Let us suppose that the body of Conner was found on the front lawn of the Peterson home but 4 months after Laci was last seen. Then, a day later, suppose that the body of Laci was found about a mile away in the park where she was last seen. How would that serve to convict Scott?
Let us then suppose that the body of Conner was found somewhere in the woods around Millinocket, Maine but 4 months after Laci was last seen. Then, a day later, suppose that the body of Laci was found about a mile away from that of her son. How would that serve to convict Scott?
In the first case Scott spent much time there. Would that make the belief in his guilt more or less likely? In the second case, Scott presumably cannot be shown to have ever been in Millinocket, Maine. Would that make the belief in his guilt more or less likely?
So exactly what is it about the location that makes his presumed guilt seem possible? There was never anything but a theory that his wife was transported to the bay at the time she went missing - not a molecule of proof was ever offered.
What is the radius of the circle within which he cannot be assumed to be guilty but outside of which he may be? What is the radius of the larger circle outside of which he cannot be assumed to be guilty but within which he may be? And what is the center point of either or both circles?
Ultimately, where the bodies were found doesn't imply Scott's guilt. It doesn't because all it proves is that Laci and Conner's bodies were put where they were found by one of approximately 200 million people who had access to Modesto and to the bay. But we already knew that because whoever abducted her was also one of those 200 million people. What we don't have is any evidence that allows us narrow that number down to one and only one person. That was completely missing from the case and the trial.
However, what it does so is add some considerable weight to his claims of innocence. It does this because the bodies were found separated in space but within 24 hours of one another. This is extraordinary, because it is so unlikely. What we should have heard if the prosecution's theory was correct was that one body was found in one location and that the other body turned up several days or even weeks later. The sea does not yield her flotsam in a synchronized manner. It took the interference of some person or persons for these two to arrive within a 24 hour period after 4 months in which no trace of anything was found.
It is unbelievable that nothing else turned up for another 4 months -- or in fact ever. It is much less likely than two very different people going on an 8 hour walk following different routes but crossing at a mid point and within 2 minutes of each other. That is too much of a coincidence.
If there were overwhelming and convincing evidence of the prosecution theory then this coincidence might be reluctantly accepted as very unlikely but not beyond all bounds of possibility. However since the prosecution was unable to provide even one molecule of evidence that their theory had any validity it is one more circumstance that puts the lie to their case.
Why were the bodies handled so differently? There must have been a reason. Perhaps whoever had Laci didn't want to actually murder her but they couldn't let her go either as she could identify them. When first Conner and then Laci died their problem was solved. At some point one or more of them decided to dump the bodies. As Laci was so deteriorated they dropped the remains into the sea off the Albany Bulb, wrongly assuming they would go out to sea and never be found (all identifiable parts of the body were missing and have never been found - this may be significant).
However they placed the baby where he was found, above the highest high tide mark, in the hope that the search was continuing (it wasn't) and that the family could bury him at least. That's why the bag was removed from him - so he would not be mistaken for garbage. Logical? Not very but nothing about the crime was logical. Sometimes criminals are just very, very lucky no matter how stupid they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment