Monday, March 4, 2013

What you will never see on this blog . . .

Every once in a while a naysayer makes some comment here or on the Scott Peterson, Truth be Told Facebook page, that demands answers to certain questions which would require the disclosure of new evidence and new witnesses.

Let me make one thing very clear.  I will never identify new evidence and new witnesses on this blog or anywhere else on the internet.  That would be the stupidest, most foolish, and blatantly irresponsible thing I could do.  Evidence must be protected to be preserved; witnesses must be protected against intimidation and contamination.

What I and others do is discuss the exonerating evidence that was readily available for the first trial but was not used. Evidence that is readily available to the general public, and which does not require much more than a 5th grade education to obtain.

We discuss witnesses that have already made themselves known but were ignored by the MPD, and for some strange reason were not called as witnesses by the Defense.

We discuss evidence, again easily available even to the general public, that the alibis of the burglars are not reliable, indeed outright lies.  This is evidence that should have been discovered by the Defense in preparation for the 1st trial, but wasn't.

We discuss several items of evidence, facts and measurements that were recorded, but overlooked by all of the experts; deal-breaking evidence.

We discuss evidence that was presented at the trial but was ignored by the jury.

If through our research we discover new witnesses or new evidence, it's certainly not our place to make that public, and we wouldn't do so.  I'm not saying we have, but if we have, we'll never say so.

As lay people, we are not equipped to carry on private investigations to discover new evidence or new witnesses.  That is the purview of the appellate attorneys and the private investigators they hire.  And from all previous indications, the appellate attorneys are going to keep everything very close to the vest.  So whatever new evidence and new witnesses are discovered will only be revealed at the very last minute.

Naysayers are not going to accept this explanation, dismissing it as just an excuse for not having every answer to every question, suggesting that there will be no answers to those questions because Scott is guilty.

Reasonable people, however, will understand that this is a process that must be governed by common sense and discretion.

We are still years away from the CA Supreme Court decision, and that deals only with the trial record. The habeas appeal, which will introduce new evidence and new witnesses, will not even begin until after the CA Supreme Court has made its decision.  That's just the way it works -- a tediously slow process.


9 comments:

Jane said...

There were a number of people who tried to give exculpatory or exonerating evidence for Scott after Laci's abduction. They were ignored by MPD and the prosecutors.
Their information was not only ignored. It was deliberately hidden.

It is a long process, but we can hope that the truth will eventually set Scott free.

Melissa Williams said...

Something I was wondering please. What was under the Christmas tree? Did the police open the gifts to see if both have well thought out gifts for each other? If Scott planned the murder a month ago then he wouldn't have taken the trouble.

Putty said...

Haven't heard from you in a few months, Marlene. Hope all is okay with you. I suppose there would be no real new news to report...

I just hope that the truth will see the light of day, sooner rather than later.

Reed said...

Sorry to read about Jackie's passing.. Sorry for the family.

Marlene Newell said...

Melissa -- yes, the police knew what Christmas gifts they got for each other. Laci got Scott a very nice saw and Scott got Laci a very nice Louis Vutton wallet that she had picked out herself. She was also getting a new wedding ring made up of the ring Scott gave her with diamonds added from various of her Grandmother's jewelry.

But that's not very sound evidence, Melissa. When we have to nitpick what he gave her for Christmas to find evidence that he killed her, we're just admitting there is no evidence at all.

Alexandra said...

Even before I read Matt Dalton's book (very interesting read I might add, bought it at Goodwill), I never did feel right about how that trial went. Just a strand of hair on pliers? Huh?

There is PLENTY of room for reasonable doubt. BTW the cult "theory" isn't a load of hogwash. I think that idea just invades our comfort zones way too much. Best to just stick our heads in the sand, pop open a cold one, and watch the idiot box.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

One gift each? No socks or work boots or a matching scarf or anything? They both suck at gift giving...my wife has at least 10 gifts to open and I always get at least that many to open...was the saw wrapped and under the tree? Or was it a table saw and in the garage...at any rate they both were incompetent Xmas gift givers...I've been blessed to be able to open multiple packages under the tree ..what a sad little detail...Xmas morning took two minutes...

Marlene Newell said...

How arrogant of you, Bruce, to criticize how other people give gifts.

jennifer criswell said...

I just located this site, and I just have to say thank you. The case against Scott Peterson was very upsetting to me, even before, as someone else said above, I read Matt Doltan's book. Few things in the world bother me more than someone innocent being imprisoned with all the amazing modern resources and technowledgy we have today, and it made me completely change my feelings for the death penalty. I used to be for it, but now I'm very against it just for the reason that of even one man wrongfully dies it is not worth it. This site is great though, and deserves many kudos in how everything is so well stated and presented. Keep it up!