View Single Post
Old 09-03-2005, 06:07 PM
Dewlilly Dewlilly is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SC, USA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Your question really has two meanings. Why is Scott factually not guilty, and why is Scott legally not guilty?
Factually not guilty? Well, no one can prove that. But, I can tell you why I believe he is factually not guilty.
The MPD conducted a very thorough investigation intended to prove Scott murdered Laci:
1. 3 searches of the home. The first the same night Laci disappeared. The police were in that home and secured it within an hour after she was reported missing. They did 4 walk-throughs, examined the house for any signs of a crime, and the tech ID officer used an alternate light source to check for blood. All items collected as evidence tested NEGATIVE.
The second search was Dec 26-27, and included the FBI. Luminol tests were performed on anything that looked the least bit suspicious. A cadaver dog was in the home, but did not alert, even though the Prosecutors said she was likely murdered on the night of the 23rd, and thus would have been several hours in the home before being removed. The trailing dog could not trail Laci from the house to the warehouse, where the Prosecution claims Scott brought her in order to pick up his boat. The trail dog did not indicate Laci was in the pickup. The cadaver dog did not alert on the pickup. All items collected as evidence tested NEGATIVE.
The third search was in mid-February, and specifically was to look for evidence of a soft kill enabled by Laci being drugged. Over a hundred bags of evidence were removed. All items tested NEGATIVE. When Laci's body was found, she did not have any indications of being drugged.
2. Extensive wire-tapping, over 3000 calls recorded. No confessions, no incriminating statements. The wiretaps provided no evidence whatsoever that Scott engaged in any crime.
3. Spies among friends and family. Hundreds of phone conversations were recorded at the request of MPD by Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha, and Brent Rocha, and possibly other as yet unkown persons. Again, these produced no confessions or incriminating statements.
4. Extensive ground and gps surveillance. Again, these produced no evidence that he committed a crime.
5. Extensive investigation into his finances. Again, no evidence that he had a financial motive for committing the murder.
6. Extensive efforts to encourage Trade Corp to audit his activities. No evidence - Trade Corps internal audit totally exonerated Scott of any financial mishandling or misappropriations.
7. Extensive investigation by the SDEA into the possibility that Scott was selling anyhdours ammonia to meth makers. Again, no evidence of any such activity, either by Scott or by Trade Corp.
Scott Peterson was put under the microscope in this investigation. If he went to the bathroom, someone knew whether it was to do #1 or #2 and whether he washed his hands, that's how intrusive this investigation was into his life. And yet they could produce no physical evidence, no confession, no incriminating statements of any involvement in any crime at the trial.
Scott Peterson volunteered information about his alibi, provided proof that he was there. No person who is such a criminal genius as to get through almost 4 months of microscopic investigation without leaving any physical evidence or incriminating statements is going to be stupid enough to put himself at the scene of any portion of the crime.
Nor is any person that brilliant going to be stupid enough to describe a different set of clothing for Laci. He would never have been stupid enough to dispose of her body in the same clothes she was wearing the day before (as the Prosecution suggests he did) and then tell the story that she was up and around that morning, and he certainly would be smart enough to describe exactly what she was wearing when he disposed of her body.
Now, to address the question of "legally not guilty."
Even if someone believes in their gut that Scott did murder Laci, we have the question of burden of proof. Distaso shifted the burden of proof, very artfully, I must admit, in his closing rebuttal arguments. He said that it was not reasonable to conclude that anyone other than Scott Peterson put Laci's body in the Bay. That means that if Scott didn't prove someone else did it, you must convict him. The jurors that have spoken out have consistently implied that they put the burden of proof on Scott.
That is unconstitutional; therefore, it is not legal. Scott Peterson should never have been convicted on the evidence presented, and he should never have had the burden of proof placed on his shoulders.
Reply With Quote