I haven’t been following this case all that closely, but to add a little to the answer about evidence: guilt is supposed to be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and of course, that definition will vary from person to person and jury to jury, making it a very large X factor. People have been convicted of murders without any physical evidence before, and people with physical evidence against them (i.e. OJ) have been acquitted. So while pretty much everything I’ve heard in the news and read here is circumstantial, more direct physical evidence may yet be found or revealed.
if you talk to any scuba diver…a couple of ankle weights isn’t going to make you sink in salt water which is what the implication of this purchase is. You are a lot more boyant in salt water than in fresh. Next time you see a pic of scuba divers in the ocean, look around their waste, you’ll see a belt called a “weight belt.” This is to help you sink…wel,l become boyant neutral so to speak which is acheived through your vest as well. anyways, I’m guessing a pregnant woman with about 18% body fat (normal but since she was pregnant that % would be higher) would need a lot of weight to get her to sink…much more than a couple of ankle weights. It takes more weight to sink fat.
I’ve seen pics of scott jogging quite a few times. My guess is he didn’t realize how heavy the things would become and he took them off during his run.
What are they looking for, NurseCarmen.
…
Monty, thanks for the clarification.
The strongest evidence(not proof) of his guilt is his fishing trip. Imagine how few men drive 140+miles for a solo fishing trip on Christmas Eve, leaving his 7.5 month pregnant wife alone.
Now imagine how many have done so the very time period the wife disappears. One is my guess.
I guess I’d better throw out my cement blocks, just in case someone I know disappears.
I don’t see that any of the “evidence” so far shows that he killed his wife.
If the police took my truck I would have to replace it any way I could. Allergic to walking.
I would want to see what the forensic evidence from Peterson’s house and car show. There better be something. Or are we supposed to believe that as incompetent a murderer as Scott is supposed to be, that he murdered and cut up his wife in the house and transported the body in the truck, and was able to do so without leaving any evidence, or was able to clean up all the evidence? Sure.
As for behavior that would make me suspicious, well, how about physical abuse or violence? As far as I know, the police were never called to his house to break up a fight. No pictures of Laci beaten black and blue. No record that Scott had ever been violent before. (I wonder what the profile for wife killers is. I’m sure the police have one. And the fact that they haven’t mentioned it is…uhhh…suspicious.)
And the body was found near where Scott went “fishing.” Let’s suppose , for a mental exercise, that I am a scumbag/kidnapper/pervert/murderer. I grab a woman off the street and do whatever it is that I do and then I have a problem–what to do with her.
In the meantime, the news shows that her husband is a suspect and the general public hates him cuz they don’t believe his alibi, and they want this case solved because the woman was cute and seemed to be a nice person.
Fishing. San Francisco Bay. Hmm. I get an idea. I collect water from the bay and find a 55 gallon drum. I dismember the body to get it into the drum, cover it with water from the Bay, and wait. The cops won’t be looking forever. Then when the coast is clear I drive the remains over and dump it in the water near where the news said Scott was “fishing” that night. What happens next should be interesting.
This case is like an inkblot test—what you see tells more about you than it tells about Scott Peterson. I’m waiting for some evidence to show up.
Okay, people, do y’all really think the police release their entire case to the media? For all we know, none of the “evidence” being cited in the above posts are even being considered “evidence” by the police. Believe me, the big guns are being kept safely hidden. In fact, until and unless you are a member of the prosecution, defense, or on the jury you will never know all the evidence. Or the judge. And even then, probably not all those parties will have all the knowledge.
John Mace seems to have the right line of thinking on this. Incidently, he was arrested before the bodies were identified, because he had become a flight risk.
Yes- as Monty pointed out, this was the CA State AG, Bill Lockyer, who is clearly running for CA Gov. In fact, he “ducked out of his wedding reception…as Lockyer, 61…as his new 31 year old wife looked on” to get in a nice sound bite.
He should know much more about this case than we do- his Office has no direct jurisdiction. His statement was very damaging to a potential fair trial, and was unprofessional. He should not try to get votes by running roughshod over a fair trial & justice. He’s the damn AG for gods sake, he knows better. He is not getting MY vote, I can tell you that- not after this publicity stunt- even if Scott is guilty as hell.
Lorinada? This is the USA- every single bit of evidence & testimony is public. There are no secret trials here. After a trial, you can even get a transcript of it- sometimes you have to pay for the copying.
For insatnce- the Police had a warrent- that warrent and the “probable cause” they used to get it should all be public. It is sealed right now, but it won’t be. Remember the OJ trial? the whole damn thing- every bit of testimony the jurors heard- and a lot they didn’t hear- was right there on your TV. They are not allowed to “keep the big guns safely hidden”- that’s illegal. Ok, for a while, a judge can slow down the public access, and that’s what they are doing right now- but all the guns- big or small- will be right there for John Q Public to scrutinize… and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Note- I am NOT saying Scott is innocent. It is just that so far there is no evidence available that he killed her. Now, in the Chandra/Condit case I did come out & say I was pretty darn sure Condit was innocent. But not here. Condit was not even a legit suspect IMHO- but Scott is certainly a strong suspect. I’d just like to see SOME evidence.
