Monday, September 15, 2008

The Prosecutor's Case .. Concluded

Remember the defense even put an exhibit in. I might have it over there. That's all right. I'll move on.
The defense put an exhibit in. I wrote it in my notes here. D7Q. It was a map of these alleged witness sightings. And I think it included Tony Freitas, and Grace Wolf, and Homer Maldonado. I'm pretty sure those were the people. If I'm wrong, just look at the testimony, look at the map itself.
Not a single one came in to testify. Why do you think that was? This is a very experienced defense team. They are very good lawyers. They obviously know how to prove facts if they want to. Why do you think they didn't bring in a single witness to testify that they saw Laci Peterson walking that day? Remember, you heard a bunch of evidence about Tom Harshman. Remember that whole thing with the fence, and the woman urinating, and the van, and all that crazy story? How come Tom Harshman didn't get up here on the stand? Let's hear what he has to say if that's true. None of those people came in and testified. You know why?
You can assume because that what they were going to say was not credible, that's why.
Remember Investigator Bertalotto was asked about a guy named Chris Clark.
Remember Chris Clark? He didn't contact the police until April, 2004. He didn't know Laci Peterson. He never spoke to her. He said he saw her while he was working in the neighborhood. He said he knew this from his time in treatment for substance abuse. His problems obviously continued, because in 2004 he was under house arrest for his third DUI.
I'm not beating up on anybody with a substance abuse problem. Far from it. But it's not right to ask about hearsay evidence in this trial and not put this witness on the stand. How come this witness wasn't called to the stand? The investigator testified just back in April he went out to his house and talked to him. He is certainly available. Why didn't we hear from him? We didn't hear from him because obviously his story was not credible, that's why.
And, finally, let's talk about the law of the case. Like I told you, murder is an unlawful killing of a human being. In this case there is two humans involved, Laci and Conner.
First degree requires premeditation, which I have talked to you about. Second degree requires no premeditation. Still requires malice. You still have to have specific mental intent to kill somebody.
Malice, actually there is two types. There is express, which means I'm going to kill, and I do it, but I don't really think about it. If you really think about it, that's going to fall into first degree and premed.
Implied malice means you do an act that's so dangerous that the law implies malice. Put a bag over somebody's head, hold it shut, even in your mind you don't mean to kill them. Kind of an, kind of a hard example, hard concept to grasp. That would probably be implied malice.
Here, of course, there is lots of evidence of premeditation

None is lots?

The planning

Unproven

the boat purchase

Innocent

the researching on the internet,

Innocent

all of the equipment that he bought to make

What equipment?

the making the anchors.

No proof of this was offered.

Lot of evidence here that the defendant premeditated this crime.

Zero is lots?

Finally in this case, as we have said from day one, it's a circumstantial evidence case. I want to talk to you about that real briefly.
What does circumstantial evidence mean? When you all came here, we kind of gave you those kinds of silly examples. You know, footsteps in the snow. Somebody obviously walked across the snow. A kid who standing outside of a pool and he's dripping wet, there is footsteps leading from the pool to him wet, it's good evidence, circumstantial evidence that he had been swimming in the pool, that kind of thing.
But how do analyze it in terms of a case like this? I think the best way to look at it is like a jigsaw puzzle. That's how you look at a crime like this. That's how you solve a crime like this. Like a jigsaw puzzle. Take each piece of evidence, and you look at it, and you'd see where it fits with everything else. And, you know what? Look at this evidence very critically. I welcome that, because you are going to see that the interpretations that I believe is going to be argued to you tomorrow are not reasonable, and they don't fit when you compare them with something else, some of the examples I have already given you.
Let's take a jigsaw puzzle of the Golden Gate Bridge. This is one I like. Take a blue piece. Well, the blue piece could be water, could be sky, it could be a car driving the across the bridge, right? Well, does that mean we take the blue piece because it can be these other things and throw it away? Of course not.
You put it in the puzzle where it needs to go.
Take an orange piece. Could be a sunset. Could be a piece of the bridge. Does that mean we just take it and throw it away? We look at each one in order. If we throw everything away, that's not the way we do it. Of course not.
We take the piece, you see where it fits with the other pieces. You know what pretty soon you put those pieces together and, you know, you got a bridge. Even if some of the pieces, you don't think, you personally don't think fit, you are still going to see what the puzzle is made of.
That's exactly what we have here. Each piece that I have talked to you about today fits only in one direction, and that's that this man is guilty of murder.

When a prosecutor talks about 'jigsaw puzzles', it is a sure sign that he doesn't have the evidence to make his case and he is now inviting the jury to use the rankest form of speculation and character assassination to reach a verdict. This is a "win at any costs" appeal. If he had real evidence he would show, coldly and logically, how every piece can only be interpreted in a light to show the defendant as guilty. In this case every single piece of evidence has a reasonable explanation and therefore must be excluded. It is not even the case that a couple of pieces need to be viewed in a light that goes to guilt. EVERY PIECE must be viewed in that light, and the jury is still required to ignore solid evidence of the defendant's innocence. This is reverse jury nullification - another word for this is a lynching. All that was offered was Distaso’s speculations. Where was the evidence?

Circumstantial evidence, you know, look at these things like this. Is it a coincidence that the bodies were in the exact same area where the defendant went fishing?

What proof have you that it was not a coincidence? Or malice by another?

Is it a coincidence that the defendant was lying about being in Paris and Europe, and not?

Men lie for sex.

Is it a coincidence that he wanted to sell Laci's house, her furniture, her car?

It was a very reasonable decision.

Is it a coincidence he lied about the affair?

Men lie for sex.

How many of these coincidences does the defense want you to swallow and have you still call yourselves reasonable people?

So far there is only one coincidence and it may not even be that.

If the explanation for all of these facts taken together is not reasonable as defense is trying to present, you must reject it.

Distaso is the one with the unreasonable hypothesis with no facts to back it up.

If the evidence as we present, as I have argued it today, is reasonable, you must accept it and find this man guilty of the murder of his wife and son.I thank you very much for your time. And I thank you for your time throughout this whole case.

And thus ends one of the most shameful cases in Californian history, a case so polluted with prejudice that it may become the exemplar of that, superseding even the conviction of Dr. Sam Sheppard. Even the most hate filled commentators admit that this case will be overturned, but before that Scott Peterson will have served as much time as actual murderers, such as Gilbert Cano who did kill his unborn child and girl friend. What a disgrace to California. $11 million spent and still no evidence of guilt - anywhere.

5 comments:

Larry E. Daniel said...

I read your site and now I am interested. I did not follow the Peterson case because I do not follow highly publicized cases on television. I am going to read the transcripts and computer forensics evidence presented.

In my blog post on my site, I was referencing third party sources, such as the Case Study from Access Data, which is of course a marketing piece.


Now that I have access to the actual information, (I should have read through your site earlier.) I may very well post my opinion on the computer forensics testimony.

Regards,
Larry Daniel

Larry E. Daniel said...

I read all of the computer forensics testimony last night. Quite frankly, I can see how it would confuse a jury since it apparently confused the expert witnesses providing the testimony.

I have no way on knowing if the defense had a computer forensics expert on their team, but it did not appear like it from the examination of the experts for the prosecution.

All in all, I thought the testimony was very poor, along with the organization of the questioning by the attorneys on both sides.

I can't see how a jury could follow it at all.

Laila said...

I really appreciate you commenting on my post. I respect your opinion about the whole case. I obviously do not know every single detail about the Laci Peterson Case, and I know I may think he is guilty by the information that I know from the book that I read. However, I will keep up with your blog because I think it is very interesting and I would like to learn more info about the case from your blog.
Thank you.
-Laila

Michelle said...

Thank you for visiting my blog. As I said in my comments I think any juror that would have served in the Peterson Jury would have been biased based on all the media coverage. With news coverage today trials starting with OJ, that get a lot of coverage, will never be fair and unbiased. Too much gets out. A juror could not help to already have a conclusion based on what they have seen coverage for. In the Peterson case the only coverage was guilt. I think shows like Nancy Grace does not help the actual Justice system. They are geared to only bring ratings for them no matter what the actual truth may be.

SharkByte said...

Thank you for visiting my site and commenting on my post, which was not about the Scott Peterson trial but did mention him.
The information in the post on my blog was taken from a number of news sites. Regarding the appeal, the information I used and posted only said that his case is under appeal, which is verified by some information I found on your site.
I've read some of the information you present, which certainly raises some questions.
All I know about the case is what the media presented, so if there are inaccuracies, the media outlets who reported them should be a target for anyone attempting to exonerate Scott.