Webster's online dictionary defines frame, in the context of our criminal system, as follows:
3 a : to devise falsely (as a criminal charge) b : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured
ADA Rick Distaso, in his Closing Argument, again scoffed at the idea that someone framed Scott Peterson. Here are his comments, in italics, with some corrections, as Mr. Distaso never seems to get his facts straight.
Now, why is that important? Well, let's jump ahead to, let's go all the way back to when I started this morning and said Okay, Laci and Conner washed up right where the defendant was. So that's a fact. Proven fact. I can't say anything about it. The only other way, either he did it, of course, or somebody put the bodies there to frame him. Distaso obviously lives in an "only two choices" alternate universe. So if those are the two choices, and since we know Scott Peterson didn't do it, then he obviously was framed.
And I'm going to talk about what possible reason you would have to frame an unsuccessful fertilizer salesman in Modesto. Unsuccessful by whose standard? According to Brent and his wife Rose, Scott and Laci were better off than they were. In fact, they marvelled at how well Scott and Laci were doing. As I recall, there was quite a bit of jealousy among different family members over how well Scott and Laci were doing. Doesn't sound unsuccessful to me.
But before we get there, let's look at how somebody, or why somebody would frame, you know, anyone. Let's take Scott Peterson out of it for a second. He should have never been in the mix in the first place. But let's do take him out of it, send him a packing, and get going on the business of identifying, arresting, and convicting the persons guilty of Laci's abduction and murder. Here's a hint, Mr. Distaso, three of them have the initials SWT, DGP, AT. The other three you'll have to depend on the MPD to identify. Perhaps with the right detective in charge this time, the case can be successfully solved.
If you're going to frame somebody, that means you're going to try to pin the crime on them, right? So let's say I'm this faceless bad person that has abducted Laci Peterson. Somehow I figured out exactly where the defendant went, because I would have to know exactly where he went fishing in order to put the bodies right where he went. . It wouldn't be hard for any faceless bad guy to figure out where Scott Peterson went, since he told everyone that very night where he went, and the MPD advertised it within a week, even identifying the exact fishing route. It's not rocket science, Mr. Distaso. Everyone and his dog knew where Scott Peterson went fishing that day.
And I want, I want the bodies to be there, or at least to be found, so that the suspicion will go onto Scott Peterson. What possible, here's how you know without any doubt that that's not true. What possible reason would there be then to weight down or hide the bodies so they aren't found for, what, four, four and a half months, whatever it is. There you go again, talking about those mythical weights. Who on earth would weigh down a body in 5-10 feet of water frequently used for recreational water sports? Duh! And it was 3 1/2 months, or 112 days to be exact. You and Devore have quite a difficulty counting on your fingers. Perhaps you should use a pencil and paper calendar.
If you're going to pin it on somebody, that means you're going to want to make it look like they did it. If you want to make it look like they did it, you put the body right up on the shore right out of the gate. Maybe you put it ten feet off the shore, but you're not going to put it so it's hidden in the water so nobody finds it, because how is that possibly framing Scott Peterson? 10 feet off the shore? Well, you'd better be sure they get on the right side of the debris line, else you're sure to call attention to yourself. But I must say, Mr. Distaso, you make a very good case that Laci's abductors are not the ones who put the bodies were they were found. Hmm, who else had motive to "frame" Scott Peterson, not because they wanted to frame an innocent man, but because millions of dollars spent by multiple agencies produced no evidence against the man they were all so very convinced, so 1000% absolutely sure, was guilty. Not a single shred of evidence. In other words, they thought it justifiable to frame a guilty man. Noble cause. The end justifies the means. We all know he did it, we just can't prove it. Well, is that why and how the bodies got where they were found? In Distaso's "only two choices" alternate universe, that's the only other choice.
The only reason these bodies were found, yeah, the defendant put them in the water with weights on them. There you go with the mythical weights again. Again, I ask, why would you weight down a body in 5-10 feet of water frequently used for recreational water sports?
The only reason they were found is not because of some frame-up job or somebody all of a sudden said Let's raise them up and pin it on Scott Peterson. Why would anybody do that? They've gotten away with it for four months and now all of a sudden they're going to raise the bodies so suspicion will go to him? Excellent point, and another reason to point to alternative #2 -- who spent millions of dollars and involved multiple agencies and produced no evidence?
No. I mean that's ridiculous. Ludicrous. It's not reasonable. It didn't happen. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
The only reason those bodies were found is remember what Dr. Cheng testified to. There was an extremely low tide on February 12th. And there was a very violent storm on February 12th. That combination broke the, broke Laci Peterson free and sent her floating towards the shore. That's the only reason that those bodies were found at all. Not because of some magical frame-up job, or for any other reason. One problem, Mr. Distaso, which I suppose we shouldn't have expected you to double check Dr. Cheng's work, but next time a man's life is on the line, you might want to. Dr. Cheng fabricated that "very violent storm." Nowhere in the vicinity of the Bay were winds experienced that he described. And, if you had been smart enough to check the tidal data published by the NOAA, you would have known that there was not an "extremely low tide" on Feb. 12 - another of Dr. Cheng's fabrications. Finally, if you had even an ounce of sense you would have checked the PVD to see if it even connected the dots - which it didn't. It's at the wrong place for the storm and it has Conner still well off-shore when the high tide came in that morning. So, there must be another reason why the bodies were found on April 13 and April 14, one which had nothing at all to do with the storm or with the tides.
And if that's the fact, and that's the evidence that was before you in this case, then that man's a murderer. It's as simple as that. It's not the fact, simple as that. That fact as you call it is only one of the many blatant lies told by various witnesses and experts at the trial you oversaw, so you, Mr. Distaso, are personally responsible for every half-truth, distorted truth, and blatant lie that was told.
Again I ask, Was Scott Peterson framed?