The Scott Peterson (search) murder case gets more perplexing each day -- not so much the evidence but the prosecutor's strategy.
I have no way of predicting the outcome of this trial -- and even the worst strategies can somehow squeak out victories for a party -- but it often seems that the prosecutor in the Peterson trial is not fully "thinking." Since the trial began, it seems he is on the defense when the prosecution should be on the offense presenting its case. It is hard to imagine how the blunders have occurred - although if you have tried a case you know that no trial is perfect for either side. Some blunders are to be expected but this many? On some days of the Peterson trial it almost seems as though one police detective is deliberately trying to jeopardize the prosecution since he is associated with so many big prosecution problems (the term "problems' politely describes what he has done.) The prosecution's errors appear to be "gifts" to the defense and not provoked by the defense.
At this stage of the trial -- and believe it or not, it is still early -- I don't know if the evidence will prove Scott Peterson "did it" beyond a reasonable doubt. Although there is no murder scene, no murder weapon, and no cause of death -- I remain perplexed about how he could place himself at the scene of where the bodies appeared four months later (coincidence? framed?) If I were on the jury, this would be something I would be thinking about. The defense need not legally prove or answer this question, but it sure would help the fact finders (the jury.)
Even if the prosecution wins in the end, the presentation leaves much to be desired from a "Trial 101" perspective. The prosecutor should review every piece of evidence before he introduces it to make sure it is reliable and helpful to his case. This does not appear to have been done in many instances and the prosecutor thus appears to be inept. Some days it seems as though he simply randomly asks questions and presents whatever "evidence" appears handy which amounts to a recipe for disaster for the prosecution. He may be a very able prosecutor -- but this case is not showing off his skills (to put it politely.)
As for Mark Geragos, Peterson's lawyer, he is doing what the US Constitution demands of him -- challenging the evidence as it is presented. It is not Geragos' job to "help" the prosecution and, if he did, Peterson's Constitutional rights would be denied him. You may get mad at Mark Geragos for his representation of Scott Peterson -- but you should really focus your distress on the prosecutor. Geragos is doing his job, but is the prosecutor who is paid with tax dollars doing his? How come there are so many mistakes? Some courtroom watchers say Geragos is a better lawyer than the prosecutor. I don't know if that is true, but Geragos is a good lawyer. People tell me that the prosecutor in this case is also good and has much experience. One thing you should know -- and this may be a surprise to you -- is that the prosecutor has many more resources than the defense (an entire police department, a state wide lab system, law clerks, investigators, and many other prosecutors in the DA's office to help.)
The taxpayers in California should be mad at how this case is being presented. It is costing them lots of money for lots of mistakes. The taxpayers should demand a competent presentation and a fair outcome -- whatever that is.
Here are some e-mails from viewers about the Peterson case: (and, as always, I just "grabbed" some from the show e-mail account. There is no effort to select any with a particular viewpoint.)
E-mail No. 1
What’s your opinion about Amber Frey’s having to do with Lace’s disappearance? Sometimes mistresses who were so deeply in-love that they may have hired a gun man to murder the wife of the lover. Why did she hire an Atty right away? And a good one too. I don’t think she was so dumb not to find out about Scott first before having a relationship with the person. She had a bad experienced already in the past about the married man the father of her kid. She is a massage therapy and all that. She must have known all about Scott already even before Laci's disappeared. Do you think that she should be smart to ask the man that introduced Scott to her if Scott is a married man or even dating anybody else? Since Scott is a good looking man. Why the police did ruled her out right away?
Sorry, if I am speculating… but I have my personal doubts on Amber Frey.
ANSWER: EB: While I have no direct knowledge, I am not suspicious that Amber had anything to do with the disappearance or murder. Like others, I am suspicious whether she knew or thought Scott was married, but that is a different issue. I am anxious to hear Amber's testimony so that all of our speculation about her will come to an end.
E-mail No. 2
The case of the misfit boat anchor.
