@@@The *LA* Innocence Project taking on Scott Peterson case

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 15:11:17 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 15:04:54 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

There's always subjectivity in what one considers beyond a reasonable doubt. If he really were innocent then he worked his ass off to look guilty.

Some subjectivity, sure, but the jury gets a specific instruction about what it means. It has a definition.

Well it's not proof beyond all possible doubt. Even with instruction to the jury, they are 12 individuals and can interpret the info differently. I went thru voir dire a year or so ago and the responses potential jurors gave to the same, common sense questions, varied wildly for some.

[mcsangel2]

I get the devil's advocate responses. I think the big thing is, I think a murder weapon was never found. I think. Also there was never any forensic evidence of a crime scene at their home or anywhere else.

But, circumstantial evidence is admissable, and there was enough here to convince the jury.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 15:45:05 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

I get the devil's advocate responses. I think the big thing is, I think a murder weapon was never found. I think. Also there was never any forensic evidence of a crime scene at their home or anywhere else.

But, circumstantial evidence is admissable, and there was enough here to convince the jury.

I'm not doing a devil's advocate thing here, btw. I think the evidence was flimsy.

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 15:51:05 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 15:45:05 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

I get the devil's advocate responses. I think the big thing is, I think a murder weapon was never found. I think. Also there was never any forensic evidence of a crime scene at their home or anywhere else.

But, circumstantial evidence is admissable, and there was enough here to convince the jury.

I'm not doing a devil's advocate thing here, btw. I think the evidence was flimsy.

Why do you think he is guilty?

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 16:04:55 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Jan 19, 2024 15:51:05 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I'm not doing a devil's advocate thing here, btw. I think the evidence was flimsy.

Why do you think he is guilty?

Vibes, mostly.

Honestly, when pregnant people are killed, reality is that it's usually the husband/partner. So, yeah. He probably did do it. But I'm uncomfortable with someone being convicted of something when there's basically no evidence directly tying him to the crime.

I was a criminal defense attorney in a former life if that adds some missing context here.

[TR]

This conversation and the one on HIH taught me that there are many, many "Innocence Projects" and they're not all associated with each other. This is the LA Innocence Project.

[tiramisu]

Real Crime Profile had a great 4-part series on this case.

[lostrn]

I just started listening to The Prosecutor's Podcast episodes on his case. It's pretty interesting but I haven't finished it yet.

[MixedBerryJam]

FWIW The Lots Ángeles Innocence Project is not connected to the Innocence Project. The name similarities alone make me mistrustful of them from the start. On charity navigator the (real) IP has a 100% rating, and the LAIP is not rated. I am disinclined to trust

[MixedBerryJam]

Jan 19, 2024 21:31:43 GMT -5 tiramisu said:

Real Crime Profile had a great 4-part series on this case.

Or I could have just kept reading.

[underwaterrhymes]

Jan 19, 2024 17:12:06 GMT -5 TR said:

This conversation and the one on HIH taught me that there are many, many "Innocence Projects" and they're not all associated with each other. This is the LA Innocence Project.

Can you link the thread? I’m interested in reading it.

[TR]

Jan 20, 2024 12:04:19 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

Jan 19, 2024 17:12:06 GMT -5 TR said:

This conversation and the one on HIH taught me that there are many, many "Innocence Projects" and they're not all associated with each other. This is the LA Innocence Project.

Can you link the thread? I’m interested in reading it.

It’s in their blinds thread, the discussion starts partway down this page: howeverithappened.proboards.com/thread/42407/new-year-reveal-day-blinds?page=24

They have a news board so it might be there too but this is what I read.

[hermione]

Rabia and Ellyn did a podcast where they conclude he’s innocent.

From everything I’ve read, the theory is she was murdered by the burglars who robbed the house across the street after she witnessed the crime while walking the dog. Apparently there is a blood soaked mattress found in an old van the new lawyers want tested for Lacy’s blood.

I think he’s guilty.

