Evidence? We don't need no steenkin' evidence

April 20, 2003 6:54 AM

So they finally arrested Scott Peterson... Modesto Police got their big break. Laci is indeed dead. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, somebody must have killed her, and indeed, Scott is somebody. Seriously: "It was a process of elimination," Wasden said. "At the outset you have the universe to work from. ... we were never able to eliminate Scott." Nothing says "we've got nothin'" like "hair noticeably lighter than before and a new Vandyke beard".
posted by effugas (70 comments total)

So I really must be missing the point of your post, could you please make it more clear? From the articles you referenced, it appears that Peterson has motive (affair), opportunity, and used as an alibi the fact that he was at the place where the bodies were eventually found. He also appeared to be preparing to flee the country and had taken out a life insurance policy on his wife.

Is there some miscarriage of law enforcement here? Knowing what little information the articles contained, there seems no more likely suspect to me. What have I missed? Didn't the Coen Brothers make a movie about this already?
posted by matt_wartell at 7:09 AM on April 20, 2003

What the hell is this?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:19 AM on April 20, 2003

Are you on Scott's defense team? 'Cause seriously, this doesn't seem to be a big miscarriage of justice to me.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:29 AM on April 20, 2003

There's a reason this happened two days ago and nobody's posted about it yet.
posted by padraigin at 7:32 AM on April 20, 2003

Exactly, padraigin, because _they_ don't want us to know about their dastardly plan.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:39 AM on April 20, 2003

I have no idea where the concept that Peterson hasn't been the obvious suspect from minute one came from, but the really interesting debate here is over the new fetal murder law, which makes him eligible for the death penalty for killing two people.

"It's a tool to educate the public as to the value of a human life," said Denise Burke, staff counsel for the anti-abortion organization Americans United for Life.

and

"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:43 AM on April 20, 2003

Well, I'll bite. For the sake of argument:

it appears that Peterson has motive (affair),

Not necessarily a motive. If all married people who had affairs killed their spouses...

opportunity

So did all kinds of other people.

and used as an alibi the fact that he was at the place where the bodies were eventually found.

Sure. He's never claimed to be elsewhere, he has some proof that he was there.

He also appeared to be preparing to flee the country

He could just as easily have been on the way to visit his parents for Easter, they live very near to where he was arrested. He was closer to his parents' house than the border.

and had taken out a life insurance policy on his wife.

The single most meaningless piece of evidence quoted so far. First, it's never been shown as yet that "he" did this rather than "they" did this. Second, a couple who don't buy insurance when one spouse becomes pregnant aren't thinking very far ahead. It's not like pregnancy and childbirth have a zero death rate. If I were to become pregnant, I would absolutely insist on buying additional insurance.

I'm not saying that he's innocent, but the evidence thus far doesn't "point to" anyone (beyond the fact that it's usually the spouse, which as far as I know isn't enough to convict someone). I sure hope they have something better up their sleeves than the spin-doctored and very loose circumstantial stuff we've heard so far.
posted by biscotti at 7:52 AM on April 20, 2003

There's just too much weird shit going on in this case. What about his trying to sell her car shortly after she was reported missing? His putting the house up for sale? His purchase of a shiny new pick'emup truck (yeah, I'd go buy me a shiny new truck when my pregnant wife is missing). Why was her body found 100 miles from her home and a mile from where he was fishing on Christmas eve? Why the hell was he fishing on Christmas eve? A lot of people have been put to death on less circumstantial evidence than there is in this case.
posted by AstroGuy at 8:15 AM on April 20, 2003

Stav:

This is another pretty white woman (and her unborn fetus?) killed, so the US media is playing soap-opera-writer.

It's amazing that everyone wants to know every dsigusting detail about this piece of shit and his wife, but zod forbid we should hear about the thousands of Iraqi civilians we just slaughtered. That would be unamerican.
posted by jpoulos at 8:23 AM on April 20, 2003

Laci is indeed dead. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, somebody must have killed her

"Well, one thing's for sure, Inspector Clay's dead...murdered...and somebody's responsible!" - Plan 9 From Outer Space
posted by MrBaliHai at 8:25 AM on April 20, 2003

AstroGuy: Yeah, but luckily for his sake, he 'aint black. (Or, up here in Canuckistan, aboriginal -- 'tho we don't have the death penalty any longer, something for which I'm sure Mr Donald Marshall is very happy about.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:26 AM on April 20, 2003

As far as circumstantial evidence goes I remember hearing weeks ago two things:

1) that blood was found in one or other of their vehicles, not all that suspicious considering they were married and there are explanations for that but:

2) that traces of cement were found in the boat he had used that Christmas eve.

