Laci Peterson's family drops civil suit

[RachelRose]

I'm sorry, I've searched the media, and the Scott Peterson thread below and I can't find when the trial has been rescheduled for.

Last news updates I can find say there would be a court date on July 21 to decide when the trial will begin. But no updates.

Thanks to anyone who has information.

[court~critic1®]

I have searched , and can't find where he is even going to be given a new trial. so you are way ahead of me.

:shrug:

If you find anything please post it here. TIA

[court~critic1®]

Originally posted by RachelRose


Court, it's not a new criminal trial it's the civil trial. He's being sued by the Rochas.

It was originally slated to begin I believe in June, got postponed. [/*]



thanks for the info. I was begining to think I had really lost my mind. lol

:seeya:

[DeeN]

LINK"

http://www.lifenews.com/state3348.html

[DeeN]

http://petersontrial.info/scott-peterson-articles.php

Lots of details in here, also I did not know that Gerago's brother will be defending Peterson for the Civil Trial?

I though it was a female lawyer.

I do wonder who's going to pay to defend him? I guess a court appointed attorney.

[CJMMAMA07]

Have they set a new date?

Is there going to be a Civil Trial?

What the heck is going on?

Any information would be helpful. TIA

http://freehim.proboards57.com

[amy_gbb]

Originally posted by CJMMAMA07
Have they set a new date?

Is there going to be a Civil Trial?

What the heck is going on?

Any information would be helpful. TIA

http://freehim.proboards57.com [/*]
I've been looking for news on this myself. Can't seem to find anything. :shrug:

[HI_CYCLE]

I believe the civil trial will be or has been dropped. Remember the judge, in a surprising move, ruled that the plaintiffs could NOT use the guilty verdict as proof of guilt. It would mean a full blown trial to prove him guilty of murdering his wife. Sharon and Dennis Rocha will have to pay for a trial that cost Modesto over 4 million dollars to convict him previously. IMO there will be NO civil trial.

[RayStar]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I believe the civil trial will be or has been dropped. Remember the judge, in a surprising move, ruled that the plaintiffs could NOT use the guilty verdict as proof of guilt. It would mean a full blown trial to prove him guilty of murdering his wife. Sharon and Dennis Rocha will have to pay for a trial that cost Modesto over 4 million dollars to convict him previously. IMO there will be NO civil trial. [/*]Maybe this is best. I do think Sharon would like to something else however.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by RayStar
Maybe this is best. I do think Sharon would like to something else however. [/*]RAY, could you explain.:shrug:

[Justiceguy_1977]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I believe the civil trial will be or has been dropped. Remember the judge, in a surprising move, ruled that the plaintiffs could NOT use the guilty verdict as proof of guilt. It would mean a full blown trial to prove him guilty of murdering his wife. Sharon and Dennis Rocha will have to pay for a trial that cost Modesto over 4 million dollars to convict him previously. IMO there will be NO civil trial. [/*]


The Civil lawsuit HAS NOT BEEN DROPPED the trial was POSTONED


PAY for a trial?


they only pay for their attorneys and invesgations thats all..

[Luke Davis]

I've been following some other civil trials and they take forever. The judge often tries to get the partes to agree. So, there are hearings every few months to see how things are going. Not really news.


MOO

[dinojen]

Just read on KTVU..

http://www.ktvu.com/news/19334545/detail.html

Family Drops Wrongful Death Suit Against Scott Peterson

Posted: 11:46 am PDT April 30, 2009
MODESTO, Calif. -- A civil lawsuit filed by the parents of slain Modesto schoolteacher Laci Peterson against her convicted killer – her husband Scott Peterson – has been dropped, court officials said Thursday.

A hearing in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Sharon and Dennis Rocha was scheduled for Thursday, but a Stanislaus County Superior Court official said the matter was dropped last week.

In his videotaped deposition for the civil trial, Peterson –- who is awaiting execution on San Quentin’s death row -- denied killing Laci Peterson, and asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination 195 times.

During the taping of that deposition, Scott Peterson also told the family’s attorneys that: "I love my wife… I love my son. I will always love them. I have always loved them. I should be able to hug them right now. I should be able to hold my son."

He also claimed in the deposition that he was the victim of a poorly handled police investigation.

Laci Peterson's parents first filed the lawsuit in 2004, seeking a multimillion-dollar judgment. That same year, a jury found Peterson guilty of murdering her and her fetus and dumping the body into San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.

During the ensuing years, the family suffered a major setback when Judge Roger Beauchesne denied a request that Peterson’s death sentence conviction for the murders be allowed in the civil trial as fact.

[KittyMom]

wow...maybe they're just tired of it all.

[dgfred]

Just so he stays exactly where he is... or on a stretcher with tubes and special fluids running into his veins.

[GentleBreeze]

wow...maybe they're just tired of it all.

He is penniless anyway.

[Tluvr]

Hello, I followed this case.

Hoping they decided to move on.

Justice has been served. Scott P will face his day.

[Hey Paula]

EXCERPT:

The parents of Laci Peterson quietly dropped a wrongful death lawsuit against death row inmate Scott Peterson last week, a court official said, leaving a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge with no reason to call the case that had been scheduled for a hearing this morning.

A trial was slated to begin next month, but Modesto’s most notorious offender would not have been transported from San Quentin State Prison. And even if Scott Peterson’s former in-laws had won a multi-million-dollar judgment, it would have been largely symbolic.

The litigation did not shed much more light on a sensational capital case that ended in guilty verdicts in fall 2004 and sent Scott Peterson, formerly a fertilizer salesman, to death row in spring 2005.

http://www.modbee.com/featured/story/685591.html

[Hey Paula]

EXCERPT:

In his videotaped deposition for the civil trial, Peterson –- who is awaiting execution on San Quentin’s death row -- denied killing Laci Peterson, and asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination 195 times.

During the taping of that deposition, Scott Peterson also told the family’s attorneys that: "I love my wife… I love my son. I will always love them. I have always loved them. I should be able to hug them right now. I should be able to hold my son."

He also claimed in the deposition that he was the victim of a poorly handled police investigation.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/19334545/detail.html

[Hey Paula]

Sharon does not deserve any more heartache in this horrible case. I understand why they filed the case but maybe it just became to much for her. Of course SP pled the fifth, why would he start telling the truth now all of a sudden after lying for so long.
I feel so bad for Sharon and the rest of her family. No parent deserves to have their adult child die in such a horrific way.

jmoo

ITA!

I think of Sharon often, and of course Laci and Conner too.

:rose:

[Amy]

Very interesting move, to wait this long to decide to drop the civil case until after the deposition. I always wondered why they were pursuing this, after the judge said he wouldn't stipulate that Peterson is guilty of killing Laci.

Number One, Scott has nothing at all to give, so they can't recover anything and Number Two, there is a significant chance the second jury will find him not guilty of murder in the guilt phase of the trial, and that will help pave the way for his eventual appeal and perhaps retrial.

I'm kind of surprised an attorney would take this case, since he has nothing to give. There would be no judgement to split between the attorney and the plaintiff even if they won.

He doesn't have anything to give right now. I always tho't the purpose of their civil suit (and that of many other folks, too) was to prevent the defendant from being able to make any money off books, movies and such. If the defendant were to write a book, or get royalties for movies, etc, if there is a judgement against him, HE doesn't get the money, doesn't profit off the death of his victim.

[aproudmom]

He is penniless anyway.

not so sure he has a website his family runs asking for money to free him....he writes blogs and has them add them:cursing:

[aproudmom]

OR, frankly, I think they couldn't win another murder trial. Sharon Rocha would be spending her own money in a civil suit, and would have to foot the bill for yet another trial to prove Scott Peterson guilty, and I don't think it could be done. Back in the day when there was the raging crowd of torch bearing townspeople, the court frankly ignored that there was no evidence to prove him guilty. A jury today might notice that.

ok u have got to be kidding me
:rolleyes:

[aproudmom]

It also wasn't very factual either...
You in love with the guy or something ?
You writing him love letters ?
Not trying to violate the Tos..some women are writing Scott apparently and you sound like you might be one of them...

One of the most guilty perps I have ever seen...

A civil lawsuit wouldn't have accomplished anything..Sometimes those are filed to bring in facts that weren't allowed in the criminal trial..maybe because they didn't meet the burden of proof or maybe because the judge felt they were too prejudicial to the defense.
Some things the Rocha family wanted the public to know about the case.
Something of a moot point now as Scott won't ever get out...nor should he...

ITA but it is a norm..not just here

[aproudmom]

OR, frankly, I think they couldn't win another murder trial. Sharon Rocha would be spending her own money in a civil suit, and would have to foot the bill for yet another trial to prove Scott Peterson guilty, and I don't think it could be done. Back in the day when there was the raging crowd of torch bearing townspeople, the court frankly ignored that there was no evidence to prove him guilty. A jury today might notice that.

here ya go you can even donate since you feel he is not guilty:rolleyes:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/

[aproudmom]

ITA, RachelRose.

here ya go you can even donate since you feel he is not guilty he sure looks to be doing just fine in the old clicker:rolleyes:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/

[starling]

EXCERPT:

In his videotaped deposition for the civil trial, Peterson –- who is awaiting execution on San Quentin’s death row -- denied killing Laci Peterson, and asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination 195 times.

During the taping of that deposition, Scott Peterson also told the family’s attorneys that: "I love my wife… I love my son. I will always love them. I have always loved them. I should be able to hug them right now. I should be able to hold my son."

He also claimed in the deposition that he was the victim of a poorly handled police investigation.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/19334545/detail.html


he also loves Paris & cobblestone streets...what a sociopath waste of space

JMO

[SeaMaiden]

here ya go you can even donate since you feel he is not guilty:rolleyes:
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/


Thanks for posting this.

I found Scott's rants on his blog absolutely disgusting. Here's an idiotic sample:
"It is difficult to watch the press & others look to profit off of our loss & our emotions, & sell a story dishonoring my wife & son."

Funny thing, isn't it? He wasn't at all concerned with honoring his pregnant wife when he pretended to be be single, & then pursued Ms. Frey so avidly with champagne & roses.

He's still apparently totally delusional...

IMO

[JohnBJr]

According to this recent article, Peterson is not penniless, thanks to the continuing generousity of his female admirers. And he seems to be adjusting well to the harsh life of death row (he even lost his ocean view of those infamous bay waters). Like most homicidal sociopaths, he readily adapts to any new situation like the pragmatic, flexible, and soulless chameleon that he is. Which of us could handle life on death row with a ghoulish smile?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20271730,00.html?cnn=yes

[Leanne Weich]

I, too, think Sharon has probably got to the stage where she can no longer see any point in pursuing the WDS further. Until Scott was deposed and took the 5th, there was still a chance, I guess, that if he'd answered questions, she might have got some more answers to her questions. My brother died in a m.v. accident caused by his gf grabbing the steering wheel and my mom also sued her for wrongful death. As the case dragged on, it really didn't allow my mom to start healing in any meaningful way with the law suit hanging over her head. It got to the point where, for her own sanity, she had to let it go so she withdrew the action. I don't blame Sharon because even if she'd won and somehow Scott had come into money (which I don't see happening), nothing would compensate for her loss. She does, however, have the knowledge that he has probably been worrying about this for a long time now. JMHO.

[kellabeck]

Very interesting move, to wait this long to decide to drop the civil case until after the deposition. I always wondered why they were pursuing this, after the judge said he wouldn't stipulate that Peterson is guilty of killing Laci.

Number One, Scott has nothing at all to give, so they can't recover anything and Number Two, there is a significant chance the second jury will find him not guilty of murder in the guilt phase of the trial, and that will help pave the way for his eventual appeal and perhaps retrial.

I'm kind of surprised an attorney would take this case, since he has nothing to give. There would be no judgement to split between the attorney and the plaintiff even if they won.

Perhaps the depo was the point after all.

As to your statement which I bolded--- What are you talking about??
1) what "significant chance"??
2) civil juries assess responsibility, not guilt.
3) even if a civil jury were -- on some bizarro planet -- to find him not liable, that would have absolutely no effect on his criminal trial and his conviction and any appeal. NONE.

It was never about money. Another thing you got wrong.

[Lovethechild]

I also followed this case. IMO, Sharon probably filed this suit to see if, by chance, Scott would come clean and she could get some answers. And when that didn't happen, She dropped it. I feel for her. Hopefully, She can find some peace.

[joolz]

OR, frankly, I think they couldn't win another murder trial. Sharon Rocha would be spending her own money in a civil suit, and would have to foot the bill for yet another trial to prove Scott Peterson guilty, and I don't think it could be done. Back in the day when there was the raging crowd of torch bearing townspeople, the court frankly ignored that there was no evidence to prove him guilty. A jury today might notice that.

Could you provide a link to the torch-bearing townspeople please?

[StarShine]

It was dropped without prejudice, meaning she can bring the suit again if she so chooses in the future. If it was "with prejudice", she would be unable to.

[penguin01]

EXCERPT:

In his videotaped deposition for the civil trial, Peterson –- who is awaiting execution on San Quentin’s death row -- denied killing Laci Peterson, and asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination 195 times.

During the taping of that deposition, Scott Peterson also told the family’s attorneys that: "I love my wife… I love my son. I will always love them. I have always loved them. I should be able to hug them right now. I should be able to hold my son."

He also claimed in the deposition that he was the victim of a poorly handled police investigation.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/19334545/detail.html

"a poorly handled investigation"? That's sick, isn't it? He didn't try to find his wife and baby and he didn't try to help LE. He sure wasn't interested in hugging or loving them back then, was he? I guess absence makes the heart grow fond now. Or its just something to say besides taking the 5Th - must get boring after 195 times. Apparently he is still able to fool some people- even now. I'm sure glad the jury wasn't fooled.
I doubt a new jury would be fooled, but what is the point? The convicted murderer has nothing:no info, no money, not even an apology. Best to ignore him and move on. His time will come.

[SeaMaiden]

Could you provide a link to the torch-bearing townspeople please?


I was wondering where this information came from as well. I certainly don't remember anything like that happening. Maybe it's just another figment of an over-active imagination? LOL!

IMO

[Amy]

Thanks for posting this.

I found Scott's rants on his blog absolutely disgusting. Here's an idiotic sample:
"It is difficult to watch the press & others look to profit off of our loss & our emotions, & sell a story dishonoring my wife & son."

Funny thing, isn't it? He wasn't at all concerned with honoring his pregnant wife when he pretended to be be single, & then pursued Ms. Frey so avidly with champagne & roses.

He's still apparently totally delusional...

IMO

Oh, for Pete's sake!!! I have never, ever read ANYTHING from the press or anyone else that would "dishonor" his wife and son. The only person who did that was Scott Peterson himself. Oh, yeah, Lee and Jackie were doing a pretty good job of it, themselves. Even the Scott supporters don't dishonor Laci and Connor in their efforts to support him.

[Leanne Weich]

I guess it's easy to talk about loving and wanting to hold your wife and son when you've been sitting on death row for a while. I read he's now got a photo of Laci (and himself) in his cell. That's a change from when Vernon Crittendon (think that was his name) reported to one of the news outlets a while ago that he had no photos of Laci up in his cell. What's the bet he's found the Lord too ... so predictable, imo.

[Amy]

I haven't read Ann Bird's book I'll have to check on that. I did read the one written by....uuuhhhh...a news correspondant...DARN! I can't remember her name, but she covered the trial.

Thank You Foxglove for the tip!

CJ

Catherine Crier.

[Lady_Jean_La]

He is penniless anyway.Yes, nothing to be gained by continuing.

[SeaMaiden]

More nonsense from Peterson's blog:


This was posted by someone named "Brooks", who claimed to have visited the convicted murderer SP many times, for a total of over 200 hours (!). Here are a couple of Brooks' more ridiculous statements, followed with a little commentary of my own in parentheses.

"As a pastor & counselor, I have learned to see right through people." (Guess those x-ray vision glasses really DO work!)

"I have gained the ability to discover who someone really is on the inside." (Stop the presses! Why haven't I heard about this guy with these amazing super powers?)

"Scott & I have discussed just about every topic that I can think of, & I know who he really is." (Oh, come on now! You two have had conversations about quantum mechanics, the mating habits of endangered Japanese salamanders, the philosophy of Nietzsche, recent discoveries on Mars, & the current state of affairs in Tibet?)

"He is a good man that I am proud to be close to." (Ewwwwwww, I just thew up a little. SP a good man? Honestly? I seriously wonder what church this "pastor" belongs to, in which lying, womanizing, cheating, & murdering creates a "good man".)

I think that "Brooks" is either a total fabrication or else has no clue that he's become chummy with a sociopath.

IMO

[penguin01]

As I read. Where on earth do they find these people? What kind of minister or church does not require any apologies or regrets.... maybe even a little mea culpa before offering forgiveness and support. Even if they don't think he killed his wife and baby - they know that he did not try to help find them - busy as he was bamboozling his girlfriend at the time. Yuck - what an awful excuse for a human being Scott is. More details on that in Ann Bird's book.
And what a great job of total self delusion the supposed pastor and counsellor has created for himself, eh? No wonder he doesn't announce what church and where it is located.
Most informative post.

[SeaMaiden]

.........Or maybe it isn't.

If you sweet talk joolz, maybe he/she will let you cozy up and share the link I just posted.


I spent about 5 minutes searching the link you provided, but I could not find any evidence of "torch bearing townspeople", either written or photos.

Would you kindly tell me exactly where on the link this information is shown?

Thank you so much.

[Streetdreamer]

Yeah, I was disappointed the suit was dropped. I guess now the Rocha's wont object to Scott writing a book like OJ about his guilt and collect 4million to profit off his wife if he intends to do so.

Or perhaps the Rocha's dont have a winable case. Scott has had 6 years to prepare a defense and the Rocha's dont have the unlimited funds the State can use as they deem necessary. The Rocha's have to present a workable theory in which to say Scott is guilty, something in which I find to be impossible even with magic. Scott has been convicted by drumming up hatred and conspiracy theories in an effort to cover up a botched investigation that could've found Laci Peterson alive.

Law Enforcement has deemed that no man's innocence is as important as the general public's faith in the Criminal Justice System and their own gain.

[SeaMaiden]

That's 4.75 more minutes than you should have needed to spend had you been looking at the page with open eyes.

There's your obvious problem.

Sorry, still can't find any "torch bearing townspeople" on that link. Is it possible for you to please descibe *exactly* where you found this information?

TIA
IMO

[joolz]

I spent about 5 minutes searching the link you provided, but I could not find any evidence of "torch bearing townspeople", either written or photos.

Would you kindly tell me exactly where on the link this information is shown?

Thank you so much.

And you did it all by yourself without sweet talking me or "cozying up" (no idea at all what that post was about!)!:laugh: That's right, SeaMaiden, there is no, I repeat NO image of torch-bearing townspeople on that (jmo) excruciatingly boring link.

[Mandymax]

Isn't today Laci's birthday?

[joolz]

Do you and Joolz not know what that means? Maybe it's kind of an archaic phrase, and you may not have heard it before. When you hear that phrase, you don't look for actual torches. It's cliche. It means a very angry mop of locals - vigilantes - who sometimes become so enthusiastic and enraged they present a public health danger.

No, really? Wow! I had no idea! Thanks so much! :rolleyes:

Perhaps you could clarify what "public health danger" was presented?

[joolz]

When Scott Peterson was driven to court in the back of a car - by a sheriff's deputy or some official - the police guard in charge wondered publicly at one point if they could keep the crowd from becoming violent.

You can dismiss how the crowd behaved, and the violence they appeared to be prepared to use, but it happened. And it does sway the public opinion and can possibly taint the jury and court process.

You may not have followed the case closely at that time.

No need to be rude, or dismissive, joolz. The crowd was extremely angry, and large, and then changed mood to an embarrassing party atmosphere during the sentencing phase.

The Rochas couldn't have been comforted by THAT fiasco. Do you think?

I followed the case very closely, and I thought the crowd behavior was obnoxious at times, but I doubt that it was ever actually physically dangerous. Personally I thought the jubilation at the verdict was disgusting, even though I completely agree with the guilty verdict myself. And no, I don't think anything about that trial was comforting to the Rochas other than knowing that their murderous son-in-law was duly tried and found guilty.

As for being rude or dismissive, what was your comment about not knowing what torch mentality was if not snide or condescending? Because I don't believe for one moment that you thought the original reference was mystifying to me or the OP. jmo

[hiitsme]

I personally cheered in the privacy of my own home when the verdict was read. The crowd's over zealous reaction may have been in part due to the seemingly unjust verdicts in California's recent past. In any event, I can only say that I hope the Rocha's decision to not go forward with the civil suit is a very personal one which will eliminate further heartache as I'm sure their lives have returned to some semblance of normalcy since Scott was sent to death row. Sharon Rocha has been the epitome of a class act and continues to keep the memory of her daughter and grandson alive in an honest dignified manner.

[penguin01]

Yeah, I was disappointed the suit was dropped. I guess now the Rocha's wont object to Scott writing a book like OJ about his guilt and collect 4million to profit off his wife if he intends to do so.

Or perhaps the Rocha's dont have a winable case. Scott has had 6 years to prepare a defense and the Rocha's dont have the unlimited funds the State can use as they deem necessary. The Rocha's have to present a workable theory in which to say Scott is guilty, something in which I find to be impossible even with magic. Scott has been convicted by drumming up hatred and conspiracy theories in an effort to cover up a botched investigation that could've found Laci Peterson alive.

