SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The Los Angeles Innocence Project (LAIP) announced new scientific evidence and witness statements this week to “undermine the prosecution’s case against Scott Peterson.”
Peterson’s conviction of the murders of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child were established in 2004, he received a death sentence in 2005, then got it vacated in 2020 and eventually was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 2021, explains LAIP.
And LAIP claims there is substantial evidence supporting Peterson’s innocence and denial of his rights, noting the prosecution “suppressed and destroyed critical exculpatory evidence prior to trial.”
The new evidence clearly undermines the prosecution’s circumstantial case against the Petitioner, indicating that the jury relied on false evidence and false scientific evidence to convict Peterson, asserts LAIP.
According to LAIP, there is a 126-page declaration by Peterson, detailing his recollection of the events surrounding the death of his wife and unborn child in the petition.
“No direct, physical or forensic evidence was found supporting any part of the prosecution’s theory, or otherwise implicating petitioner,” argues LAIP.
The new evidence in the petition has “exonerated” the petitioner and “eviscerated” the original case, leading the jury to find it highly unlikely to have reached a guilty verdict if previously known, charged LAIP.
The new evidence shows that the home across the street from the Petersons’ was burglarized on the same day Laci was reported missing, which was wrongly reported by the police to the jury, reports LAIP. It was also revealed by LAIP that more than the two reported burglars were involved in the burglary.
A witness also shared with LAIP that the burglars conversed about Laci seeing and confronting them on this day, exonerating Peterson as Laci was alive when he left the home.
LAIP added three crimes within a 24-hour period were committed in close proximity to the Petersons’ home as well, noting, “Laci’s disappearance, the Medina burglary, and an intentionally set van fire in Modesto’s Airport District that was called in just hours after Laci was reported missing.”
Several more scientific research, medical research, and evidence has revealed that the prosecution suppressed evidence of police investigations, reports LAIP.
Laci and the unborn son were killed well after the prosecution claimed on a day that Peterson could not possibly have been at, said LAIP.
Witnesses have consistently reported sightings that prove Peterson’s innocence, which were ignored by the police, shares LAIP.
“Modesto Police intentionally destroyed critical exculpatory physical evidence related to the burglary, including videotaped interviews police conducted with two of the Medina burglars the night of their arrest,” stated LAIP.
LAIP added videotaped interviews regarding the burglary were destroyed, “just two weeks after Scott was arraigned on capital murder charges, before the defense could request and review them.”
False testimonies from the police detectives left the jury with no credible information, showing the Petitioner’s innocence, reports LAIP.
“The Los Angeles Innocence Project advocates for truth and justice, no matter who the (accused) may be or how controversial the case,” said LAIP Board President, John Sonego..
LAIP, the California Forensic Science Institute (CFSI), Cal State LA’s School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics, and the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center, “test the viability, reliability, and accuracy of evidence that had been used to convict LAIP clients,” testified LAIP.
LAIP insists the Peterson case deserves a second look because of ‘confirmation bias’ and potential violations committed by the Modesto Police and Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office that allegedly led to Peterson’s wrongful conviction.
Scott is innocent and so was OJ.
LMAO
Shouldn’t we see what evidence they have before you make your determination?
He’s so obviously guilty that it boggles my mind that people can be so gullible.
At this point the standard for review is whether the new evidence would have led to a different court outcome, we cannot answer that without reviewing the evidence. But the threshold is pretty high to even get a new hearing, let alone a new trial. Still, I think we should evaluate it fairly and make a determination based on the evidence, not based on what we think we know about the case.
It’s not what “we think we know”, it’s what we know.
I tend to give great weight to the Innocence Project and their findings – they don’t take cases easily, have way more cases than they can handle, and draw an absolute line on innocence, not just not guilty. We’ll see.
In general, I’d suggest avoiding unusual fishing trips on Christmas Eve more than 100 miles from your house, in case your wife’s body might have been dumped there.
You never know what type of bad luck you might have.
Oh, and while not necessarily a sign of guilt, I’d suggest not lying to your girlfriend about your wife in this situation.
And finally (regardless of whether you’re actually guilty or not), don’t do TV interviews – especially when some people already suspected that you were involved. (There is nothing to be gained from that.)
I know Ron, 20 years later people forget and the evidence somehow changes.
“In general, I’d suggest avoiding unusual fishing trips on Christmas Eve more than 100 miles from your house, in case your wife’s body might have been dumped there.”
After he told people he was going golfing that day. I guess it’s much harder to hide a body on a golf course.