[ECB]

Jan 19, 2024 22:25:39 GMT -5 lostrn said:

I just started listening to The Prosecutor's Podcast episodes on his case. It's pretty interesting but I haven't finished it yet.

well, this is disappointing. In looking up reviews about this podcast, found out the hosts are Trumpers and Brett was one of trumps judicial nominees for a lifetime appointment although he hadn’t tried any cases. And didn’t disclose a conflict of interest that his wife worked for trump.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/13/that-judicial-nominee-whos-never-tried-a-case-is-also-married-to-a-trump-administration-lawyer/

[devonpow]

Jan 20, 2024 14:07:59 GMT -5 ECB said:

Jan 19, 2024 22:25:39 GMT -5 lostrn said:

I just started listening to The Prosecutor's Podcast episodes on his case. It's pretty interesting but I haven't finished it yet.

well, this is disappointing. In looking up reviews about this podcast, found out the hosts are Trumpers and Brett was one of trumps judicial nominees for a lifetime appointment although he hadn’t tried any cases. And didn’t disclose a conflict of interest that his wife worked for trump.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/13/that-judicial-nominee-whos-never-tried-a-case-is-also-married-to-a-trump-administration-lawyer/

I was very upset when I found this out because I had enjoyed their podcast, even though they have a clear slant. They actually changed my mind on Adnan Syed and I think he’s guilty now (but agree he shouldn’t have been convicted based on evidence). Scott Petersen I think is completely guilty. Ellen and Rabia didn’t sway me at all, and the Prosecuters has a lot of good points refuting the eye witness issues and burglary etc. I would tell people to listen but I don’t want to send business their way anymore lol

[devonpow]

Also circumstantial evidence is evidence. Most cases don’t have any physical evidence, a preponderance are based on circumstantial evidence. So being an all circumstantial case doesn’t really matter - there is a shit ton of circumstantial evidence against him

[lostrn]

Jan 20, 2024 14:07:59 GMT -5 ECB said:

Jan 19, 2024 22:25:39 GMT -5 lostrn said:

I just started listening to The Prosecutor's Podcast episodes on his case. It's pretty interesting but I haven't finished it yet.

well, this is disappointing. In looking up reviews about this podcast, found out the hosts are Trumpers and Brett was one of trumps judicial nominees for a lifetime appointment although he hadn’t tried any cases. And didn’t disclose a conflict of interest that his wife worked for trump.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/13/that-judicial-nominee-whos-never-tried-a-case-is-also-married-to-a-trump-administration-lawyer/

Well damn. They sound "normal" on the show.

[ellipses84]

Jan 20, 2024 14:18:42 GMT -5 devonpow said:

Also circumstantial evidence is evidence. Most cases don’t have any physical evidence, a preponderance are based on circumstantial evidence. So being an all circumstantial case doesn’t really matter - there is a shit ton of circumstantial evidence against him

I agree. I think it’s easy to go down a rabbit hole about the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A lot of the evidence in his case is about motive and means. He’s certainly not the first person convicted of murder under similar circumstances and evidence - taking out a life insurance policy, having the person disappear, being uncooperative/ unconcerned during the search, having the body show up in an area he said he was at with no alibi, etc. Him telling his girlfriend his wife had died and telling a friend years before the foolproof way to dispose of a body would be to dump it off a boat doesn’t mean he’s actually committed murder but that’s a lot of coincidences.

Was the investigation thorough, was the trial fair or was the degree of murder he was convicted of the right one? IDK but it seems like he was fairly convicted by by a jury of peers with good legal representation which is better than a lot of people get in our flawed justice system. If there’s new evidence or proof of an unfair trial then it can be re-evaluated.

[tiramisu]

Jan 20, 2024 11:34:31 GMT -5 MixedBerryJam said:

Jan 19, 2024 21:31:43 GMT -5 tiramisu said:

Real Crime Profile had a great 4-part series on this case.

Or I could have just kept reading.

I like finding out anyone else listens to them! Jim can get a bit too loud and rant-y for my taste at times, but I probably sound the same way to people sometimes.

I also think Scott Peterson is guilty, since I didn't say it before.

[DotAndBuzz]

I'm going to re-listen to Crime Junkie's episodes on this. It was like their 2nd and 3rd episodes ever, so Ashley was still a baby podcaster (like, she doesn't credit her sources in her podcast, has since made a lot of changes and now always cites them), BUT, I still remember hearing a lot of new info and perspective .

I still think he's guilty AF, but do support him getting a truly fair trial. And like someone else said, if he *didn't* do it, he did a fabulous job making himself look shady and guilty as hell.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 23, 2024 9:58:38 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

I still think he's guilty AF, but do support him getting a truly fair trial. And like someone else said, if he *didn't* do it, he did a fabulous job making himself look shady and guilty as hell.

I agree with this take, but at the same time, it makes me think of my fvck-up uncle that I promise you that if he was accused of any crime, he'd behave in exactly the way to convince everyone he was guilty AF, even if he actually didn't do it.