Law Enforcement has deemed that no man's innocence is as important as the general public's faith in the Criminal Justice System and their own gain. LOL -Too funny; Just imagine - if you are right - how quickly they could have found her if Scott had felt like helping, eh? But between golf and his girlfriend - well he was just not interested was he? But he knew she was dead when she left the house, so what would be the point? You really are a dreamer, aren't you?

[penguin01]

When Scott Peterson was driven to court in the back of a car - by a sheriff's deputy or some official - the police guard in charge wondered publicly at one point if they could keep the crowd from becoming violent.

You can dismiss how the crowd behaved, and the violence they appeared to be prepared to use, but it happened. And it does sway the public opinion and can possibly taint the jury and court process.

You may not have followed the case closely at that time.

No need to be rude, or dismissive, joolz. The crowd was extremely angry, and large, and then changed mood to an embarrassing party atmosphere during the sentencing phase.

The Rochas couldn't have been comforted by THAT fiasco. Do you think?
I imagine some of these people had been part of large (respectful) crowds that he been holding vigils for Lacy and Connor - while Scott was skulking around the fringes telling his girlfriend he was in Paris. Really makes people mad when they hear about stuff like that. But just like the protesters at Casey Anthony's house were rude and out of line and they were wrong to behave so .... it doesn't make it any more or less likely that the "Totmom" killed her baby.
They will rejoice when she is convicted..... which is tasteless, but doesn't mean that she shouldn't be convicted.
I'm sure the Rocha's were NOT comforted - but they could understand.

[joolz]

Well, I didn't believe for one moment you were actually hoping for a link showing torch bearing townspeople.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Joolz.

:rolleyes: I'll try my best.

[hiitsme]

I imagine some of these people had been part of large (respectful) crowds that he been holding vigils for Lacy and Connor - while Scott was skulking around the fringes telling his girlfriend he was in Paris. Really makes people mad when they hear about stuff like that. But just like the protesters at Casey Anthony's house were rude and out of line and they were wrong to behave so .... it doesn't make it any more or less likely that the "Totmom" killed her baby.
They will rejoice when she is convicted..... which is tasteless, but doesn't mean that she shouldn't be convicted.
I'm sure the Rocha's were NOT comforted - but they could understand.

Love your posts. You are so commonsensical? Human nature is a funny thing and very unpredictable at times!

[LisaM22]

I didn't say he wasn't guilty. There isn't enough evidence, in court, to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury decided to convict him anyway.

I think if he had a normal, respectable well-behaved lawyer in court, and a jury that wasn't bent on convicting him no matter what, and no angry mobs and 24/7 news coverage, he probably wouldn't have been found guilty. Because there isn't any evidence.

I'm not going to be donating to any funds for him.

I agree with you, a death enabled jury found him guilty and ordered him to be killed, I think he probably killed her too, but the evidence was not there for a dp, the sentance should of been lwop, he will get a new trial at some point imo

[SeaMaiden]

Do you and Joolz not know what that means? Maybe it's kind of an archaic phrase, and you may not have heard it before. When you hear that phrase, you don't look for actual torches. It's a cliche. It means a very angry mop of locals - vigilantes - who sometimes become so enthusiastic and enraged they present a public health danger.


Gee, when I hear the phrase "torch bearing townspeople", I actually look for torches. Otherwise the townspeople would just be an angry mob or a furious crowd or a mad multitude or a disorderly assembly. Or possibly a "very angy *mop* of locals" (sic). LOL!

Posts need to be precisely worded. Provide an accurate & true link, or else state that it's just your own opinion. I believe that's the rule around here.

IMO

[Slip Jigs]

I agree with you, a death enabled jury found him guilty and ordered him to be killed, I think he probably killed her too, but the evidence was not there for a dp, the sentance should of been lwop, he will get a new trial at some point imo

Thank you for acknowledging that a death-qualified jury is more likely to convict despite the evidence.

But out of curiosity, if you think he did it, then don't you agree that there was a special circumstance that warrants death? Or, do you feel it may have been a 2nd degree situation?

[tomsgirl]

I personally cheered in the privacy of my own home when the verdict was read. The crowd's over zealous reaction may have been in part due to the seemingly unjust verdicts in California's recent past. In any event, I can only say that I hope the Rocha's decision to not go forward with the civil suit is a very personal one which will eliminate further heartache as I'm sure their lives have returned to some semblance of normalcy since Scott was sent to death row. Sharon Rocha has been the epitome of a class act and continues to keep the memory of her daughter and grandson alive in an honest dignified manner.

Cindy Anthony needs to take lessons from Sharon Rocha. That is one real person and I would hope that in that situation that I could act like her(NOT LIKE CINDY ANTHONY) who is a big joke in the public eye.

[LisaM22]

Thank you for acknowledging that a death-qualified jury is more likely to convict despite the evidence.

But out of curiosity, if you think he did it, then don't you agree that there was a special circumstance that warrants death? Or, do you feel it may have been a 2nd degree situation?

no, I think he probably killed her, not that he did 100% for sure kill her, I think the way the dp is set up is your suppose to be surer then 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - dp is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst, lwop would be just the punishment for him imo

as for the death-qualified jury, I would not want a death-qualified jury if I was on trial for a crime I was innocent of - just my two cents, your basically asking the jurors if they could kill the defendant before the trial even starts, that is just not right

[Slip Jigs]

no, I think he probably killed her, not that he did 100% for sure kill her, I think the way the dp is set up is your suppose to be surer then 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - dp is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst, lwop would be just the punishment for him imo

as for the death-qualified jury, I would not want a death-qualified jury if I was on trial for a crime I was innocent of - just my two cents, your basically asking the jurors if they could kill the defendant before the trial even starts, that is just not right

That's what was referred to as "lingering doubt" during the penalty phase - that small space between reasonable doubt and absolute surety.

I can sort of understand why the jury felt that gullt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean I agree. But I can't understand why there was no lingering doubt in their minds - the facts that were presented surely didn't prove guilt to that degree. Apparetnly they didn't understand these subtle nuances.

[Details]

The facts were enough for proof, well beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond unreasonable doubts even - I have to bring space aliens into it to get any scenario that works.

Pregnant wife disappears, is found right where her husband secretly went when she disappeared with a secret boat and a secret fishing pass for just that day bought in advance. When police are searching that spot, husband goes out there - showing he obviously knows they're looking in the right spot, months before they find a trace of her there.

That's more than enough evidence to be sure. The rest of it is useful for motive, confirmation, etc. - but that alone covers it.

To explain that - you have to assume somehow the killers accidentally or deliberately dump the body where the husband was - accidentally is a billions to one chance, deliberately means they go somewhere swarming with police, with divers and sonar boats searching, watched by hundreds of curious onlookers, as their spot to dump the body. Then you have to figure out why the husband goes there to watch the police - were he innocent, he'd believe that to be a false lead, would not be there, would be at other search locations - you need space aliens to plant some false memories or something else equally improbable to explain that.

[Shelby1]

A tad off topic, here, but does anyone know if an execution date has been set for SP yet? I know there are a lot of appeals that have to be gone through.

[JohnBJr]

Details - I really respect your opinions, and read your stuff when you post because you have something to say that I'd like to know.

On this case, I don't agree with you.