Innocent until proven guilty yes, but things are not looking very good for Mr Peterson.
posted by SweetIceT at 8:48 AM on April 20, 2003

Biscotti: I didn't mean to imply that he's guilty, merely that he makes an excellent suspect. I'll leave guilt to the judicial system (or the media, I forget who determines guilt these days).
posted by matt_wartell at 8:54 AM on April 20, 2003

I think it is fascinating that there are people who feel they have enough information to decide he is guilty; this is the same pool from which jurors are pulled (the reason that if I ever go to court and I'm innocent, I'll go for a judge trial).

It's not just that this case is a media soap opera; it's that people will use soap opera mentality to form an opinion.

And besides, as someone who does not really care how this case turns out, I can objectively state that with his new little beard, I find Scott more fuckable than ever.
posted by troybob at 8:56 AM on April 20, 2003

This article claims that Scott Peterson had $10,000 on him at the time of his arrest at the Torrey Pines golf course. I guess he was planning on playing some high stakes golf. I dunno but he sure does things that make himself seem suspicious.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/20/MN29500.DTL
posted by SweetIceT at 9:09 AM on April 20, 2003

Nonsense troybob. Jurors are pulled from a pool of people who have no advanced knowledge of the case. If they aren't, then the defense team isn't doing its job. If I were a resident of Stanislaus County and were called to jury duty on this case, I'd be asked if I had any knowledge of it and I would say yes. And then I'd be excused. The jury in this case will be exposed to many weeks of testimony and evidence on which to base their opinion. Not the hours of TV coverage of this case, obviously biased toward the prosecution, that would lead me to believe he's guilty. I'd rest my fate in the hands of 12 people who will deliberate the evidence over a single man or woman any day.
posted by AstroGuy at 9:10 AM on April 20, 2003

I hope they can pin Chandra Levy on him, too, so we can get that murder all cleared up, too.
posted by crunchland at 9:10 AM on April 20, 2003

This is why news filter posts suck (not that I haven't participated in a few myself). So far we've got armchair detectivism, condescending race-baiting, tasteless innuendo and one good joke .

I coulda summed it up for ya. "Scumbag finally arrested for killing wife. Took 'em long enough. If there is any justice will be strapped toa gurney within 2 years."

Lovely pre-easter dinner thread, BTW. I gotta deal with my own dysfunctional family today. I don't need another one to put me in a mood.
posted by jonmc at 9:17 AM on April 20, 2003

jpoulos - I do believe you've hit the nail on the head. There's nothing exceptional about this case - people are getting killed in similar circumstances all the time and it doesn't end up on the front page. There's enough scandal and mystery associated with it to be entertaining to the American people and we "need" entertainment to distract us from what our government's doing in Iraq.
posted by pyramid termite at 9:21 AM on April 20, 2003

AstroGuy, I was speaking to the general mentality of people who would assume they know enough about this case based on the bits and pieces they have seen to decide he is guilty; that mentality does enter the jury room no matter how careful the selection process is.

Given your previous statement that A lot of people have been put to death on less circumstantial evidence than there is in this case, it is indeed surprising that, were you innocent, you would opt for a jury trial. I would tend to trust a judge more than a jury to weigh evidence and to bypass the whole social engineering aspect of a jury trial. Were I guilty and not willing to confess, I would go for the jury. It's a personal thing, and it's a trust issue. (In one poll, over 50% of Americans who support the war in Iraq believe that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. I don't trust the ability of the public to skillfully process information; a judge does this for a living.)

jonmc: You left out a word: WOOFY [s]cumbag finally arrested for killing wife. And innuendo implies subtlety. I explicitly indicated that I would do him.
posted by troybob at 9:41 AM on April 20, 2003

why do so many people care? because the media talked about it?! [and why do they care so munch?]

News Flash: shit happens all the time to all sorts of people, and by all sorts of people! And the media doesn't talk about it all!

Quick, someone make a thread about it!
posted by evening at 9:55 AM on April 20, 2003

Hey, jonmc: Add patronising sermon to your list.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:03 AM on April 20, 2003

There's nothing exceptional about this case - people are getting killed in similar circumstances all the time and it doesn't end up on the front page.

So you're contending that a whole slew of women who are happy, middle-class housewives, women with strong ties to family and friends in their immediate georgraphical area, women who are 34 weeks pregnant, just disappear every Christmas Eve? That bodies of those pregnant women and their babies end up washed up on some beach months later? That the husbands of those disappeared pregnant women, having been revealed as (serial) adulterers, abandon all pretense of being interested in the search for the pregnant wife (dead or alive) and immediately work to dispose of the family house, the wife's car and every outward sign of their marital life?
posted by Dreama at 10:38 AM on April 20, 2003

why do so many people care?

Crime is an interesting subject. Why do so many people care that other people care?

Oh, and even the sale of the car and purchase of a truck has an innocent explanation: his truck had been impounded by the police, and he needed a truck for his work. Again, not saying he's innocent, just sayin'.

jonmc: pointing out what the facts are, rather than what the spin says, is hardly being an "armchair detective" (and remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you're not a detective, anyway)
posted by biscotti at 10:58 AM on April 20, 2003

What the hell is this?

Two CNN links to a news story turned soap opera that gets played around the clock on TV. There is no escape, it seems. *sigh*
posted by homunculus at 11:05 AM on April 20, 2003

So far we've got armchair detectivism,

Mebbeso, but biscotti's armchair detectivism seems several rungs above the real thing to me.

Of course, it probably helps a lot to have no concrete interest in the matter instead of having your career depend, in part, on finding someone to pin the death on.

Peterson may or may not have done it, but the various and manifold leaks that have emanated from the cops and DA make me think they're trying to frame him. Not that framing the guilty would be a new thing in California.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:08 AM on April 20, 2003

So you're contending that a whole slew of women who are happy, middle-class housewives...

I think that's the point. If this were not a white middle-class pregnant woman whose husband screwed around, you wouldn't as much as know the woman's name.

I stood at a street corner yesterday and watched a car run a stop sign, smashing into a minivan, killing two people on the spot. There is not a breath of it on the local TV news or in the paper. Yes, stuff like this happens all the time. People want to say that this woman's death is more tragic than those in the car accident simply because she was a pregnant white woman who disappeared on christmas eve. It's not. It just speaks to our priorities. Women are killed by violence all the time, but you're not going to see widespread press coverage about a black woman killed by her cheating husband, pregnant or not.
posted by troybob at 11:27 AM on April 20, 2003

Just because Scott killed Kristin Smart and Chandra Levy, it's not fair to assume he killed his wife and son.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:32 AM on April 20, 2003

People want to say that this woman's death is more tragic than those in the car accident simply because she was a pregnant white woman who disappeared on christmas eve. It's not. It just speaks to our priorities.

I disagree. This case is interesting because it's a murder mystery. It has nothing to do with race (Rilya Wilson sure got lots of coverage), and everything to do with mystery. It's not more tragic than any other death, it's just more mysterious. As to how this "speaks to our priorities", I think you're reading far more into the fact that people find mysteries of all kinds interesting than is warranted.
posted by biscotti at 12:13 PM on April 20, 2003

Why the hell was he fishing on Christmas eve?

This is one of the questions I tend to find as being shaky grounds for thinking he may be guilty (though from what else I know about the situation and the "weird shit" surrounding it, I have to say my tendency is to think he probably IS guilty - I just can't say for sure, obviously). Many people have different ways of spending Christmas eve, depending on how important the holiday is to them.

Now, this might be cause to be suspicious if it is a significant departure from how he (or he and Laci) generally spend the day, but I haven't yet read any reports that describe what a "normal" Christmas Eve is for them. For my husband and I, we barely acknowledge that it IS Christmas eve, and tend to spend the day playing around on the computer, or visiting one of our favourite MMORPG's and wondering why no one else is online. It's just another "day" to us.

So, for me, personally, his being fishing on Christmas eve, in the absence of any other info on what they usually do for that day, is pretty much meaningless. The affair, trying to sell the truck, trying to sell the house, the bodies washing up so close to where he was the day she disappeared and such is what I tend to be more suspicious of...
posted by thorswitch at 12:17 PM on April 20, 2003

Not to rain on the only-white-people-are-important parade, but I believe that Laci Peterson is of hispanic descent.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 1:41 PM on April 20, 2003

There is a distinction some here are not making - Peterson has been arrested and charged for murder... he has not been convicted.

The evidence thus far (as much as we know of it) is indeed circumstantial, and may not be enough to convict on - but it is more than weighty enough to justify the arrest.

A side note - the word "circumstantial" when applied to evidence doesn't mean it is worthless or insignificant. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of a fact that can be used to infer another fact. It is because inference can be mistaken that direct evidence is preferred, but given a sufficiently large number of circumstantial facts, the chance of false inference decreases significantly.
posted by John Smallberries at 1:45 PM on April 20, 2003

MetaFilter: What the hell is this?
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 2:06 PM on April 20, 2003

John Smallberries: Exactly. One piece of circumstantial evidence makes a hunch. Several make a case. A whole bunch of it makes a conviction. (I'm not saying that Peterson is guilty here, although from what I've seen I tend to believe he is--we'll need to wait for the trial to find out). Another very famous California murder trial where the convicted murderer was sentenced to death on mainly circumstantial evidence.
posted by AstroGuy at 2:21 PM on April 20, 2003

One piece of circumstantial evidence makes a hunch. Several make a case. A whole bunch of it makes a conviction.

Yes, but not always a just conviction. The justice system is far from infallible, its past history is too questionable to infer any empirical validity of vague circumstantial evidence from that history.

I question how much of the circumstantial evidence in this case (again, that we know of thus far) is actually "evidence" at all. Something isn't evidence merely because someone says it is. If evidence has a perfectly reasonable, non-sinister explanation, I question whether it's evidence at all. Being at the marina one normally frequents isn't suspicious. Concrete in a man's car is not very suspicious if you know he works on construction sites. Selling a car and buying a new truck are far less supicious if you know that the old truck has been impounded, a truck is needed for work, and if the person in question is self-employed and has no other income. Buying insurance on a pregnant wife isn't suspicious. A pile of unrelated and insignificant events do not magically become related and significant just because some prosecutor decided to charge someone based on them. Someone isn't guilty just because some cop's "blue sense" tingles.

Thus far, what we know of the evidence in this case doesn't really seem to point to anything except a lack of other suspects in a high profile case, where there is undoubtedly much pressure to charge someone. There's more than a little reasonable doubt contained within the evidence (as we know it) here.
posted by biscotti at 2:53 PM on April 20, 2003

All--

Here's the story. We've seen people get pilloried in the news, convicted in the court of public opinion before. It happens. There's just...you know...usually more to hang your hat on than this. My point is that they're really, really reaching, to the point where the vapidity of the entire process is painfully apparent. Apparently being in San Diego makes one a flight risk -- of course, ignoring the fact that he's been to Mexico a couple times already and has come back just fine. Somehow buying a new car when all your existing cars keep getting impounded makes you suspect. Apparently having a beard and lightened hair makes you automatically guilty.

Biscotti gets it. There's so obviously nothing there, that the concept of a crowd of people cheering as a man is arrested for the crime is pretty scary. Lets be blunt: He f*cked around on his pregnant, now dead wife. Everything else is just an excuse to make him pay for that. If they find out later that he actually did kill Laci, they'll be as surprised as I will.

People, this is pretty scary. The court of public opinion was not supposed to be this powerful. I fear all lynch mobs, even those that could concievably in the future turn out to be correct.

In the future, I'll make that more obvious.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 3:28 PM on April 20, 2003

Hey, jonmc: Add patronising sermon to your list.

Oh, boo-hoo, lupus_yonderboy dosent like me. I can't go on living.
posted by jonmc at 4:02 PM on April 20, 2003

Biscotti and Effugas, I still don't think you get it.

There's so obviously nothing there...

Glad you think so, Effugas. Many people do not. That is why they have a thing called a trial - that is how the system works.

Please see this distinction: Scott Peterson has NOT been lynched or subjected to mob justice. He has been arrested and charged and will either plead out or go to trial. That is called due process. His attorney will have every opportunity to pick apart each piece of the puzzle the prosecution will try to assemble.

The process may well end with him being set free because the evidence was found wanting. Or it may not. Either way, it won't be the impulse conclusions of an angry mob that decides it.
posted by John Smallberries at 4:23 PM on April 20, 2003

People, this is pretty scary. The court of public opinion was not supposed to be this powerful. I fear all lynch mobs, even those that could concievably in the future turn out to be correct.


i fully agree with you effugas alias Dan

thank you for pointing it out

as far as I know thereis NOT enough evidence
I want to see hardcore evidence, I haven't seen any

and John Smallberies,

The process may well end with him being set free

if he is innocent and he will be free, his life thanks to media and police have been ruined , just put yourself in this situation
posted by bureaustyle at 4:27 PM on April 20, 2003

Uh, effugas, if he did it, he's a lot more of a flight risk now that his victim's body has been discovered than before.

You really think the cops are just picking on this guy because he cheated on his wife? That's silly. He had multiple motives to do it, and the body was found far from home but right where he drove to that day. That's enough right there to arrest the guy; the police will be surprised only if he's exonerated.
posted by nicwolff at 4:31 PM on April 20, 2003

Bureaustyle - Are you saying that if the police had not arrested him now, his life would be perfectly normal?

Sorry. Don't think so. His life was already "ruined" long before this. You can blame the media for it, if you like - and I am not even going to touch the first amendment morass that issue encompasses. Nothing the justice system has done here - arresting and charging him - has made a flea's eyelash of a difference in what kind of life he will lead from hereon, assuming he is found not guilty.

I'd hate like hell to be in his situation (whether I was innocent OR guilty, for that matter). How does that make his arrest an injustice?
posted by John Smallberries at 5:00 PM on April 20, 2003

bigboydidit
posted by cinderful at 5:28 PM on April 20, 2003

it appears that Peterson has motive (affair),

Not necessarily a motive. If all married people who had affairs killed their spouses...

Um, yes it is. It doesn't mean he acted on it, but it does supply a motive.

The fact that some people don't act on the motive means nothing.

opportunity

So did all kinds of other people.

Again, doesn't matter. We're talking about HIM. If he didn't have the opportunity, then he could be eliminated. The fact that other people had the opportunity means nothing in this context.

and had taken out a life insurance policy on his wife.

The single most meaningless piece of evidence quoted so far. First, it's never been shown as yet that "he" did this rather than "they" did this. Second, a couple who don't buy insurance when one spouse becomes pregnant aren't thinking very far ahead. It's not like pregnancy and childbirth have a zero death rate. If I were to become pregnant, I would absolutely insist on buying additional insurance.

Not meaningless at all when put together with other evidence.

I'm not saying that he's innocent, but the evidence thus far doesn't "point to" anyone (beyond the fact that it's usually the spouse, which as far as I know isn't enough to convict someone). I sure hope they have something better up their sleeves than the spin-doctored and very loose circumstantial stuff we've heard so far.

It most certainly points to him. I think you're confused about circumstantial cases. Take any one of those facts by themselves, and it doesn't seem that important. Put them together and he is easily the prime suspect.

Each of those basic questions have to be answered and they were. Most people can be eliminated through one of those questions. He cannot.

Add to that the bodies appeared where he was fishing and the circumstantial evidence is quite strong, and this is not taking into account other evidence the police might have but not released yet.

There's so obviously nothing there

Thus far, what we know of the evidence in this case doesn't really seem to point to anything except a lack of other suspects in a high profile case,

These are scary statements. As someone else stated, a circumstantial case does not mean a weak case. Everything pointed to him before, and with the bodies washing up near his fishing trip, it just became that much stronger.

As for his mexico trips, they were before the bodies were found, and could have easily been 'scouting' trips.

I'm not saying he's guilty, or will be convicted, but it doesn't look good at all, and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. Just about everything points to him, and his defense is going to have to be quite strong to not be convicted.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 5:42 PM on April 20, 2003

It's amazing that everyone wants to know every dsigusting detail about this piece of shit and his wife, but zod forbid we should hear about the thousands of Iraqi civilians we just slaughtered. That would be unamerican.

It kills you that everyone doesn't think exactly like you, right? This is metafilter. There is one post on on this case, and hundreds on the iraq war, most antibush, antiwar, antiright. What more do you want?

Here's a plug.

Now be happy.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 5:48 PM on April 20, 2003

(metatalk)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:11 PM on April 20, 2003

Dennis: we'll have to agree to disagree (I won't go through all your arguments again, I've said what I have to say and you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. Suffice it to say that I find it unsurprising and not particularly significant that the bodies showed up in the most convenient place to dump a body in the area, which also happens to be the only major body of water in the area (as far as I know), which unsurprisingly contains a marina). I'm in no way arguing that a circumstantial case is necessarily a weak case, but in THIS case, the circumstantial evidence (again, as we know it) is pretty weak. It's far from unprecedented for prosecutors to charge people just to make it look like they're doing something (or to improve their conviction statistics), so I fervently hope that they've got something more than they're showing us right now. I'd rather see a guilty man go free for lack of evidence than an innocent man punished.
posted by biscotti at 6:39 PM on April 20, 2003

I'd rather see a guilty man go free for lack of evidence than an innocent man punished.

I would also.

We will have to agree to disagree. In my eyes, the evidence is quite strong (when everything is put together). I'm also almost certain they will have more to present. We'll just have to wait and see.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 6:58 PM on April 20, 2003

A new beard, freshly dyed hair, and 10 grand in cash in his wallet... seems damning enough.
posted by Witty at 7:03 PM on April 20, 2003

What's with the dyed hair thing everyone's so hot about? If I were Scott Peterson, guilty or innocent, I wouldn't welcome the recognition and attention that comes with having your face plastered on TV and in the papers. It's not like he had plastic surgery to disguise himself from the police. Also, given the fact that he moved from Modesto to San Diego, where his sun exposure is probably much higher, there's a pretty decent chance that his hair color has changed naturally (as mine does).

Also, some perspective on news coverage and how often this kind of thing happens.
posted by troybob at 8:21 PM on April 20, 2003

Might be innocent, but no way did his beard turn that way naturally.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:29 PM on April 20, 2003

As a side note, I'd have to say I found it quite creepy that the family named the dead fetus. I believe I've heard before that in cases of miscarriage, particularly late-term, the mother might be advised to name and bury the child, for purposes of closure (though I don't know if this is still the case). But the whole 'Baby Connor" thing kind of smells like a PR thing. (Or potentially a legal thing, if they're pushing the death of the fetus as a second murder, perhaps intentionally giving some ammunition to the anti-abortioners.)
posted by troybob at 9:47 PM on April 20, 2003

Wait, I've got a thought - why don't we let a jury try him?

Yeah! We could call in 12 strangers, ask them about the case, let them hear all the facts, and make a decision....?

Nah, what am I thinking? That's what the press and public opinion does!

This may sound weird, but I'm against running having the press post anything but that a crime occurred - this idle speculation is poisonous. Wait until the guy is tried and either convicted or exonerated instead of watching the press go off half-cocked.

Yep, it's not looking good for Scott - but, it didn't look good for O.J. either... And, with the press working up the public into a frenzy, the O.J. trial turned into a riot that killed 55 people. Imagine how that would've gone if the press hadn't relayed a blow-by-blow, day-by-day account of every friggin' thing that went on?
posted by FormlessOne at 9:50 PM on April 20, 2003

Formless--

There's a delicate balance between reporting so many facts that the jury pool becomes tainted and reporting so few facts that anyone in the jury pool could concievably be arrested for the same crime.

There's a reason why charges are public, trials are open, and evidence must be disclosed: It's not just due process for the accused; it's a proof of safety for everyone else.

What I find disturbing is that, given what little has been shown, the public is still just as convinced of Scott's culpability as if there was a full body of relevant data. If this is all it takes to sentence a man to death -- and if you listen to Dennis, that's what we're looking at, right now, no new information at all -- then we're all at risk.

This isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a full on reversal of the burden. It's a lynch mob. It's scary.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 10:21 PM on April 20, 2003

Some things are suspicious, such as a trout in the milk. -- Thoreau
posted by dhartung at 10:55 PM on April 20, 2003

What the hell are you loons talking about? You keep saying "lynch mob", and that something "scary" has happened. But all that's happened is that the guy's been arrested and held, which requires only enough evidence to satisfy the district attorney's office. No-one's been sentenced to anything. There's going to be a jury empaneled, and the defense will have the opportunity to voir dire the candidates and excuse anyone who's already sure the guy did it. If they can't find 12 acceptable jurors, then they can petition for a change of venue.

Besides, the evidence is excellent! Look, I hadn't heard and didn't care about any of this, but biscotti's description of the marina as the only place near Modesto either to fish or dump a body got me interested. Here's how close the bodies were to the marina:



The L-shaped waterfront park at the top is where the bodies were found. The marina is the inlet just below the rectanglar park on the peninsula at the center bottom.

Here is how small a part of the Bay that is, and how far Modesto is from the Bay:



So, the new circumstantial evidence is that the wife's body has now washed up 75 miles from home but just three miles from the place the guy trailered his boat to, alone, the day she disappeared.

(And you know what's 10 miles west of Modesto? 4000 acres of wetlands. The Bay is hardly "the most convenient place to drop a body in the area".)

That's a terrific case right there; any DA anywhere would have indicted the guy. So, biscotti, effulgas, what's your problem?
posted by nicwolff at 12:10 AM on April 21, 2003

As a side note, I'd have to say I found it quite creepy that the family named the dead fetus.

The "family" did no such thing. Laci and (presumably) Scott decided that the child that Laci was carrying would be named Connor. From the first reports of Laci's disappearance this was mentioned and made known; to hear those closest to the couple talk, even Scott himself, they always referred to the coming child by that proper name.
posted by Dreama at 3:18 AM on April 21, 2003

Thanks for the info. It's still creepy to me that they refer to the fetus that way. But then it's also creepy to me that someone is so deep into this story that they can characterize what "those closest to the couple" say.
posted by troybob at 7:34 AM on April 21, 2003

This article claims that Scott Peterson had $10,000 on him at the time of his arrest at the Torrey Pines golf course. I guess he was planning on playing some high stakes golf. I dunno but he sure does things that make himself seem suspicious.

$10k isn't, in my mind, a suspicious amount of money. It's not enough to live on for every long, and there are any number of reasons a person might have that much cash on them. If I were running off to live on a beach in Central America, I'd have a hell of a lot more than $10 Gs on me.
posted by mosch at 8:02 AM on April 21, 2003

If you HAD more than 10 Gs. I don't know how high on the hog you're used to living, but I could make 10 grand go a long way in Central America. Generally speaking, carrying $10,000 in cash MAY not be suspicious (perhaps stupid), but when you're a possible suspect in a murder case, it certainly is rather suspicious.
posted by Witty at 8:22 AM on April 21, 2003

I think one thing that's being glossed is that the police have more evidence than the public does. Three search warrants were served on the Peterson home, things were taken out of the home, but the purpose and results of those searches are sealed. The DNA test on the fetus states conclusively that it is the child of Scott Peterson, and directly related to a child of Laci's parents (they didn't have any material to directly identify Laci, so they had to identify her through her parents.)

If they can conclusively state the fetus is Scott Peterson's, that means they've drawn his blood and/or taken samples from him- that's not been in the news that I'm aware of. Everything in the public eye now may or may not be evidence, but the guy has a right to be presumed innocent unless convicted.
posted by headspace at 8:25 AM on April 21, 2003

biscotti, effulgas, what's your problem?

Thanks for the maps and info. Thanks also for the nicely-worded question. Yeesh.

My one and only "problem" here is the mentality behind the way people are talking about the case - as if it's clear as day that the evidence points to him, when the vast majority of the evidence (THAT WE KNOW ABOUT) doesn't do so at all (your maps make the location of the bodies seem more significant to me than they did before, I don't know the area, but that's still far from conclusive). As I've said more than once, I don't know whether he's innocent or guilty, and my statements have only been about the evidence that we've been told about. My first post pretty clearly laid out the way I see the spin being placed on things here (most especially the insurance policy, which none of us have seen, and yet which everyone assumes Scott "took out on" Laci, rather than it having been a decision they both took, and which would not at all be an unusual one for an expecting family to take). I'm just saying that the vast majority of the "evidence" that we know about is not in any way directly indicative of Scott's having committed the crime - a bunch of unrelated events with innocent, unconnected explanations does not a case make. This isn't a matter of coming up with a convoluted story to explain the evidence, where the simplest explanation is that "he did it". It's just as plausible to me that, now that they've found the bodies, an arrest of the person that "everyone knows did it" is a good PR move. As I've said before, I hope they have more to go on than the evidence they've told the press about thus far, because I sure as heck couldn't convict someone based on what we know now, and I hope nobody else could either.
posted by biscotti at 10:25 AM on April 21, 2003