[cuadrado]

If he gets a new trial then I think he will be acquitted. It seems like more things have come up since his first trial that have created more reasonable doubt. So even though he more than likely did it and there was a lot of circumstantial evidence, a jury may not be able to get there this time around.

The prosecution's case was centered around the idea that Scott killed Laci on the 23rd and then dumped her body on the 24th. There seemed to be no way that Scott would have had enough time to kill her, clean up all of the evidence, and make it out to the bay by lunch time if he did it the morning of the 24th. Early enough in the trial, Mark Geragos felt like enough stuff had come up to establish that Laci was actually alive on the 24th so he didn't call other witnesses that would have probably brought in more reasonable doubt.

Some things I think that would come up in a new trial:

- All of the witnesses who say they saw Laci walking her dog after Scott supposedly left to go fishing. Even if there were holes in their stories, which is why MG says he didn't call them, there were so many that it may have have brought in more doubt.
- The witnesses who saw a pregnant woman looking scared peeing on the side of a road outside of the van and then being pushed back into the van
- The mis-measurements of Connor estimating his gestational age, with newer measurements after the trial suggesting he died well after the 24th
- The witness that was never called who saw Scott getting in the water to go fishing and said his boat was empty
- An explanation as to how Scott was able to dump her body overboard without tipping his boat over in broad daylight. MC tried to re enact this scenario and it supposedly wasn't possible.
- An explanation as to why Laci's limbs and head were missing. That this likely wouldn't have happened had her whole body just been weighed down.
- Hardly any DNA evidence found and no reports by law enforcement that they smelled bleach or cleaning solution at the house.
- The woman who was found in San Francisco Bay right before Laci went missing who was also pregnant and was found in the same condition - they only found her torso and never found the fetus.

^ if any of this has been debunked then LMK.

I think if he gets a new trial and says he was acting weird AF because he was having an affair then there may be enough doubt to where a jury may not find him guilty this time around.

[devonpow]

Jan 23, 2024 16:21:27 GMT -5 cuadrado said:

If he gets a new trial then I think he will be acquitted. It seems like more things have come up since his first trial that have created more reasonable doubt. So even though he more than likely did it and there was a lot of circumstantial evidence, a jury may not be able to get there this time around.

The prosecution's case was centered around the idea that Scott killed Laci on the 23rd and then dumped her body on the 24th. There seemed to be no way that Scott would have had enough time to kill her, clean up all of the evidence, and make it out to the bay by lunch time if he did it the morning of the 24th. Early enough in the trial, Mark Geragos felt like enough stuff had come up to establish that Laci was actually alive on the 24th so he didn't call other witnesses that would have probably brought in more reasonable doubt.

Some things I think that would come up in a new trial:

- All of the witnesses who say they saw Laci walking her dog after Scott supposedly left to go fishing. Even if there were holes in their stories, which is why MG says he didn't call them, there were so many that it may have have brought in more doubt.
- The witnesses who saw a pregnant woman looking scared peeing on the side of a road outside of the van and then being pushed back into the van
- The mis-measurements of Connor estimating his gestational age, with newer measurements after the trial suggesting he died well after the 24th
- The witness that was never called who saw Scott getting in the water to go fishing and said his boat was empty
- An explanation as to how Scott was able to dump her body overboard without tipping his boat over in broad daylight. MC tried to re enact this scenario and it supposedly wasn't possible.
- An explanation as to why Laci's limbs and head were missing. That this likely wouldn't have happened had her whole body just been weighed down.
- Hardly any DNA evidence found and no reports by law enforcement that they smelled bleach or cleaning solution at the house.
- The woman who was found in San Francisco Bay right before Laci went missing who was also pregnant and was found in the same condition - they only found her torso and never found the fetus.

^ if any of this has been debunked then LMK.

I think if he gets a new trial and says he was acting weird AF because he was having an affair then there may be enough doubt to where a jury may not find him guilty this time around.

I think a few of these things have been debunked - gestational age, missing limbs etc definitely have. The eyewitnesses also were all over the place - different outfits, different types of dog, different days etc. I hate to/don’t want to recommend the Prosecuters podcast again since they are Trumper assholes who don’t need downloads, but they did a very good and succinct explanation for things.

[gretchenindisguise]

If I juxtapose this thread with the thread on ML about American Nightmare, it's interesting how strong confirmation bias can be. We think he's guilty so we trust the police. But the police make mistakes, jump to conclusions and don't investigate other possibilities.

I tend to trust the Innocence Project, so I'm interested to see what evidence they have and if there is a retrial what comes up in it.

[starlily]

I think the title of this thread should be renamed as it's not actually the well known Innocence Project who has taken on this case, especially since they have disavowed any involvement.

[neverfstop]

I've got no thoughts in this specific case other than I wish more effort/energy/time/resources would be put towards helping less high profile and more likely innocent people.

[cuadrado]

Jan 23, 2024 18:09:38 GMT -5 devonpow said:

Jan 23, 2024 16:21:27 GMT -5 cuadrado said:

I think a few of these things have been debunked - gestational age, missing limbs etc definitely have. The eyewitnesses also were all over the place - different outfits, different types of dog, different days etc. I hate to/don’t want to recommend the Prosecuters podcast again since they are Trumper assholes who don’t need downloads, but they did a very good and succinct explanation for things.

Okay I went down a rabbit hole and listened to all 6 episodes of that podcast on 1.75 speed, lol. I take back my whole post. He is guilty AF and he's even more of a POS for letting his sisters continue to fight for him. I'll recap the podcast so that we don't give them any more downloads:

The basis of Scott's appeal is related to the juror who lied and said she hadn't been part of a criminal investigation in the past. It wasn't related to the evidence of the case. Both prosecutor podcast hosts thought it was a solid case. They went through all of the transcripts from the trial and discussed what the jurors actually heard compared to what is floating around in the media and the documentary:

Basically everything that was brought up in the documentary was addressed in trial.

*Robbers across the street - it was established that the house got robbed after Laci went missing. The family didn't leave the home until after the neighbor had already found the Peterson's dog and returned it to the yard. The robbers were found and arrested and fully investigated. 

*Laci walking the dog - Laci had been having a lot of physical problems and pain related to her pregnancy. A few days before she went missing, she needed help walking to her car from prenatal yoga. It was highly unlikely she would have taken the dog on that long of a walk. There were also other pregnant women walking large dogs in the same area at that time. None of the witnesses who saw the pregnant people watching gave a description of tan pants, which Laci was found in. Police questioned lots of people in the days after Laci went missing and *no one* saw her walking the dog. People only came forward after more info was released in the news, making it seem more like confirmation bias.

*Also Laci walking the dog - Scott's cell phone pinged from a cell phone tower near their house not long before the dog was found at 10:18. This would have meant that IF Scott didn't do it and his story was true that she would have had to have mopped the floor, walked he dog that whole route, and gotten abducted in broad daylight all in a matter of like 15 minutes. 

*Connor's gestational age - the autopsy showed that Connor came out of the very top of Laci's uterus and that there was no evidence of a vaginal birth, c-section, or a coffin birth. They know he came out in the water. It was likely that it happened during the storm at San Francisco Bay right before their bodies were found, and that explains why his body wasn't decomposed and both bodies were found in the same area.

*The boat tipping over - the judge wouldn't admit Mark Geragos' boat demonstration into the trial as evidence because it wasn't the same boat that Scott used and didn't have the same center of gravity.

*Laci's limbs missing - they said this actually would have happened if she had weights weighing each of them down.

[cuadrado]

I also wanted to add a few new things that I didn't know that made Scott look even more guilty:

Earlier in their marriage, Scott's mistress walked in on him and Laci in bed. So Laci definitely knew that he was a cheater but never told anyone about it. The hosts of the podcast had a theory that Laci had found out about Amber and that was the catalyst for Scott killing her.

Scott wasn't just sleeping with Amber Frey. He picked Amber's daughter up from school. They picked out a Christmas tree together.

Scott said he was originally planning on playing golf the day Laci disappeared but on a whim that morning he decided to go to San Francisco Bay instead. However, he had purchased a 2-day boating or fishing license for SFB in advance for December 23-24. So his trip was pre-planned and not on a whim. He also lied to a few people about where he was the day that Laci disappeared and said he went golfing, but he was honest with the investigators.

SFB is almost 2 hours away from the Peterson house. The water is notoriously choppy. His boat wasn't appropriate for that bay at all to the point of where it was almost dangerous. There were 12 other places Scott could have gone fishing near their house. He also said he only wanted to salt water fish and that's why he went to SFB, but all of the equipment on his boat was for fresh water fishing.

Scott never told Laci that he changed his mind about golfing and drove all the way to SFB to fish. But when he left her a voicemail when he was leaving the bay, he never acknowledged that he didn't go golfing. He talked like she knew he was fishing so far away. 

When they were hanging up missing posters, Laci's brother asked Scott if he had any duct tape. He said he had some at his warehouse 10 min away. He went to get it but didn't come back for 2 hours.

😅 Clearly I got way too into this.