Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

« Michigan and the Death Penalty—A Brief and Horrible Experience | Main | Mrs. LeBoeuf Breaks the Rules »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c86f753ef00d83491d3ae53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Miscellany:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A Voice of Sanity

"... Okay, there are notable exceptions. Mark Geragos is easily one of the best criminal defense attorneys practicing in the United States today, but even he could not save his most famous client, Scott Peterson, from the death penalty. I saw Geragos interviewed on Larry King a few months ago, and he candidly admitted that the case contained what was for Geragos an insurmountable fact: Laci Peterson’s body was recovered in the exact location of Scott’s fishing-expedition alibi. If it weren’t for that one fact, Geragos maintained, Scott Peterson would be free today. I don’t doubt it. ..."

And yet a careful analysis of that information shows that it does not indicate the guilt of Peterson but instead actually goes to his innocence.

Laura

Hmm, Voice, you'll have to explain that one to me.

A Voice of Sanity

Let us suppose that just as you walk out of a corner store someone else walks in and finds the owner murdered. Clearly you would be a suspect in that case.

If, however, the store you left was 2 miles away from that in which the owner was murdered are you not then less likely to be a suspect?

Alternatively, if the date on which you were in the store was 4 months before the crime was discovered, surely you are also less likely to be regarded as a suspect in the crime.

And then you must combine these two factors.

It may be argued that the conditions are different in each case. True; however this example shows that both the relationship in time and the relationship in space are significant and must be considered as part of the analysis. This was not done - only an unproven and unprovable theory was offered without facts to back it up. The jury was invited to assume an unproven connection between Scott and the bodies. That they did this brings shame on all involved.

The prosecutor made no effort to prove that the only way that the bodies could have gotten where they were found was that Scott Peterson put them there. In fact his own evidence and witnesses proved the opposite.

Yet this is the 'bedrock evidence' on which the jury convicted Scott.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Search CLEWS

  • Google

    WWW
    CLEWS

The Michigan Murders - New Edition

True Crime Bloggers

Interesting Sites and Blogs

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 04/2005