1. Laci's body washed up with a bag that had been used for construction at the base of a bridge, .....
2. As much as people state that you can dump a weighted body off a john boat without tipping the john boat, I'd sure pay good money to see it done. And I'd like to see a body loaded into the John boat while people laughed at the boat owner and guilt - was visibly surprised when she introduced the pawn ticket on her show.

I don't care for Scott Peterson. I don't necessarily think he is innocent - but I believe if he killed Laci, they have NO idea how he did it and the path he took to dispose of her remains - because it sure wasn't in that John boat.

His guilt or innocence is not really what I'm here in this thread discussing, but rather, the very frightening trial where he was convicted with MORE than enough reasonable doubt.

I'm sitting here watching the exodus from Texas prisons of innocent men who were convicted with more evidence against them than snickered at how inexperienced he was with launching the boat - but they didn't notice a woman's dead body.

3. There is no way the burglars across the street were telling the truth about when they robbed the house - in fact, they were there at the time Laci disappeared.

4. Amber Frey was no motive to kill Laci. Scott had no intention of doing anything with her besides having casual sex. He certainly wasn't planning to spend his life with her.

5. Why was the pawn ticket with the croton watch, pawned by the daughter in law of the man with the tan van, not allowed at trial? .....



1. Laci's body didn't wash up inside the construction bag. the bag was found nearby, along with a lot of other debris. And the current near Richmond Point don't always run from bridge. Recall that Laci washed ashore during a strong storm, when current flow and direction are changed by prevailing winds, which often arrive from the south.
2. It's not like you have doubts about the plausiblity of Scott dumping the body into the water because you yourself have attempted to replicate the manuever. It just doesn't seem plausible to you. No one suggests he lifted the body waste level and them tossed it over the side. He could have simply hoisted it a few inches from the boat and slowly pushed/shoved it over the side into the water. He probably had the wrapped body in the bottom of the boat when he arrived at the marina. No one has ever suggested that the passersby who snickered at this lousy parking and boat unhooking technique from a distance actually walked over and visually inspected the contents of the boat.
3. Ah, the infamous house burglars and their dark-skinned accomplices. You purport not to know for certain of Scott's guilt or innocence, yet join the ranks of the ScottIsInnocent crowd by suggesting these might conceivably be the ones who confronted, kidnapped, murdered Laci, then took her all the way to the bay to dump her and frame her hapless husband. Your reference to it smacks of desperation.
4. I agree with you on this one.
5. Was it ever established that the pawned Croton watch was definitively Laci's?

There are only two possbile scenarios in this case. (1) Either Scott murdered Laci and Connor and dumped their bodies in the bay on 12/24/02, or (2) other persons found a way to forcibly kidnap a feisty and very pregnant young lady without alerting the neigbors and then set out on a grand, risky, and extremely complicated scheme to personally frame the husband for the crime (as opposed to just dropping her in a ditch on a nearby deserted country road). The fact that the husband who evidenced no real human concern for his "missing" wife and son before their bodies were found seems to be adjusting quite well to life on death row and, more importantly. has been corresponding with women convicted of murderering their spouses speak volumes to me. Some might suggest he wants to uncover (ala OJ) some statewide ring of criminals who sucessfully frame those convicted of spousal murder. I'm inclined to believe he feels a bond and kinship with those who share his sociopathy and homicidal nature and have committed the same type of crime he did.

[Slip Jigs]

The facts were enough for proof, well beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond unreasonable doubts even - I have to bring space aliens into it to get any scenario that works.

Pregnant wife disappears, is found right where her husband secretly went when she disappeared with a secret boat and a secret fishing pass for just that day bought in advance. When police are searching that spot, husband goes out there - showing he obviously knows they're looking in the right spot, months before they find a trace of her there.

That's more than enough evidence to be sure. The rest of it is useful for motive, confirmation, etc. - but that alone covers it.

To explain that - you have to assume somehow the killers accidentally or deliberately dump the body where the husband was - accidentally is a billions to one chance, deliberately means they go somewhere swarming with police, with divers and sonar boats searching, watched by hundreds of curious onlookers, as their spot to dump the body. Then you have to figure out why the husband goes there to watch the police - were he innocent, he'd believe that to be a false lead, would not be there, would be at other search locations - you need space aliens to plant some false memories or something else equally improbable to explain that.

1. The bodies wouldn't necessary have to be dumped at the same time searches were in progress. I think it most likely took place very close to the time they were discovered. If Scott was supposed to have done it without being seen, then why not someone else?
2. There were many other sites that were being searched besides the bay, including other bodies of water. Scott went to those sites as well.

[bookie]

A tad off topic, here, but does anyone know if an execution date has been set for SP yet? I know there are a lot of appeals that have to be gone through.

An execution date wouldn't be set until all appeals have run their course.

[hiitsme]

1. The bodies wouldn't necessary have to be dumped at the same time searches were in progress. I think it most likely took place very close to the time they were discovered. If Scott was supposed to have done it without being seen, then why not someone else?
2. There were many other sites that were being searched besides the bay, including other bodies of water. Scott went to those sites as well.

This trial had all the elements to keep a captivated audience, but it was never a whodunnit in my view. The overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence put the murderer on death row. Those who selectively hang their hats on baseless defense theories will believe in Peterson's innocence until the fat lady sings. Everyone is entitled to their opinions!

[Slip Jigs]

This trial had all the elements to keep a captivated audience, but it was never a whodunnit in my view. The overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence put the murderer on death row. Those who selectively hang their hats on baseless defense theories will believe in Peterson's innocence until the fat lady sings. Everyone is entitled to their opinions!

If I may ask, how is your editorial relevant to the post which you have quoted?

[hiitsme]

If I may ask, how is your editorial relevant to the post which you have quoted?

Oops, it doesn't. I pressed the wrong key before stating my opinion. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

[Slip Jigs]

Oops, it doesn't. I pressed the wrong key before stating my opinion. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

No problemo. Besides, having been involved in so many discussions and debates over the years on this topic, it takes a lot more to offend.

[hiitsme]

No problemo. Besides, having been involved in so many discussions and debates over the years on this topic, it takes a lot more to offend.

I guess we all digressed a bit since the title of this thread is about the Rocha's dropping the civil suit!

[JohnBJr]

What are you talking about?

People are abducted every single day without a single trace or witness.

Grand, risky, complicated scheme for somebody other than Peterson?? How do you figure??? Did the MPD have everyone in Modesto under surveillance?

Grand, risky and complicated would have been the prosecution's ridiculous scenario.

imo.

True, people are abducted not infrequently, but there is usually some reasonable motive to the abduction, as in the case of child kidnappings by non-custodial parents or by stranger pedophiles, or kidnapping for ransom. Abductions by serial killers are still actually rather rare ooccurrences.

But who kidnaps a very pregnant woman, murders her and her unborn child, then waits to find out where the unwealthy and unfamous husband was at the time of the kidnapping (at the office, a movie, or alone on SF bay) for the express purpose of transporting the bodies and planting them there to frame him with no chance of financial gain? Can you cite a similar case in American criminal history?

[LisaM22]

You're assuming too much here. You're assuming that a separate killer (serial killer, person who hit her with a car and is covering his crime because he has a criminal record, person who she saw robbing the house, etc.) didn't randomly select to dump her in the bay.

