why should we bother finding the truth?

[DKSuddeth]

How many months now have we been going through the formalities of a trial for Scott Peterson, accused of the murder of his wife laci and unborn baby connor, so we can hurry up and execute him? And all this time we've wasted when we should be out looking for the real killers - possible prosecutorial misconduct

"Just last week the prosecution turned over reports disclosing an interview with a witness who saw Laci Peterson being pulled into a van by at least two men. This eyewitness, who has been a sworn peace officer, has apparently been known to the prosecution since December of 2002 yet he was only interviewed within the last week," the motion states.

"The witness confirmed his sighting of a woman he identified as Laci and her two abductors. However, the Modesto Police Department chose to ignore this former peace officer's report," Geragos wrote. "This ... clearly establishes that the prosecution's conduct was undertaken in bad faith."

Prosecutors haven't commented. A sweeping gag order has been issued in the case.

 

[freeandfun1]

Maybe I am nuts, but I have always had doubts about Scott's guilt!

 

[dilloduck]

The truth doesn't seem to matter much anymore. It's who has the most money and who can play the game better.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
The truth doesn't seem to matter much anymore. It's who has the most money and who can play the game better.

so true.

when does Truth ever matter anymore? The one with the most $ wins the game.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I still think that he was involved. He just happened to be fishing on the same lake that she drowned in. He just happened to have concrete dust on his boat, and her feet were embedded in concrete. He was cheating on Laci, and his 'girlfriend' is supposed to testify. The lake he went to was quite a distance to go to for the one day, given it was Christmas eve.

He may not have been the actual killer, but evidence supports that he was involved. If there was anyone else involved, you would think that he would get smart and name them, so the blame would lie on them as well.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by fuzzykitten99
I still think that he was involved. He just happened to be fishing on the same lake that she drowned in. He just happened to have concrete dust on his boat, and her feet were embedded in concrete. He was cheating on Laci, and his 'girlfriend' is supposed to testify. The lake he went to was quite a distance to go to for the one day, given it was Christmas eve.

He may not have been the actual killer, but evidence supports that he was involved. If there was anyone else involved, you would think that he would get smart and name them, so the blame would lie on them as well.

No offense, but I am glad you are not on the jury. Already you have a lot of "facts" way outta line....

Nobody has determined how she died. She washed up on the beach of the OCEAN. He went fishing on a BAY not a LAKE. Where do you get that her feet were embedded in concrete? If they were, how did she get washed ashore? A cheating husband does not = a murderer. Nobody knows what she will say other than they were foolin around.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Okay, you have doubts. I guess they'd better let him go then.

How do you explain this:

Dr. Wecht, what do you make of the dyed hair, the $10,000 in cash, going fishing alone the day before Christmas miles from home, selling his missing wife's car?

Link

Scott Peterson was carrying $10,000 when detectives arrested him about 30 miles from the Mexico border on suspicion of killing his pregnant wife, a law enforcement official said Sunday. Link

I guess those are just coincidences.

 

[freeandfun1]

Very well could be. Noboby knows enough now to decide one way or another frankly. Perhaps he is innocent and just figured they were going to pin it on him anyway, so why not run?

I am not saying he is innocent. I really don't know. I have doubts about his guilt, but then again, that is only based on the limited amount of info we have. I find it funny (sad actually) that so many are trying to find him guilty when they haven't heard everything. I mean, this latest revelation is quite interesting and should at least raise some eyebrows if it is true.

 

[DKSuddeth]

everybody is missing the point.

An eyewitness who saw laci being abducted by two men wasn't interviewed until 18 months later. These two men are still at large. On top of that, the prosecution didn't let the defense KNOW about this eyewitness.

Makes you wonder just how flimsy the case is if they had to hide this.

 

[MtnBiker]

When Big D posts some crime stats maybe that will clear things up.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
When Big D posts some crime stats maybe that will clear things up.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
When Big D posts some crime stats maybe that will clear things up.

this was a white on white crime, why would he post stats on it?

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
this was a white on white crime, why would he post stats on it?

There is such a thing??

Actually good point Dk, that says alot.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
everybody is missing the point.

Makes you wonder just how flimsy the case is if they had to hide this.

I understood your point from the get-go! And I agree!

 

[nycflasher]

I think he looks pretty guilty.
I'll wait and see what the judge says about the evidence before considering changing my mind.

On top of any evidence against him is the fact that hubands are the prime suspect in a case like this and, again, he was fishing in the harbor...

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by nycflasher
On top of any evidence against him is the fact that hubands are the prime suspect in a case like this. . . .

Being a suspect does not = guilt does it?