$10k isn't, in my mind, a suspicious amount of money

When traveling out of the USA, $10K is the largest amount of curency you can leave with, iirc.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:55 AM on April 21, 2003

But then it's also creepy to me that someone is so deep into this story that they can characterize what "those closest to the couple" say

Huh? How is it creepy that Dreama simply conveyed to you what anyone watching the news with some sort of regularity has heard?? She's not made a characterization, she's just repeating what the Peterson's friends and family have said on CNN etc.

Oh man, can someone tell me what IIRC stands for, please?? It's one of those acronyms that I just can't suss on my own, doh.
posted by zarah at 3:04 PM on April 21, 2003

IIRC = If I recall correctly, IIRC.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:26 PM on April 21, 2003

This may or not be important, but I think that it does suggest the possibility of further evidence we many not be privy to yet. The murder charges filed against Scott Peterson point the location of the murder scene as being AT the Peterson residence.

For the record I would like to state that I have never said that Scott was guilty, rather I have said all along that I find him suspicious and my interest in the case is in determining what evidence we may not be aware of yet. Scott may or may not be quilty and he may or may not be cleared due to innocence or lack of evidence, but one must keep in mind that it is common knowledge that the vast majority of women murdered in this country are killed by someone they know, most of those being their own husbands. This does not of course mean positive guilt in this case, but I feel its human nature to speculate on the rumors and facts of a mysterious case such as this.

Everyone loves a good murder mystery, just consider all the murder mystery shows on television. My grandmother never misses and episode of Murder She Wrote, she and I love discussing cases such as this. Its just something to talk about , no one wants to see the guy convicted if he is innocent.
posted by SweetIceT at 3:28 PM on April 21, 2003

I agree that most of the rest of the evidence people are gossiping about — the insurance policy, the hair color, the buying of trucks — is flimsy.

But the location and the affair are solid circumstantial evidence. Of course most people who cheat on their wives don't kill them, but it certainly puts them in the subset of marriages most likely to get ugly. And it provides a credible theory of the crime: she found out, they fought, she died.

And the location! To believe that he didn't do it, you have to believe that someone else with some motive to kill her did so, and then drove her halfway across the state to dump her body right where her husband had spent the day.

Note that the Bay is a convenient place to dump a body only if you have a trailered boat. Otherwise you're going to be moving the body from your car into a boat — or into the water — right at the shoreline where you're most likely to be seen.

If you had only a car, you'd drive the same distance east instead of west, into Yosemite National Park, where privacy is a lot easier to find. Right?

Could I convict on this in a death-penalty state? Probably not; without further evidence I think a reasonable person could doubt his guilt. But between you and me, do I think he did it? You bet. And that's reasonable too.
posted by nicwolff at 3:51 PM on April 21, 2003

Thank you kirkaracha!
posted by zarah at 5:08 PM on April 21, 2003

Could I convict on this in a death-penalty state?

Either the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt and you convict, or they don't and you don't. The penalty shouldn't matter.

Thank you kirkaracha!
No worries.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:29 PM on April 21, 2003

Meanwhile, OJ is still searching for his wife's killer.
posted by bwg at 10:23 PM on April 21, 2003

Meanwhile, OJ is still searching for his wife's killer.

Find the one person who never took a lie detector test that was part of the case...plus he was also known to carry knives, part of his job.

But between you and me, do I think he did it? You bet. And that's reasonable too.

More thought on this, have to look at this case. Why would you have evidence providing you were near the placement of the bodies, if found? Also who else knew he was going fishing? See with Evelyn Herandez they just found a torso, the same with Laci, no arms or legs and plus they both look similar in appearances. Yet, I did see he asked for a public defendant.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:47 AM on April 22, 2003