[Previous entry: "Bush flip flop"] [Main Index] [Next entry: ""]

10/14/2004 Archived Entry: ""

Pat T. writes to me on an issue I should have addressed long ago: the Scott Peterson trial...and she expresses a sentiment I share.

The proximate cause of her email is this news story. Pat writes, "Conviction should be on the basis of proof, yet this is all speculation! I don't know if Peterson is guilty or not, but they are trying so hard to convict him by process of elimination and by circumstantial evidence alone. It just shouldn't work that way...Former prosecutor Dean Johnson was quoted, "The defense's best shot is to show the baby was born later because nobody can really show that it wasn't." But this is saying that the defense has to prove a negative. There is probably no way to prove when the baby was born. But if forensics is doing its job CORRECTLY, they would have a good chance to prove how long the fetus had been in the water, and even how old it was. (I do not believe Laci would or could spontaneously deliver in the water after she was dead. [Pat is a nurse.] The baby must have been thrown in after delivery.) Likewise they could calculate the tides, wind and weather during the period Laci was missing, to determine if she had really been tossed in when and where they suspect -- thus determining if his guilt /was even feasible. I suspect the prosecutors are not using all the forensic evidence they have -- or are only using what incomplete preliminary evidence that was originally given. They are so determined to prove Peterson's guilt, and to convict him of TWO murders, that they completely ignore what they MIGHT be able to learn, in favor of what they want to believe. THEY ARE NOT TRYING..."