There were three OTHER sets of remains in the bay found during the search. Bodies of water are VERY common places to dump dead bodies. It isn't clear at all that she was placed in the bay where Scott Peterson was - she was probably placed in the bay where the Target sack was. Under the bridge.

How many bodies surface, or never surface, and no one ever figures out the motive or killer for the death? Too many to count.

It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that's what happened to her- something unknown. (Obviously it was something unknown in Laci's case no matter how you view the murder, the prosecution didn't even attempt a cause of death. No one knows, despite exhaustive search, how she died. They just insist they know who killed her, again despite any evidence).

You're really overthinking this, John. You're assuming too much and not just imagining the simplest explanation. Occam's razor.

all good counter points and all possible, we just don't know, all we know is scott is the most likely suspect, we do not have the proof that says he is 100% guilty, definitely not the proof needed to kill the man

[JohnBJr]

You're assuming too much here. You're assuming that a separate killer (serial killer, person who hit her with a car and is covering his crime because he has a criminal record, person who she saw robbing the house, etc.) didn't randomly select to dump her in the bay.

There were three OTHER sets of remains in the bay found during the search. Bodies of water are VERY common places to dump dead bodies. It isn't clear at all that she was placed in the bay where Scott Peterson was - she was probably placed in the bay where the Target sack was. Under the bridge.

How many bodies surface, or never surface, and no one ever figures out the motive or killer for the death? Too many to count.

It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that's what happened to her- something unknown. (Obviously it was something unknown in Laci's case no matter how you view the murder, the prosecution didn't even attempt a cause of death. No one knows, despite exhaustive search, how she died. They just insist they know who killed her, again despite any evidence).

You're really overthinking this, John. You're assuming too much and not just imagining the simplest explanation. Occam's razor.

No, I'm all for going with the simplest explanation: that the cheating husband chose to kill his pregnant wife and dumped her in the bay on his 12/24/02 fishing trip. It's the stranger abduction/murder scenario that introduces untold layers of complexity into this murder. In other words, there is no simple, straightforward scenario for strangers to have abducted and murdered Laci and dumped her so close to the site of Scott's fishing expedition.

[hiitsme]

Oh well, as others have said, this case will be debated until Scott meets his maker. While I find absolutely no reasonable doubt here, I still have yet to hear the "facts" that Mark Geragos was to bring forth to show that Scott Peterson was, in his words, "cold stone innocent."
Since those words came out of his mouth, I see a more subsued, humble Mr. Geragos.

[SeaMaiden]

Rachel, it was very kind of you to educate SeaMaiden on what is pretty elementary, to most of us. :thumbup:

Yes, it's clear as mud: "a very angry mop of locals". LOL!
Great job clearing that one up...
Sounds more like the new ad campaign for "Swiffer".
Too funny!

IMO

[margaritaville]

I didn't say he wasn't guilty. There isn't enough evidence, in court, to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury decided to convict him anyway.

I think if he had a normal, respectable well-behaved lawyer in court, and a jury that wasn't bent on convicting him no matter what, and no angry mobs and 24/7 news coverage, he probably wouldn't have been found guilty. Because there isn't any evidence. I'm not going to be donating to any funds for him.

Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence you can have..
It ties everything together.. It is brought into a case through testimony of witness's and experts.
So to say there was "no evidence" in this case is absurd...
Direct evidence (eye witness, ect) has been proven to be very inaccurate. Maybe you need to school yourself on this before making such idiotic statements. Just because there wasn't a video tape of the murder for you to watch while eating your popcorn, doesn't mean there wasn't evidence.
There was mounds of evidence (which I am not going to go through now) which makes me think you did not follow the trial..
and if you did you didn't comprehend what actually transpired in those weeks in the court room.....

MOO

[Leanne Weich]

Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence you can have..
It ties everything together.. It is brought into a case through testimony of witness's and experts.
So to say there was "no evidence" in this case is absurd...
Direct evidence (eye witness, ect) has been proven to be very inaccurate. Maybe you need to school yourself on this before making such idiotic statements. Just because there wasn't a video tape of the murder for you to watch while eating your popcorn, doesn't mean there wasn't evidence.
There was mounds of evidence (which I am not going to go through now) which makes me think you did not follow the trial..
and if you did you didn't comprehend what actually transpired in those weeks in the court room.....

MOO

Great post. A DA I know says he'd rather have a strong circumstantial case than one with iffy CE and an eye witness.

[penguin01]

If there is a date set for an appeal or if he gets a new trial or something y'all can start up all the old "scott is innocent" arguments again. For the time being most of us are more than satisfied: he is a convicted murderer on death row and that has not changed.

[Slip Jigs]

True, people are abducted not infrequently, but there is usually some reasonable motive to the abduction, as in the case of child kidnappings by non-custodial parents or by stranger pedophiles, or kidnapping for ransom. Abductions by serial killers are still actually rather rare ooccurrences.

But who kidnaps a very pregnant woman, murders her and her unborn child, then waits to find out where the unwealthy and unfamous husband was at the time of the kidnapping (at the office, a movie, or alone on SF bay) for the express purpose of transporting the bodies and planting them there to frame him with no chance of financial gain? Can you cite a similar case in American criminal history?

Hi John - I've heard this said before, that financial gain would have to be the motive for framing. Suppose Scott was wealthy at the time - how would that even work?

The main purpose, IMO, to frame someone else would be to eliminate the possibility of yourself being looked at or found out - nothing to do with money.

[JohnBJr]

Hi John - I've heard this said before, that financial gain would have to be the motive for framing. Suppose Scott was wealthy at the time - how would that even work?

The main purpose, IMO, to frame someone else would be to eliminate the possibility of yourself being looked at or found out - nothing to do with money.

We've all heard that theory before, that the "real killers" transported Laci 90 miles from Modesto to the bay so they could dump here there, frame Scott, and thereby reduce the risk of getting caught. Seems to me it would have been a lot simpler and faster for them to dump Laci late at night in a ditch off some rural road just outside Modesto. The longer they held onto her, dead or alive, the greater the risks.

[JohnBJr]

John the problem is "dumped her in the bay on his 12/24/02 fishing trip" is not the simplest explanation. In fact it makes no sense when you consider:

The small boat most likely would have capsized given the weight of the body and alleged attached weights.

It makes no sense that Scott would try and pull this next to impossible scenario in the middle of the day at a public marina.

It makes no sense he would tell police exactly where he was if he dumped a body there.

Why did he call Laci on his way home and NOT leave a message??

1) Perhaps, but I've yet to see absolute, definitive real-world simulated proof that he couldn't have pulled it off.
2) It was a cold and rainy weekday and the marina was all but deserted.
3) He knew he was observed there and was concerned those witnesses might contradict him if he chose another alibi. Ironically, none of those witnesses were ever located.
4) He did leave a message for Laci in which he told her he was coming back and loved her very much. Hallmark later made it into a greeting card.

[penguin01]

1) Perhaps, but I've yet to see absolute, definitive real-world simulated proof that he couldn't have pulled it off.
2) It was a cold and rainy weekday and the marina was all but deserted.
3) He knew he was observed there and was concerned those witnesses might contradict him if he chose another alibi. Ironically, none of those witnesses were ever located.
4) He did leave a message for Laci in which he told her he was coming back and loved her very much. Hallmark later made it into a greeting card.

Yuck - you gotta be kidding! A last message to his (already dead) wife from a murderer -memorialized as a Hallmark card?

