “circumstantial evidence” isn’t. It’s gossip.
Washing your car isn’t “circumstantial evidence” no matter what spin the prosecution puts on it. Being confused about a sequence of events is not “circumstantial evidence”.
Removing a seat, burning it, and then dumping the remains is “circumstantial evidence”. Power washing the inside of the car is “circumstantial evidence”. These are actions that cannot be reasonably explained.
[Mod Note]In my opinion, this thread is more about your advocacy of the Peterson case than the other two, and you are already doing that in the other thread on that subject. Closing thread. [/Mod Note]