I am a forensic psychologist and confident about the fact that Scott Peterson did not murder his wife Laci. Scott Peterson would have to be a sociopath or a psycopath to be guilty of murdering his own pregnant wife and unborn child, and there is no evidence to suggest either.
Judges believe they can predict dangerous behavior and that is not always true. Psychologists derive the truth from empirical proof and there is nothing in Scott Peterson's life, background or psychological profile, to make him a killer. It is safe to say that if there was even the remote hint of evidence which would justify calling Scott Peterson a murderer, forensic psychologists would have notified Larry King, to present their evidence. Nobody has ever proven anything because there is nothing to prove, regarding Scott Peterson's guilt.
The closer one looks at Scott Peterson, the more obvious it becomes that he had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged murder of Laci Peterson.
As forensic psychologists, we understand the temptation of police who act prematurely in forming a conclusion about the likely perpetrator. These early hunches guide investigators toward questions and procedures that validate their beliefs, but these suspicions have absolutely nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Scott Peterson.
When Laci went missing, Scott Peterson became the immediate target of suspicion and the police were so frustrated by their failure to gather the evidence they needed to arrest Scott, they began to rely upon the "experts" in the media, to 'get Scott.' Scott Pterrson was targeted, accused and convicted on national television, the court room was merely the echo chamber of the absolute refusal to accept the simple fact that Scott Peterson is innocent.
The Scott Peterson investigation is a textbook case about the power of the self-fulfilling prophesy. Scott Peterson has always been the focus of the investigation, we like to assume that the police would never focus on the wrong person and with all the pundits in the media supporting the witchhunt, why would anybody expect anything beyond the predictable, miscarriage of justice that unfolded?
If we erroneously assume that Scott Peterson is the culprit and if the police feed off the demagogues in the media, there is really no need for a trial.
The deferral of the arrest of Scott Peterson reflected the failure to find the evidence the police needed, to genuinely prove that Scott Peterson had murdered Laci. Froman investigative standpoint,it is an absolute obscenity to suggest that the bodies miraculously surfaced and implicated a man who had neither the motive, the means, the oportunity, nor the psychoogical profile of the person who murdered Laci and dumbed her body. Having pretended that their investigation was always right on target and having focused on a single suspect, there is no doubt about the fact that the act of challenging Scott Peterson's alibi by placing the bodies in the so called "scene of the crime" was like enlisting the entire world in the effort to frame Scott Peterson, and that is exactly why he is in jail today. No reasonable person would suggest that Scott Peterson had anything to do with the murder of Laci, becaus ethe evidence is simply not there.
Forensic Intelligence, or Law Enforcement information is graded on a dual scale in terms of reliability: A through F for the source (A being a person reporting direct data..."My name is Scott and I am standing here before you..." to C being "My name is Chris and I am now in Seattle writing this..." to an F source ... "I am the alien who protected Laci's fetus." Quality of information is based on "whether the source has reported reliably in the past." It is on A1 through 6 scale. If we have an A1 source we are pretty lucky...and that almost never happens, and an F6 source...well, that reflects the people who have created the impression that the National Enquirer is credible, when it indicates that Scott Peterson murdered Laci, because that's where the story broke, and it was equally unreasonable.
Most of the material that forensic investigators work with is about B1 to B3...a forensic test, for example, is almost always from a qualified lab which has reported DNA findings accurately. Forensic evidence did not play any part in ScottPeterson'sconviction, and that was clear even before the trial started, because Law Enforcement statements about the tests, about when the samples were collected and the time required for the DNA to be amplified and screened, passed without fanfare. Law enforcement did not even produce B3 data,to implicate Scott Peterson. Law enforcement is certainly not performing at the "A" level, and they in fact operate don such a low level, that Scott Peterson should have never been arrested in the first place. But that would be too frustrating to handle, wouldn't it?
In Canada, the justice system is equally prone to permit grotesques travesties ofjustice. If a young man named Daniel Sylvestore did not confess to murder, a young man named Sean Hine would have been falsely convicted for the murder of his girlfriend, and like Laci's parents, who were a significant, driving force behind Scott Peterson's false conviction, the victim's parents promoted contempt for a young man who was allegedly un-cooperative because he could not produce the victim's body. In time, Sean Hine would have been forced to spend the rest of his life in prison, simply because he could not identify the real killer. A confession saved his life. Scott Peterson did not share Sean Hine's good fortune because the person who murdered Laci did not confess and that is the only difference between Sean Hine and Scott Peterson.
