Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Prosecutor's Case .. Continued

There are other people, I just want to run through a couple of them that were out that day. Brian High. He ran around the park at ten or 10:30. He didn't see anything. Patricia McWhinney. She was walking at the other end of the park. She didn't see anything.
Basically what does that tell us? Tells us that Laci Peterson didn't go out for a walk that day.

Nothing of the sort. If people didn’t see her they didn’t see her. However Vivian Mitchell saw her, as did her husband.

It tells us that Laci Peterson was killed in her home, as we have been telling you now for five months, between the night of the 23rd and the morning of the 24th.

Then where is the proof? Show us proof of a crime scene – anywhere - ever.

That's what it tells us. That's what all of that evidence tells us. And there is nothing to dispute any of that.

Nonsense. There is nothing but evidence to dispute it. The total lack of evidence disputes it.

You can't dispute any of these people that were out walking around in the neighborhood.
Let's take a minute and look at the defense case. The defense wants, I mean it was clearly a case of attacking the police. I mean, obviously, if you didn't get that from the first day then I think you have missed it. But clearly it was the defense attacking the police.
Why do you do that when you are the defense in this case? Because you got to take the focus off the defendant. If you focus on the defendant, it's overwhelming that he's guilty.

A total lack of evidence against him is far from overwhelming.

But you got to divert. Constantly divert. Take the focus off the defendant. Put the police on trial. That's what the defense was about here. But nothing is consistent. Let's look.

Why doesn’t Distaso proceed with his own case? HE is the one who is attacking.

Either the defendant is an avid salt water fisherman or he's not. Right? If he is an avid salt water fisherman that would go running out to the San Francisco Bay at the drop of a hat on Christmas Eve, then he's going to have the right gear. He's going to know what he's doing. He's going to be fishing in the right place. Didn't have any of those things. He either is or he isn't.

Nonsense. Once again the ridiculous theory that imperfection = guilt. The 'right gear' thing is total nonsense. Who hasn't heard of the 'Pocket Fisherman'? How many of those were sold? And you can buy similar items to this day.

If he doesn't have the right gear, if he's fishing in the wrong place, if he doesn't know what he's doing, then he's not going to run out to the San Francisco Bay at the drop of a hat. Can't have it both ways.

Nonsense. You fish with what you have and catch what you catch. Even commercial fishermen have 'by-catch' – they can't avoid it.

He's either courting the media, or he's being hunted by the media. Can't have it both ways.

He was avoiding them. The police were pointing the media at him with constant leaks.

You either go on Diane Sawyer and do nationwide interviews, and do local interviews, do all these things, or you run and hide. Can't have it both ways.

He wanted the media help to find his wife. He didn't want the focus on him. Too bad the police did the reverse – apparently they are allowed to have it as many ways as they wish.

You need to base your verdict in this case on evidence.

If only Distaso could have produced some – even the slightest amount. Why is there none if he is so guilty?

You know, it is a little difficult for you all, I think, as a jury. I think it was because so much evidence was, came in, what's called hearsay. And, you know, it's a fine line for the jurors to kind of figure out what are we allowed to consider for its truth that it really happened, and what do we have to consider only for the reasonableness of what the police have done? And you heard vast amounts of information as to what evidence from hearsay that's only related to the reasonableness of what the police have done.
You can't consider it for the truth at all.
The most important thing, I think, of that, that I really want to make clear to you is, you did not hear a single witness who said they saw Laci Peterson walking in the neighborhood, or on Covena, or in the park on December 24th. You did not hear from this stand a single witness who said that. You heard officers testify that people reported to that. You can't consider that for the truth, not a single bit of it.

Why not? Brocchini testified about what he was told by a person who told him what he said Scott told him! And lied about it. And now Distaso says you can’t trust the police or their testimony? Back to fantasyland? The witnesses whose police reports were read in made honest reports about seeing Laci. The police destroyed the testimony of these witnesses by 'accidentally' hypnotising them with an untrained person. Oddly, all of the police 'accidents' served to hurt Scott.

You know what's an interesting point, Detective Brocchini was on the stand. He was asked about Chris Van Zandt, a man who had called in and reported that he saw Laci Peterson down in the park on the December 24th, and it came in as hearsay. Not offered for the truth, so you can't consider it for that. And that was the testimony. That was it. Yeah, this guy said he saw her, called in. Okay.
Well, remember we brought in Chris Van Zandt, the actual witness. We brought him in and put him on the stand.Okay, fine. Let's hear what he has to say. Remember what he told you? He said, I know for sure I didn't see Laci Peterson on the 24th in the park that day. So the only witness who, the only person who called in to the police and said they saw Laci Peterson that came in and testified, told you without any doubt in his mind it wasn't Laci Peterson that he saw that day. That's the only evidence you can consider for its truth. None of these other ones.

No comments: