More evidence of Judge Delucchi's senility

Throughout the trial Judge Delucchi showed many signs of senility. A new one I just spotted is here:

Peterson appeal may be helped by ruling

Bob Egelko - SFGate

Here's the relevant section from the article:

Gardner, Peterson's lawyer, said in his court filing that the 13 prospective jurors were asked in their questionnaire for their views on the death penalty and all said they opposed it.

He said they were then asked whether they had any moral or religious views that would make it impossible for them to vote for a death sentence, "regardless of the facts," and all 13 replied that they had no such views.

Peterson's trial lawyer, Mark Geragos, sought to question the jurors, but Superior Court Judge Albert Delucchi refused, saying their answers showed that they were firmly against capital punishment - the same conclusion Riccardi's judge had reached.

Clearly Delucchi couldn't even understand what the jurors said or what it meant - or he couldn't remember it for the brief time it took. He evidenced similar mental incompetence all through the trial.

Three separate witnesses to innocence

There are three separate witnesses, each of whom independently prove the innocence of Peterson. None depend on the others.

1) Laci Peterson could not have been in the sea for more than 14 days at the extreme outside. 16 weeks is impossible - there would remain only a few scattered bones of hers and nothing of the baby. Read about this here:
http://thevoiceofsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/111-days-compared-with-7-days.html
In fact the minimum time for a body to be reduced to bones in much more adverse water conditions is one day and the prosecution offered zero evidence that it did take longer, a task at which they must succeed to get a conviction from a reasonable jury.


2) Every witness in the trial gave testimony based on science or experience that the baby was full term. Dr's Henry Lee and Cyril Wecht did the same, although they weren't called to testify. This means that a baby aged 32 weeks and one day (allegedly) went into the water and a full term (37 - 40 weeks) baby came out. Here is a quote from Dr. Wecht:

"After Henry and I examined Laci Peterson’s body for nearly ninety minutes, technicians brought in the body of Conner Peterson. ... The biggest issue was the baby’s body development. To obtain an accurate estimate of age, we measured the baby’s length. Decomposition does not impact length because a person’s bone structure does not shrink from immersion. Conner measured about nineteen and one-half inches, which is technically within the range of a full-term baby. Plastic tape had been and still was wrapped around the neck and held there by a knot."


3) Laci Peterson's underwear had the seat only worn out. The front was intact, the seat was missing. This would have taken weeks and would not have happened post mortem. Read about this here:
http://sites.google.com/site/another9912/theevidence

So we have three unshakable pieces of evidence each proving that Laci and Conner lived long after Dec 24th. This makes Scott innocent, without any doubt. Every other piece of evidence, without exception, proves the same thing. Not one piece of prosecution evidence goes to guilt. Not one.

Not one, not two but THREE separate witnesses, each of whom independently prove the innocence of Peterson and not one of which can be impeached.

Sadly, experience teaches me that even such powerful evidence as this will not prevent the blood lust for revenge that the media has whipped up in the public. Somehow they will blank this from their minds just as they do the absolute lack of evidence for guilt offered by the prosecution - or comprehended by the jury. Unable to grasp the concept of evidence leading to the truth, they will allow the ludicrous fiction they have swallowed to control their reality, justifying it with the shoddy process they call 'thinking'.

Objection! – Nancy Grace's book.

To begin with, I must quote from the cover:
"How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System."

At this point, of course, every irony meter on the planet fused itself and melted through whatever contained it, heading for the planet's core!

---

Inevitably Grace can't resist riding Scott Peterson one more time. After all, she was the leader of the lynch mob that assassinated him daily on TV or in print. One thing you won't, however, see from her is any proof of his guilt based on evidence. She simply pulls out random but irrelevant factoids and construes them in the worst light possible for him, as if they somehow proved something. In fact, this is one of the themes of this book - that 'behaviour' can be used to judge guilt or innocence. This displays an abysmal lack of knowledge of the US legal system, a lack she continually proves. She also implies that quantity can suffice in place of quality.

Quote: "At the onset of the Peterson trial, no one knew what to expect from [Mark} Geragos, especially in light of his own words about his client before he signed on to defend him. Two days before Peterson's arrest, Geragos stated on air, "(1) You'd be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor who couldn't put together an indictment, let alone a conviction. (2) There are a lot of guys sitting in state prison on a lot less evidence. (3) There is just an over-whelming amount of circumstantial evidence. (4) His defense at this point is, 'Oh, my God, somebody else must have done it and was trying to set me up.'(5) I don't think it's ever going to wash."


This certainly doesn't say much for Geragos, or, for that matter, for Grace who apparently agrees.

1 and 2 are both proof of the shame that is the US legal system.
3 is false. No amount of circumstantial evidence was found or offered.
4 is partly true - someone else did kill his wife. Whether Scott was setup or framed is arguable.
5 was true, Grace and the other furies saw to that. As Delucchi remarked, Peterson couldn't find an unbiased jury anywhere in the state. Too bad Delucchi ensured that with his unwarranted removals of jurors.

Quote: "Ten days later, during another television interview, Geragos was asked why Peterson lied to Amber Frey about being single. His response? "Because he's a cad. When guys commit adultery, guys lie to a single woman in order to get them into bed."

Astonishing! Does Grace really think that every other married adulterer is completely honest at all times? On what planet?

Quote: "A long tug of war ensued between Scott's camp and Laci's camp. Finally, Laci's family went over to the couple's house and collected a few items, including her wedding dress, some of her plants, some watering cans and diplomas. Sharon Rocha went into Laci's room simply to sit in Laci's rocking chair, trying to feel her daughter's presence. And you know what happened that afternoon?"

Oh, what a pretty story. And Grace complains about defence attorneys "airbrushing the truth"!

The version I heard is that Sharon Rocha had requested several items from Scott. He agreed to all of them and they were waiting at his attorney's office for her to collect them. Instead the clan went to Scott's home, smashed in the door, smashed the alarm to stop it sounding, and then looted several truckloads of items, many of which were gifts from Scott's parents to the couple. All of this was accomplished while the MPD stood there refusing to prevent an obvious criminal act. So much for the rule of law.

Quote: "When Peterson was arrested in San Diego, police searched the 1984 Mercedes-Benz 500SEC he was driving. He wasn't traveling light. Among the items found in the car: $15,000 in cash, twelve Viagra tablets, several credit cards belonging to various members of the Peterson family, a water purifier, a knife, a fire starter, and tons of survival gear. The few superficial changes Geragos instigated had somehow managed, virtually overnight, to erase the damaging image of Peterson as a fugitive."

Tons of survival gear? I'm unaware of any such survivalist list that includes items such as dress shirts or shoes. And 'tons' is clearly hyperbole. Grace is unwilling, it seems, to admit what was specified in evidence - that the knife was accidentally left in the car by the previous owner. Once again she construes anything in the worst light possible for Scott.

Quote: "During one of the earliest days of the trial, the defendant went a little too far to win the title of Mr. Congeniality. Entering the courtroom, he lit up a thousand-watt, Hollywood-love-me smile for a huge jury pool. One potential juror summed it up beautifully as she was leaving the courtroom: "It was creepy."

So the jurors were already totally biased against the defendant, such that a nervous smile was misinterpreted as 'creepy'. Some justice.

Quote: "Geragos ... after gauging the pulse of the Redwood City jurors, asked for another venue change. That was denied, so Geragos dug in and the trial commenced. Shrewdly, however, whenever he got a chance, he renewed his dissatisfaction with the venue, announcing often that his client could not get a fair trial."

Which was proven by the verdict, one which cannot be supported by any evidence.

Quote: "Detective Dodge Hendee was on the stand testifying about what he found while searching Scott Peterson's warehouse. During cross-examination, he told Geragos he found what appeared to be cement residue in what looked like five rings, which indicated that Peterson had made five anchors-but only one was found. Geragos, trying to punch holes in Hendee's theory, showed the pictures of the so-called rings and commented that they looked more like light right angles than rings. He mocked Hendee, saying, "Is this a ring? And is this a ring? Is this a circle?" His attempt at witty sarcasm fell flat. Although there were a few chuckles in the courtroom, some of the jurors looked disgusted by the treatment the detective received. He was a credible witness who deserved to be treated with respect. Evidently Geragos thought otherwise."

First, NO anchor was 'found'. EVER. 'Found' implies lost or hidden. Neither is true.

Second, these so called 'rings' didn't exist. There was a cement mess which looked no different from any other. The 'rings' were imaginary. And bringing them up was in complete contradiction to People v. McCall [10 Cal. App. 2d 503]:

"We think that it was highly prejudicial to the appellant to exhibit to the jury all of the implements that were found in the car of the deceased, upon the sole ground that if any one of them had been used, it might have caused the injury which resulted in death. If such evidence were permitted, then in any case where the only witness is the defendant, all of the things which he might have used in the perpetration of the alleged crime could be brought into court and shown to the jury."

At best, all the prosecution could say was that he might have made something which might have been weights which might have been used IF you assume several other unproven things. This is nothing but prejudicial. Since there was no evidence the body was weighted it should never have been allowed.

Even if you believe that there were 5 circles in the mess on the flat bed (and this is arguable), what can be concluded from that? All we could say is that

• someone, we don't know who,
• made something, we don't know what,
• by some method, we don't know how,
• at some time, we don't know when,
• for some reason, we don't know why

So far no one can point to any evidence that fills in any of the blanks.

Quote: "There's no doubt Mark Geragos is a talented lawyer. How far can sheer talent take a defense when pitted against the truth? In State v. Scott Peterson, the truth won out."

The truth? The truth never got into the courtroom. The truth was kept well away. The truth was not allowed to be hinted at. This was a truth free zone.

Quote: "In the Scott Peterson trial, Judge Alfred Delucchi had the right idea. Concerned about media taint of the Peterson jury, yet not a fan of jury sequestration, Delucchi allowed the jury to come and go freely during the evidentiary phase of the trial, then sequestered them for deliberations and verdict. It worked!"

It only worked for those who prefer a lynching to a trial. That is clearly what happened here. No person can make a case for Peterson's guilt based on the evidence. They simply ignore it all and vote on their 'feelings'. The fourth jury admitted as much when they could not remember key evidence within minutes of walking out of court and were unable to ever formulate such a case, despite numerous interviews and a book.

Quote: "During Scott Peterson's trial I was concerned Judge Delucchi would allow the jury to go out on the San Francisco Bay, where Laci and Conner were disposed. In my nightmares, they would go out on a bright, sunny day and be surrounded by recreational crafts while imagining Scott Peterson enjoying himself on the water the day Laci went missing. What a miscarriage of justice that would have been. I went onto the bay myself to see where Laci was thrown overboard. In December, the water would have been choppy, the air cold and windy. No way was Peterson out fishing for fun on Christmas Eve. Thank God Delucchi understood the changing nature of a crime scene."

Since Delucchi exhibited considerable signs of senility throughout the trial 'understood' is too much to claim. However failing to take the jury to various places in Modesto and to the bay allowed Distaso to deceive the jury as to the reality of the case. One example was him showing the jury a small photograph of Brooks Island and claiming it 'proved' that Scott could dump a body there in the middle of the day. A trip to the bay and the use of binoculars would have dispelled this fraud immediately.

Quote: "In the Scott Peterson case, there was partial suppression of bloodhound evidence indicating that Laci's body, not Laci in life, had been in Peterson's office storage unit."

No such 'evidence' existed. Grace should read up on "Clever Hans". No cadaver dog ever found anything.

Quote: "During Scott Peterson's trial, I remember how on-air pundits continued their nightly attacks against prosecutors Rick Distaso, Dave Harris, and Birgit Fladager. They were portrayed as bumbling at best, unethical at worst. After I met them and watched them in court, I saw they were nothing of the sort, but instead were excellent, dedicated, and honorable."

What can be honorable about ignoring one's oath and deceiving the court to get a verdict?

DISTASO: Let's talk about the hair in the pliers. John, pull up that picture for me, would you?
Here's the pliers at the, as they were at the search warrant. And when they were pulled out of the boat. Need my laser pointer.
Here's, this is when they were just picked up, and I put this box, and you know what, you really can't see it, but I'm going to talk about it anyway because you can go back there and you'll be able to see it yourself when you look at the actual photograph. But here's where the pliers were. There's really no dispute that Laci Peterson's hair was found in those pliers. It matches microscopically. You heard that from Rod Oswalt and from the FBI expert. I think her name was Karen Reubush. It matches her mitochondrial DNA.
Mark Geragos: Objection. There's a stipulation, there's already been an admonition that he cannot say that matches mitochondrial DNA. Same issue -
JUDGE: I don't believe he said he matched. It was consistent.
DISTASO: That's fine. I apologize.
JUDGE: That's all right. I already admonished the jury this could happen.
DISTASO: Yeah. Well, it was consistent with her mitochondrial DNA. I'm arguing to you that that is more than proof beyond a reasonable doubt that that's Laci Peterson's hair in those pliers.

The point is, of course, (a), it is not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' and (b) it wouldn't prove anything if it was. 'Consistent with' means it might be Laci's hair, or anyone else's. But finding hair in a boat (where Scott's jacket was shaken out by the police before the boat was searched) merely proves that Scott had had some previous contact with Laci. Duh!

Also:

DISTASO: How many of you sitting on this jury operate pliers on a regular basis, probably most people. Everybody uses needle-nose pliers for something. How many times does your hair fall into the pliers and wrap around through the jaws? That doesn't happen.
=====
GERAGOS: I asked Hendee about it. And you opened it up so the hair would fall out? Yes. When you did that, did you have to shake it or anything like that? Or did the hair just fall out? I don't recall having to shake it. So the hair was not intertwined with the pliers or anything like that? You didn't have to pull the hair off? No. I mean, does that sound to you like that pliers was used as an instrumentality if it wasn't intertwined?
You know, it's been represented that it was intertwined, it was locked in the jaws. The various descriptions.
The guy who found it, Dodge Hendee, Modesto PD, says you didn't have to pull the hair off, it was not intertwined in the pliers.
That's the -- that's the evidence. I didn't make that up.
That's what Dodge Hendee -- I asked him the question, that's what it was.