Still, it makes no difference. If he said nothing incriminating him of murder, nothing she can say can truly harm him. He may be a cheating liar, but that doesn’t make him a murdering liar.
They need blood evidence.
sideways Sonar picked up blip that caught their interest back in March, but Weather, sea lane traffic, and the possibility that it was just nothing swayed the decision to dive. They marked it down on a map and left. With what is now known, it sure as hell sounds like they hit the right spot. I’m sure they’ll be headed back to look for weights, chains, ropes, heads, legs, whatever they can find.
Thanks for the clarification guys. I was using the terms I learned looking at Law and Order and LA law 
I think Scott Peterson should retain Johnny Cochran…thuis case has less evidence than they had against OJ Simpson.
Nothing I have seen proves that Peterson did away with his wife, for all we know, she may have been abducted and murdered by drug dealers (as in the Simpson case).
ralph: So you’ve seen all the evidence that the police department’s presented to the judge, have you?
Oh, a jury has already determined that it was not a drug dealer who did away with Simpson’s ex-wife and her friend. The jury determined that it was O. J. Simpson who killed them.
As someone else has pointed out, this isn’t even circumstantial evidence. It’s my understanding that the life insurance policy was taken out when Laci became pregnant, and that both of them had life insurance policies taken out at the time.
LOTS of married couples do this when they become parents. It’s just common sense: you need something in place in case income is lost due to the death of one of the wage earners (or, in the case of stay-at-home-parents, extra expenses for child care are incurred).
I took out a policy on my wife when we were expecting our first child. I didn’t take one on myself, because I had a pretty good policy through my job. My wife’s policy was in effect until just a couple of years ago, when circumstances arose that made life insurance unnecessary.
Not knowing what evidence the police found in his house, I had to say that I didn’t think Scott Peterson did it because (a) it looked like the perfect crime and (b) Peterson didn’t strike me as smart enough to commit such a perfect crime.
I don’t know how much blood (or traces of blood) was found in the Peterson home, but it couldn’t have been much. There was a case in Reno last January where a woman was missing. They still haven’t found her body, but her husband has been under arrest for murder since February because so much blood was found in the house that no person could have survived such a blood loss.
Just my 2 cents. To my mind, Scott Peterson is probably the culprit, but I’m not convinced of it yet.
No, a jury determined he was responsible for their deaths. The jury in the civil trial was not allowed to judge his innocence or guilt because he’d already been found not guilty. Just a little clarification; I’m still not quite sure what the difference is. I doubt he cares since it means he’s a free man. Either way, sports fans, that trial was a “make-up call.”
Oh, and while there are – well, used to be – no secret trials in the US, the prosecution doesn’t have to lay out every detail of its case to the public in the media at this stage. Doing so would probably be a bad idea, actually.
By the way, there’ll be no Johnny Cochran or F. Lee Bailey for Scott Peterson; I think I saw last night that his team includes three public defenders.
Marley23-you said it well! We live in a system where one can be as “guilty as hell” and yet walk free! Then, in a civil case, be found “responsible”!
Somehow, I have a problem with this, both logically and ethically!
Can the lawyers please explain how one can be simultaneously “responsible” and “aquitted”?
IANAL, but I belive that the difference in the civil trial vs. the criminal trial is this (as was explained frequently during the time of OJ’s 2nd trial):
In a criminal case, where a person’s freedom from encarceration is at stake, the burden of proof is higher than in a civil case where what is at stake is only his money. Criminal guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil only requires a preponderance of the evidence.
Also, I think a criminal conviction has to be unanimous one way or the other, or else it’s a “hung jury.”
I am sure that if I am incorrect in any of these details a real attorney will be along to correct me.
Two things for you, ralph:
-
I’m waiting on your answer to my earlier question.
-
The criminal trial may absolve one of guilty, but the civil trial may still hold you responsible for the act concerned. Those are two different issues.
This is one of my pet peeves. Being acquitted in a trial does not ‘absolve’ you of anything, it does not show that you didn’t do it, it doesn’t prove you’re innocent. All it means is that the state could not produce enough evidence at trial to convict you.
Your actions are still your own, your guilt is your own, if you stole you’re a thief, if you murdered you’re a murderer, regardless of the evidence that can be found against you.
Cheesesteak: As far as the governemnt is concerned, an acquittal does absolve you of the guilt in the sense that the jury has declared you innocent. Other than that, I’m with you.