Tunnel-vision authorities had publicly labeled Sean Hine and they were literally preparing to tie the noose around his neck. Indeed, both the police and the victim's parents publicly claimed that Sean Hine was un-cooperative, and that is the first step of the process to lynch an innocent man.
|360|| Date: 2003-01-28 15:21:05
Alana Green ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
imho claims that she is authorized to spy on me, on RFK Jr. and on anybody else who exposes the fact that Ken Littleton is the violent, sex pervert who murdered Martha Moxley.
Funny isn't it. IMHO wants to make sure that Michael Skakel stays framed and Detective Barskin is trying to frame Scott Peterson.
What a Team !
barskin ( email@example.com / no homepage) wrote:
The tradgedy of the what are quite possibly the circumstances of the Laci Peterson case is far too commonplace an occurance. Husbands kill their wives; it's a sad fact of life. Which is not to say it is an absolute fact that Scott Peterson killed Laci Peterson, but it is not an unlikely conclusion. This is why the Rocha family has publicly renounced him and called on him to finally cooperated fully with the police. The woman, Amber Frey, who had known and had a realtionship with Scott Peterson, thinking that he was single, for a little more than a month was obviously overwhelmed with emotion and sorrow as well as shock at being thrust into this public maelstrom.
The Modesto Police most probably know and are doing much more than they are making public. In other words, they are doing
their job, trying to locate the whereabouts of Laci Peterson and the perpertrator responsible for the crime. There is no
indication of a "frame-up," just law enforcement working a standard criminal case .
Date: 2003-01-25 03:51:57
HOW TO FRAME SCOTT PETERSON ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The Police use this BIMBO, Paula Jones-type to drive a wedge between Scott Peterson and his family, and then they claim that she has been eliminated as a suspect, but Scott Peterson hasn't. DUH ! Don't make the campaign to use this STUPID BIMBO, to frame Scott Peterson, any more obvious. ARE THE POLICE ABSOLUTE MORONS ?
Detective Barskin, are those MORONS your buddies?
Date: 2003-01-23 21:13:29
Is this why Barskin attacks Cathy Collie? ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
And anybody who believes that Laci Peterson and Chandra Levy were the targets of the very same perverts?
In '98, Ken Starr had 60 FBI detailed full time to track down and interview Monica Lewinsky's girlfriends for what she told them about President Clinton. The friends were then put before a grand jury to tell their stories, all of which became thousands of pages of lewd stories, of no possible provability, most likely the product of Lewinsky's imagination, trying to impress her friends.
Throughout the Clinton years and actually beginning while he was governor of Arkansas, Republican operatives were conniving to bring forward women who would make accusations against Bill Clinton. A fair person, examining the accusations in detail, would have to be extremely skeptical at the truthfulness of those women. And then you're left with the integrity of the entire Republican party including the "moderates" who never raised their voices to stop the vicious campaign against Clinton. History will call them craven cowards.
Now fastforward to the year 2001, the "Starr Squad" transfers it's skills and they lock up Chandra Levy in a hotel room for the purpose of a vicious interrogation, the way they did when they wanted to get Monica Lewinsky to say that she had sex with President Bill Clinton. I have heard that if Monica Lewinsky was released from that predicament [Starr muzzled her with an immunity deal that forbade her to discuss the "politics" of her "situation"], Monica Lewinsky would have been Time Magazine's whistleblower of the year.
Is this the very same group that is responsible for vilifying Scott Peterson? Clearly, the relentless effore to create the false impression that he murdered Laci Peterson has been absolutely vicious.
Date: 2003-01-22 19:15:29|
Experience and vast knowlege of criminal behavior . ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
A Miscarriage of Justice
Celebrity trials can turn into media lynchings. Last year a Connecticut jury convicted Michael Skakel of killing his neighbor Martha Moxley twenty-seven years ago, even though the prosecution had no fingerprints, no DNA, and no witness. The author, a former New York City prosecutor, argues that his cousin's indictment was triggered by an inflamed media, and that an innocent man is now in prison.
BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY
The tragedy of Martha Moxley's death, twenty-seven years ago, has been compounded by the conviction of an innocent man.
I know Michael Skakel, my first cousin, as well as one person can know another. He helped me to get sober, in 1983. We attended hundreds of alchoholism-recovery meetings together. In that context and others we have shared our deepest feelings. For fifteen years we skied, fished, hiked, and traveled together, often with my wife and children. During that time I sometimes spent as many as two or three weekends a month in his company. Like nearly everyone else who knows him well, I love Michael. If he were guilty, I would have testified against him. He is not.
Until recently I visited him in prison. The two of us had been estranged for several years. Beginning in 1998, stress from the public focus of Michael as a murder suspect began to affect his personality. He lashed out at the Kennedy family, which he believed was partly responsible for his predicament, and refused to speak to me. On the two days I attended his court proceedings last year in Norwalk Connecticut, he was cold and distant. Many people asked me why I would publicly defend him - a cause unlikely to enhance my own credibility. I support him not out of misguided family loyalty but because I am certain he is innocent.
The Skakels did not discuss the Moxley case amongst themselves, and mostly didn't read press reports about it - the first because of family culture and legal advice, the second because most of the press coverage was biased, inaccurate, and painful. "We never talked about it," Michael's sister, Julie, recently told me. "Through all the years we never discussed this. We never compared notes." Michael's conviction shocked his six siblings into talking about the case with one another, and with me. For the first time, they shared their memories of the night when Martha Moxley was killed. In preparing this article I spoke to each of them; to other witnesses, to Michael's lawyers; and to investigators. I read police and press reports about the case and put together the story for myself.
Just after noon on Halloween, 1975, Martha Moxley, age fifteen, was found lying face down on her family property in the Belle Haven section of Greenwich, Connecticut. Her blue jeans and underpants were pulled down. Although strong evidence suggests that the attack was a sexual assault, the police concluded that Martha had not been raped. Her body had been dragged across the grass on a zigzag path from the Moxley driveway to the side of the lawn and hidden below the drooping boughs of a pine tree. She had been struck several times in the head with a Toney Penna golf club - so ferociously that the club had shattered into multiple pieces - and then stabbed in the neck with the broken shaft. The club's handle and part of the shaft had vanished.
Martha was last seen the night before, at the home of the Moxley's neighbor Rushton Skakel, my mother's brother and the father of six boys and a girl. The Skakel family residence contained many golf clubs, including a set of Toney Pennas that had belonged to Rushton's wife, Anne Reynolds Skakel, who died of cancer two years before. The Skakels played chip and putt in their yard, and were known for leaving sports equipment scattered around the property. Rushton kept golf glubs at each door, and would carry one on his daily walk in order to ward off the numerous dogs in Belle Haven.
In 1975 Kenneth Wayne Littleton Jr. was a burly twenty-three-year-old graduate of Williams College, where he'd played rugby; he taught science and coached football at the Brunswick School, in Greenwich. Rushton Skakel had hired Littleton as a live-in tutor and companion to care for his motherless children. Littleton had begun work for the Skakels and visited their home the previous week, and moved in on the day of the murder.
Under police questioning the following day Littleton claimed that after arriving home from dinner he had gone to the master bedroom, on the second floor, where heremained until morning. He said he had neither heard nor seen anything suspicious. Two weeks later, on November 14, Littleton admitted that he had not stayed upstairs but had gone downstairs to watch TV and had seen Tom and Michael Skakel outside with Martha Moxley. He would later deny ever having seen Martha. On December 10 Littleton again changed his story, now saying that from 9:15 to 9:30 he had left the house and walked around the property to look for the Skakel boys. Littleton told the police that he saw no one during his search.
On April 2, 1976, Mildred Ix, Helen's mother and a confidante of Rushton's, told police that "girlie magazined were found in Mr. Littleton's room," and that he was in the habit of visiting the Skakel gazebo in the nude. She urged them to look again at Littleton. When detectives questioned him later that month, he changed his story for the third time, saying that on the evening of October 30 he had come down to thew first floor after watching TV upstairs. When he entered the kitchen, the Skakels' elderly nanny, Margaret Sweeney, asked him to check the driveway, where she'd heard "a fracas caused by the kids." Littleton now said that he went to the area and saw no one, but heard rustling noices coming from the Bushes. Police records kept by Jack Solomon show that Littleton now recalled leaving the Skakel house at 10:30 P.M. -an hour later than he'd earlier claimed. Police examiners gave Littleton three lie-detector tests on October 18, 1976. Each test indicated that Littleton was lying when he denied killing Martha Moxley or knowing the location of the missing golf-club pieces. The police confronted Littleton with his test results and asked him to submit to a sodium-pentothal examination. When Littleton refused, the police began looking more closely. They found that his behavior had changed "markedly" since Martha's death.
In April of 1976 Rushton Skakel had fired Littleton after the police visited the Skakel home and reported that Littleton had wrapped his car around a tree in a drunken accident and then abandoned it. Littleton moved to Nantucket, where he traded his preppy clothes for a white outfit with a shark's-tooth necklace framed by an unbuttoned shirt. Walking around town, he would look at himself in store windows, fixing his hair and flexing his muscles. People who had known him previously told the police that he was "bizarre and obnoxious" and had changed for the worse. That summer the Nantucket police arrested Littleton on charges of burglarizing several gift shops. In July, Littleton knocked down a woman employee of the Nantucket Police Department after she casually bumped his dancing partner. That month a Nantucket tourist awoke to find Littleton lying naked on top of her. He had broken in through her bedroom window. Littleton was then living with a woman who told police that he sometimes "forced himself on her sexually" and often erupted in fits of violence, smashing things in her apartment.