[Slip Jigs]

We've all heard that theory before, that the "real killers" transported Laci 90 miles from Modesto to the bay so they could dump here there, frame Scott, and thereby reduce the risk of getting caught. Seems to me it would have been a lot simpler and faster for them to dump Laci late at night in a ditch off some rural road just outside Modesto. The longer they held onto her, dead or alive, the greater the risks.

In any other situation I would agree totally. But here, the variable was that Scott placed himself at the Bay - and that by that time, he was public enemy number 1. For the bodies to turn up at the Bay would guarantee Scott's arrest, any other place would actually point away from him.

[Slip Jigs]

You keep saying "frame Scott".

I don't think anyone framed Scott. He either did this, or someone else did, and they chose a pretty obvious dumping area for her remains - the bay, which was only 90 miles away.

Some people are so brash they just dump bodies on the side of the road - and some travel and hide the evidence as best they can (Danielle van Dam comes to mind).

You don't have to look at this ONLY one way - that Scott either did it, or someone hatched a twisted and elaborate diabolical plan to make it look like he did it. It could be a coincidence, and not really a terribly striking one, since in fact they DIDN'T find her remains where they were looking, at all.

Good point Rachel, but while possible, I think it would be too much of a coincidence if it were not intentional.

[Details]

1) Perhaps, but I've yet to see absolute, definitive real-world simulated proof that he couldn't have pulled it off.
2) It was a cold and rainy weekday and the marina was all but deserted.
3) He knew he was observed there and was concerned those witnesses might contradict him if he chose another alibi. Ironically, none of those witnesses were ever located.
4) He did leave a message for Laci in which he told her he was coming back and loved her very much. Hallmark later made it into a greeting card.Don't forget - he tried to use another alibi. If the police hadn't noticed the fishing pass, he likely would have continued with the golf story he told the neighbors.

[Details]

In any other situation I would agree totally. But here, the variable was that Scott placed himself at the Bay - and that by that time, he was public enemy number 1. For the bodies to turn up at the Bay would guarantee Scott's arrest, any other place would actually point away from him.The other variable - the police, the public, everyone was watching that bay from day 1. The day Scott was out there, it was just a bay, and it was Christmas - no one was much interested in looking at it. After that point - it was a hotspot for the police and for everyone interested in the hot story of the day, the missing pregnant woman that was in every paper, top story everywhere - every curious person, every amateur sleuth (and we had plenty of those) was looking at that bay.


Worst place in the world to dump a body, unless you really wanted to get caught in the middle of it.

[Details]

Unless you'd already done it, by the time the story broke.Nope. The police knew within hours - and how is the 'real killer' supposed to know until the story breaks? How did they know where SP was?

[Details]

This is getting frustrating.

Why would someone who killed Laci, and wanted to destroy her body need to know where Scott Peterson was that day, in order to dump her remains in a common place for people to dump remains?

Why does everyone think that if you question that Scott killed Laci, the only alternative is that someone else killed her and tried to frame Scott? How about, someone else killed her, and dumped her body in the bay, having no clue who Scott Peterson even was.

It's a slight chance, and I'm not necessarily advocating it, but it is possible. Do you think the other three bodies dumped in the bay were also there to frame Scott? No. Some people just dump remains there. A lot of people, turns out.It's not some major body magnet, it's a long way away from where Laci was, and along the way there, there are MANY other great places to dump a body, many other bodies of water, many other more isolated places.

The odds of a killer purely randomly choosing this one place to dump a body, such a long distance away, out of all the multitude of places they could have chose, and it being the same place Scott went supposedly fishing - they are astronomical. It's not that common a place, and it's not close. Think of how many places there are in a 90 mile radius that it could be. Hundreds of thousands of places in a 90 mile radius, and just by pure coincidence he picks the same spot?

[JohnBJr]

This is getting frustrating.

Why would someone who killed Laci, and wanted to destroy her body need to know where Scott Peterson was that day, in order to dump her remains in a common place for people to dump remains?

Why does everyone think that if you question that Scott killed Laci, the only alternative is that someone else killed her and tried to frame Scott? How about, someone else killed her, and dumped her body in the bay, having no clue who Scott Peterson even was.

It's a slight chance, and I'm not necessarily advocating it, but it is possible. Do you think the other three bodies dumped in the bay were also there to frame Scott? No. Some people just dump remains there. A lot of people, turns out.

We get it. You think it's possible the "real murderers" chose to drive the 90 miles from Modesto to the Bay Area with no thought of framing Scott, with probably no awareness he had been fishing off the Berkeley Marina, and it's simply coincidence that they dropped her in the same body of water. Given the number of possible sites there are for dumping a body within a 90-mile radius of Modesto (this includes a lot of deep irrigation and water canals and very large reservoirs all within 30 miles), their choice of the Richmond Bridge or any other SF bay site seems extremely unlikely, incredibly coiincidental, and - dare I say it again - must riskier than a canal or reservoir dump. I can just imagine the conversation of the burglars-become-murderers in the brown van: "Why drop her of here in this isolated canal next to Highway 5 when we can drive through heavy traffic for another hour or two and do it in a much more populated area?"

And your repeated references to the other three bodies are misleading. Several were dumped off San Francisco, one by the boyfriend of the murder victim. I don't buy the "serial killer(s) who roamed the state and dumped their murder victims in the bay" scenario. Bodies of missing women have been turning up in the bay since the mid 19th century. I'd wager almost all of those unfortunate victims were murdered within 10 miles of the dump site. Except, for course, for the case of Laci Peterson, who was murdered by her husband in their home in Modesto.

[JohnBJr]

Irrigation ditches are extremely ineffective places to dump bodies. You may as well just put them by the side of the road.

Why do you think most of the women were murdered within 10 miles of the bay, whose remains showed up in the bay? Why would you think something like that - besides just a complete guess?

This would be an interesting study, and Ill try to look it up. Of those bodies who have been dumped in the bay, where did they originate.


I made no mention of "irrigation ditches," which brings to mind narrow and shallow dirt-enclosed bodies of water. Have you ever seen those wide and deep cement-lined canals and water reservoirs that crisscross the central valley, during California's rainy season when the water levels and volumes are high? I can't conceive of anyone passing those by to pick a much more distant and populated body of water.

[aproudmom]

all good counter points and all possible, we just don't know, all we know is scott is the most likely suspect, we do not have the proof that says he is 100% guilty, definitely not the proof needed to kill the man

What? he is on DR 12 people sent him there..I have no doubt he killed his wife and unborn child..I know they put away innocent people everyday but this one nah he is just where he belongs

[joolz]

This is getting frustrating.

Why would someone who killed Laci, and wanted to destroy her body need to know where Scott Peterson was that day, in order to dump her remains in a common place for people to dump remains?

Why does everyone think that if you question that Scott killed Laci, the only alternative is that someone else killed her and tried to frame Scott? How about, someone else killed her, and dumped her body in the bay, having no clue who Scott Peterson even was.

It's a slight chance, and I'm not necessarily advocating it, but it is possible. Do you think the other three bodies dumped in the bay were also there to frame Scott? No. Some people just dump remains there. A lot of people, turns out.


(Bolding is mine). Earlier in the thread IIRC you referenced Occam's Razor, and now you give a hypothetical that is the antithesis of it. Just a few questions for your hypo:

WHO? Who would this mysterious "someone else" who killed her be and. . .

