People vs. Peterson

I did not write this, but found it in the comments on the Peterson family web site.



Proof Of Insufficient Evidence To Support The Verdict

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt was needed to support the jury’s finding that the killing of Laci Peterson was a first-degree murder by Scott Peterson. Jury instructions defined the necessary murder-one elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; i.e., willful (intended), premeditated and deliberated. Moreover, jury instructions also defined the necessary element for second-degree murder; i.e., malice aforethought.

In whole or in part, proof of premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought must be based on inculpatory evidence. Standing alone, corroborative evidence (consciousness of guilt, flight, dog evidence) is not sufficient to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent or malice aforethought.

An analysis of all possible sources of inculpatory evidence shows there is no inculpatory evidence the jury could have used in reaching its finding.

An eyewitness can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for no eyewitness testified at trial.

A confession can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for Scott has always maintained his innocence.

Time of death can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for there was no testimony that established either the day or the time of Laci's death or Connor's death.

Place of death can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for there was no testimony that established where they died.

Cause of death can not be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for the medical examiner, Dr. Brian Peterson, testified it could not be determined.

Neither a crime scene nor forensic evidence from a crime scene can be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for no one testified that a crime scene had been found.

Given that the above sources were void of inculpatory evidence, the only possible remaining source of inculpatory evidence would be motive.

On December 14, 2004, a juror, Greg Beratlis, took part in Larry King’s TV show on CNN. During the show, Larry King asked Greg Beratlis the following question.

”KING: And what do you think his motive was?”

”BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing.”

Greg Beratlis' "if/then" statement conditions deduction. Greg Beratlis, himself, is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind. For motive to have been used to support the jury’s first-degree murder verdict twelve jurors had to agree. Greg Beratlis proved that did not happen, which proves the jury reached its verdict absent motive.

Having eliminated motive as a possible source of inculpatory evidence, there are no other sources of inculpatory evidence that could have supplied evidence of premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice aforethought.

When all sources of inculpatory evidence cannot be the source the jury used to support its finding that premeditation and intent were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then of logical necessity, the jury’s verdict either had to rely on impermissible speculation or had to be fallaciously derived.

Based on insufficient evidence, the verdicts should be reversed with jeopardy attached.