So why is Distaso telling the court something which is untrue?

Quote: "Evidence exists even when the jury doesn't get to hear it. Evidence exists that Scott Peterson did not want to have a child."

Lie. He wanted his son and his wife very much.

Quote: "He was hiding things from the police and then-girlfriend Amber Frey."

So what?

Quote: "He changed his story about where he was Christmas Eve afternoon."

He never changed it once. The MPD testified to that under oath.

Quote: "Many people know that these things happened."

Many people WANT to believe this. Prejudice won out over truth.

111 Days compared with 7 Days

From the earliest date that Laci could have been in the bay to the day she was found was 111 days: December 23, 2002 - April 14, 2003 ††. The prosecutor relied totally on this to 'prove' that only Scott could have put the body there since "no one else would have known where to put it". However the actual evidence shows that Laci's body could not have been in the bay for more than 1 day. Since Conner's body was never in the sea his body must have been placed exactly where found and there's no way it could have lasted for more than a day there - two at most. There's no credible reason to believe the killer made two trips to the bay to dump the bodies.

Allison Galloway claimed that the body condition was "consistent with" being in the bay for 3 to 6 months. She offered nothing but her own opinion with no sort of scientific basis for this. This is impossible.

New Scientist presented this striking time-lapse video of a dead African elephant (Loxodonta africana) being dismantled in Kenya. It took just a week for scavengers to reduce the corpse to a pile of bleaching bones. This will be part of a Channel 4 program, "The Elephant: Life After Death," that will air in the UK on February 16.

An elephant. An entire elephant. In one week. One week. And people still try to claim that Laci's body (153 lb) could last over 111 days in the sea without becoming a skeleton. Right.

Bodies decompose in water half as slowly as on land, so that means two weeks maximum in the water. †

Here is the video:



(You can view it full screen via the controls)

Here is more research:

TR-09-2002 (PDF 11,325 KB) – Determination of Time of Death for Humans Discovered in Saltwater Using Aquatic Organism Succession and Decomposition Rates
TR-10-98 (PDF 549 KB) – Freshwater Invertebrate Succession and Decompositional Studies on Carrion in British Columbia

† No, the temperature doesn't vary much in water. Also, it has little effect on the time as actual experiments have shown (very cold, very deep water with no oxygen will have an effect but this water was shallow and full of life). There's also no good reason why temperature would have much effect in water. In air, sure, it affects the insects which are the main scavengers of bodies but in water the animals are adapted to the temperature range and are not affected by it (anyone who thinks differently should watch a TV show with killer whales eating seals and penguins in south polar regions)!

†† Yes, it's actually 112 days (16 weeks, not 2) but I'm giving the prosecution's ever changing theories as much leeway as I can. They still don't work.

Update: This post and video shows that in a surprising study, a body can be reduced to bones in just one day, even under adverse conditions.
Quote: The 4th pig deployment in the study was the most dramatic, recorded in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia.
Several six-gill sharks annihilated the carcass, eliminating it within a day at more than 900 feet below sea level. It’s at depths like this that oxygen drops to very low levels, leading to the term “dead zones”. In recent years, dead zones are occurring more frequently in many areas of the oceans and also in river deltas and other coastal areas in particular.
The lead researcher, Verena Tunnicliffe of the University of Victoria, said the scientists were very surprised to see how far animals pushed their limits to go after an enticing meal.

Another nail in the coffin - of the prosecution case

Explosive- and drug-sniffing dog performance is affected by their handlers' beliefs

UC Davis study finds detection dogs may exhibit the 'Clever Hans' effect

Drug- and explosives-sniffing dog/handler teams' performance is affected by human handlers' beliefs, possibly in response to subtle, unintentional handler cues, a study by researchers at UC Davis has found.

The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously "alerted," or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present.

"It isn't just about how sensitive a dog's nose is or how well-trained a dog is. There are cognitive factors affecting the interaction between a dog and a handler that can impact the dog's performance," said Lisa Lit, a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Neurology and the study's lead author.

"These might be as important — or even more important — than the sensitivity of a dog's nose."

(The article goes on to explain the methodology in detail. The so called 'interest' shown by the dogs at the area the boat was launched is thus shown to be unreliable at best, and probably fraudulent. The 'interest' was almost certainly that of the handler, since Laci was never at the dock area.)

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.

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.