In the years since then, we've attempted to provide information on exonerating evidence that the jury did not hear. Many resolutely reject such a premise, arguing that if any such evidence existed, Mark Geragos would have presented it. This is a pretty ridiculous argument, given that most post-conviction exonerations result from evidence not presented at trial. We're not here to throw stones at Mark Geragos -- 42,000+ pages of discovery turned over piecemeal with no sense of organization was hardly inadvertent.
Others reject our efforts on the argument that we don't have expert witnesses to confirm that our arguments are correct, and therefore they are under no obligation to consider such evidence. However, this argument is very weak simply because the exonerating evidence in this case doesn't require being an expert to understand -- to put it bluntly, it's not rocket science. People of average intelligence and good common sense can read the same professional literature that we've read and come to the same conclusions. And any expert called to testify in the future on Scott's behalf will be trained in the professional literature, or at least very well familiar with it, and may even have written some of it. We know that many think we simply scour the Internet looking for that one obscure source that says what we need it to say to make our arguments. We ask that those who do not believe that the professional information we provide is representative of the body of literature available, to simply give us the name(s) and publication information of the professional literature that disagrees, and we'll take a good look at it and then discuss it.
Others use anecdotal information to dispute the exonerating evidence. Anecdotal information can indeed be useful in making us aware of the things that could possibly happen, such as a very large wave propelling Conner to his final resting place 24 feet from the breakwater and well out of the reach of the debris line. We are eager to discuss any possible explanation for Conner's location, or any of the other exonerating evidence, but we expect that we will be able to find some evidence that the possible explanation actually did occur.
I know there will be a strong response along these lines -- what about all the incriminating evidence, how do you explain all of that? I don't attempt to explain all of that, except to say that if this body of exonerating evidence is credible, then all of the incriminating evidence simply falls by the wayside. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "that's a deal-breaker." What makes a person look guilty does not win against what proves a person is innocent. At least it shouldn't.
There also might be some people that think, Even if this exonerating evidence is credible, that doesn't prove Scott is innocent. So let's discuss your theory of how Scott can still be guilty.
This venue isn't the best for discussions, but I think we can make it work. You post a question about, or an objection to, or an argument against the exonerating evidence. I'll copy your comment into a new article, and that will open the discussion, through my reply and through comments posted. If we keep on subject, we should be able to have a good discussion.
6 comments:
Sure. Thanks, btw.
I think the boat video is pretty silly. Man, motor, and body all in the back of the boat with the guy trying to lift as he is sitting down in the very back of the boat. The prosecution was allowed to show an example of someone fitting into the compartment up from that one which would be in a more stable area.
Conversely, the man is shown in the first part of the video one compartment up standing up and the boat appears stable from that standpoint. He could have done his lifting from the middle of the boat rather than the rear. In addition the fishing expert (and they do catch some very heavy fish) indicated he believed he would not have a problem disposing of a body over the side of such a boat.
I wondered after seeing the video what was cut out of it from the point of the guy standing up to the point where he is being silly.
Marlene,
These are questions that have never been answered by the people who believe Scott Peterson is guilty:
How do you justify the failure of the MPD to promptly investigate:
1. the sightings of Laci walking in the neighborhood on the morning of Dec. 24?
2. the Harshman tip?
3. the Aponte tip?
4. the 3 men with the van seen by Diane Jackson?
5. the Croton watch and the woman who pawned it?
6. the use of the home computer between 8:40-8:45 on the morning of Dec. 24?
Let’s talk about how long Laci’s corpse was in the water. VOS says in his latest blog entry: “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.” He links to a very good and appropriate study here called TR-09-2002.
If you read the actual study, you can see it contradicts the claim made in the opening quote. In fact, it even shows a picture from the Fall experiment of a largely intact pig brought out of the water at 35 days. So what other literature is out there on time of death determination in bodies recovered from saltwater?
Rose, I will make your comment into an article this afternoon after I get back home from Sunday stuff. If others want to provide some information to answer her question about the literature, please do so, and I'll include that in the article.
Hey, Good to see you Rose, Marlene, need to catch up on your posts, glad you're writing, just wanted to say hey and I'm here.
For me the answer lies within Scott and Laci's actual relationship and what the people around them said about it. I just do not see domestic violence there. It's that simple, in some ways..but the Harshan tip, Aponte's cassette, and so many other things bother me.
hey to you, too, Burkey. It's a puzzle to me, too, that people can think a man so void of violence in his life can suddenly do something like this.
Post a Comment