What's the EVIDENCE Against Scott Peterson?

Great Debates
1

I’ll be the first to admit that Scott Peterson is probably guilty as hell in the murder of his wife Lacy and their unborn child. First, he was having an affair with another woman at the timeof the murder. Second, his alibi was that he went fishing on Christmas Eve when she disappeared. (Huh???) Third, after the bodies were discovered, he was arrested on his way to Mexico with dyed hair, a new goatee, and $10,000 in cash on him.
But, my question is this. Besides this suspicious behavior, is there any evidence that he killed his wife? You know, witnesses, DNA, fingerprints, trace evidence, etc. The DA’s office was quite mum about just what evidence they have to convict him in a court of law. I guess this will come out at the preliminary hearing, but it looks to me like they arrested him to prevent him from fleeing the country, not because they have a solid case against him.

PS I am NOT attempting to defend this guy. He seems like a total scumbag to me. However, we don’t convict people in this country just because they are scumbags. At least, not yet.

2

Evidence will probably come from:

  1. The dozens of boxes of items removed from his home.

  2. His truck, which is still in police custody.

  3. Clothing and/or the tarp that was found with bodies.

  4. If they eventually find the infamous “cement blocks” that were missing from his garage.

  5. Testimony from the woman he was having an affair with.

I’m guessing the had a pretty solid case all along, and decided to arrest him once the body was found since he might then flee the country (as he certainly seemed like he might be doing).

Next week on CSI…

3

you also have:

  1. the cement block found in his boat.

  2. The life insurance policy.

  3. His “new look” when he had the confrontation with the swimming pool :rolleyes:

  4. The fact that he was only 30 miles from the border with 10 grand in his pocket on the eve of dna verification.

  5. The fact that she was found in the same “location” that he so happened to go fishing at when she went missing.

Circumstantial evdience to be sure, but the evidence suggests he has more to do with it than not.

4

There is another GD thread here where the case is also being discussed.

Now, I think the guy’s guilty of something, but I don’t think the cited “evidence” so far is particularly convincing:

the life insurance policy
Both Scott and Laci had a $250K insurance policy, and both are a couple years old. It’s not as though he recently took out the policy for the expressed purpose of profiting from her death.

testimony from his mistress
The only truly damning thing she could say is that Scott talked about having his wife killed or made remarks about her death. Since I haven’t heard anything along those lines (so far as I know she just came out and admitted the affair), I doubt she can really hurt him with testimony. Yes, he cheated on his wife, and yes, that says something about his character, but that doesn’t make him a murderer.

cement blocks, cement blocks on his boat
I have only read speculation that he somehow used cement to weigh her body down, and I have read that traces of cement and cement containers were found. But I haven’t seen any news story that mentions anything about “cement blocks”. Furthermore, I understand that it is possible he could have used the cement for anchors for his boat.

Apparently, Peterson claimed that the cement containers belonged to the people who worked on his pool. Those people deny the containers are theirs. That hurts Scott, definitely, but it’s not damning evidence.

his changed appearance when he was arrested
Barely damning. Plastic surgery is suspicious, yes. But getting a haircut and highlights is not proof he was trying to disguise himself. We don’t know if Scott has had that hairstyle before. It might not be a drastic change for him at all.

Yes, he’s been acting stupidly suspicious. But that isn’t enough. They may find some piece of evidence left on the body or in the confiscated belongings. But as it stands, I don’t think the public has enough information to get a murder conviction to fly in a court of law. In their own minds, yes, but not in a court of law. So far, everything’s circumstantial.

5

That is not proof that he actually committed murder. The behavior is very suspicious, but it’s not proof of murder.

For all we know, he could have been planning to flee based on fears that he would be wrongfully blamed for this.

6
  1. He had someone else’s identification on him instead of his own.
7

By the way, he might have changed his appearance to avoid media harassment.

8

IIRC, the mistress said she didn’t know that he was married.

9

Most people unfortunately get most of their information about homicide investigations from works of fiction. Fiction, even when well researched, must entertain and follow the dictates of drama. So what is a very rare exception in a real life investigation is a frequent occurence in a fictional one. But over 90% of the time the obvious suspect is guilty.

10

I also heard something about him charging chains on his credit card: chains that were used to tie the bodies down. Can’t cite it, but if so, that’d be pretty freakin stupid.