When the Greenwich police learned of Littleton's arrest, they persuaded Nantucket prosecutors to offer to reduce Littletone's felony charges to misdemeanor if he would submit to a sodium-amytal interview about the Moxley murder. Littleton refused and pleaded guilty to the felony - a plea that ended his teaching and coaching career. In May of 1977 the Nantucket court gave him a suspended sentence and placed him on probation. In explaining his crime spree to the judge, Littleton said. "When I drink, I flip out."
Jack Solomon, of the Fairfield County state attorney's office, and the Greenwich detective Stephen Carroll were convinced that Littleton had murdered Martha Moxley. But they lacked the hard evidence they needed for an effective prosecution. The many other plausible suspects would give potential defense attorneys ample opportunity to introduce reasonable doubt, which would prevent a jury from convicting Littleton. The common thinking was that only a confession would result in a conviction. Solomon and Browne resisted the temptation to arrest a suspect in the murder just to appease public demand that they solve it. And so the Moxley case murder investigation petered out and became a "cold file."
In 1982 Littleton moved to Florida, where he lived as a street person and was arrested for a variety of crimes, including trespassing, disorderly conduct, drunk driving, public intoxication, and shoplifting. In one incident he climbed a sixteen- story structure and gave President John F. Kennedy's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech. When he was arrested, he told the police that he was a "Kenny Kennedy," the black sheep of the Kennedy family.
That year Littleton met Mary Baker, who was also an alcoholic and was in recovery. They moved to Canada and married in Ottawa on April 27, 1983. In a 1991 interview with the Connecticut police conducted in Ottawa - an interview that has never been published - Baker described Littleton as "going nuts" in February of 1984 after he started talking about the Moxley murder. He called Martha's father, David Moxley, Baker said, and asked for money to undergo sodium-pentothal testing, offering to give Moxley copies of the tapes. Littleton said he thought the testing would give him peace of mind and perhaps help him to remember things that happened the night of the murder. He told Moxley that Martha's murder was their "mutual tragedy." Despite his offer to David Moxley, Littleton never did submit to a sodium-pentothal test, although, according to his wife, he remained obsessed by the idea.
In Canada, Littleton was unable to work owing to instability and alchoholism. He and Baker played golf and lived of money she had inherited. Baker told the police that Littleton liked pornography and would often visit strip bars. In June of 1983 his arm was mangled during a knife fight in Hull, Quebec. That autumn the Canadian police arrested him for disruptive conduct near the Canadian Parliament building. After his release, the couple moved to Belmont, near Boston.
According to Baker, Littleton sometimes threatened to kill her. He would become particularly depressed, she told the police, around Halloween, the anniversary of Martha's murder. In october of 1989 she threw him out and separated from him. In May of 1990 he threw hot coffee on her and tried to force his way into her house. Littleton moved in with a manic-depressive stripper named Kimberley, in Boston's Combat Zone. He planned to become a male stripper and join Kimberley in her act. He and Baker were divorced on July 12, 1990.
By August of 1991, when Connecticut law-enforcement authorities reopened the Moxley case, Littleton, still a prime suspect, had again been institutionalized, for manic depression and oaranoid delusions, at McLean Hospital, in Belmont. Jack Solomon; Sergeant Frank Garr, of the Greenwich police; and Detroit homicide detectives, whom the Greenwich police had brought in to help them with their investigation, all believed that Littleton might be responsible for a string of unsolved homicides in Massachusetts, Florida, Maine, New York and Canada. On September 23, 1991, Garr went to Ottawa to examine the police files on three young women who had disappeared during a twenty-three-day period in 1988. None of the bodies were ever found. In Garr's report he concluded, "All three women were last seen in the same vicinity...within close proximity to where Ken Littleton had resided."
On December 15, 1992, Littleton took a polygraph exam administered by the nationally recognized polygraph expert Robert Brisentine. The test again indicated that Littleton "was not truthful when he denied causing the death of Miss Moxley." After confirming these results in a second test, Brisentine left the examining room. According to someone close to the conversation, he took Solomon aside and said, "The man who murdered Martha Moxley is sitting in that room. Don't ever let anyone persuade you otherwise." A similar version of the same event is reported in Timothy Dumas's 'Greentown' (1988). Brisentine himself recently told me that he doesn't recall having said that, but added that he did ask to interrogate Littleton further at the time, because "even if he didn't commit the crime, he definitely had guilty knowledge of the crime and probably knows who did it." By now Littleton had failed five polygraphs about the Moxley murder.