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.
