Did anyone follow the Scott Peterson trial? I did religiously - I lived in Sacramento at the time, and had just had my 2nd child in Dec. Laci was living with her husband, just south of me in Modesto, and was pregnant with her first when she went missing and was later found dead.
There are numerous issues with the investigation, and the subsequent basic crucifixion of Scott In the Media. His death sentence was overturned, but he was just re-sentenced to life without parole.
I was convinced he was guilty, but as more "evidence" came out - such as the condition of Conner's body, and how big it was, I became convinced of his innocence.
Motive - Means - Opportunity. The three magic words in a criminal investigation. And it starts with Opportunity -- who had the opportunity to do this crime. An alibi proves you didn't have opportunity. The State said Scott obviously had opportunity, but that opportunity is disputed by the Laci-sighting witnesses, and even by the mailman. The Medina burglars also had opportunity.
Once it's proven you did have opportunity, did you have the means? Scott had the means, and so did the burglars. The State loved to present Todd as only having a bicycle, but we know better -- he had access to at least one vehicle, Pearce's car, and another vehicle was seen at the Medina's at the time of the burglary. Two vehicles is certainly the means to carry out the crime. And the burglars had access to at least 2 guns that we know of, although we don't know if that is how Laci was killed.
Motive -- the State tried to prove Scott had motive with the Amber tapes. The burglars also had motive. Steve Todd was up for a 3-strike sentence if he got caught doing the Medina burglary.
Once you've established motive, means, and opportunity, you have to produce some evidence linking the suspect to the crime -- and that evidence has to be specific to the suspect, to the exclusion of all others, and can't be simple coincidence.
The State's only evidence linking Scott to the crime is the location of the bodies. And that would be excellent evidence, if it wasn't widely broadcast within days of Laci's disappearance, even including a map on how to get to Scott's fishing location published in the local newspaper. So the value of that evidence was destroyed by the investigators.
So far we don't have any evidence linking the burglars to the crime. All the evidence we have proves motive, means, and opportunity -- but not the actual crimes of abduction and murder. That is the dilemma.
https://www.kron4.com/news/californ...KWTZHFKBto3fm_1q6bUvYv9cDsbmm_zwE63z15AS46XTI
From the final brief in the habeas appeal:
As these two thumbnail sketches show, the jury had one question to resolve: was Laci alive when Scott left for the warehouse and Berkeley Marina? If so, then Scott was
innocent. If not, then he was guilty.
If Laci is alive and walking Mckenzi after Scott leaves for the warehouse, he is innocent.
If indeed “Laci witnessed him [Steve Todd] breaking in” then -- regardless of whether Todd is involved in Laci’s actual disappearance and murder -- Scott is innocent.
If Conner Peterson lived beyond December 24, Scott is innocent.
If just one of those things is true, Scott is innocent.
There are numerous issues with the investigation, and the subsequent basic crucifixion of Scott In the Media. His death sentence was overturned, but he was just re-sentenced to life without parole.
I was convinced he was guilty, but as more "evidence" came out - such as the condition of Conner's body, and how big it was, I became convinced of his innocence.
Motive - Means - Opportunity. The three magic words in a criminal investigation. And it starts with Opportunity -- who had the opportunity to do this crime. An alibi proves you didn't have opportunity. The State said Scott obviously had opportunity, but that opportunity is disputed by the Laci-sighting witnesses, and even by the mailman. The Medina burglars also had opportunity.
Once it's proven you did have opportunity, did you have the means? Scott had the means, and so did the burglars. The State loved to present Todd as only having a bicycle, but we know better -- he had access to at least one vehicle, Pearce's car, and another vehicle was seen at the Medina's at the time of the burglary. Two vehicles is certainly the means to carry out the crime. And the burglars had access to at least 2 guns that we know of, although we don't know if that is how Laci was killed.
Motive -- the State tried to prove Scott had motive with the Amber tapes. The burglars also had motive. Steve Todd was up for a 3-strike sentence if he got caught doing the Medina burglary.
Once you've established motive, means, and opportunity, you have to produce some evidence linking the suspect to the crime -- and that evidence has to be specific to the suspect, to the exclusion of all others, and can't be simple coincidence.
The State's only evidence linking Scott to the crime is the location of the bodies. And that would be excellent evidence, if it wasn't widely broadcast within days of Laci's disappearance, even including a map on how to get to Scott's fishing location published in the local newspaper. So the value of that evidence was destroyed by the investigators.
So far we don't have any evidence linking the burglars to the crime. All the evidence we have proves motive, means, and opportunity -- but not the actual crimes of abduction and murder. That is the dilemma.
https://www.kron4.com/news/californ...KWTZHFKBto3fm_1q6bUvYv9cDsbmm_zwE63z15AS46XTI
From the final brief in the habeas appeal:
As these two thumbnail sketches show, the jury had one question to resolve: was Laci alive when Scott left for the warehouse and Berkeley Marina? If so, then Scott was
innocent. If not, then he was guilty.
If Laci is alive and walking Mckenzi after Scott leaves for the warehouse, he is innocent.
If indeed “Laci witnessed him [Steve Todd] breaking in” then -- regardless of whether Todd is involved in Laci’s actual disappearance and murder -- Scott is innocent.
If Conner Peterson lived beyond December 24, Scott is innocent.
If just one of those things is true, Scott is innocent.