I am an artist and have made these anchors to hold my display tent down. The defense needs to be able to use their logic. The pitcher was for water to mix the concrete. The concrete is mixed in the mold which can be an old milk jug, bucket, SOMETHING DISPOSABLE, etc. While the concrete is still wet the handle (some kind of bent metal, lag bolt, screw eye,etc.) is inserted. YOU DO NOT TAKE THE MOLD OFF--WHY WOULD YOU? IT KEEPS THE CONCRETE FROM CRUMBLING OR SCRATCHING YOUR CAR OR BOAT. DUH!!!!!
THE MOLD IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN AS PART OF THE ANCHOR.
E-mail No. 3
I understand that prosecutors don't want to be caught misleading jurors in any manner, no matter how small. But re: the anchor mold not being the right one - If you ask me: MOOT POINT! Presumably Scott wanted several anchors, for whatever purpose, of roughly the same size. Figuring that it must take a while for the wet concrete to harden, and he doesn't want the unused concrete to harden before it's been made into a several anchors, in the interest of time and economy, he'd try to do several at once. SO WHAT if detectives found ONE OF SEVERAL (presumably similar) molds and showed that one like this made an anchor like THAT!??
E-mail No. 4
Has anyone researched the properties of concrete, molded in a bucket. Does it not expand and therefore would not fit the "mold" after it completely dries?
Something to investigate for sure.
ANSWER: I don't know the answer to your e-mail question. Frankly, if you are right, the prosecutor needs to put on an expert to explain this. This is the prosecutor's job: to explain and support his theory with evidence.
E-mail No. 5
I have been a faithful fan of yours. There is one thing I am wondering about the Peterson case. Since Laci was missing on Xmas eve and am sure they had a tree up with all the presents around. Did the police ever looked around the presents or search for one from Scott to Laci because if they find none then Scott must have planned the murder ahead of time. If there were one or more presents under the tree from him, then maybe he was looking forward to spending Xmas with Laci. Something I have never heard them talking about it. If the police didnt search for them or ask Scott what did he buy for her, if Scott showed the gifts or proof of receipt then they will know.
Will keep on watching you and keep up the good work.
ANSWER: In one statement Scott gave, he said that he bought her a Louis Vuitton wallet.
E-mail No. 6
Do you think this could be possible:
Scott hired someone to get rid of Laci for him. They take her or kill her in the house. He tells him to dump the body somewhere. The deal goes bad. They hear he was fishing so they dump it there to frame him. Or he helps them take it to Bay. He really could have had help dumping the body since they say he could not do it alone strength-wise. He did say to Amber that he knows who did take Laci. He also told someone prior that he would dump a body in water to get rid of them. So, I think he had help. He never dreamed that the body would float back up so he would never be caught. I also think that to kill her he probably gave her the date rape drug (can't remember the name) and either lethally dosed her or strangled her. No blood! Maybe it happened on kitchen floor so he mopped it showing no evidence that she was laying there. Or maybe her water broke on the floor and he wanted to clean that.
Not sure if you have discussed this or not.
Your show the other night showing all of his lies made any doubts in my mind go away. He is SO guilty!
Thanks, Molly Reid
E-mail No. 7
I am sure that most of viewers sympathize with your computer problems. To me it is ironic . After every show I say that I need to write you and then when I finally take the time it is gone. Anyway.. your show is great and much more informative and insightful on the legal issues than any other.
I must tell you, however, the Feiger and Allred are not at all helpful.
Gloria must have some incriminating pictures she is blackmailing you with to get you to put her on your show. The wonderful Bernie is absolutely right about her. She is on every day you cover the trial and she has never some close to saying anything . She is a waste of the viewers' time.
Mr. Feiger is impossibly and unnecessarily confrontational and combative. His style makes me turn the sound down when his face is there. He seems to be determined to disagree with everyone... whether he believes himself or not. Surely, you can find someone else with a more viewer friendly delivery.
Do you have something you'd like to say to Greta? Please write to her at firstname.lastname@example.org!
Watch On the Record with Greta Van Susteren weeknights at 10 p.m. ET