The day is 18th of April 2003 when Scott Peterson is arrested in San Diego pending allegations of the murder of his wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son Conner. Mr. Peterson is detained without being granted bail. On the 21st of the same month, he is arraigned in a Stanislaus County Superior Court before Judge Nancy Ashley. He pleads not guilty to two felony counts. That of premeditated murder and murder under special circumstances- the killing of a fetus which is past of 8 weeks (Magnuson & Lederman, 2006). The hearing of the trial begins on a Tuesday, and the prosecutor cites falsehoods that are allegedly supposed to implicate Peterson in the death of his heavily pregnant wife.
The sitting attorney, instead of giving the bench conclusive and incriminating evidence all he did was table circumstantial evidence against one Mr. Peterson. Beginning with the poem, he read to Ms. Frey, to the fishing equipment in his alibi, to the episode on Martha Stewart Living. The prosecutor suggests that all this evidence added up to Scott's guilt (Arciuli & Villar, 2009). This is some of the circumstantial evidence that the prosecutor brought forward:
First, specialist dealing in tides took a closer look at the decomposed bodies and found out that the two had separated immediately after Brooks Island, the same location where Peterson loved fishing. After the vanishing of his wife, in the same month, Peterson often visited a bay overlooking Brooks Island.
Second, tarps that Peterson used during his fishing trips were found covered in gas and fertilizer both which destroy DNA and other biological material hence preventing any tracking dog from picking up an individuals scent. Peterson passed many fishing spots closer to his home to go to the bay. He also did not have the necessary equipment to go fishing that day.
Consequently, Peterson said he stopped fishing because it began to rain, but the harbor master at the bay said there was no rain that day. The prosecutor also added that there are signs that Laci did not leave the house alive because accessories that she always wore when leaving the house were not with her when the body was found. Also, a TV program that Peterson claims his wife was watching when he left actually aired the previous day.
In my opinion, I stand to defend the court in its ruling based on the evidence presented. In most murder cases, the decision is made based on the circumstantial evidence provided, if the evidence is enough to convict the person and in this case, the circumstantial evidence is enough to incriminate Mr. Peterson. I believe there is nothing different that the prosecutor would have towards the verdict of this case.
If I were Peterson's defense attorney, I would have gathered enough evidence to acquit my client. I would have strongly disputed the circumstantial evidence tabled against Mr. scott and hoped that the prosecutor would acquit my client.
References
Arciuli, J., Mallard, D., & Villar, G. (2009, January). Lies lies and more lies. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 31, No. 31).
Magnuson, R. J., & Lederman, J. M. (2006). Aristotle, Abortion, and Fetal Rights. Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., 33, 767.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