WHY? Again, IIRC, Laci did not wear the Croton watch that you say was never accurately identified, so that seems to let out the idea that some random thief/killer jumped her in the park (and there was NO evidence of any stranger in the house) to steal from her and then hauled her body 90 miles away. And. . .

ANOTHER WHY? A stranger, a thief, an accidental death during the commission of an assault and - since you are "kind of into statistics and probability" - you think there is how much chance of that perp taking the victim's body 90 miles away? What exactly are those statistics?

Sorry you think this thread is getting frustrating, but your Agatha Christie scenarios (loaded with mystery fiction coincidences), your insistence that they are actual possibilities and your dismissal of the due process that put Peterson where he is seem to put you in the position of finding the logical arguments frustrating.

Occam's Razor is correct in this case, and Occam's Razor dictates that the likeliest and most Point A to Point B answer is the right one: the right person is on death row. jmo

[joolz]

WHO? I don't know. I don't know "who" kidnapped a lot of people who are still missing, or whose bodies have been found but no charges have ever been filed, because they are unsolved. The fact that you don't know WHO might have snatched her is a little irrelevant.

WHY? I don't know. Maybe for her jewelry, maybe because they think she saw something, maybe they wanted her baby but killed her in the process of trying to take him, maybe because they hit her with a car and dragged her inside the car as happened last week with a woman who hit an elderly woman with her car and then made off with the poor woman to hide her crime. I don't know. Could be anything.

Statistics certainly point to Scott. So that's where you look first. When that doesn't pan out, or others come into the picture that are also possibilities, you have to consider that. Statistical likelihood gives you a really good place to start - but you don't end there, and you don't reject other possibilities when there is reasonable doubt.

I don't understand people who aren't at all open to thinking this thru. Because that's what's got so many innocent men in prison for all their lives in Texas. Refusal to really look, and think, that maybe the accused is telling the truth. Keep looking at this case, for a piece of irrefutable evidence that seals the deal is the job of the jury, not just to decide he probably did it and if he didn't then WHO did? That's not up to the jury to have to know WHO killed her, to find that there is reasonable doubt that Peterson did it. Failure of the imagination, is what has put so many innocent guys away.

And I don't understand why you think so many people failed to think this case through. You certainly aren't the only person who followed this case who has the intellectual capacity to think outside of the box. And there certainly are plenty of cases where the wrong person was convicted - for many reasons, and not just failure of imagination - but I don't believe this is one of them.

What are the other possibilities that you believe weren't investigated? The "maybes" that you offer don't constitute anything resembling reasonable doubt; they are even vaguer than the satanists or the homeless people or the folks in the brown van. All of which, BTW, proved to be either imaginary or uninvolved with this case.

Failure of imagination is not the same thing as thin-air "maybes" that have no basis in fact. jmo

[joolz]

I think very few people in the general public thought this one through at all, joolz. Maybe you did - I don't know your position well enough. I'm sure you could still find the general population thinks there was blood on the mop.

Is your position more: "All in all, I really believe he's guilty. There are few pieces of this case that are a little confusing, and there is not forensic evidence that he killed her. But I believe strongly that he did based on all the elements in this case".

OR, is your position more "OH COME ON!! This is so obvious any idiot can see it, and only stupid people with no brains in their heads have any doubt that he's a murdering monster".

(Honestly, that last quote is not an exaggeration of what people say, I'm not trying to make fun, it seems a dominant position.)

So. Where in those two do you stand?


*remembers having real trouble with the evidence in the Yogurt Shop murders of 4 teenage girls, feels like this case*

All in all I believe strongly that he killed his wife and disposed of her body. I believe he is a murdering monster but I don't believe that only stupid people don't see it that way. What I do believe is that there was never one single real shred of evidence that pointed to anyone other than Scott Peterson as the killer. I have personal issues about the death penalty, although I'm not always against it; personally, I don't think this was truly a death penalty case and , imo, it's in that jury decision that emotion may have played a role - but not in the guilty verdict.

FYI, I'm one of the people who never believed that Cynthia Sommers was guilty, and it took a lot to convince me that Melanie McGuire was in fact guilty (although I did wind up convinced of her guilt). OTOH, I think that Mary Winkler is guilty as sin and got off with a ridiculous slap on the wrist. You didn't really ask about all that stuff but perhaps after reading my response you'll give me a little more credence in the future when/if we disagree on cases.

I really have no idea why the yogurt shop murders remind you of this case. :confused:

[SKARDYKAT]

Maybe it pays the family to wait for the criminal court case to be determined before filing for wrongful death. Maybe then Peterson's penalty could have been entered as evidence. I am assuming that is why they dropped it.
Same goes for Cristopher Coleman's in-laws. Right now he is considered innocent and would be considered so in the civil suit.

[Leanne Weich]

Maybe it pays the family to wait for the criminal court case to be determined before filing for wrongful death. Maybe then Peterson's penalty could have been entered as evidence. I am assuming that is why they dropped it.
Same goes for Cristopher Coleman's in-laws. Right now he is considered innocent and would be considered so in the civil suit.

In the Michelle Young case, Michelle's mom just won a civil judgment in excess of @15 000 000 against her husband even though he has not even been arrested yet. Admittedly, it was by default because he failed to respond to the wrongful death suit. I don't think the fact that the civil court found he slayed Michelle will be admissible when and if he is arrested and tried.

[fiver]

Skardykat, the criminal court case was determined, and Scott Peterson was judged guilty.

The civil judge in this pending civil case refused to accept that finding of guilt, and required that the civil jury ALSO find him guilty.

I think the Rocha family will probably refile, hoping they will get a judge who will accept the original jury finding of guilty.

I really hope that doesn't happen, though. I hope and pray that somehow another jury looks at this case, with a lawyer who isn't a total clown like Geragos. This verdict, in my opinion, is completely up in the air.
Statutes of Limitations has tolled precluding them from refiling.

[vonna]

WHO? I don't know. I don't know "who" kidnapped a lot of people who are still missing, or whose bodies have been found but no charges have ever been filed, because they are unsolved. The fact that you don't know WHO might have snatched her is a little irrelevant.

WHY? I don't know. Maybe for her jewelry, maybe because they think she saw something, maybe they wanted her baby but killed her in the process of trying to take him, maybe because they hit her with a car and dragged her inside the car as happened last week with a woman who hit an elderly woman with her car and then made off with the poor woman to hide her crime. I don't know. Could be anything.

Statistics certainly point to Scott. So that's where you look first. When that doesn't pan out, or others come into the picture that are also possibilities, you have to consider that. Statistical likelihood gives you a really good place to start - but you don't end there, and you don't reject other possibilities when there is reasonable doubt.

I don't understand people who aren't at all open to thinking this thru. Because that's what's got so many innocent men in prison for all their lives in Texas. Refusal to really look, and think, that maybe the accused is telling the truth. Keep looking at this case, for a piece of irrefutable evidence that seals the deal is the job of the jury, not just to decide he probably did it and if he didn't then WHO did? That's not up to the jury to have to know WHO killed her, to find that there is reasonable doubt that Peterson did it. Failure of the imagination, is what has put so many innocent guys away.

It always amazes me to see how far people will go and what scenarios they will create in order to avoid facing the facts