As far as media harrasment, I don’t think people have any idea what it’s like to have the media after you for a story. His parents compared their treatment to all sorts of totalitarian assaults, and I thought that sounded ridiculously over the top. But then when watching things like Dateline you catch little “breaking the fourth wall” bits and pieces of what the media is actually doing. There was one guy with a bullhorn and a rocketmike standing ont he street outside Peterson’s home using the bullhorn to shout questions at him: questions like “WHY ARE YOU LYING!?” “DID YOU KILL YOUR WIFE AND YOUR BABY!?” “HOW COME YOU WONT ANSWER ME!?”

I mean geez. The guy looks hella guilty, but this was nuts. I don’t know how long I’d be able to stand something like that, guilty or innocent: 24 hour ear-blasting bullhorn assaults from a gaggle of people whose sole purpose for existing is to profit off of tragedy using the images and words that they can force out of others by driving them batty with endless harrasment. And people have bad images of personal injury lawyers? At least PILs occasionally win some money for people other than themselves.

11
  1. He had programs detailing the currents of the ocean on his PC. Yeah, I know, he had a boat, and could thus claim a non-murderous reason for having 'em, but if he’s as an inept boater as he is a murderer, then I it’s pretty obvious why he had 'em.
12

A couple of things I have not seen mentioned in this thread that I heard on Fox News last night:

  1. His house apparently reeked of bleach when the police did their first inspection of his house (back in Dec).

  2. He purchased ankle weights with a credit card that are still unaccounted for.

  3. He claimed his hair color changed due to chlorine from a swimming pool when in fact the police have located the hair dresser that did the dye job.

  4. Not only did he have his brother’s ID, he also had an application for a U.S. Passport on his person when he was arrested.

The point was also made that in order to obtain warrants to wire tap, there must be some really good evidence secured by the police in order to convince a judge of such a need.

13

Here’s my question – is a preponderance of circumstancial evidence sufficient to get a conviction on a capital crime? Or is a comprehensive body of physical evidence necessary?

Siberia brings up some new circumstancial evidence that I hadn’t previously heard. Nevertheless, unless circumstancial evidence is sufficient on its own, right now it looks like Scott Peterson will walk.

Another way to look at it – who was (is) facing stronger evidence against them: O.J. Simpson or Scott Peterson?

14

From a non US perspective I have to say I was very surprised when heard that one DA described the case against Peterson as “A slam dunk”. A statement like that before the case over here would probably lead to a lot of trouble when it came to finding a untainted jury. Cases have not gone to court over here for less.

15

A DA said that?!? That’s pretty damn irresponsible. You’d think they could resist getting their 15 minutes of fame until after the case was decided.

The way they’re going, they’re going to have to try this case in Guam or American Samoa or something.

16

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a criminal conviction, which is a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence.
And as long as the evidence is admissible, whether it is circumstantial or physical is irrelevant as long as it convinces the jury (or judge, if a bench trial) beyond a reasonable doubt. A lot of people are in jail because they were convicted purely on circumstantial evidence.

17

There are currently some very wet and very tired divers who will find the last, best, piece of evidence that will tie this all together in a neat little bow. They had enough circumstantial to arrest, but they aren’t going to try him on it.

18

on it alone that is.

19

So far, there is NO evidence at all Scott did it, although I agree he is the only current likely suspect. However, “LIKELY” should not cut it in a criminal court.

Remember, there were many threats made against him, and the Media was harrassing him- I’d want to hide & change my appearance too. If he had really wanted to run, he’d have been gone by now.

All of those pieces of “evidence” are nothing but. Come on= cement blocks? I have known several fishermen who used a cement block as a back-up anchor. Besides- I’ll bet a few other dudes in Modesto had a cement block or two.

Also- the evidence against him should not be secret. They issued a warrant- that’s public, including the reasons why. Then, any evidence the DA has must be released ot the Defense. The Police & DA are not being forthcoming with public info.

Of course- the Police & DA are under intense Media pressure, so they may thry him- and even get a conviction- based upon the pitiful evidence that we have seen so far. You know- they might evenhave evidence that (shhh) his wife was in his truck once. :rolleyes:

20

borderland: A DA didn’t say that. The State’s Attorney General said it and, at the moment, he’s not involved in the case other than that he has “taken an interest” in it.